Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	distinct_a	person_n	property_n	2,539	5	9.4838	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15082	A replie to Iesuit Fishers answere to certain questions propou[n]ded by his most gratious Matie: King Iames By Francis White D: of Div· deane of Carlile, chaplaine to his Matie. Hereunto is annexed, a conference of the right: R:B: of St Dauids wth the same Iesuit*	White, Francis, 1564?-1638.; Laud, William, 1573-1645.; Baylie, Richard, b. 1585 or 6, attributed name.; Cockson, Thomas, engraver.; Fisher, John, 1569-1641.	1624 (1624)	STC 25382; ESTC S122241	841,497	706

Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to bee bruised with stones to death than disclose it to the Persecutors who when they had crowned the Martyr searching seriously for the Sacrament in his cloathes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands S. Cyprian records diuers miracles done in confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the Sacrament namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the Chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out Tanta est Domini potentia saith S. Cyprian Tanta Maiestas And so fully were they persuaded in this opinion That Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyril dareth say Insaniant qui dicunt benedictionem a Sanctificatione cessare Si quae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem non enim mutabitur sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuancy of our Sauiour in the Sacrament but that they beleeued Bread to be changed into his body remaining demonstrable by the formes and accidences thereof so long as they remained entire and were not changed into the accidences of some other substance ANSWER Your obiection reduced to forme of argument is All they which vsed reseruation of the Sacrament and maintained continuancie of Christs body therein beleeued Transubstantiation The antient Fathers vsed reseruation of the Sacrament and maintained continuancie of Christs body therein Ergo The ancient Fathers beleeued Transubstantiation If the argument be thus formed First the Maior Proposition is denyed for the Fathers might vse reseruation of the Sacrament and beleeue the permanencie of Christs body therein vpon the Tenet of reall Presence by Consubstantiation and not vpon beleefe of Transubstantiation Secondly the Primitiue Church and antient Fathers generally or vniuersally vsed not reseruation of the Sacramentall signes and Iustin Martyr and Ireneus speake onely of the sending of the Sacrament from the Church where it was administred to sick persons and strangers Some examples of reseruation proceeded vpon the ignorance and superstition of priuate persons in which case although some Fathers vsed conniuence yet these abuses were afterwards reformed The Minor therefore if it be generall is denyed and if it be particular then the Maior and Minor inferre not the conclusion because that which was done by some vpon priuate opinion and in another kind or manner than Romists doe at this day and was also opposed and corrected by others cannot be a matter of Catholike doctrine or practise But this question of Reseruation hath beene largely handled by many of our part and whatsoeuer Romists haue obiected concerning the same is fully answered and therefore because this Iesuit produceth no new matter but onely repeateth what wee haue formerly confuted and especially because Reseruation concludeth not Transubstantiation which is the matter now in question I forbeare further examination of the particular Testimonies produced by him IESVIT Against this consent of Fathers Protestants obiect the Testimonie of Theodoret and Gelasius who in plaine tearmes affirme That the substance of Bread and Wine remaines in this holy Eucharist bringing this as an example of the Incarnation where the Natures of God and man remaine in Christ Signa mystica saith Theodoret post sanctificationem non recedunt à sua natura And Gelasius Non esse desinit substantia vel natura Panis Vini I answer That these Fathers by the substance of Bread and Wine vnderstand the naturall qualities that flow from the nature and essence of Bread and Wine for ordinarily and in common speech the naturall accidents and proprieties of a thing are tearmed the nature of the thing Thus wee say That to be heauie and to fall downeward is the nature of the Stone to be hot and to burne is the nature of the Fire which yet are but naturall qualities and properties of Stone and Fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speech S. Theodote Bishop of Ancyra to explicate against Nestorius and Eutyches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the Water that Moses conuerted into Bloud saith That the Water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be Water which in rigor of speech taking the nature of Water for the substance thereof as condistinct from the naturall qualities is not true But because Water changed into Bloud remaines according to some naturall qualities and properties which it hath common with Bloud as Moisture Liquidnesse and the like he the better to sit and accommodate the similitude saith The Water remained according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualities thereof For these Fathers bring those similitudes to declare the Mysterie of the Incarnation against the Heresie of Eutyches who denied the naturall qualities and properties of the two Natures of God and man to remaine distinct in the Person of Christ which Error they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualities of Bread remaine together with the Bodie of Christ in the same Sacrament Which naturall qualities of Bread they tearme the nature of Bread as in some sense they may be tearmed to the end that the phrase of two distinct Natures remaining might seem common to the Mysteries of both the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper though the Fathers knew well that the phrase did not agree to both Mysteries equally in the same sense Which obscure vttering his mind is the lesse to be wondered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainely as fearing that some Infidels or Catechumes were present to whom the Mysterie of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet saith hee aperte dicere est enim veresimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the words of S. Augustine Quod videtur in Altari panis est quod etiam occuli renunciant Quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is That consecrated Bread is Bread in outward apparance and the naturall Accidences of Bread truly remaine as the eye doth witnesse but inwardly and according to the substance it is not Bread but the Bodie of Christ as Faith requireth we beleeue And it is to be noted that these words are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alledged by venerable Bede a follower of S. Augustines Doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood them who sets downe his mind in these words The forme of Bread is seene but the substance of Bread is not there nor any other Bread but onely that Bread which came downe from Heauen ANSVVER Demonstration hath largely beene made by our part that

the roome or seate of another is not substantiall conuersion but alteration of place IESVIT Saint Chrysostome When waxe is put into fire nothing of the substance thereof is left nothing remaines vnconsumed so likewise doe thou thinke that the Mysteries are consumed by the substance of the bodie of Christ. ANSWER This Father saith not That nothing of the substance of bread and wine is left but cleane contrarie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing of the substance goeth away And the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are falsly translated for they are not Is consumed by the substance but Is coabsumed with the substance Also the substance of bread is not consumed by the bodie of Christ according to the Tenet of many Schoolemen The substance of the externall elements passeth into the bodie of the Receiuer and is consumed or vnited to the flesh of the Receiuer The bodie and blood of Christ represented by the same and receiued by Faith nourish the soule to life eternall Iohn 6. 54. And if our Aduersaries following their owne translation will expound Saint Chrysostome literally then Communicants receiue Christs bodie by the hands of the Seraphim and not by the Priests hands IESVIT S. Ambrose What arguments shall we bring to prooue That in the Sacrament is not the thing which nature hath framed but that thing which benediction hath consecrated and that greater is the force of benediction than of nature seeing by the benediction euen nature is changed ANSVVER The quantitie and accidents of the outward signes are framed by nature as well as the substance and the force of consecration and benediction passeth vpon the one as well as vpon the other and therefore the change of nature which Saint Ambrose intendeth is not the destruction of the elements and the conuersion thereof into another substance but the eleuating of these earthly creatures to be mysteries of grace and holy instruments to apply and communicate that which is represented by them It is inconsequent to argue They are changed in their nature Ergo Their naturall substance is destroyed for nature implieth qualities and properties as well as substance and it is taken Theologicè as well as Physicè for S. Peter speaking of regenerate persons 2. Pet. 1. v. 4. saith They are made partakers of the Diuine nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet his meaning is not that their former substance is abolished The nature of glorified bodies is changed and they are made spirituall 1. Cor. 15. 44. and yet they retaine the same substance Mans nature was changed after his fall Ephes. 2. 3. yet the substance of his nature remained Saint Ambrose himselfe saith That in Baptisme man is changed and made a new creature and treating farther of the Sacrament of Baptisme he saith Learne how the word of Christ is accustomed to change euery creature and when he will he altereth the course of nature IESVIT Secondly They require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his Bodie be omnipotent and consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall S. Cyprian This Bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill Hee that in the marriage of Cana changed Water into Wine by his onely will is not hee worthie that we beleeue him that he hath changed Wine into his Bloud S. Gaudentius The Lord and Creator of Natures that of Earth made Bread againe because he can doe it and hath promised to doe it makes of Bread his owne Bodie and he that of Water made Wine now of Wine hath made his Bloud ANSWER S. Cyprian was not the author of the Booke de Coena Domini so Bellarmine confesseth and before him Iohannes Hessels but in some copies it passeth vnder the name of Arnoldus who liued manie ages after Cyprian And yet in one part of that worke d. vnctione Chrysmatis there is a manifest place against Transubstantiation Our Lord saith he in the table wherein he banqueted with his Disciples with his owne hands deliuered Bread and Wine c. declaring also how the thing signifying and the thing signified are called by the same name Secondly to a mysticall change the omnipotent power of God is necessarie as appeareth in the water of Baptisme and earthly creatures cannot be instruments of grace or meanes to communicate spirituall or miraculous benefits without the same as appeareth in the waters of Iordan 2. Reg. 5. and in the poole of Bethesda Ioh. 5. Therefore although some do require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of Bread and Wine yet it followeth not that they maintained Transubstantiation Thirdly the author by the words Natura mutatus changed in nature vnderstood not a corporall change for in the same sentence he declareth himselfe by the example of Christs humanitie which being personally vnited to the deitie is changed but not so as that it looseth his naturall forme and substance And in the same Booke this Father faith That although the immortall food deliuered in the Eucharist differ from common meat yet it retaineth in the kind of corporal substance He saith not Species in the plurall number meaning according to the new Popish sence the externall shapes and accidents for let the Aduersarie prooue out of antiquitie that S. Cyprian or the Primatiue Church maintained the late Romish Doctrine concerning shapes of Bread and Wine without the materiall substance and we will freely grant that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is antient but he saith Speciem the kind in the singular number that is the corporall substance and forme in the same sence in which S. Ambrose vseth the word saying Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur Before the benediction of wordes applied it is called another kind of thing S. Cyrills place maintaineth not Popish Transubstantiation for in this the shapes and accidents remaine and the materiall substance is corrupted but in our Sauiours miracle Ioh. 2. the shapes accidents and forme were changed and the materiall substance remained Gaudentius saith Satis declarat Sanguinem suum esse omne Vinum quod in figura passionis sua offertur Bonauent d. 11. q. 6. in 4. sent Omnia verba significantia innouationē circà corp ' Christi sunt falsè dicta Haec est simplicitèr impropria Corpus Christi fit Ne 〈◊〉 putes quod Coeleste effectum est per eū qui transit in 〈◊〉 Nam cum panem consecratum vinum Discipulis suis porrigerat c. The Lord makes Bread of his owne Bodie and he makes Wine of his Bloud and then he saith further of Bread he makes his owne Bodie and of Wine his owne Bloud but he saith not that this is done by Transubstantiation for Christs Bodie and Bloud are not transubstantiate but calling the same coelestiall food he declareth his meaning

Israelites formed and worshipped a Golden Calfe they might by conceit and imagination apprehend and worship the true God but this imagination and apprehension was not sufficient to iustifie their Action Men may in their owne wisedome and intention conceiue and worship Images and other Signes as if they were one and the same thing with that which is the proper obiect of Worship but when they conioyne that which God hath diuided their foolish and erroneous fancie and imagination maketh not their Actions lawfull or pleasing to God Aristotle in the place obiected d. Memor cap. 1. in fine affirmeth not either verbally or in sense that there is the same motion of the Conceit and Affection into the externall Image and the Sampler for hee speaketh not of painted or carued Images but of the mentall Image and impression which remayneth in the memorie after the knowledge of things past And many Schoolemen denie that Aristotles testimonie is truly applyed to Aquinas his manner of worshipping Images among which are Durand Picus Mirandula 〈◊〉 Vasques c. It is also apparantly false that there is the same motion of the mind and will into the Image and the Sampler for these are euerie way two distinct Obiects and the one is a signe and the other a thing signified the one is the cause the other the thing caused and in some Images the Sampler is a nature increate the Image considered as an Image and in relation to the Prototype is a thing created the one is adored because of it selfe the other respectiuely because of the Sampler And therefore for as much as the Obiect is diuers and the manner of the Action is diuers the motion of mans heart towards the Image and the Sampler cannot be one motion but diuers euen as when I desire the meanes because of the end here are two distinct Actions and motions to wit Election and Intention IESVIT This Axiome of Philosophie that no man thinke it disauowed in Theologie the antient Fathers vniformely teach as a prime truth euident in reason S. Damascen S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Basil S. Athanasius who writes An Image of the King is nothing else but the forme and shape of the King which could it speake would and might say J and the King are one the King is in me and I in him so that who adoreth me his Image doth therein adore the verie King Thus he shewing that the Kings Image is to be imagined and by imagination conceiued and honoured as the verie King ANSWER You affirme That the antient Fathers vniformely teach and that as a prime truth That the Image may and ought to stand for the Prototype and is by imagination to be taken as if it were the very Person and consequently that it is ioyntly to be worshipped First you say the antient Fathers teach this Doctrine vniformely secondly you adde That they teach this as a prime Truth But to prooue the first you produce onely fiue Testimonies of Fathers of which one is not very antient and touching the latter you bring nothing The Testimonies of the Fathers examined First Damascene d. Fid. lib. 4. cap. 12. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where his signe is there is Christ to wit by operation and grace First this Author liued 740 yeeres after Christ and is none of the antient Fathers Secondly it is confessed by your selues that hee was not Orthodoxall in all points For as Cardinall Bellarmine saith hee denyed the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne and in the matter of Images hee differeth from the antient which were before him Secondly Saint Augustine d. Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 9. saith Hee which vseth or worshippeth any profitable signe being of diuine Institution vnderstanding the vertue and signification thereof worshippeth not that which is visible and transeunt but that rather whereunto all such things are referred But Popish Images appointed for Worship are no Sacraments or Ceremonies or Signes of Diuine Institution but humane Traditions condemned by Saint Augustine both among Christians and Pagans Thirdly Saint Ambros. d. Dom. Incarn Sacram. c. 7. saith When we adore his Diuinitie and his flesh doe we diuide Christ When wee worship in him the Image of God and the Crosse doe wee diuide him This Father speaketh not of any Painted Image of God but of the inuisible Image Col. 1.15 Heb. 1.3 And by the Crosse he vnderstandeth the Passion of Christ as appeareth in his next words Etsi crucifixus est c. Saint Basil and Saint Athanasius spake by way of similitude not of all Images but of the Images of Kings which sometimes not alwayes in Ciuile vse and custome not in Religion may be taken and reuerenced for the principall But from a particular and from a similitude which halteth in many things you cannot conclude generally and absolutely Where is now the vniforme consent of Fathers which the Aduersarie glorieth in Damascene is not antient Saint Augustine speaketh of signes which haue diuine institution Saint Ambrose of Christ his Passion and not of Statues or Pictures Saint Basil and Athanasius speake by similitude obiter and by the way But which of these affirmes that Image Worship is a prime veritie But that the Reader may the better conceiue the weight of the Aduersaries Disputation for Worship of Images I will exhibit the same in a Logicall Resolution The Theme or Question is Whether artificiall Images of Christ and of the Saints are to be worshipped The first ground and Argument for the Affirmatiue is If the Samplers themselues are to be worshipped then the Images being liuely Portraitures and representations of those Samplers are to be worshipped The Consequence is denied for besides that all Images and among the rest the Images of Christ are not liuely Portraitures of Christ but dead shaddowes and imperfect and confuled delineations of his humanitie yet whatsoeuer they are artificially and by humane constitution they are not to be worshipped Religiously because no diuine Institution or Authoritie permitteth man so to doe and on the contrary part diuine Precept extant in the Morall Law prohibiteth the doing heereof OBIECTION II. If the Image represent the Sampler and stand for it and by conceit and imagination is one with it then it may and ought to bee worshipped c. But the first is true c. If the Argument be thus resolued the sequel is false for that which representeth another and standeth for another and is by imagination another partaketh not all the Rites and duties of that which it representeth but such onely as by lawfull ordination and by the nature of his kinde it is capable of but Painted and Carued Images neither by the nature of their kinde being things sencelesse liuelesse and destitute of Grace nor yet by any diuine Ordination are capable of Adoration The brasen Serpent was a figure and Image

for imitation Romists also haue yet a farther slight in their Checkstone trickes of beades forsooth to blesse and sanctifie them by the touch of Relickes or by the Popes benediction that such trash may be sold the dearer by their pettie Chapmen THE SIXT POINT THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSVBSTANTIATION IESVIT YOur Excellent Maiestie submitting your Iudgement vnto Gods expresse word doth firmely beleeue the body of Christ to be truely present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar which Doctrine doth naturally and necessarily infer whatsoeuer the Church of Rome holds as matter of Faith concerning the manner of his presence ANSVVER HIs Sacred Maiestie a true defendour of the antient Catholicke and Apostolicke Faith to his immortall praise submitteth his iudgement in this and in all other articles to the expresse word of God reuealed from Heauen by the holy Ghost and externally preached and penned by the Prophets and Apostles And concerning the sacred Eucharist he firmely beleeueth that in the holy vse thereof the verie Bodie and Bloud of Christ are truely really and effectually presented and communicated to all faithfull and worthie Receiuers But that the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation to wit that after consecration the substance of bread and wine is abolished and the shapes accidents and quantitie thereof onely remaine or that the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are inclosed substantially and corporally vnder the accidentall formes before participation or that dogs and swine truely eat the flesh and drinke the bloud of the sonne of man he cannot beleeue vntill demonstration be made that this Faith is taught by Gods expresse word and was antiently beleeued by the true Catholique Church IESVIT To declare this and together answer an obiection much vrged by some Protestants That they beleeue the bodie of Christ to be in the Sacrament but say they are not bound to beleeue the manner that not being expressed in Scripture ANSWER When the substance of a point is reuealed and the distinct and particular manner concealed it is sufficient to beleeue the former without searching into the latter And not only some Protestants but the Fathers also and some learned Pontificians deliuer thus much concerning the sacred Eucharist Bandinus and the master of the Sentences say Touching the manner of conuersion in the Sacrament some affirme one way and some another c. We say with S. Augustine This mysterie is safely beleeued but not with safetie searched into Cyrill of Alexandria We ought firmely to beleeue the holy mysterie but let vs neuer in matters thus sublime so much as imagine to vtter the manner how And againe The manner how this is done can neither be conceiued by the mind nor expressed by the tongue Theophilact When we heare these words of Christ vnlesse yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. Wee ought firmely to beleeue the same and not enquire after what manner And with these agreeth Caluin sup Ephes. 5.32 IESVIT We must note that men are bound firmely to beleeue the manner of a mysterie reuealed when the same belongs to the substance thereof so that reiecting the manner we reiect the beleefe of the substance of the mysterie This is euident and may be declared by the example of the mysterie of the Incarnation the substance whereof is That in Christ Iesus the nature of God and the nature of man are so vnited that God is truely man and man is verily God The manner of this mysterie is ineffable and incomprehensible yet we are bound to beleeue three things concerning it which if we denie we deny the mysterie in substance howsoeuer we may retaine the same in words First that this vnion is not onely metaphoricall by affection as two persons that are great friends may truely be said to be all one but also true and reall Secondly this reall vnion of Natures is substantiall and not accidentall so that thereby the nature of man is not only accidentally perfected by receiuing excellent participations of the diuine nature power wisdome and maiestie but also substantially the verie fulnesse of the Godhead dwelling corporally and substantially in him Thirdly this substantiall vnion is not according to the Natures so that the nature of God and the nature of man become one and the same nature as Eutiches taught but hypostaticall whereby God and man became one and the same person These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation though high and subtile and imcomprehensible to reason Christians may and must beleeue because they belong to the substance of the mysterie and are declared by the Church in generall Councells though the vulgar be not bound explicitly to know them ANSWER When the distinct and speciall manner is reuealed and belongeth to the forme and being of an Article we are obliged to inquire and firmely to beleeue the same according to the instance giuen about the personall vnion But when the same is not distinctly and plainely reuealed nor of the substance of the mysterie it is more safe according to the holy Scripture and Fathers to be ignorant of that which is abstruse and hidden than to be curious beyond our modell Exod. 19. 17. Pro. 25.27 Act. 1.7 Rom. 12.3 1. Cor. 4.6 Col. 2.18 Touching things inscrutable S. Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is better to be soberly ignorant than naughtily intelligent S. Hierom Melius est aliquid nescire securè quam cum periculo discere it is better to be ignorant of some things with safetie 〈◊〉 to seeke to learne them with perill S. Augustine Melior est fidelis ignorantia quam temeraria scientia and Iustine Martyr It is the part of euerie prudent and pious man in matters diuine sometimes to giue the wall to that which exceedeth his modell S. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The verie Cherubims vaile their faces when it is come thus farre Saluianus in like manner saith Sacriligae temeritatis quoddam genus est si plus scire cupias quam sinaris It is sacrilegious temeritie to couet to know that which thou art not permitted But the questions of Theologie which are de modo concerning the distinct manner in many cases want sufficient grounds in diuine Reuelation to vnfold them and therefore in things of this nature humble scilence is more safe than temerarious definition IESVIT Jn this sort we say That the manner how our Sauiours bodie is in the Sacrament of his last supper must be beleeued and may not be denied as farre as it concernes the verie life being and substance of the mysterie reuealed which mysterie in substance is That the Bodie of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest Minister thereof demonstrating what seemeth bread may truely say thereof in the person of Christ This is my Bodie This supposed as the substance of the Mysterie I inferre that two Catholicke Doctrines concerning the manner of this Mysterie

in the bodies of St. Peter and the three yong men St. Luke c. 4.30 affirmeth not that our Sauiours bodie was inuisible but that he passed thorow the midst of the people and yet admitting that he was then inuisible the cause might be in the peoples eyes Luke 24. 16. or in the Aire and not in his bodie Genes 19. 11. Neither is actuall grauitie or actuall combustibilitie or visibilitie so inseparable from a bodie as circumscription and distinction of parts Lastly For a bodie to bee resplendent and to shine as the Sunne in glorie is not repugnant to the nature of the bodie but is of the perfection and happinesse thereof Matth. 13. 43. But that an indiuiduall bodie may bee in many places at once and in diuers formes and according to diuers actions and haue no reference to place nor any properties inward or outward of a true bodie is not Diuine veritie but an audacious fiction or rather an incongruous dreame and contradictorie Chymera But that is verified in this Question of the Romists which Ireneus saith Multa male oportet interpretari eos qui vnum non volunt rectè intelligere They are compelled to expound many things amisse which will not vnderstand one thing aright IESVIT § 2. Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of the Reall Presence THis J prooue That belongs to the substance of this Mysterie of the reall Presence which being denied and taken away the words of Christ This is my Bodie cannot be true taken in the literall sence in which sence they are to be taken as hath beene shewed But without granting Transubstantiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sence Ergo Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this Mysterie of the reall Presence The Minor is prooued Because these words This is my Bodie signifie that the thing the Priest holds in his hand is truely really and substantially the bodie of Christ for in this Proposition This is my Bodie the Verb est signifies a coniunction betweene this in the Priests hand and the bodie of Christ and being a Verb substantiue taken in his proper signification it signifies a substantiall Identitie betweene this in the Priests hands and the bodie of Christ. But this in the Priests hands being before Consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the bodie of Christ cannot by consecration bee made substantially the bodie of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change and what other substantiall change can make bread to become truely the bodie of Christ beside substantiall conuersion of the same into his Bodie ANSVVER You cannot demonstrate that our Sauiours words must be expounded literally for the Instance of the cup Luke 22.20 besides other Arguments choakes you and therefore the mayne ground of your Doctrine being sandie the Arguments inferred vpon the same are infirme The waight of the first Argument lyeth in this Proposition Our Sauiours words cannot bee expounded literally vnlesse the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation bee granted I answere First if Transubstantiation were admitted the words of Christ This is my bodie This Cup is the New Testament in my blood cannot bee litterall for where there is any figure or trope the speech is not literall but in the Sacramentall words there is some figure or trope by our Aduersaries confession Secondly If the said words be vnderstood litterally then the bodie of Christ is properly broken and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul saith This is my bodie which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you But the bodie of Christ is not properly broken nor his blood properly shed in the holy Eucharist Thirdly It is an improper speech to say This is my bodie that is the thing contained vnder these formes is by conuersion and substantiall Transmutation my bodie but Papists maintaining Transubstantiation expound Christs words in this or in some other manner whereby they depart from the proprietie of the letter therefore in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation they depart from the letter of the words and consequently they make the same figuratiue IESVIT But some may obiect That as a man shewing a leather purse full of gold may truely say this is gold or a paper wrapt vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the bodie of Christ being vnder consecrated bread wee may truely say This is the bodie of Christ though the substance of bread remaine ANSWER Many famous scholemen teach that the doctrine of Consubstantiation to wit such a presence as maintaineth the substance of Bread and Wine to remaine together with the Bodie and Bloud of Christ is in it selfe more probable and were rather to be followed than the doctrine of Transubstantiation but onely because of the contrarie definition of the Romane Church and some of these Doctors hold that the opinion of Transubstantiation is not verie antient And Card. Caietan affirmeth that secluding the authoritie of the Roman Church there is nothing in the Scripture which may compell one to vnderstand the words properly IESVIT I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordained by vse to containe other substances then shewing the substance that containes we may signifie the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to containe other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passes from the consideration of the substances containing to thinke of the thing contained therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordained to containe others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifies immediately the substance contained in them For example one puts a peece of gold in an apple and shewing it cries this is gold in rigor of speech he sayes not true because the sence of his word is that the thing demonstrated immediately by the formes and accidents of that apple is gold Yea put the case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to containe any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise hee had put secretly into it a peece of gold because when the paper is shewed displaied and not as containing something in it and yet is tearmed gold the proper sence of that speech is that the substance immediatly contained vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents than those that vsually accompanie the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my Bodie being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to containe an humane bodie it cannot be vnderstood litterally but of the subiect immediately contained vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of Bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediately vnder the accidents

none of the antient Fathers maintained Romish Transubstantiation and I haue not obserued one expresse Testimonie produced by Romists wherein the Primatiue Fathers nay where Damascene or Theophilact affirme That the whole materiall substance and forme essentiall of bread and wine being destroyed the bare accidents and quantitie of bread and wine remaine or that the abstracted figures and qualities of those creatures are receiued into the mouth and stomacke and are tasted felt and conferre nourishment without any earthly matter conioyned to them But on the contrarie many Fathers affirme That after consecration bread and wine remaine Theoderet saith That they lose not their proper nature but remaine after they are sanctified in their former essence figure and kinde Gelasius saith Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Bertram saith Secundam creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante consecrationem hoc postea consistunt According to the substance of creatures they persist the same before and after consecration Ireneus teacheth That bread which is from the earth receiuing diuine calling or sanctification is not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two seuerall things or matters one earthly and the other coelestiall Saint Chrysostome Before Sanctification wee call it bread onely but when diuine Grace hath sanctified it it is deliuered from the name of bread and is counted worthie of the Appellation of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it still Damascene saith As a fierie coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not onely bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but bread vnited to the Diuinitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is apparent that when fire is vnited to a coale that the materiall substance of wood remaineth at least in part The Aduersarie in answere to Theoderit and Gelasius pretendeth that these Fathers by the words Substance Nature and Kind vnderstand onely the naturall qualities and accidents which flow from the Nature and Essence of Bread and Wine and he yeeldeth a reason saying That in ordinarie speech the naturall properties and qualities of things are tearmed the nature of the thing c. But this Answere is insufficient because it might perhaps salue the Obiection grounded vpon the word Nature but the Fathers affirme also that the Sacramentall signes remaine in their essence substance and kinde and they adde farther that they may bee sensibly tasted and felt and haue force of nourishing the bodie and that they are compounded of many cornes and of many grapes which make one substantiall bodie of bread and wine Now these things cannot truely bee said of the naked shapes and accidents of bread and wine suspended and diuided from their materiall substance Besides the Fathers deliuer the foresaid Doctrine to prooue the veritie and distinction of the two substantiall natures in Christ by making a comparison betweene the holy Eucharist and the two natures in Christs Person but if the substance of bread and wine cease and are changed into the very bodie and blood of Christ then the former comparison would rather confirme the false beleefe of the Hereticke than maintaine the Orthodoxall Faith of Christs humanitie remaining euen after his Ascension for the Hereticke might inferre vpon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation two errours about the humane nature of Christ. First That as in the Eucharist there is onely the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance euen so in Christ there was the shape and forme of flesh but not the verie nature Secondly Euen as in the Eucharist the essentiall forme and materiall substance of bread and wine are swallowed vp and conuerted into the bodie and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs Ascension the humane nature is absorpt and conuerted into the Deitie IESVIT § 4. The seeming repugnancies this Mysterie hath with sence should incline Christians the sooner to beleeue it THe former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfie were this Mysterie easie and not accompanied with many seeming absurdities and repugnances against sense 〈◊〉 these foure First That a bodie as big as our Sauiours remayning still truely corpulent in it selfe should be contained within the compasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly That a bodie so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignities and obscenities that may befall vnto them Thirdly That the same bodie may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly That the substance of bread being conuerted into Christs bodie the sole accidents remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse than if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans bodie These difficulties so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Transubstantiation as impossible yea as absurd ridiculous barbarous others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to beleeue it as a 〈◊〉 of Faith To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this Proposition That these seeming absurdities should not auert but rather incline a true Christian minde to beleeue this Mysterie In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiestie these three Considerations ANSVVER WEe measure not supernaturall Doctrine by humane sence or reason neither can any seeming repugnances of reputed Philosophie to Diuine Reuelation hinder our Faith where the holy Ghost commaunds vs to beleeue as appeareth in the articles of the sacred Trinitie Incarnation Resurrection c. Est quidem de communibus sensibus sapere in Dei rebus sed in testimonium veri non in adiutorium falsi quod sit secundum diuinam non contrà diuinam dispositionem saith Tertullian We must haue vnderstanding in the things of God out of common sence but this must serue to testifie truth and not to patronise errour according to diuine disposition Reuelation not against it So farre as sence and reason are not repugnant to diuine veritie but subseruient we may giue credit to them and euerie good Christian saith S. Augustine Vbicunque inuenerit veritatem Domini sui intelligat esse Wheresoeuer he findeth veritie taught either by nature or grace must vnderstand that it is his masters The question betweene the Romists and vs is not Whether if Transubstantiatiō be reuealed by God we may notwithstanding therefore refuse to beleeue it because the matter is difficill to be conceiued or because it hath manie seeming repugnances to sence for if they be able to demonstrate the first we must renounce the latter But the question is Whether Transubstantiation hauing no certaine and manifest ground in diuine Reuelation and many repugnances to common sence and reason and besides being expressely repugnant to the letter of the Scripture we are to beleeue the same First the holy Scripture calleth consecrated Wine the fruit of the Vine and consecrated Bread by the name of verie Bread