Scripture that demonstrate by reasō how this is possible but only that we bring places that expresly say that This is possible vnto God For as you say pag. 438. In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body there is not a sillable concerning accidēts without a subiect or of a bodyes being in two places at once or concerning any miracle wrought by Gods omnipotency I answere that likewise in this text of Scripture (s) Ioan. 1 1◠The Word was made flesh there is not a sillable that a perfect substantiall nature can exist without proper personality or that two complete natures can subsist togeather in the same Hypostasis nor of any miracle done by the diuine omnipotency yet because this text of Scripture about the mistery of the incarnation cānot be true in the literall sense except those hard incomprehensible things be graunted to be possible by diuine omnipotency we must togeather with the mistery implicitly belieue that God can separate proper subsistance from complete substantiall natures that two natures infinitly distant in perfection can subsist in the same Hypostasis though the Scripture doth not expressely so affirme In like manner though the words of Christ This is my body do not expressely say that his body may be in many places at once nor that accidents can exist without a subiect by diuine omnipotency yet because this his word whereon we grounde our fayth concerning this mistery cannot as your selfe graunt be true in the proper and literall sense except Transubstantiation and the Presence of his body in many places at once be belieued hence we must togeather with the reall presence and litterall sense of Gods word implicitely belieue these miracles to be done Wherfore in saying you will neuer belieue them except their possibility be first demonstrated vnto you through ignorāce of Theology you professe Infidelity For to resolue not to belieue seeming implicācies inuolued in the misteries of faith except they be eyther seuerally expressed as possible in Gods word or els demonstrable by reason is the right way to belieue iust nothing there being no mistery of faith which doth not imply some difficultyes the possibility of which is neyther expresly auerred in scripture nor can be demonstrated by reason A fourth Example of your Ignorance in Theology §. 4. I Adde another Example about the Blessed Eucharist wherein you discouer grosse Ignorance not only against Theology but euen common sense And this Example may serue as a patterne how insufficiently and impertinently you answere the Iesuites argument The Iesuit pag. 406. argueth in this sort Christ doth affirme that the Sacrament is truly really substantially not the figure and effect of his body but his very body but how can consecrated bread be termed truly really and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Thus you answere pag. 406. To the effecting hereof locall corporall presence is not necessary A Father and his Sonne may be absent by distance of place one from the other yet the Sonne is TRVLY AND REALLY VNITED with his Father so as his Fathers nature is in him and he hath right in his Fathers person and state A mans goods may be at Constantinople and yet he liuing in England is a true possessour and owner of them and he may communicate and vse them and distance of place hindreth not his right and propriety Now although there be a difference betweene things temporall and spirituall yet thus farre there is agreement that euen as we possesse temporall things being locally absent so likewise we may receyue and partake Christs body and bloud by the power of Fayth and donation of the Holy Ghost according to a celestiall and spirituall manner Thus you Now behold how many wayes yow discouer grosse Ignorance in this answere First were all that you say true yet is it impertinent and ineptly brought in answere of the Iesuits argument For the question is not whether men may receiue by the vertue of Fayth and donation of the holy Ghost sanctity and grace through the merits of Christs body and bloud that are absent for this al acknowledge to happen in Baptisme and to be possible in the Eucharist if Christ had so ordained The question is about the truth of Gods word whether consecrated bread may be truly and really called the body of Christ being as you say a thing not only indiuidually distinct but also locally distant from his body A man being in London may possesse iuridically an Horse that is in the Countrey is it therfore true to say that this man in London is truly really the Horse in the Countrey A Merchant in London may haue great treasures of money in Constantinople and a right to lay them vp in his Coffers at London may one therfore shewing his empty coffers at London say truly this is a treasure of money In like manner suppose which is false that a man hath iuridicall authority ouer Christs body absent and existing in heauen to dispose therof at his pleasure may he therfore be sayd to be truly and really Christs body May one therefore shewing the Sacrament being in your Tenet an empty thing in respect of containing Christs bodily substance say truly therof This is really Christs body and corporall substance who will maintaine such absurdities that is sober Wherefore your discourse that a man may truly posesse a thing absent serues nothing to satisfy the Iesuites question how can consecrated bread be truly verily really the body of Christ if he be not so much as present in place with it Secondly what more absurd then what you affirme that a man may not only in right possesse but really and truly vse his things that be absent Can a man in London vse and ride on his horse that is at Yorke Or a Merchant in Bristow feed on his grapes that are growing in his vineyard in Spayne If they cannot and it is ridiculous to say they can how can a man existing on earth receaue truly and really Christ distant from him as farre as the highest heauen Receaue him I say not in a signe only according to gracious Effects but euen according to his body and corporall substance with their mouth of flesh For Christ did not say This is a figure of my body or this is soule-feeding grace giuen by the merit of my body and bloud but This is my body euen to your corporall mouth wherewith I bid you to take and eate it Thirdly who cā forbeare laughing to heare you so soberly affirme that the Son that is absent from his Father as far as Constantinople is from London is not only morally by Loue and Affection but TRVLY and REALLY VNITED with his Father For Vnion is the way vnto Vnity so that whensoeuer two indiuiduall things are truly really vnited by this vnion is made a third indiuiduall thing distinct frō ech of them a part from all other
indiuiduall things When soule and body come to be vnited by this vnion is produced a third substance to wit a maÌ„ composed of soule and body When two waters that were seuered come to ioyne togeather there ariseth one third water wherin the two lesser waters are included as parts But Father and Sonne the one in London the other at Constantinople do not compose a third indiuiduall nature constant of theÌ„ both wherin they both are contayned as is most euident Ergo It is ridiculous to affirme that the Father in London is truly and really vnited with his Sonne in Constantinople Finally put case there were true and reall vnity betwixt Father and Sonne so that the sonne might be said to be one with his father truly and properly in respect of kind or specificall Identity what can this serue to shew that consecrated bread remaining bread in nature kind may be said to be the body of Christ or the same with it Had Christ said of another mans body This is my Body you might haue coÌ„strued it thus This is my body that is a body of the same kind and nature with mine but Christ saying of that which was bread this is my Body how can you vnderstand this to be true in respect of specificall Vnity Is bread of the same kind and nature as Christs body I am sure being afore warned of this absurdity you will not dare so to teach What then doth specificall Identity or vnity in nature and kind serue to shew that coÌ„secrated bread remaining bread in kind nature essence may be truly really Christs body Certainly Christ did affirme that the thing contained within the shape of bread was his indiuiduall body not another indiuiduall body of the same kind This cannot be true verily and according to propriety of speach as you grant if the substaÌ„ce of bread remaine much lesse if also the substance of Christs body be locally absent The Iesuits argument then doth conuince that the Sacrament cannot be truly really substantially Christs body if the body of Christ be not locally indistant from the same A fifth Example About Satisfaction §. 5. I will produce yet another Example of your Ignorance by which you contradict Protestants yea your selfe in the very same page and establish our Catholike doctrine of Satisfaction and Purgatory against which in that place you earnestly dispute Thus you wite pag. 540. The difference betweene the PontificiaÌ„s vs in this dostrin is THAT WE BELEEVE A REMAINDER of TEMPORALL Affliction AFTER the REMISSION of the GVILTE of Sinne in this life onely for Chastisement ERVDITION and PROBATION They maintaine a Remainder of Temporall Punishement not onely in this life but after the same in Purgatory Further we beleeue that the Paine of Chastisement inflicted vpon penitent sinners may by prayers of fayth exercise of vertue humiliation and mortification be REMOVED MITIGATED or conuerted to the increase of grace and glory in them that with patience holines endure the same in this life But we deny that eyther any paine followeth iust persons after their decease or that they can in this life by any good workes merit release of any temporall punishment or satisfy the Diuine Iustice for the fault or guilt of any sinnes on their behalfe much lesse for others Thus you On the one side denying against Catholikes Temporall Paine in the next life and on the other granting against ProtestaÌ„ts a Remaynder of Temporall Chastisement for sinne remitted after the remission of the guilt Wherby you contradict your selfe yea establish the possibillity of superabouÌ„dant Satisfaction Yow lay Principles which vnanswerably inforce temporall paine for remisse Penitents in the next world Which three thinges I will in order demonstrate that so it may appeare that through Ignorance you haue your selfe dissolued broken in peeces the whole frame of your Voluminous Reply in euery poynt of Controuersy proposed by his Maiesty and handled therein First you contradict your selfe for in this very pag. 540. against the Remainder of temporall paine thus you write That which is so forgiuen that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred and which is cast behind Gods backe throwne into the bottome of the sea and which can no where be found and which is blotted out of the Debt-booke of the Almighty is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesser but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment But the holy Scripture and the Fathers teach such a remission of sinne on Gods part to the penitent Thus you what cleerer contradiction can be deuised then is betweene these two sentences Remission of sinne is made not by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse but by free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment There is a remainder of temporall paine after the remission of guilt of sinne not onely for the triall and erudition of the penitent but also for Chastisement which may be remoued or mitigated by mortification and penitentiall workes What clearer contradiction I say can be deuised For teÌ„porall paine inflicted vpon penitent sinners by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sinne is vindictiue Punishment You professe in the end of this page to belieue Temporall paine to remaine not onely by way of Probation and Erudition but euen by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sinne Therfore you contradict what you say in the beginning of this page That remission of sinne is free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment Agayne Condonation of sinne wherby eternall punishment is changed into temporall is remission of sinne by commutation of a greater chastisemeÌ„t into a lesse to wit of eternall into temporall as is most euident But in the end of this page you teach that sinne is so remitted as the guilt of sinne and eternall Damnation is changed into a remainder of temporall affliction for chastisement of the penitent sinner Wherefore if the changing of Eternall punishment into Temporall be commutation of greater punishment into lesse then by granting in the end of the cited page a Remaynder of Temporall Affliction after the remission of the Eternall you ouerthrow what you taught in the beginning of the same that remission of sinne is not made by commutation of greater punishment into lesse Secondly this your doctrine of the remainder of temporall paine after the remission of the guilt of sinne proueth that penitent saints may make compeÌ„sant yea superaboundant satisfaction in manner as Catholikes teach for in the remainder of temporall affliction we may consider and distinguish two things the greatnes of the paine reserued and the greatnes of Gods remaining anger against sinne remitted which he doth yet temporally punish If we regard the greatnes of Gods iust anger and offence we hold (t) Si ad ipsam offensam Diuinae Maiestatis respiciamus quatenus Deus videlicet sic homini manet infeÌ„sus vt meritâ—
latin and through want of iudgement to make sensible construction of latin sentences The fourth Example §. 4. YOvv deuise many mysteries about the word species in answere of S. Cyprian his words cited by the Iesuit for Transubstantiation (y) Iste paniâ— non effigie se natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est 〈◊〉 Cyprian serm de Coena This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh yow say the Authour by the words natura mutatus chaÌ„ged in nature vnderstood not a corporall or Physicall but only a mysticall change This yow proue because in the same booke this Father saith that (z) Cyprian ibid. Corpâ—â—ralis substantiae retinens speciem sed virtutis diuinae inuisibil essentia probans adesse praesentiam although the immortall food deliuered in the Eucharist differ from common meat yet â—â—retaineth in the kind of corporall substance He saith not species in the plurall number meaning according to the new Popish sense the externall shapes and accidents of bread for let the Aduersary proue out of antiquiâ—â— that S. Cyprian or the Primitiue Church maintained 〈◊〉 late Romane doctrine concerning shapes of bread and 〈◊〉 without the materiall substance and we will freely grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is ancient 〈◊〉 he saith specieÌ„ in the singular number that is the corporall forme and substance Thus yow shewing your selfe to haue no species of true learning whether species signify kind or shape For heere yow discouer foure simplicityes in matter of Grammer The first is the mystery you make about the plurall and singular number of species as though S Cyprian if he had sayd in the plurall Alimonia immortalitatis corporalis substantiae retinens species should haue fauoured Transubstantiation wheras now that he sayth in the singular corporalis substantiae retinens speciem he doth ouerthrow it He sayth not say you species in the plurall number meaning the shapes and accideÌ„ts of bread but speciem in the singular that is the kind or the corporall substance or forme Now I pray you what GraÌ„mer doth teach that species in the plurall number doth signify shapes and externall accidents and in the singular kind and substance had S. Cyprian said plurally that the Eucharist corporalis substantiae retineâ— species why might you not haue interpreted species kinds natures and formes aswell as now you interpret speciem the nature kind and forme And though S. Cyprian say speciem corporalis substantiae in the singular yet why may not we expound shape and semblant of corporall substance aswell as we might haue expounded shapes and semblantes had he sayd in the plurall corporalis substantiae species Verily you are by your aduersary by the force of truth driueÌ„ into such straites as you coyne new Grammaticall mysteries agaynst all Grammer Your second simplicity is the noting that species in the singular doth signify nature and kind as though we were ignorant thereof or that you could heereby elude the testimonyes of the Fathers we bring to 〈◊〉 they taught the Eucharist to be the shape of 〈◊〉 and wine contayning the body and bloud of 〈◊〉 Lord. This I say is a seely and miserable shift for though species signify nature kind and this signiâ—â—â—â—tion be much vsed specially in Logicke yet no 〈◊〉 can deny but species doth also properly signify 〈◊〉 outward semblant shew and shape and that this signification is very vulgar And to know when specieâ— doth signify shape and not kind this rule is infallible that still it is taken for shape when it is opposed vnto nature and inuisible Essence When S. Paul exhortes that not only men haue their inward conscience pure towards God but also that they abstain ab omni specie mali 1. Thess. 5.22 who endued with common sense will interprete this otherwise then from any shew or â—â—â—blant of euill By this rule we prooue that the Fathers wheÌ„ they say that the species of bread remains they meane the shapes because they oppose the species of bread vnto the inward substance true being of bread Thus S Cyrill Cyrillus Hierosol orat 4 mystagog Know and most certainly beleiue 〈◊〉 this bread which seemeth to vs is not bread though the tast esteeme it to be bread but the body of Christ and that the wine seene of vs though to the tast it seeme wine is not wine but the bloud of our Lord nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus sub specie vini datur tibi sanguis vnder the species of bread is giuen thee the body vnder the species of wine is giuen thee the bloud of Christ. What 〈◊〉 be more cleere then that this Father doth distinguish the species and shape of bread and wine from 〈◊〉 nature kind and substance affirming the first 〈◊〉 â—emayne and not the second Your third simplicity is that to prooue that species in the singular doth signify kind not shape you bring this place of Saint Cyprian (*) Cyprian serm de coena imâ—mortalitatis alimonia datur à communibus cibis differens corporalis substantiae retinens speciem sed Diuiâ—â— Virtutis inuisibili essentia probans adesse praesentiam Foâ— euen in this testimony species doth not signify kind but shape and so by this very text Transsubstantiation is proued This is cleere because wheâ— the species of a thing is in speach opposed agaynsâ— the vertue of the same thinge then species muâ—â— needes signify shape and shew not truth anâ— substance As when S. Paul sayth (a) 1. Tim. 3 5· Habentes specieâ— pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes no man that sober will translate Hauing piety in the nature kinâ— yet denying the vertue thereof but Retayning the shew piety yet denying the vertue thereof Now S. Cyprianâ— this text by you cited doth oppose the Eucharist acâ—cording to the species vnto the Eucharist accordinâ— to the inuisible Essence therof affirming the same to 〈◊〉 a common thing specie but a diuine presentiall veâ—â—tue iuisibili essentia Wherefore his words can bear no other sense but this that the Eucharist is the subâ—stance of corporal Bread according to the outwaâ—â— shape shew of the accideÌ„ts but the diuine presentiall vertue of Christs body bloud according 〈◊〉 the inward nature inuisible Essence of the thing Your fourth simplicity is that this your Gramâ—maticall speculation about the singular plurall 〈◊〉 Species being of it selfe seely is likewise altogeatheâ— impertinent vnto your purpose For you by this acception of Species would cleere the text of S. Cyprian alleadged by the Answearer to prooue that breâ—â— in the Eucharist remayneth only in shape and noâ— in substance In which text the Father doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word species but effigies saying Panis non effigie sed 〈◊〉 mutatus c. Bread changed not in the effigies 〈◊〉 in the nature is by the omnipoteÌ„cy of his Word 〈◊〉 his flesh Now though we should graunt your 〈◊〉
conceyt that Species in the singular doth signify the kind of the nature and not the shape of outward accidents yet I thinke you are not so deuoyd of all 〈◊〉 as you will affirme that effigies in the singular may signify nature and kind nor will you be so senseleâ—â—â— as to translate panis non effigie sed natura mutatus bread changed not according to the kind but according to the nature And if effigies signify shape not kind then we see this most auncient Father supposeth as a thing most certayne that the sacred Eucharist is bread in shape and shew not in the nature oâ— inuisible essence A mystery seemingly absurd to flesh bloud yet you might more wisely vpon the litterall sense of Gods word belieue it with simplicity of Fayth agaynst your carnall sense then seeke to maintayne this was not the Fayth of the auncient Church with so much Childish simplicity agaynst Grammer A fifth Example of Ignorance ioyned with extreme Insolency §. 5. HAVING made manifest your simplicity in Latin I adde another conuiction of your Grammaticall Ignorance euen about the Construction of an English senteÌ„ce whereby most calumniously you 〈◊〉 vpon your Aduersary false and impious doctrine I would not haue noted your grossenes in this point were not the same ioyned with serious disputation against the supposed errour most bitter Insultation against the Iesuit not only reuiling him but also his whole Order yea through their sides the most Holy AuncieÌ„t Fathers Thus you write pag. 236. The latter branch of the Iesuits assumption to wit The Crosse Nayles Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his passion is impiously false For nothing was offered by Christ to his heauenly Father 〈◊〉 his passion but himselfe part of himselfe Hebr. 7.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he offered vp himselfe Hebr. 9.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the eternal Spirit he offered vp himselfe without spot to God c. Hebr. 10.10 We are sanctifyed through the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once for all Hebr. 9.12 By his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place And if the Crosse Nayles and Lance were offered by Chrict to his Father then we were redeemed with corruptible things which is a Iesuiticall or rather Anti-Iesuiâ— doctrine that is a doctrine ascribing to dead Creatures Iron wood steele nayles c. that which is most proper to the precious bloud of Iesus This Doctrine mayntayned by Loyolists is most sacrilegious and more to be abhorreâ— then Iudas his lyps But it is fulfilled in these men which Clement Alexandrinus sayth of Heathen Idolaters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Are they not prodigious monsters that adore stocks and stones Thus seriously doe you dispute agaynst Iesuites whom you name Loyolists for holding doctrine they neuer dreamt of They (a) Crux ara fuit summi Sacrificij Bellar. de Imag c. 17. teach with the (b) Crux Christi non Templi fuit ara sed Mundi Leo serm 10. de pass Fathers that the Crosse was the Altar whereon Christ offered vp himselfe but that he offered vp to his Father the wood of the Crosse or the Steele Iron of the Lance Nayles for our Redemption certaine I am this neuer passed through their thoughts And ye◠〈◊〉 his supposed Errourâ— you are so waspish as 〈◊〉 haue (*) Not without cause she hauing giuen out disgracefull words against M. Fisher suspected that as Omphale 〈…〉 the â—lub of Hercules so your Xantippe in your 〈…〉 tooke your pen into her hand and thence powred down vpon our heads this shameful shower 〈◊〉 â—â—proach I might I say haue intertayned this suâ—â—â—tion were it not for the so frequent aspersion of so many Greeke words according to the (c) Si duo aut tria verba graeca sonuerit sapere sibi videtur fashion of â—eretikes agaynst which I may fitly in this place apply the words of the Satyre Omnia Graecè Cùm sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latinè Greeke words flow from their mouth wheras in men of 〈◊〉 it is more shamefull to be ignorant of their own language to want wit iudgment to construe the same Vpon which IgnoraÌ„ce this your imputation of 〈◊〉 vnto Iesuits is grounded except you will acknowlege that herein you slaunder them malitiously as I will now cleerly demonstrate First those wordes The Crosse Nayles and Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his passion how are they set downe by you As the very text of the Iesuite in so many wordes Shew these formall wordes in his booke he I know will giue you leaue to rayle at him wherin you take so great pleasâ—re till you haue eased your stomacke of all your 〈◊〉 As your owne words wherein you thinke to 〈◊〉 downe not the text but the sense of the Iesuites 〈◊〉 why then are they put in a distinct letter as 〈◊〉 from yours and as the Iesuites formall 〈◊〉 If the Iesuites wordes were ambiguous 〈◊〉 to that impious sense you set vpoÌ„ them 〈◊〉 â—hey are not yet as it had been Charity to haue coâ—â—rued them to the better sense so is your falshood intollerable to substitute in lieu of his ambiguoâ—â— speach another that contaynes impiety without 〈◊〉 ambiguity and doubt Another I say of your owâ— making set in a distinct letter as if it were formallâ— and verbally his Secondly if the true wordes of the Iesuit 〈◊〉 downe it will presently appeare that his propositiâ—â— is not That the Crosse and Nayles were offered to the 〈◊〉 at Christs passion but that they were instrumenâ— of his passion not as the same proceeded from 〈◊〉 harts of the wicked but as by him intertayned in 〈◊〉 owne hart and offered to his Father this so cleâ—â—â—ly as it may seeme prodigious that you could ignoâ—rantly or that you would wittingly mistake his seâ—â—tence For the Iesuit answering a Protestant vulgâ—â— obiection the Kings maiesty vrged in the ConfereÌ„â—â— If the Crosse Nayles be worshipped because they touch the body of our Lord why not also the lypps of Iudas 〈◊〉 touched our Sauiours lypps when he gaue him that trayâ—â—â—rous kisse The Iesuit I say deliuers a threefold mâ—â—nifest disparity between the lyps of Iudas and the hâ—â—ly Crosse and about the third disparity he thus 〈◊〉 The Passion may be considered two wayes First as pâ—â—â—ceeding from the will of wicked men that tormented hiâ— in which consideration it is not gratefull vnto God 〈◊〉 detestableâ—action in the doers therof Secondly as it was â—â—â—ceaued in the body of Christ admitted into his heart 〈◊〉 OFFERED to his Father and by this consideration is sacred and venerable The lips of Iudas betraying 〈◊〉 were instruments of his Passion as it proceeded from 〈◊〉 hart and consequently as it was a detestable action but 〈◊〉 Crosse the Nayles the Lance that stayed in and was 〈…〉 to the body of Christ were instruments of his passion 〈◊〉 in his sacred person and
the Kingdome of heauen supposing in their thought as most certayne that a Camells passing through a needles eye was altogeather impossible concluding What rich-man then can be saued Our Sauiour answering vnto the argument that so perplexed them sayth though these things be impossible with men yet all is possible vnto God As if he had sayd What you suppose in your thoughts as certayne that a Camell cannot passe through a needles eye is false because God is omnipotent and so though such things be impossible with men yet all is possible vnto him Now your supposition being false your argument that richmen cannot be saued is not solid For from my words it is more easy for a Camell c. you can only inforce that as the Camell cannot passe through a needles eye but by the ompoteÌ„cy of the diuine hand so the rich-man cannot be saued but by the omnipotency of diuine grace Hence it is euideÌ„t that our Sauiour did directly inteÌ„d to teach the possibility of a Camells passing through a needles eye so destroying the ground on which the Apostles did build their false persuasion that rich men could not be saued But this you auouch not to be possible vnto God Therefore you are forced by the Iesuit to deny Gods expresse word howsoeuer you bragge that the Iesuits arguing from Scripture is wonderous weake You are forced to deny the Creed §. 3. THE Iesuite pag. 409. thus argueth If the body of Christ being mortall and passible could penetrate with the body of his blessed Mother and come out of her wombe the same still remaining entyre as we confesse in the Creed Natum de MARIA Virgine why then may not the same body being now glorious immortall and as the Apostle speakes spirituall penetrate the quantity of 〈◊〉 bread and inclose it selfe wholy and entierly within the 〈◊〉 compasse thereof You answere pag. 411. The blessed Virgin in her â—RAVELL in puerperio bore not Christ in a different â—anner from other women Luc. 2.23 And what a Sophiâ—â—icall inference is this the Creed hath Borne of the Virgin MARY meaning according to conception and generaâ—â—ons and cleernesse from the company of man Ergo the â—ody of the blessed Virgin was not opened at the tyme of his â—yrth Thus you whose assertion that the Creed onâ—y saith that according to coÌ„ception the blessed Virâ—in was cleere from the company of man is open deâ—yall of a principall part therof For the Creed doth â—ot only say our Lord was conceaued by the Holy Ghost which doth import his Mothers purity cleernes â—rom the company of man in his generation but the â—urity of his conception being declared the Creed â—ddeth as a new point of fayth borne of the Virgin Mary requiring that we belieue she was a Virgin that â—s incorrupt and entyre in her child-birth So that â—our interpretation whereby you confound her virginity in generation with her virginity in child-birth which the Creed doth so exactly distinguish is â—laine denial of the text of the creed And your tearâ—ing this our simple sincere beliefe of the words of â—he creed a sophistical inferrence is first ridiculous â—or the belieuing of the text of Gods word as it â—â—ands cannot be tearmed an inference much lesse a â—ophisticall inference SecoÌ„dly it is not only foolish but also impious beâ—ng a reproach to the perpetuall Fayth of the whole Christian Church as (d) Augustin Enchyrid cap. 34. De Virginenasci oportebat quem Matris fides non libido conceperat Quòd si vel per nascenteÌ„ corrumperetur eius integritas non iam ille de virgine nasceretur eumue falsò quod absit de Virgine Maria natâ—Ì„ tota confitaretur Ecclesia S. Aug. doth testify It was sayth he necessary that he whome the fayth not the lust of his mother had coÌ„ceiued should also be borne of a Virgin For if the integrity of his mother had been brokeÌ„ in this being borne of her then had he not been borne of a Virgin and then which God forbid false were the beliefe of the whole Church professing in the Creed Natum de Maria Virgine borne of the Virgin Mary The same is taught by the rest of the Fathers namely by S. (e) Ambros. Epist. 81. De via iniquitatis poduntur dicere Virgo coÌ„cepit sed non Virgo generauit Ambrose who tearmes it wicked peruerse to say as you do that in her generation the blessed Mother was incorrupt and entyre not in her childbirth She sayth S. Ambrose that could conceaue him being a Virgin incorrupt could she not bring him forth remayning a Virgin incorrupt If they will not belieue the tradition of Priests let them belieue the oracles of the Prophets (f) Non concepturam tantummodo Virginem sed parituram Virginem Propheta dixit A Virgin shall bring forth a Son Let theÌ„ belieue the creed of the Apostles which the RomaÌ„ Church doth purely inuiolatly keep to wit which sayth not only conceaued by the holy Ghost but also borne of the virgin Mary What you obiect out of S. Luke vers 23. Euery Male-child that openeth the wombe shall be holy vnto our Lord hath been answered longe agoe and declared by the ancieÌ„t Fathers For the Scripture by the child opening the wombe vnderstands the Child that comes first out of the wombe because that Child commonly doth by course of nature must needes open the wombe Hence he is tearmed the Child opening the wombe though it happen that he do not opeÌ„ the woÌ„be As the fire of the Babilonian fornace may be tearmed a thing which coÌ„sumeth what is cast into it because commonly it doth so and by course of nature it must needes do so though there by diuine Miracle the contrary did happen which manner of speach is so vulgar as it is by you vsed euen in this place perchaÌ„ce without reflexion For you tearming â—he Blessed Virgins bringing forth of our Lord TRAVELL I thinke you are not impiously persuaâ—ed with the Iew that she brought him forth with â—abour and payne as other woemen doe but you â—all her Childbyrth TRAVELL because commonâ—y and naturally the same is still ioyned with labour â—nd trauell In this sort say the (g) Quod ait ad aperiens vuluam coÌ„sueto natiuitatis more loquitur non quod Dominus noster sacri ventris hospitium quòd ingressus sanctificarat egressus deuirginasse credendus sit iuxta HAERETICOS qui dicunt Beatam Mariam Virginem fuisse vsque ad paritum sed iuxta FIDEM Catholicam clauso Virginis vtero quasi sponsus suo pocessit ex Thalamo Ven. Beda in cap. 2. Luc. Fathers the Scripâ—ure saying of our Sauiour the male-child opening the wombe consueto natiuitatis more loquitur speaketh â—ccording to that which commonly doth happen in the birth â—f such children not that we should thinke that our Lord in â—is going forth did breake the integrity of the Virgins Cloâ—et which by his entraÌ„ce he had sanctifyed as HERETIKS
is sufficient for euery man seing the Apostle speakes not of euery man but expressely of him who is Homo Dei the man of God that is one already fully instructed and firmely setled by Tradition in all the mayne poynts of Christian fayth and godly life such an one as Timothy was The Scriptures for men in this manner aforetaught and grounded in fayth are abundantly sufficient who will deny it But this proueth at the most the sufficiency of the Scripture ioyned with Tradition not of Scripture alone or of onely-onely-onely Scripture as Protestants bookes in great Letters very earnestly affirme Hence also we may conclude that the (z) The Minister to proue Scriptures are cleere vnto Infidels that haue not the Spirit of fayth heapes many testimonies of Fathers that teach Scriptures in some matters to be cleere Who denyes this they are so to the faythful not vnto Infidels not vnto them that are vnsetled in the Catholike fayth yea many places he brings speake expressely only of the faythfull pious Sicut vera Religio docet accedunt as S. Augustine others by him alleadged affirme and therefore are brought impertinently to proue the sufficiency clarity of Scriptures in respect of Infidels pag. 34.35.36 many allegatiōs of Fathers which Protestants bring to proue the Scripture to be cleere in all substātiall points are impertinent because the fathers speake of mē aforehand instructed in all substantiall poynts who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer them in Scripture as they that heare Aristotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his booke of nature most difficill to be vnderstood of thē that neuer heard his explicatiō either out of his owne mouth or by Tradition of his Schollers I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiesty sufficiently demonstrated this first GROVND of Catholicke fayth to wit That a Christian is originally and fundamentally builte vpon the word of God not as written in Scriptures but as deliuered by Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primitiue vpō the authority wherof we belieue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall articles of fayth were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veracity author of truth THE SECOND GROVND That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy §. 3. THIS principle is consequent vpon the former out of which six things may be clerly proued First that there is alwaies a true (a) The Minister still cōeth forth with his distinctiō that by Church we may vnderstand a Hierarchy of mitred prelates thē he denyes that there is still a church teaching the truth in the world Secondly for a number of belieuers smaller or greater teaching and professing the right sayth in all substantial points then he grants there is still a true Church of Christ in the world This distinction so much repeated specially pag. 57. and 58. is impertinēt for by Church we vnderstād not euery small number of right belieuers but a Christian multitude of such credit and authority as vpon her tradition we may be sure what Scriptures doctrines were the Apostles For this is a fundamentall pointe necessary to be knowne that so we may know what Doctrine is of God and it cannot be knowne but by Tradition of the Church as hath bene proued Now whether this Church be Mitred or not Mitred goe in Blacke or in White or in Scarlet doth little import Let the Minister but shew vs a Church that hath euident Tradition of Doctrine hand to hand frō the Apostles we will say she is the true Church though she haue no Surplisse or Miter but be as precise as Geneua it selfe but if there be no Church in the world but this Hierarchy of Mitred Prelates whose Tradition hand to hand can assure men which be the Scriptures and doctrines of Religiō deliuered by the Apostles men ought not to beare such spleen against a Miter or Corner-Cap or Surplisse as in respect of them to fly from the Church that onely hath Catholicke Tradition from the Apostles Church of Christ in the world for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles came from Christ and his Apostles and so consequently from God but the Tradition of the Church then there must needes be in all ages a Church receiuing and deliuering these Traditions els men in some age since Christ should haue bene destitute of the (b) The Minister pa. 59. lin 15. sayth A corrupt Church may deliuer vncorruptly some part of sacred truth as the Scripture and Creed by which men may be saued Answer We may conceaue two wayes of deliuering an incorrupt text The one Casuall by chance and so a corrupt Church yea a Iew an Infidell a child may deliuer an vncorrupt Copy of the Bible The other Authentike assuring the receauer this to be the incorrupt text of the Apostles Scripture and binding him so to belieue This Authentik and irrefragable Tradition cannot be made by a false Church erring in her Traditiōs as is cleer Now it is necessary to saluation that men not only Casually haue the true Scripture but must be sure that the text therof be incorrupt Therfore ther must be stil a Church in the world whose Tradition is Authentike that is a sufficient warrant vpon which men must belieue Doctrines to come from the Apostles ordinary meanes of saluation because they had not meanes to know assuredly the substantiall Articles of Christianity without assured Fayth wherof no man is saued Secondly this Church must be alwaies (c) The Minister pag. 61. lin 15 lin 26. obiects that in time of persecution the true Church may be reputed an impious sect by the multitude and so not be knowne by the notion of True and Holy nor can her truth be discerned by sense and common reason I answere As there are foure properties of Church-doctrin so likewise there are foure notions of the Church The first is to be Mistresse of the sauing truth According to this notion the Church is inuisible to the naturall vnderstanding both of men and Angels For God only his Blessed see our Religion to be the truth The second is to be Mistresse of Doctrine truly reuealed by secret inspiration According to this notion ordinarily speaking the Church is inuisible to almost all men that are or euer were the Apostles onely and the Prophets excepted The third to be Mistresse of Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles by their Miraculous preaching planted in the world According to this notion the Church was visible to the first and Primitiue world but now is not The fourth to be Mistresse of Catholike doctrine that is of doctrine deliuered and receaued by full Tradition and profession all the aduersaryes therof being vnder the name of
to be otherwise planted in the world but by the Apostles themselues through the efficacy of innumerable miracles Wherefore these doctrins if they be errors are errors which by the principles of Christianity no man ought to goe about to reforme And seeing it is impossible that there should be any such errours we must acknowledge that principle of S. Augustine as most certayne That doctrines receyued vniuersally in the Church without any knowne beginning are truly and verily Apostolicall and of this kind are the Roman from which Protestants are gone The fifth Argument THAT doctrine which Tradition hath deliuered as the doctrine of all Ancestours without deliuering any Orthodoxe opposition agaynst it that is opposition made by any confessed Catholike Doctors or Fathers is doctrine deriued from the Apostles without change But such is the doctrine of the Roman Church which consent and Tradition of Ancestours doth deliuer and doth not togeather deliuer that any confessed (q) The Minister pag. 141. 144. lin 8. sayth that in the dayes of the Fathers the Roman doctrine was not in being nor heard of and that this was they cause they did not so punctually and litterally oppose them I Answere The Minister doth but set a face on the matter For he knowes that it is most euident confessed by ProtestaÌ„ts that at the least some Fathers held our Religion expressely in diuers particulars For exaÌ„ple doth not Origen teach and practise Inuocation of Saints lib. 2. in Iob. in Iosue c. 13. as a doctrine vndoubtedly pious saying therof Quis dubitat in Num. c. 31. Did not diuers Fathers make it their special study to discouer Origens errors as S. Hierome Epiphanius Theophilus And yet these Fathers hauing noted so many errours in OrigeÌ„ neuer ceÌ„sured him in respect of this Which is a manifest signe they held with Origen in this poâ—nt that Inuocation of deceased Saints is an vndoubted Christian duty euen as much as the praying vnto liuing Saints orthodoxe Father opposed agaynst it We know indeed by Tradition that some in former tymes stood agaynst many points of the Roman doctrine as Arrius Pelagius Waldo the Albigenses Wickliffe Husse and some others but they are not confessed orthodoxe Fathers but were noted for nouelty and singularity and for such by Tradition described vnto vs which kind of opposition doth not discredit the doctrine of the Church but rather makes the same to appeare more cleerly and famously Apostolicall seing as euen D. Field Of the Church lib. 4. cap. 14. doth confesse When a doctrine (r) It is true as the Minister sayth pag. 140. That this Doctour doth not make the iudgemeÌ„t of the present Bishops of one age by it selfe solely infallible but only the iudgment of perpetuall succession from the Apostles yet it is true also that he makes the consent of one age so great as is heere expressed an euident signe of the iudgement of perpetuall succession Reade the place is in any age coÌ„stantly deliuered as a matter of Fayth and as receyued from Ancestors in such sort as the contradictours thereof were in the beginning noted for nouelty and if they persisted in contradiction in the end charged with heresy it is not possible but such a doctrine should come by succession from the Apostles What more euident signe of a perpetuall Apostolicall Tradition then this Protestants answere that it is sufficient that the Roman doctrine was coÌ„tradicted by Orthodoxe Fathers and that this may be proued by their wrytings which they haue left vnto posterity though their opposition was not noted by antiquity nor by the fame of TraditioÌ„ deliuered vnto posterity But this answere leaues no meanes wherby common people may know certainly the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church without exact examining and looking into the workes of the Fathers which coÌ„mon people cannot do I proue it If against euery Tradition of the Church difficil obscure passages may be brought out of Fathers this doth suffice to make the same questionable then no Tradition can be certainly knowne without exact reading and examining of the Fathers But no Tradition or Doctrine is so constantly cleerly deliuered by the Fathers but diuers obscure and difficill places out of their workes may be brought agaynst them with such a shew that (s) The Minister doth p. 141. 144. auerre that seely Ignorant men are to examine controuersies by Scripture and that by it they may know the right doctrin in al necessary matters assuredly without resting vpon the authority of the Churches Tradition This hath been formerly confuted and it is to men of Iudgement ridiculous Yea the Minister himself elswhere Orthodoxe 392. derides it saying A blind man cannot iudge of colours a rude and ignorant person is lesse able to EXAMINE Controuersyes and deepe points of Religion And agayne ibid. pag. 393. We do not set a blind horse before others nor suffer any vulgar person to be his owne caruer in receauing and refusing publike doctrin and the same doth he teach in this Reply pag. 301. yea Luther Tom. 1. Germ. Wiâ—temb com in Gal. fol. 29. §. 3 sayth Non quiuis habet intellectum sensum vt de controuersijs Fidel inter nos Papistas tutò Christianè iudicare possit How theÌ„ shall these be saued but by simply belieuing the Tradition of Auncestors hand from haÌ„d deliuered vnto them common people shall not know what to say For what Tradition more constantly deliuered by the Christian doctors then our Sauiours consubstantiality with his Father according to his diuine nature and yet the New reformed Arrians as you may see in Bellarmin l. 2. de Christo cap. 10. bring very many testimonies of ancient Fathers to proue that in this point they did contradict themselues and were contrary one to another which places whosoeuer shall read will cleerly see that to common people they are vnanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answeres that learned men yield vnto such obscure passages what then shall they doe They must answere that antiquity did neuer acknowlege such dissention amongst the Fathers in the point of our Sauiours Consubstantiality which they would not haue omitted to do had there byn any such reall dissension seing they noted the Fathers opposition in lesser matters In the same manner Catholikes doe sufficiently answere Protestants that bring places of Fathers agaynst the receyued Traditions of the Church as the Reall Presence Inuocation of Saints and other the like to wit that Traditions deliuered these doctrines as the vniforme consent of the Fathers and neuer noted such oppositions as Protestants frame out of their writings which is a cleere signe that Protestants eyther misalleadge their words or mistake their meaning For were that contradiction reall why did not Antiquity famously note it as it noted conueyed by fame to posterity their differeÌ„ces about disputable matters (t) The Minister heere will retort this argument pag. 144. lin 34. If euery doctrin
prooue that of necessity they are seen and so the Minister might haue spared the paper in citing the opinions of SchoolemeÌ„ coÌ„cerning the doctrin of the VoluÌ„tary glasse glasse of diamant so cleere and excellent that whatsoeuer is done in London in secretest corners should therein particularly and distinctly appeare surely he that hath eyes to see that glasse may likewise discerne what is done ouer the Citty Now most certayne it is that in God all creatures all actions done in the world and all the most secret thoughts of harts so perspicuously and distinctly shine as they are in themselues So that the Saints hauing light to see the diuine Essence may in him cleerly discerne whatsoeuer is done in the world beloÌ„ging to their state though neuer so secret according to the saying of S. (t) Basil. lib. de Virgin Basil There is not any Saint which doth not see all thinges that are done any where in the world And of S. (u) Greg. hom 40. Qui creatoris sui claritatem vident nihil in creatura agitur quod videre non possint Gregory Nothing is done about any creature which they cannot see who see the clarity of their Creatour And agayne (x) Lib. 12. Moral c. 13. We must belieue that they who see the clarity of the omnipotent God within themselues are not ignorant of any thing that is done without Which doctrine of the Fathers that Protestants may the lesse dislike I proue to be grounded on the Scriptures First if Saints by reason of their blissefull state do so participate of the diuine nature and wisdome About the first Argument as they communicate with him in the power of gouerning the nations of the world This argument is strong and you by strugling make the strength thereof more appeare You haue deuised 3. solutions First you say pag. 311. lin 10. That the Iesuits exposition is nouell and neuer heard of in the ancient Church Answer It is ridiculous when you are pressed with the cleere text of Scripture to call vpon the ancieÌ„t Church you I say who still specially in this question appeale from the ancient Fathers vnto the Scripture as pag. 302. and 298. you say that it is not iust to make ancient custome a law rule of right doctrine And if you will stand to the rule of antiquity I can produce more then fifty ancient Fathers that in expresse tearmes teach the doctrine the Iesuit doth establish by the literall sense of Gods word to wit that saints deceased are rulers and gouernours of mens actions liues Secondly you say pag. 309. that the text of the Apocalyps To him that shall haue conquered I will giue him power c. is not vnderstood of Saints deceased but of liuing Saints Answere This to be false is apparent by the very words which are these Apoc. 226. He that shall haue conquered kept my words VNTIL THE END to him I will giue power ouer nations c. But it is cleer that liuing Saints caÌ„not be said to haue conquered much lesse to haue kept the word of God vntil â—he end Therfore these words are violently wrested vnto liuing Saints Thirdly you say pag. 320. lin 3. That the promise I will giue them power ouer â—ations is vnderstood only of iudiciary power in the day of iudgement Answer This â—o be false is proued by the rule of interpretation of Scriptures which â—rotestants commend and praise aboue all other to wit when a text is â—oubtfull the same must be expounded by another which speakes of the â—â—me matter specially when the darke text doth expressely allude vnto â—he cleerer This place of the Apocalips about Saints I will giue them power â—uer nations and they shall rule them in a rod of iron they shall be broken in peeces â—â—ke pots of clay seemeth darke vnto Protestants and the question is wheâ—her this be spoken of Saints power in the militant Church or onely of â—he day of Iudgment To cleer this doubt there is another text of Scripture vttered in the same words to wit the second Psalme which saith of Christ That his father shall giue him nations to be his inheritance and he shall 〈◊〉 them in a rod of iron and shall breake them as pots of clay To this text of the Psalme the place of the Apocalips doth allude For our Lord in the Apocalips promiseth that he will giue to Saints power to gouerne in a rod of iron nations countryes as his father promised gaue the same power vnto him to wit in the aforesaid Psalme But that place of the Psalme is without doubt to be vnderstood of Christs power of gouernement in this world and of his ruling in the militant Church as Protestants grant it appeareth by the wordes precedent I will giue thee nations to be thine inheritance and thou shalt rule them in a rod of yron Ergo the power of gouerning iâ— a rod of yron promised to Saints must be vnderstood of gouernement in this world and in the militant Church then Saints haue knowledge of things that are done in this world else how could they be able to gouerne and rule it But Scripture in playne and expresse tearmes make Saints participate with Christ in the rule and gouernement of the world according to his promise (y) Because the Minister doth so much insult that the Iesuit hath not proued any thinge by Scripture I will that his folly may appeare examine particularly his answere vnto these texts Apocalip 2.26 To him that conquereth I will giue power ouer nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron that is with power of inflexible equity And Apocal. 3. v. 12. I will make him a pillar in the TeÌ„ple of my God And the blessed say of themselues Apoc. 5.10 that they were chosen out of countreys and nations to be Priests of God that they should rule with him vpon the earth Therfore they know what is done vpon earth so far forth at least as the affayres of earth doe specially appertaine vnto them and such without doubt are our deuotions towardes them Secondly S. Paul Cor. 14.26 sayth Now we know but in part we prophesy but in part but when that of perfection shall come that of part shall be euacuated I know now but in part theÌ„ I shall know as I am known By which words the Apostle signifyes that all knowledge both humane diuine particularly the gift of Prophesy is contayned eminently in the beatificall â—ight so that the blessed Saints haue the gift of Prophesy in a more excellent degree theÌ„ had the Prophets in this world But by the light of Prophesy holy men vnited with God could see the secrets of harts as S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 14.15 By the gift of Prophesy the secrets of harts are manyfested and also see things absent being present by light of vnderstaÌ„ding froÌ„ whence they were absent according to their substance (z) The Minister seketh two wayes
though the substance of bread remayne I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordayned by vse to contayne other substances then shewing the substance which containes we may signify the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to contayne other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passeth from the consideration of the substances contayning to thinke of the thing contayned therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordayned to contayne others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifyes immediatly the substance contained in them For exāple one puts a piece of Gold in an apple shewing it cryes this is Gold in rigour of speach he sayth not true because the sense of his words is that the thing demonstrated immediatly by the formes and accidēts of that apple is Gold yea put case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to contayne any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise he had put secretly into it a peece of gold Because when the paper is shewed displayed and not as contayning something in it and yet is tearmed Gold the proper sense of that speach is that the substance immediatly contayned vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents then those that vsually accompany the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my body being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to contayne an humane body it cannot be vnderstood literally but of the subiect immediatly contayned vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediatly vnder the accidents of bread which was once substantially bread cannot become substantially the body of Christ except it be substātially cōuerted into his body or personally assumed by the same body And seeing this second manner of vnion between bread Christs body is impossible and reiected by Protestants aswell as by Catholiks we may conclude that the mystery of Christs Real presence cannot be belieued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation Specially seing our Sauiour did not say Heere is my body which speach may be verifyed by the Presence of his body locally within the bread but This is my body which imports that not only his body is truly and substantially present but also that it is the substance contayned immediatly vnder the accidents of bread If any man say that by this argument it appeares that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the wordes of the Institution subtilly deduced and so may perchance be numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answere that the cōsequēce of this argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe in the Scripture but by subtill deduction inferred from the mystery which Scripture and Tradition deliuer Notwithstanding because these subtill deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the aforesayd mystery they cannot be denyed without preiudice of fayth In this sort the doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denyed by them that wil be perfect Belieuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertayne to the proper sense of Christ his wordes and substance of the mystery Concil Romanum sub Nicolao 1. Lateranense sub Innocentio 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers §. 3. IT is certayne the Fathers acknowledge a transmutation of bread into the body of Christ that they meant Transubstantiation that is not only a mysticall significatiue but also a Reall and substantiall change appeares by these 5. circumstances of their doctrine in this point First [I.] ¶ The Marginall Annotations corresponding to these ensuing Numbers follow afterwards togeather by the expressenesse of their words for there can be no words more significant and expressiue of a substantiall change betweene bread our Sauiours body then those the Fathers vse Saint (s) Orat. Cathechis c. 34. Nissen That the word made flesh is inserted within euery faythful mā by his flesh taking his consistance of bread and wine Consecration II. transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh S. Cyrill (t) Cyrill Ep. ad Calosyrium Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis sayth That we might not feele horrour seing flesh and bloud on the sacred Altars the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmityes doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit bread and wine III. Conuerting them into the verity of his owne flesh that the body of life as it were a certaine seede of viuification might be found in vs. Saint (u) Chrysost. hom de Euchar in Encoen Nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit Chrysostome When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance therof is left nothing remaynes vnconsumed IIII. so likewise do thou thinke that the mysteryes are consumed by the substance of the body of Christ (x) Ambros. de initian myster c. 9. Non hoc quod natura formauit sed quod benedictio cōsecrauit Benedictione enim ipsa natura mutatur 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 then of nature seing by the benediction euen Nature is changed V. Secondly they require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his body be VI. Omnipotent consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall VII Saint Cyprian (z) Cyprian de coena Domini Panis non effigie non natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill (f) Cyrill orat 4. mystagog He that in the marriage of Cana changed water into wine by his only will is not he worthy that we belieue him that he hath changed wine into his bloud S. (g) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Gaudent The Lord Creatour of natures that of earth made bread agayne because he can do it and hath promised to do it makes of bread his owne body and he that of water made wine now of wine hath made his bloud Thirdly the instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiatiō is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose (h) Ambros. de ijs qui
thereof is abolished into the body of Christ. Secondly the example you bring about Regenerate persons is by you vsed impertinently and truly pondered applyed serueth our purpose For in Regeneration the substance of man is not abolished because by Regeneration man is changed to be participant of the Diuine Nature not from what he is originally by the constitution of nature but from what he is by the corruption of the Diuell and sinne Hence by vertue of Regeneration a man ceaseth to be not according to the substantiall Origen of his nature but only according to the superinduced peruersion thereof by the Diuell But in the Eucharist Saint Ambrose sayth that bread by consecration passeth into the sacred body of Christ from the thing it was by the framing constitution of nature Ergo bread according to S. Ambrose ceaseth to be according to the thing it is by the framing of nature to wit the essence of bread VI The Minister Replyes That to a mysticall change the omnipotency of God is required as appeareth in Baptisme Therefore although some Fathers require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of bread and wine yet it followeth not that they maintayned Transubstantiation Answere The Fathers indeed require the omnipotency of God in Baptisme not to change the nature of water into the nature and verity of Christs bloud but to the end that water remayning water vnchanged in nature be eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in the soules of men Thus Saint Leo by you often cited serm 4. de natiuit sayth Virtus altissimi quae fecit vt virgo pareret Saluatorem eadem facit vt regeneret vnda credentem He doth not say as you would make fooles belieue the Fathers vse to speake that the Diuine omnipotency doth change the water into the nature and verity of his bloud but That the same power of the Highest makes water being water to bring forth regenerate persons which caused a virgin remayning a virgin to bring forth the Sauiour But about the holy Eucharist the Fathers speake in another manner They require the Omnipotency of God not to eleauate bread wine that remayning still in nature bread and wine they may sanctify mens soules but to change them into Christs body and bloud by which change they become in thēselues without further eleuation proportioned meanes to sanctify soules as cōtaining within themselues the fountaine of grace Yea the Fathers speeches about the water of baptisme be so different from their speeches about the bread and wine of the Eucharist as this alone might suffice to conuert the Minister were he not obstinate What Fathers say that Christ at the Mariage of soules with him in Baptisme can doth conuert water into his blood by his omnipotency as he could and did conuert water into Wine at the carnall Mariage of Cana as S. Cyrill S. Gaudentius cited by the Iesuit say of the wine of the Eucharist What Father doth say that water changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made his flesh as is sayd of the Eucharisticall bread by the Authour of the booke De Coena Domini VII Though some question be made whether this Authour was S. Cyprian yet learned men both Catholicks and Protestants agree he was an holy ancient Father The Authour of the booke de Coena Domini sayth M. Fulke agaynst the Rhem. Testam in 1. Cor. 11. fol. 282. was not in tyme much inferiour to Cyprian Erasmus in his Annotatiōs vpon S. Cyprian printed at Basill Anno 1558. fol. 287. sayth The Authour was some learned man of S. Cyprian his age as Pamelius doth demonstrate by many euident reasons so that we haue Transubstātiation as ancient as S. Cyprian For what the Minister sayth that this Authour meaneth only a mysticall and Sacramental change to be made is idle as I thus demonstrate The change this holy Father teacheth is made not in the shape quantity accidēts of bread but only in the inward nature and essence thereof panis non effigie sed natura mutatus But the Ministers mysticall conuersion is made vpon the shape quantity accidents of bread as he sayth pag. 425. it passeth vpon the quantity and accidents of bread as well as vpon the substance Ergo the conuersion of bread into Christs flesh taught by this holy ancient Father is an inward substantiall conuersion and not the Ministers mysticall change VIII What the Minister sayth to this Argument that the Fathers affirme the water of Baptisme to be changed into Christs blood by the vertue of his word is false nor hath he cited any Father that doth so affirme Yea such speaking of the water of Baptisme were ridiculous or rather impious as affirming thinges about the mysteryes of Religiō which may make them seeme senselesse and ridiculous without any ground so to affirme in Gods word For Christ neuer sayth of the water of Baptisme Be washed herewith for this is my blood as he sayth often in Scripture of the wine of the Eucharist drinke yee of this for this is my bloud IX To the fourth argument the Minister replyes that the Fathers exhort People to abnegate their senses in Baptisme wherein they mantayne no Transubstantiation I Answere The Minister still singes the same songe that the fathers speake in the same manner of the conuersiō of water into Christs blood in Baptisme as they speake about the conuersion of wine in the Eucharist which is most false and the Minister hath not cited the wordes any Father so affirming The Fathers about Baptisme exhort men to belieue that God can by water wash and purify the soule and this to be a supernaturall worke aboue the naturall force of water which one may belieue without contradicting the euidence of any of his senses yea without any great difficulty in reason For what great matter is it to belieue that God being omnipotent at the presence of water washing the body can inwardly by grace wash the soule But about the Eucharist they say that we must firmely and indubitately belieue that that which seemeth bread and wine is not bread wine but the body bloud of Christ so that vnder the forme of bread and wine is giuen vs the bloud of our Lord and though sense suggest the contrary that it is wine we must abnegate and not belieue our senses herein Shew one Father I say that doth thus affirme of the water of Baptisme that we must firmely and indubitately belieue the same not to be water in truth though it be water in shew and because our sight feeling and tast suggest that it is water that we must with full Fayth abnegate and deny this iudgment framed by sense X. The Minister heere pag. 429. bringeth three triuiall argumēts to prooue the Fathers held the substance of bread to remayne after consecration which are not worth the answering yet I will say a word to each of them not to omit any thing that
may seeme substantiall in his Reply The first The Fathers teach that the creatures of bread and wine remayne but the abstracted shapes of bread and wine be not Gods creatures but Popish fancyes I Answere the force of this argument doth consist in two lyes the one imposed vpon the Fathers the other vpon vs. For first the Fathers you cite do not say that the Creatures of bread and wine remayne in the Eucharist after consecration but that the holy Eucharist is made of the Creatures of bread and wine they being conuerted turned into the body and bloud of Christ saying Before consecration it is bread but after Consecration of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. Secondly we say that the true solide and reall quantity of bread endued with all the true qualityes and naturall propertyes remayne and not onely abstracted shapes and fancyes as you maliciously or dreamingly misrelate our Doctrine Hence true is the saying of Irenaeus l 4. c. 34. that the holy Eucharist is composed of two thinges the one heauenly to wit the body of Christ the other earthly to wit the quantity of bread endued with the sensible and earthly propertyes thereof The second The Fathers teach that the signes and elements are present and haue power to feede and nourish the body but Mathematicall bread and wine haue not power no nourish the body for there is in them only the shadow of grayne and grapes and Papists may as well say That paynted bread hath power of feeding Answere This argument is like the former grounded on the Ministers false slandering o◠dreaming misprision of our Doctrine For we hold that the quantity of bread endued with the sensible vertues and qualityes of bread remaynes truly really substantially and not only in a shadow and picture of bread Now the quantity of bread and wine endued with the actiue qualityes can please delight alter and change the body of the receauer and be agayne altered and changed by the nutritiue power therof and so nourish the body as the Iesuit hath declared in the second Consideration The Third The Fathers affirme that the elements of the Eucharist resemble the mysticall vnion betwixt Christ Christian people to wit bread confected of many graynes of wheat and wine of many grapes but Popish fictions and Mathematicall shadowes of grayne and grapes cannot resemble this mysticall vnion Answere The Fathers do not say as you impose vpō them that the Eucharisticall bread and wine resemble the mysticall vnion betwixt Christ and Christian people but the vnion Christians must haue betwixt themselues that they may be vnited vnto Christ as the mysticall body to their head To represent this vnion the sacred signes must be truly bread and wine not after consecration but before For as no substances be conuerred into the naturall body and bloud of Christ but such as are made of many graynes and grapes vnited togither in one masse so none can be vnited vnto Christ by grace and made partakers of his sauing gifts but such as being many by nature are vnited by Charity concord and due subordination in one mysticall body the holy Church So that not the Eucharisticall signes but your arguments be fictions and shadowes without any truth substance or solidity in them XI To the fifth argument the Minister sayth Because this Iesuit produceth no new matter but only repeateth what we haue formerly confuted and especially because Reseruation concludeth not Transubstantiation I forbeare further examination of the particular Testimonyes produced by him Answere With what forehead could you say that this Iesuit heere produceth no new matter but ONELY repeateth what you haue formerly confuted Might not I with truth say this is more then onelye For where haue you answered formerly the testimonyes of the Fathers here cited by the Iesuit that hold the Eucharist to remayne the body of Christ out of vse and that it is to be worshipped and adored as such Where haue you answered the Confession the Iesuit doth here produce of Protestants euen of your Kemnitius to whom you here refer vs in your margent affirming Reseruation of the Sacrament which you detest as Idolatry to haue been the continuall custome of the primitiue Christian Church largely diffused ouer the world Antiqua consuetudo latè patens diu propagata thereby granting Christian Antiquity Vniuersality and Continuance to stand for vs agaynst you But you say that Reseruation concludes not Transubstantiation This proueth your shallow insight into these matters as by these two arguments I shew First the Fathers reseruing the Sacrament shew they held such a Reall Presence as by vertue thereof the body of Christ must of necessity be present so longe as the accidents of bread remayne For they would not haue bound Christians to adore the Sacrament as Christs body so longe as the proper accidents of bread remayne had they not held that the same is the body of Christ infallibly and by diuine Institution so longe as the foresayd accidents remayne But neyther the Zuinglian presence by figure nor the Caluinian presence by Fayth nor the Lutheran presence by Consubstantiation doth as themselues teach of necessity inforce the Sacrament to be the body of Christ so longe as the accidents of bread remayne but only the presence by Transubstantiation hath this nature force Ergo the Fathers held neither the Zwinglian nor the Caluinian nor the Lutheran Presence but the Catholicke Transubstantiation Secondly the Fathers as hath been shewed do perpetually affirme that bread and wine are conuerted transelemented changed into the nature and verity of Christs flesh and bloud so that Protestants haue no shift to auoyde the euidence of this their Christian consent for our Religion agaynst thē but by saying they speake only of mysticall conuersion to wit of signification vse and operation as sayth our Minister pag. 422. lin 1. But their reseruing the Sacrament and adoring the same reserued as Christs body permanently and out of vse doth conuince that they mayntayned another conuersion then meere significatiue of operation and vse as is manifest Ergo the Fathers by reseruing the Sacramēt shew manifestly two things First that they held the Catholike doctrine of substantiall cōuersion Secondly that Ministers willingly against their conscience expound their sayings as teaching no more but Conuersion of meere significatiō vse operation Agaynst this consent of Fathers Protestants obiect the testimony of Theodoret (y) Theodoret. Dialog Inconfusus Gelasius de duabus naturis aduersus Eutichet Gelasius who in playne tearmes affirme that the substance of bread and wine remaines in the holy Eucharist bringing this as an example of the Incarnation where the natures of God and Man remayne in Christ Signa mystica sayth Theodoret post sanctificationē non recedunt à sua natura And Gelasius non esse desinit substantia vel natura panis vini I answere that these Fathers by the nature of bread and wine
vnderstand the naturall qualityes that flow form the nature and essence of bread and wine (a) By substance also they vnderstand not the inward substance but outward corpulency massines of bread and wine for ordinarily and in common speach the naturall accidents and proprietyes of a thing are tearmed the nature of a thing Thus we say to be heauy and fall downeward is the nature of the stone to be hoat and to burne the nature of the fire which are but naturall qualityes of stone and fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speach S. Theodoret Bishop of Ancyra (b) Hom. de natiuit Saluatoris in corr Epiph. p. 3. c. 9. to explicate agaynst Nestorius and Eutiches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the water that Moyses conuerted into bloud sayth That the water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be water which in rigour of speach taking the nature of water for the inward substance thereof as cōdistinct from the naturall qualityes is not true But because water chāged into bloud remaynes according to some naturall qualityes and propertyes which it hath common with bread as moisture liquidnes the like he the better to fit accomodate the similitude sayth The water remayned according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualityes therof For these Fathers (c) These Fathers vnderstood not the inward Nature of bread and wine to remaine nor the inward substāce because they say that the mysticall signes passe by the working of the holy Ghost into another substane yet remaine in the propriety of their nature So saith Gelasius which cannot be vnderstood otherwise then that according to their outward nature and substance they remaine though in their inward nature and substance they be changed and passed into the substance of Christs body and blood bring those similitudes to declare the mystery of the Incarnatiō against the Heresy of Eutiches who denyed the naturall qualityes propertyes of the two Natures of God and Man to remayne distinct in the person of Christ. This errour they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualityes of bread remaine together with the body of Christ in the same Sacrament which naturall qualityes 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 be common to the mysteries of the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper Yet the Fathers know well that the phrase did not agree to both mysteryes equally in the same sense And this obscure vttering of his mind is the lesse to be wōdered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainly as fearing that some Infidells or Gatechumens were present to whom the mistery of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet sayth he apertè dicere est enim verisimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the wordes of Saint Augustine (d) August serm ad Infant apud Bedam in cap. 10. Quod videtur panis est quod etiam oculi renūtiant quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is that consecrated bread is bread in outward appearance and the naturall accidences of bread truly remayne as the eye doth witnesse but in wardly and according to the substance it is not bread but the body of Christ as fayth requireth we belieue And it is to be noted that these wordes are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alleadged by Venerable Bede a follower of Saint Augustines doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood thē who sets downe his mind in these words (e) Beda de mysterio missae apud Thom. Waldens Tom. 2. c. 8. 2. The forme of bread is seene but the substance of bread is not there nor any other bread but only that bread which came downe from heauen (*) The Minister pag. 435. to make a shew of many Fathers addeth vnto Theodoret and Gelasius the testimony of Bertram S. Chrysostome in epist. ad Caesarium Monachum S. Irenaeus S. Damascen Answere The booke of Bertram is of no credit being set forth with many Protestant additions as themselues confesse and you may see proued in a Treatise tearmed The Plea for the Reall Presence agaynst Syr Hūfrey Lynd his Bertrā The Epistle ad Caesariū Monachum is not S. Chrysostomes S. Irenaeus his testimony hath been already shewed to be impertinently alleadged S. Damascen is by you grossely abused as being brought quite contrary to his mind For when he sayth l. 4. de fide c. 14. As a fiery coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not only bread but bread vnited to the Diuinity he meaneth by the bread of the holy Cōmunion not bread remayning bread but bread changed into Christ his flesh To say that bread remayning bread in substance is vnited personally vnto the Deity is impious S. Damascen in that place doth most cleerly shew that he speaketh of bread changed into flesh For thus he writeth Christ did conioyne his diuinity with bread and wine that so by thinges that are common and to which we are vsed we may attayne to thinges diuine and aboue nature for verily the body borne of the Virgin is a body vnited vnto the Deity not that his body assumpted into heauen doth agayne descend in the Eucharist from heauen but that bread it selfe and wine are conuerted into the flesh and bloud of God And a little after A coale is not only wood but wood ioyned to fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not simple bread but bread vnited vnto the Deity But the body vnited to the Deity is not any single nature but the nature of flesh and the nature of the Deity be conioyned together in it Thus he most cleerly shewing not that the bread of the holy Communion remaining bread in nature is vnited to the Deity to make togither with it a personall compound of two natures it were blasphemy so to thinke but that bread chāged into Christs flesh is vnited to the Deity because the flesh into which it is changed is not meere and only flesh but also flesh vnited with the Deity How intolerably is S. Damascen falsifyed by you Being truly and fully cited how fully doth he teach Transubstantiation But such is your Religion you must make a shew of the Fathers to be on your side though you know in conscience they make agaynst you you must patch togither some of their mangled sentences to make a gay fooles-coate for your seely Credents least they seeme naked The seeming repugnances this mistery hath with sense should incline Christians the sooner to belieue it §. 4. THE former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfy were