permisceat ita qui carnem sanguinem Domini recipiat cum eo ita conjungitur ut Christus in ipso ipse in Christo inveniatur Hilarius in Psal 137. Tollit etiam stultissi nam eorum temeritatem qui frustrato falsoque corpore Domini in carne visum esse contendunt non recordantes post resurrectionem corporis spiritum se videre credentibus palpate videre dicitur si corpus Christi incircumscriptum simul in multis locis emitteretur Lib. 8. de Trin. Panis qui de coelo descendit non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Christi membrum est Idem lib. 8. de Trin. Quomodo in his non naturalem intelligis unitatem qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt omnes enim renati sunt ad innocentiam immortalitatem cessat in his ascensus unitas qui unum sint in ejusdem regeneratione naturae Docet enim Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium Dei unitatem Quotquot inquit Baptizati estis Christum induistis quod unum sunt in tanta gentium sexuum diversitate numquid ex assensu voluntatis est aut ex Sacramenti unitate quia his Baptisma unum est unum Christum indati sunt Itaquè qui per rem eandem unum sunt natura etiam unum sunt non tantum voluntate Cum dicit Christus ut sin◠illi unum sicut ego tu Pater unum sumus quaero ut rumne per naturae veritatem hodie Christus in nobis sit an per concordiam voluntatis si enim vere verbum caro factum est nos vere verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est qui naturam carnis nostrae inseparabilem sibi assumpsit nos qui vere sub mysterio carnem sumimus per hoc unum erimus De veritate carnis non est ambigendi locus nunc enim ex Domini nostri professione fide nostra vere earo est vere sanguis et haec accepta et haec exhausta nobis Id efficiunt ut nos in Christo Christus in nobis sit Est ergo in nobis per carnem sumus in eo dum secum hoc quod nos sumus in Deo est quod autem in eo per Sacramentum communicatae carnis sanguinis sumus ipse testatur dicens ego in patre meo vos in me ego in vobis non tantum voluntatis unitatem intelligit sed ut ille in Patre per naturam Divinitatis esset nos autem in eo per corporalem ejus nativitatem ille contra in nobis per Sacramentorum in esse mysterium crederetur ut nos in eo naturaliter in essemus ipso in nobis permanente Fathers as being in your Choice More speciall because that all your Disputers whensoever they produce them for proofe of your Romish Doctrine of Corporal Vnion they esteeme them Insoluble above all others Insomuch that one of your Doctors after hee had objected the Sentences of Irenaeus Greg. Nyssen Damascen Leo and Saint Augustine no sooner nameth the Sentence of Hilarie but prefaceth of it saying This is a more notable Place Another concludeth the Doctrine of Cyril to be so absolutely Romish that he accounteth Protestants no better than Men sold over to the Devill for not assenting to your Common Interpretation of him But this Flash of your Doctor will appeare to be but an Ignis fatuus or a Blind Zeale without knowledge when wee come to this Particular In the Interim that you may know wee meane to deale clearely wee First grant unto you the Scope of either of these two Fathers in their Discourses Hilarius sought to confute the Arian Heretikes by defending a Naturall Vnion of the Godhead of Christ the sonne of God with God the Father Cyril intended to convince the Nestorian Heretikes for proofe of an Hypostaticall Vnion of the two Natures Godhead and Manhood in one person of Christ Secondly wee grant that both the Fathers together with that Generall Councel at Ephesus call the Flesh of Christ which Christians participate in this Sacrament Vivificatricem that is Vivificall or giving life to the Receivers even unto Immortality Thirdly wee grant that they name our Conjunction of Christ by this Sacrament to be not onely an Vnion in Affection and Concord but also a Naturall and Corporall Conjunction of the Body of Christ with the Bodie of the Communicants And Lastly wee grant that one of them addeth a Similitude of the Vnion of Waxemelted with Waxe And yet notwithstanding all these our Acknowledgements and Grants wee presume to affirme that all these Testimonies teach indeed a Mysticall not your Romish Missaticall Vnion by a properly Corporall Touch of Christs owne naturall Body with the Bodies of the Receivers Our ground is the same which wee have often layd in our former Confutations to wit by paralleling this Vnion of the Eucharist as it is to be seene in the Margin with other Vnions mentioned by both these same Fathers in as Aequivalent and Equipollent termes equally named by them both Naturall and Corporall albeit voyd of any Corporall Touch of the Body of Christ as you your selves will grant For the Instances used by these Fathers are divers Some consist onely in Relation and some in Application also The Instance given in the Relative onely is in respect of the Incarnation of Christ when hee tooke the same nature of our flesh upon him which Relation of a Christian mans flesh with the Humane flesh of Christ is universally in all persons at all times even without this Sacrament called by Hilarie Vnio Corporalis Nativitatis Christi that is an Vnion wrought by Christ his Incarnation in our flesh being the same Specifically with his and notwithstanding it is called by him an Vnion Naturall and Corporall and not onely the Vnion of Will and Affection albeit voyd of all Bodily Touch. Next of the Vnions made by Application some are Spiritually onely and some are Sacramentall also Of the Spirituall Vnion which is also free from all Bodily Touch they say of Christ and of True Christians that they are Vnited by the Vnity of Faith which notwithstanding is likewise called by him a Corporall Vnion and not onely in Will and Affection I come to the Sacramentall Vnion Some of this kind are found in other Sacraments and some in the Eucharist it selfe Of others it is indefinitely here sayd that Christians are united by the Sacraments and namely as is confessed The Regenerat by Baptisme have an Vnion Corporall with Christ and not onely in Affection and Concord albeit this also be as you know exempted from all Bodily Touch. Accordingly of the Vnions made by the Eucharist Some are of Christians among themselves and some of Christ with us Of the former the Vnion of the faithfull Communicants as the Members of Christ is named by them a Naturall and Corporall Vnion and not
onely in Concord although as you know this can be no coincident Corporall Touch of their Body reciprocally Thus these holy Fathers And now that you may understand from them Foure several Vnions One Relative Another Spirituall A third Sacramentall in Generall And a Fourth as I may say Eucharisticall peculiar onely to the Sacrament of the Eucharist all of them equally named of these Fathers Corporall and Naturall Vnions and not Vnions of Affection and Concordonely notwithstanding each one of the former Three exclude all Bodily Touch. Wee demand therefore why all these Foure being named Naturall and Corporall Improperly onely the last should inferre a Reall Corporall Touch of Christs Body by the virtue of the same words Naturall or Corporall Your Cardinall giveth his maine reason 2 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 12. Aliud esse apud Hilarium aliqua esse unum naturaliter aliud autem unum esse in alio naturaliter Nam ut aliqua sint unum naturaliter satis est si verè participent naturam ipsius rei in qua sunt unum hoc modo dicit ipse omnes fideles esse unum naturaliter per fidem sed ut unum sit in alio naturaliter necesse est ut natura unius merè sit in alio hoc modo Christum esse in nobis per carnem naturaliter quia natura carnis ejus nobis vere unitur per Eucharistiam It is not the same thing with Hilarie saith hee Some things to be one Naturally and to be one in another Naturally For things to be one Naturally it is sufficient if both of them partake truly of the Nature of the thing wherein they are one and so hee calleth all Christians one Naturally by Faith But to be one Naturally In another it is necessary that the Nature of the one be meerely within the Nature of the other and so in the meaning of Hilarie is Christs Body sayd to be Naturally within ours by the Eucharist This is your Cardinalls Ground of Assoilement whereupon hee relyeth as on a Rocke immoveable which will instantly prove as wavering as a Reed both False and Fond as you may finde in the Marginalls For Hilarie speaking of one of the other Vnions which hee calleth Naturall by reason of Christs Incarnation in taking our nature of Flesh upon him saith that wee are In him Therefore is your Cardinalls Distinction False Next of the very Sacramentall Vnion whereof it is sayd that Christ is Naturally In us it is also as expressely sayd that wee are likewise Naturally In Christ But none can affirme that Wee in true propriety of speech are Naturally in the Body of Christ Therefore is his Answer most Absurd But you will aske how then can this stand with the scope of the same Fathers for the Confuting of the two former Divers Heresies by an Onely Symbolicall and Mysticall Conjunction with the Body of Christ First thus By our Eating and Drinking in this Sacrament according to Christs Institution is professed a Vivificall flesh of Christ giving eternall life unto the world which as these Fathers truly teach it could not do if it were the Flesh of a meere man And therefore he is by Nature God one with God the Father Ergò Avant Thou Arian-Heretike The Second thus The same Humane flesh of Christ would not have the same divine Vivifical power and virtue except it were perfectly Vnited to his Godhead and therefore is Christ both God and Man and that not by Relation of two different Persons onely but by an Hypostaticall Vnion of two Natures Ergo thou Nestorian Heretike Recant The meaning of these holy Fathers is transparent enough by their owne Sentences as is now proved which if it needed any further Illustration might be manifested by the like Testimonies of that Great Athanasius who from this Article of Christ his Incarnation onely whereby his Godhead assumed our nature of flesh spared not to say 3 Athanasius Tom. 1. Orat. 4. Contra Arianos pag 487. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that By his flesh thus assumed of the word God wee men are Deifyed and made Gods So hee without any Relation to the Sacrament at all And againe when he spake of the same Article of Christs Incarnation he hath Relation to a Sacrament and saith as much of Baptisme as either Hilarie or Cyril did of the Eucharist 4 Ibidem pag. 486. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee saith hee being borne againe of water and the holy Ghost are all made alive by Christ and our flesh is no more Earthly but now by that word God Wordifyed and made the same by him that for us was made flesh So hee And so according to the Romish presumption of Arguing from the like words of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist Athanasius must be sayd to have judged of Baptisme I. That the Substance of water is changed II. That by it there is a Corporall Vnion properly with the Bodies of the Baptized III. That by the same the Flesh of the Baptized is made the Word God Which nothing but Stupidity could conceive or Impudencie utter or else Obstinacie defend The miserable Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Objecturs made clearely Discernable by their owne Confessions in granting that the Formerly alleged Testimonies of the Fathers are Not to be taken in a Literall Sense SECT III. ALl the Questions betweene your Romish Disputers and Vs concerning the Speeches of the Fathers objected by them through the whole Treatise of the Masse for proofe of a Bodily Presence is whether they are to be taken Literally and Properly as they sound to the eare or Improperly and Figuratively as they are to be apprehended by our understandings in a qualifyed Sacramentall and Mystical Signification And whether you can conclude from them a Properly so called Corporall Vnion with his sacred Body whether by a Corporall Touch and Tast Mixture or Nutrition and Augmentation thereby or no. You have heard your Doctors object against Vs the naked and Symbolicall Phrases of the Fathers will you be so good as heare them againe both relating the Expositions which the Protestants make of the words of the Fathers objected and afterwards enforced by good evidence to interpret the Fathers accordingly These you Doctors certifie you see the Margin that Calvin indeed Expoundeth each phrase as spoken by an excesse and exuberancie of speech for extolling and commending the Dignity of the Sacrament So hee of Calvin Likewise of your owne Romish Doctors saith your Vasquez Some of the Vniversity of Complutum in Spaine did interpret the words of the Fathers as spoken Hyperbolically And if you shall reject these as the meaner Some wee shall enquire into other Some of better eminencie As namely your Bellarmine and Tolet both Cardinalls your Suarez and even Vasquez himselfe all Iesuits in their Times Let them wee pray you make their owne Answers in order as they have beene Cited First Bellarmine 5 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4 §.
shewed in the Third Booke III. Vpon the same Sacramentall and Analogicall reason they have used to say that wee See Touch Tast and Eat Christs Body albeit Improperly as hath beene plentifully declared and confessed in this Fift Booke IV. Because Eating produceth a Nourishing and Augmentation of the Body of the Eater by the thing Eaten they have attributed like Phrases of our Bodily Nourishment and Augmentation by Christs Body which you your selves have confessed to be most Improperly spoken in the same Booke V. Almost all the former Vnions Corporall of our Bodies with Christ have beene ascribed by the same Fathers unto the Sacrament of Baptisme wherein there cannot Properly be any Corporall Touch or Conjunction at all As for example in saying I. That Wee in Baptisme hold the feet of Christ II. Are Sprinkled with his Blood III. Do Eat his flesh have Vnion with him in Nature and not onely on Affection IV. Being made Bone of his Bone and Flesh of his Flesh V. Thereby have a Pledge of our Resurrection to Life And a Pledge as you have now heard is of that which is Absent Each one of these and many other the like are abundantly alleged in the Eighth Booke of this Treatise of the Masse The summe of all these Premises is that wee are to acknowledge in the Objected Testimonies of Fathers concerning the Symbol and Sacrament of Christs Body their Symbolicall and Sacramentall that is Figurative Meanings And lest you may Doubt of the reason hereof we adjoyne the Section following The Divine Contemplations which the Holy Fathers had in uttering their Phrases of our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body and Nourishment thereby to Immortality for the Elevating of our minds to a Spirituall apprehension of his Body and Blood SECT V. YOur Jesuites Bellarmine Tolet Suarez and Vasquez have already instructed you not to take such Sayings of the Fathers as they are uttered lest the Fathers might be held to be Absurd in themselves or Derogatory to the Dignity and Majesty of this Sacrament And they say well But it had beene better if they had furthermore unfolded unto us the Fathers true Mysticall meaning therein which wee must endeavour to do out of the premised Sentences of the same Fathers to the end that you and wee may make an holy and comfortable use of their Divine meditations upon this Sacrament They have sayd I. That Christ hath a Naturall Vnion by his Godhead with God the Father II. That this Godhead of Christ by his Incarnation is united Hypostatically into our Nature of Manhood in him whereby wee have with Christ our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction III. That by the same Hypostaticall Vnion of his Divine and Humane Nature together his Bodily Flesh is become the Flesh of God his Blood the Blood of God IV. That these being the Flesh and Blood of God are become thereby to be Vivificall that is giving Life Blisse and Immortality both to the Bodies and Soules of the Faithfull in Christ V. That the Faithfull by Reason of the Specificall Vnion of their Humane nature with the Humane Nature of Christ are made partakers the reby of his Divine Nature and of all the Infinite Vivification and power of grace in this world and of Glory and Immortality in the world to come wrought by his Death and Passion VI. Both by Baptisme and by the Eucharist wee have a Naturall and Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ mystically in as much as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine the Choycest Refections of mans Bodily Life are Touched Tasted Eaten and Sensually mixed with our Flesh to the nourishing and augmenting the same untill it become of the Essence of our Bodily Substance unseparably Therfore hath this Sacrament most aptly beene called a Pledge of an unspeakable Vnion of Christs Body with ours unto Immortality and an Earnest of our Resurrection Lastly from this Sacrament there resulteth a Spirituall Vnion continuing in the Faithfull after the Receiving of this Sacrament even all their life long and notwithstanding called by the same Fathers Corporall and Naturall that is as they interpret themselves from the Nature of Faith by believing that Christ had truly a Naturall and Bodily flesh the same Specifically with ours Which Vnion your Jesuites have beene enforced to acknowledge to be in it selfe not Properly a Corporall and Naturall Vnion but Spirituall and Mysticall wrought onely in the Soule But how This indeed is worthy our knowledge as a matter full of Christian Comfort Thus then The Disposition of the Body in Christian Philosophy followeth the Disposition of the Soule For when the Soules of the Faithfull departing this life in the state of Grace and the Soules likewise of the Vngodly passing but from hence into the thraldome of Sin shall resume their owne Bodies by virtue of that Resumption shall be made possessors of Life and Blisse both in Body and Soule and the Wicked contrarily of Curse and Damnation in both according to that Generall Doome Come you Blessed unto the one c. and Goe you Cursed to the other c. Nor will your learned Suarez deny this 22 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp 64. §. 2. Gloria corporis respondet gloriae animae sicut beatitudo animae respondet gratiae charitati ut sicut hoc Sacramentum neque habet nequè haberé potest aliam efficaciam circa gloriam animae praeter eam quam habet circa gratiam charitatem itaque neque aliter pâ—â—est efficere gloriam corporis quam gloriam animae CoÌ„dudit Hoc Sacramentum non aliam conferre vitam immortalitatem corporis quam nutriendo conservando charitatem gratiam The Glory of the Body saith hee dependeth upon the Glory of the Soule and the Happinesse of the Soule dependeth upon Grace therein neither doth the Sacrament any otherwise conferre Immortality to the Body but by nourishing and preserving grace in the Soule Which is Divinely spoken And yet wee have a more Ancient than your Jesuite even Cyprian one of the Ancientest of the Primitive Fathers whose words may serve us for a Comment upon the former objected Sayings of other Fathers Hee in his Discourse of the Supper of the Lord the Blessed Sacrament of our Vnion which the Faithfull Communicants have in receiving it 23 Cyprian de Câ—na Dom. Potus Esus ad eandem pertinent rationem quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia vivit â—â—colum 〈◊〉 perseâ—erat ita vita spiritus hoc propâ—io alimento nutritur quod est esâ—a 〈◊〉 hoc animae est fides quod cibus corporiâ— est verbum spiritui excellentiori virtute peragens aeternaliter quod agant alimenta carnalia temporaliter As by meat and drinke saith hee the Substance of our Bodies is nourished and liveth in health so the life of the Spirit is nourished with this Aliment For what Meat is to the Flesh that is Faith to the Soule and what Food is to the Body that
to be absolutely for it in sound it being just the same Doctrine which Augustine Anselme and Bede * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 3. §. 1. 2. taught when they said that the faithfull among the Iewes Ate the same spirituall meate Christs Flesh in eating Manna and dranke the same spirituall drink that is the blood of Christ in drinking the water that issued out of the Rocke which Christians now doe And therefore meant not a Corporall eating of Christ but a Sacramentall So say wee Christ could aswell then turne Manna and Water of the Rocke into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood for the nourishing of the soules of God's people of those times as he doth now Convert Bread and Wine into the Sacraments of his Body and Blood for the comfort of us Christians This Answer preventeth the Iesuites Objection 10 In his Booke of Spectacles p. 142. The Time saith he when the people received Manna in the Desert Christ was not in his humane nature therefore could not Manna be changed into his Body nor Water into his Blood So he very truly indeed And therfore must AElfrick his speech be understood Sacramentally as hath beene said which because the Iesuite refuseth to do therefore is he at difference with AElfrick denying that Christ was able to convert Manna into his Body which AElfrick said in expresse termes hee was able to do namely thorow his divine power by a Sacramentall Conversion because Omnipotencie is as properly necessary for the making of a divine Sacrament as it was for the creating of the World But was it not then kindly done thinke you of your Iesuit to lend his Spectacles to another when he had the most need of them himselfe by the which he might have discerned that as Christ Sacramentally and therefore figuratively called Bread his Body and Wine his Blood so did evermore all the faithfull of Christ This Lesson * See Booke 2. C. 2. Sect. 10. hath beene manifested by many pregnant Examples in a full Section which being once got by heart would expedite all the like Difficulties To conclude the former Saxon doctrine is againe confirmed by Saint * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was Borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above B. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread be Christ's Body then something was Christ's Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary And this wee are now furthermore to evince out of your Pope Innocent the Third against your Councel of Trent He See the Margent of the former Section taught that when the Conversion is of the forme with the substance then is the Change Into that which is now made and was not before as when the Rod was turned into a Serpent So he shewing that the Serpent by that Change was therefore Made of that Rod. But your Tridentine Fathers you know have defined the Conversion of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body to be aswell in Forme as in Matter whereupon by the Iudgement of your Pope Innocent it must follow that the Body of Christ in your Eucharist is made of Bread and if made of Bread then could it not possibly be of the flesh of the Virgin Because there cannot be a Substantiall Change of a Substance into Substance except that the Substance of that whereinto the Conversion is wrought have it's Originall and Making from the Substance of that which was converted and changed Nor could the Contrary be hitherto proved by any Romish Doctor from any Example out of any conversion either naturall or miraculous which hath beene road of from the beginning of Times Our third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration but First of the State of this Question SECT III. VVEe wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of m Si quis dixerit remaneâ—â— substâ—ntiam Panâ—s Anathema sit Conc. Trident. Sess 13. Can. 2. Anathema and Curse upon every man that should affirme Bread and Wine to remaine in this Sacrament after Consecration which they did to terrifie men from the doctrine of Protestants who do all affirme the Continuance of the substance of Bread in the Eucharist For right well did these Tridentines know that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remaine then is all Faith yea and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera and meere Fancie as your Cardinall doth confesse in granting that n Panis eâ—si non annihilâ—tur tamen manet niâ—â—l in se ut Aqua post Conversionem in Vinum Neqque obstat quòd fouè materia manserit nam materia 〈◊〉 est Aqua Prima â—Ì„oditio in vera Conversione est 〈◊〉 quod convertitur 〈◊〉 esse Bessur lio 3 de Euch. c 18 〈◊〉 cap. 24. §. Ad Alterum It is a necessary condition in every Transubstantiation that the thing which is converted cease any more to bee as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine Water ceased to bee Water And so must Bread cease to bee Bread This being the State of the Question wee undertake to give Good Proofes of the Existence and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist the same in Substance after Consecration Our first Proofe is from Scripture 1. Cor. 10. 11. Saint Paul calling it Bread SECT IV. IN the Apostle his Comment that I may so call his two * 1. Cor. 11. 26 27. 10. 16. Chapters to the Corinthians upon the Institution of Christ we reade of Eating the Bread and Drinking the Cup thrice all which by the consent of all sides are spoken of Eating and Drinking after Consecration and yet hath hee called the ourward Element Bread You will say with Some It was so called onely because it was made of Bread as Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answer is not Answerable unto the Similitude For first of the Bread the Apostle saith demonstratively This bread and of the other This Cup But of Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent none could say This Rod. And secondly it is contrary to Christian Faith which will abhorre to say in a proper sense that Christs Body was ever Bread Or else you will answer with Others It is yet called Bread because it hath the Similitude of Bread as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfie for we shall proove that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration but because it was Substantially still Bread Our Reason is He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament in reproving such as used it as Common Bread * 1. Cor. 11. 22. Not
and formes might be reduced to one Essence that things signifying and things signified might be called by the same names So hee A Catholike Father as all know whom if you aske what Consecrated thing it was which Christ had in his hands and gave to his Disciples hee answereth it was Bread and Wine and not absolutely that which he gave up to be Crucified on the Crosse by Souldiers namely his Body and Blood If againe you demand of Cyprian why Christ called the Bread which he had in his hand his Body he readily answereth saying The things signifying or Signes are called by the same names whereby the things signified are termed âšœ The Marcian Heretike held Bread and Wine to bee uncleane Creatures Tertullian confuteth them But how even by the Bread and Wine used of Christ in the Eucharist Because Christ saith he did not reject his Creature wherewith hee represented his owne Body In which Testimonie the word Representeth being spoken of the Eucharist it must needs note it as a thing Consecrated else could it not be said to Represent the Body of Christ And by calling this a Creature representing Christ's Body he distinguisheth it from Christ's Body And lastly the Heretike teaching the Substance and not the Accidents of the same Creature Bread to be uncleane and Tertullian disproving him by the Sacramentall Bread must as necessarily have meant a continuing of the Substance of Bread as all the Lawes of Arguing do proclame which teach all Answerers and Confuters to speake ad Idem âšœ A x Casaubon Exercit ad Baronij Annal c. 38. Ignatius Epist ad Epâ—es 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad Philadelph de Eucharistia loqueas Panis inquit omnibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comminutus est Vox haec propriè de ijs usurpatur quae iâ— mâ—nutas partes comminuuntur Sunt qui eas micas vocant August in Epist 59. ad Paulinum Cum illud ait quod est in Domini mensâ benedicitur Sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur Idem Casaub qua supra cap. 50. Olim in Ecclesia partes divisas vocabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potiùs quà m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patres in Synod Nicaen Can. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea and Baronius himselfe Anno 57. num 149. Euchristiae partes Tert. de Monog Buccellas August ac Alij Particulas vocant Cyrillas in Ioh. l. 4. c. 14. Chrstus dedit fragmenta Panis Cyprianus de Coena Buccellam de manu Domini accipere And Aug. Burcella See 〈◊〉 5. c. 3. §. 2. Protestant of admirable learning unfolded unto you the Iudgement of Antiquitie from the Testimonies of divers Fathers in saying of this Sacrament after Consecration that The Bread by being divided is diminished that It is delivered by fragments that these are so little that they are to be called rather Bitts than Parts Thus they spake expressely of Bread Consecrated but to say that you eate Bitts and Fragments of whitenesse of Roundnesse and other Accidents who is so absurd among your selves and to affirme the same of Christ's Body who is so impious âšœ Onely it will be our duety to Answer the Objection of Doctor Heskins for proofe of the Corporall presence of Christ his Body who produceth the Cautions which Pope Clement in his second Epistle gave to the Priests and Deacons concerning the Fragments and pieces of that which he calleth Fragments of the Lords Body Charging them 22 Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ That no Mice-dung may be seene among the Fragments of the Lords Portion Nor that they be Suffered to remaine rotten through their negligence We Answer First by the words Fragments of Christ's Portion are to be understood either meere Accidents and then are your Disputers unconscionable to argue from Fragments of meere Accidents for a Substantiall Existence of the Body of Christ Or else thereby you must believe they meant properly Christ's Body and then should you be altogether blasphemous to teach a Body of Christ rent into Fragments and Portions and the same pieces of the same Body to be in themselves subject unto the pollution of Mice-dung Putrification and Rottennesse Here indeed were there some use of the admirable * Below in the fourth Booke 〈◊〉 Nose of Ioane Martlesse above mentioned by your Iesuite to smell out the Abomination of this your Romish Doctrine Somewhat more of this Point when wee shall appeale to the Canon of that famous Councel of * See 〈…〉 c. 2. §. 10. in the Collenge Nice In the Interim wee may well thinke that that Primitive Church which abhorred to think the Body of Christ should be Devoured or passe into the Draught would never have consented as* Shee did to the Burying of the Sacrament which remained after the Communion if they had conceived it to bee Really the Body of Christ Another Inference wee may take from Antiquity in her calling this Sacrament Pignus a Pledge so y Hierom. in 1. Cor. 11. Dominus passionis suae ultimam nobis Commemorationem memoriam reliquit queÌ„admodùm siquis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat ut possit eius amicitias beneficia commemorare Hierome and z Gaudent Tract 20. Christus crucifigendus istud haereditarium munus Testamenti ejus Novi tanquà m Pignus suae Praesentiae dereliquit Gaudentius of the Presence of Christ now departed from us A perfect Argument of the Bodily Absence of Christ by virtue of the Relation betweene the Person and his Pledge And so doth also * Primasius See-Booke 5. Chap. 9. §. 〈◊〉 Primasius The third and last Classis of Fathers may be viewed in the Section following A Confirmation of the same Iudgement of the Fathers acknowledging in expresse termes Bread to remaine after Consecration in Substance the same The First Father is THEODORET SECT XII THeodoret maketh a Dialogue or Conference betweene two Parties being in Controversie about the humane and bodily nature of Christ the one is named Eranistes upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretike for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians who falsly held That the Body of Christ after his Ascension being glorified was swallowed up of his Deitie and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence as before his Resurrection it had beene The other Party and Disputer is named Orthodoxus signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholike Doctrine which Person Theodoret himselfe did sustaine in behalfe of the Catholike Church In this Dispute the Heretike is brought in for Defence of his Heresie arguing thus Even as Signes in the Eucharist after the words of Invocation or Consecration are not the same but are changed into the Body of Christ even so after his Ascension was his Body changed into a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning Substance of a Divine Essence Which both your Romanistes and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes This was that
Heretike his Objection The Orthodoxe or Catholike which was Theodoret himselfe cometh to answer promising to catch the heretike as he saith in his owne Snare by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him thus a Theod. Dial. 2. c. 24. Non post sanctificationem mystica signa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 post Sic illud Corpus Christi priorem habet Formam Figuram Circumscriptionem de summatim dicam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiamsi post resurrectionem immortale immune ab omni corruptione Nay But as the mysticall Signes in the Eucharist after Sanctification depart not from their former nature but continue in their former Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Substance So the Body of Christ after the Resurrection remaineth in its former Figure Forme Circumscription and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Substance which it had before You may perceive that the Assertion set downe in the name of a Grand Heretike is absolutely your Romish Profession for Transubstantiation at this day to wit Bread is changed after Consecration into the Substance of Christ's Body and that also the Assertion of Theodoret in the person of the Catholike Professor being flat contradictory is as absolutely the Doctrine of Protestants defending that Bread after Consecration remaineth in Substance the same Wherefore if ever it now concerneth your Disputers to Free your Romish Article from Heresie which divers have undertaken to do by their Answeres but alas so absurdly that any reasonable man must needs laugh at their Answer and so falsly as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest The Principall Answer is that which your b Non loquitur de substantiâ quae distinguitur contra Accidentia quam in Categoriâ—â posuit Aristoteles sed de Essentiâ naturâ Accidentium Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 27. §. Sed me Cardinall giveth that Theodoret in saying that Bread remaineth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meant not Substance properly understood but the Essence of Accidents So he âšœ Or as your 23 Gordon Ies lib. Controv. 4. cap. 4. num 12. De signorum id est Accidentium substantia loquitur Iesuite saith Thesubstance of the Signes which are Accidents An answer by your leave No oriously Ridiculously and Heretically False First Notoriously false because the Argument of Theodoret being taken from a Similitude and every Similitude consisting of two Propositions the first called Protasis and the other Apodosis it is necessary by the Rule of Logike as you know that the words and termes betokening the same Similitude be used in the same signification in both Propositions But in the Apodosis of Theodoret which is this So the Body of Christ after the Resurrection remaineth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was meant properly Substance because this was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the maine point in Question betweene Theodoret and the Heretike viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same which it had beene in time before his Resurrection the Heretike denying it and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance and not whether the same onely in Quantities and Accidents for those the Apostle teacheth to be alterable * 1. Cor. 15. 34. Corruption putting on Incorruption Mortality Imortality and shame Glory Therefore in the Protasis and first Proposition of that comparison of Theodoret which was this As the Bread remaineth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can have no other signification than Substance properly taken Secondly Ridiculously false because in reckoning Figure and Forme which are knowne to bee Accidents and adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this necessarily is opposed to the former Two as Substance to Accidents Nor was there we suppose ever any so unlearned who did adde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Formes and Figures but hee therby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents Thirdly Heretically false for what was the Heresie of the Eutychians tell us They say c Alphonsua à Castro de Haeres Eurych Negabant Christum habuisse naturam humanam tantùm in eo ponentes naturam divinam you held that Christ namely after his Resurrection had not an humane nature but onely Divine Which word Humane Nature doth principally imply the Substantiall nature of Man and therefore in his comparison made for the illustration of that Heresie concerning Bread after Consecration in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the same signification of Substance as your Master Brerely afterwards is compelled to confesse who to the end he may disgrace Theodoret rudely and wildly taketh upon him to justifie the Heretikes speech to be Catholike for proofe of Transubstantiation Wherefore Theodoret in his Answer Retorting as hee himselfe saith the Heretikes Comparison against him did by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise understand Substance else had he not disputed ad Idem but by a shamefull Tergiversation had betraid his Catholike Cause unto that pernitious Heretike Much like as if one should use this Comparison following As the Moone-shine in the water in the opinion of the Vulgar is truly of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament so a feigned friend is equally as loving as is a Faithfull And another retorting the same should confute him saying Nay but as the Moon-shine in the water is not of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithfull Here the word Love being taken for Loyall Affection by the Objectour if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter to signifie Lust the Disputers might be held to be little better than those Two in * Alter hireum mulget alter cribram supponit A. Gellius where such an Objectour is compared to a man milking an Hee-goat or if you will a Bull and the Answerer to another holding under a Sive âšœ Observe also that Arius the Heretike being required to tell What is Substance Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answered That is Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby a thing doth subsist And 23 Athan. Tom. 1. Disput cont Aâ—ium ubi Arius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cui Athanâ—sâ—â—s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanasius himselfe approved hereof saying Thou hast answered rightly This could they not have said if that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not beene universally taken in the Greeke Church aswell among Orthodoxe as among Heretikes for that which giveth a Subsisting to other things as you your selves will not deny is to be properly a Substance âšœ Here had wee fixed a Period but that wee againe espied one Master Brerely a Romish Priest coming against us with a full careere who after that he had
Place Which being joyned with the former Confession of Suarez already cited affirming it to be a Doctrine Contrary to all Divines to teach the Body of Christ to be any where but only in heaven excepting the mysterie of the Eucharist It will be easie to discerne how little credit is to be given to the Stories which are alleged by Bellarmine of bodily Apparitions without the Sacrament âšœ That the Opinion of the Being of a Body in many places at once implyeth a Contradiction is Secondly proved by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers thereby distinguishing Christ his two Natures Godhead and Manhood one from another by Circumscription and Incircumscription SECT V. ANcient Fathers judged it Impossible for a Body to be without Determination in one only place at one time yea say you they did so but meaning Impossible according to the course of nature but not absolutely Impossible as if by Divine Miracle a Body might not be in many places at once This is your onely Answer and the Answer of every one of your Answerers whereat wee should wonder but that they have given us so often experience what little conscience they make how true their Answers be so that they may be knowne to have answered otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibility and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne and also by their maner of confuting the same The Eutychian Heretikes you a Alfons de Cast cont haeres Eutych know confounded the Properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead pretending as you do the Omnipotencie of Christ for the patronizing of their Heresie As thinking thereby thus saith b Theod. Dial. 2. Dicunt Christi carnem spiritualem alterius substantiae quà m sit nostra caro imaginantur se per haec Deum magnifacere cum tamen falsi veritatem accusant Theodoret out of Amphilochius to magnifie the Lord Christ whereas this was indeed as the same Father saith to accuse Truth of falshood You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire Pope c Leo Papa Ep. 13. quae est ad Pulcher. Aug. Subrepsisse intelligo spiritum falsitatis ut dum affirmat se religiosiùs de filij Dei majestate sentire si ei naturae nostrae veritatem inesse non dicat c. Leo speaking of Eutyches the Author of that Heresie saith that Hee affirmed that thereby he did more religiously conceive of the Majesty of Christ by denying his humane nature whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the Spirit of falsity Therfore it cannot be but that the Fathers in confuting an Heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotency did hold that doctrine absolutely impossible which they withstood as will now more lively appeare by the Testimonies of themselves Theodoret against this Heretike argueth thus d Theod. Dial. 3. lib. 3. ex Euseb Emis Contra eos qui dicunt Corpus Christi in Divinitate mutatum esse post resurrectionem Hos dicere necesse est vel divinae naturae manus pedes alias corporis partes tributas esse vel fateri corpus manfisse in suae naturae finibus Atqui divina natura simplex est incomposita corpus autem compositum in multas partes divisum non est ergo mutatum in naturam divinitatis quidem immortale â—actum divinà naturâ plenum sed tamen corpus quod propriam habet Câ—cumscriptionem The Body of Christ being a compounded thing cannot be changed into a divine nature because it hath Circumscription This had bin no good reasoning except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility âšœ And this 11 Eranistes Heret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex lob Theod. opponit Exâ—mplum impossibilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dial. 3. Cap 4. Et paulò post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret himselfe doth furthermore make good who in the same Dialogue where to the Heretikes Objection out of Iob saying I know thou canst doe all things nothing is impossible with thee he answereth by instancing in examples of Impossibility because of Contradiction saying It is impossible for eternity to be in time or a thing created to be uncreated or finite to be infinite So he âšœ c Vizil lib. 4 cont Eutych Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae loco non capitur per nâ—turam divinitatis suae Haec fides est confessio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roboraverunt fideles nunc usque custodiunt Et paulò superius Quia nunc in Coelo est non est utique in terra Vigilius anciently Bishop of Trent might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent who against the same Heretike distinguishing the two natures of Christ his Humane nature by being Circumscribed in one place the Divine by being unlocable doubted not to inferre saying of his Bodily nature It being now in heaven is not at all on earth And lest that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion hee averreth saying This is the Catholike profession taught by the Apostles confirmed by Martyrs and hitherto held of the Faithfull So Fulgentius upon the same Distinction maketh the same Conclusion saying of his Bodily substance that therefore f Fulgent de persona Christi ad Trasimund lib. 2. cap 5. Vnus idemque homo localis ex homâ—ne qui est Deus immensus ex Patie Vnus idemque secundùm humanâ—m substantiam absens caelo cum esset in terra derelinquens terram cùm ascendisset in coelum Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven and going to Heaven it left the Earth Damascea had to deale with the forenamed Heretike and professing to deliver the substantiall difference of both Natures hee differenceth them by these contrary Characters g Damascen de fide Orthodoxi lib 3. cap. 3. Eâ—rum naturarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 astâ—umus salvari nam câ—eatum mansit creatum increatâ—â— increatum morrale â—manebâ—t mortale immortale immortale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ Paulo suâ—erius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created not Created Capable of mortalitie and not Capable of mortalitie Circumscribed and not Circumscribed and Invisible in it selfe and Visible which notwithstanding is in the Eucharist by your doctrine noâ— Capable of Circumscription because whole in the whole Hoast and in every part thereof and to the very Angels of God Invisible âšœ And yet againe that you may further know that Damiscen is as professedly ours in this point as any Protestant can be hee in confutation of the same Heretike addeth saying How can one and the same Nature be capable at once of two essentiall contrary Differences for how is it possible for the same Nature according to the same to be created and uncreated mortall and immorall circumscribed and uncircumscribed Where by the way you may observe that Circumscription of a Body is accounted
by Damascen to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Essentiall to a Body In like maner Ephraemius in Photâ—us sticketh to the same Argument of difference of natures by reason of Contradiction saying concerning the two distinct natures of Christ That none that hath wit can say that the same Nature is both palpable and impalpable visible and Invisible âšœ Let us ascend hither to the more primitive Ages to inquire of Fathers who had conflict also with Heretikes who gainesaid the Truth of either Nature Athanasius urged Christ his Ascension into Heaven 〈◊〉 prove that hee was as truly man as God because his God head was never out of Heaven being h Athanas 〈◊〉 2. Adversus eos q. trullum nos miraculum 〈◊〉 eo quod carâ—em negant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vndâ—â—rminate in place and uncircumscribed even then when it was Hyphstatically united with the Body being on earthâ— Therefore it was his Body that ascended into Heaven from Earth His Argument is taken from Circumscription even as I l Nazian Epist 1. id Cledâ—â— Hominem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianzen also doth Characterize them Cyril of Alaxandria is a Father whose Patronage your Disputers would be thought often to rely upon hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposiâ—es in the same Answer which hee maketh against certaine Heretikes who held that God's nature is a Substance which can received vision and partition If God saith m Cyril Alex Tom. 2. lib. de T. inir Si verè Sâ— chohem Partitionem Divini naturâ— ut 〈◊〉 dicunt reciperet intelligeretur ut corpus si autem hoc in loco omâ—â—nò li quanta facta esset non effugeret Circumscripâ—â— fol. 89. Cyril should be divisible as a Body then should it be contained in place and then should it have Quantity and having Quantity it could not but be Circumscribed Will you now say which hitherto hath beene your onely Answer to other Fathers that Cyril meant not that it was absolutely Impossible that Quantity should be without Circumscription but onely according to the Course of nature then might the Heretikes whom Cyril confuted have made the same Answer and consequently Cyril's Consequence and Confutation together with the Arguments of the Fathers above-mentioned had beene of no force What shall wee say must still the ancient Fathers be made no better than Asses in arguing that your Romish Masters forsooth may be deemed the onely Doctors even then when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretikes which they devise for themselves but you must pardon us if wee believe that Cyril seeing he durst say that God himselfe if hee were a Body must be in a place as a thing having Quantity and Circumscribed would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of believing * See hereafter Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Christ's Body consisting of Quantitie albeit not Circumscribed in place âšœ The Arguments which wee receive from these Fathers in Confutation of your Romish Faith of believing the same Humane Body of Christ Circumscribed in Heaven and Vncircumscribed on your Altars on Earth are Two The first is their denying the Possibility of Christ's Body to be Vncircumscribed and that upon two grounds One because Circumscription is Essentiall and as Proper to Christ's Body as Vncircumscription is Proper to his Divine Nature without which Difference there should follow a Confusion of his two Different natures which was the very same Heresie which they impugned Their second ground is from the infallible Rule of Contradiction being the extremest Degree of Impossibilitie that can be imagined namely For the same â—ody to be at the same time mortall and immortall palpable and impalpable And yet your Fathers of the Councell of Trent in their wisedomes have Canonized it for an Article of your Faith by teaching a palpable and Circumscriptive Body of Christ in Heaven and impalpable and Vncircumscriptive on Earth It might be held a kind of Impiety not to consult with Saint Augustine in a Question of this moment The Iudgement of Saint Augustine stiled by learned Doctors The Mallet of Heretikes to knocke out their Braines First giving this Caution viz. 13 Aug. Epist 57. ad Dardan where after this Coveat Cavendum ne ità Divinitatem affirmamus ut corporis veritatem auferamus hee hath these words Spatia locotum tolle corpotibus nusquaÌ„ erunt quià nusquam erunt nec erunt Idem Tract 31. in toh Homo secundùm corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non est Deus autem implet omnia ubique totus nec secundùm spatia tenetur locis erat tamen Christus secundùm visibilem carnem iâ— terra secundùm invisibilem majestatem in coelo in terra To take heed lest wee sâ— establish Christs Deity that wee destroy not the truth of his Body Hee afterwards concludeth against the Impossibilitie of a Body uncircumscribed saying Take away Space of Place from Bodies and then shall they be no-where and if they be no-where then must they be no-what having no Being at all Secondly where hee concludeth that Christ according to his Visible flesh was on earth when according to his Invisible Majesty Hee was both in Heaven and Earth hee layd this Ground thereof to wit that A Body removing from one place to another is not in that place from whence it came But our Catholike Article of Faith saith that Hee ascended from Earth to Heaven And therefore by Saint Augustine his Argument Hee was not then on Earth In the third place Discussing the Difference of the two Natures of Christ more fully in respect of Presence in Place for the reconciling of a Seeming Contradiction of Christs words saying in one place I am with you unto the Ends of the World and another place saying You shall not have me alwayes with you he assoyleth the Difficultie by Differencing Christs Natures 14 Aug. Tract 50. in â—oh Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscuÌ„ me autem non semper habebitis Potest sic intelligi Accipiant hoc boni sed non sint soliciti loquebatur emiâ— de praesentia corpoâ—â—s sui Nam secunduÌ„ majestatem suam secundùm providenuam secundùm inessabilem invisibilem gratiam impletur ab eo quod dâ—ctum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum usquè ad consummationem seculi secundùm autem â—d quod de Virgine natus est quodque in Resurrectione maniâ—estatus est non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniâ—m conversatus secundâ— corporis pâ—aesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipuliâ— suis eis videntibus ascendit in coesum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextrim Patris hic est non enim recesâ—â—â— praesentia majestatis Secundùm praesentiam carnis Ec. lesia modo side tenâ—â— oculis
non videt In that Christ sayd saith hee You shall not have mee alwayes with you hee spake it of the Presence of his Body But in saying I am with you untill the Consummation of the World hee spake it of his Divine Majesty Providence and Invisible grace But according to that nature which was borne of the Virgin and after was manifested in the Resurrection You shall not have me alwayes with you So hee Your sole Answer in the Iudgement of your choycest Divines delivered by your Cardinall is this 15 Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchdr cap. 14. §. Denique Augustinus intelligit corporis Christi praesentiam visibilem more humano inter homines conversantis atquè ita se explicat Quare quia conversatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta dies ipsis videnâ—ibus modo side renet oâ—ulis non videt that S. Augustine in denying that Christ is alwayes with us according to the presence of his Bodie understood a visible presence thereof after an humane Conversation with men which hee collecteth from that which followeth in the speech of Saint Augustine That Christ was seene of the Apostles in his Bodily presence after his Resurrection and as his Assension But now saith S. Augustine Wee see him by Faith and not with our eyes So your Cardinall Which is as raw and extravagant a Collection and repugnant to the meaning of Saint Augustine as can be Because the whole scope of Saint Augustine is to shew the Excellency of Christs Divine Nature in respect of the Humane in regard of Presence it selfe and not in respect of visibilitie or any maner of Presence Because the Divine nature by it's Omnipresency is alwayes with us but the other which was seene after his Visible Conversation upon Earth was seene to ascend into Heaven Hee inforceth directly from hence therefore It is not here on Earth Thus It ascended into Heaven and is not here for hee there sitteth at the right hand of God But as for the Presence of his Majesty which signifieth his Deity It is here saith Saint Augustine and not departed from us which is a manifest Distinguishing of the Deity and Humanity of Christ meerely in respect of Hic est Non hic est that is Presence of the one and Not-Presence of the other As also betweene Recessit Non-Recessit in like Difference whereas if according to the Popish Faith the Distinction held onely in respect of the Visibilitie or Invisibilitie of Presence you alwayes teaching that Christs Body is substantially Present on Earth Invisibly in the Eucharist then in respect of the maner of Presence by * Because Saint Aug. calleth the presence of his majestie and grace Invisible â—re the Testimony above cited Invisibilitie there should be no Prerogative of Difference betweene Chists Divine and Bodily Being on Earth against the Conclusive Determination of Saint Augustine in this place Which is also confirmed by that which is further objected in opposition against us out of the last words of Saint Augustine The Church saith hee Seeth not him with her eyes but holdeth him by Faith namely by believing the Presence of his Body But where to wit Sitting at the right hand of God saith hee but not in the Pix or on the Altar The next Testimony of this Father may be that his Malling and braining of the Hereticall Manichees who held a Bodily Presence of Christ both in the Sunne and Moone at once He making a flat Contrary Conclusion 16 Aug. contra Faust Manich. l. 20. cap. 11. Secundum praesentiam spirituasem nullo modo 〈◊〉 pari posset secundùm vero praesentiam corporalem simul in sole in luna in quâ—â— esse non posset Christs Bodily Presence could not saith hee be in the Sunne and Moone at once Yes will the Romish Answer Miraculously it may God a mercy Papist would the Heretike have sayd for I likewise when I sayd it was in the Sunne and Moone at once was not such a Lunatick as to thinke it could be naturally so and without a Miracle The same holy Father that hee might shew himselfe constant to his owne Teneâ— explaining the words of Christ You have heard that I sayd I goe and come unto you â—wirdâ— Hee went away saith hee according to that wherein hee was man in one place and hee remained with them as God and in all places still opposing the Nature of Man and God according to the Different Presences of One-where and All-wheres More Testimonies for proofe of this one point there needs not âšœ CHALLENGE THese so many and manifest proofes of the ancient Fathers concluding an Impossibility of Existence of a Body without Determination in one place may be unto us a full Demonstration that they were Adversaries to your Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence and that all your Objections out of them are but so many forged and forced Illusions âšœ Onely be it knowne unto you that in this whole Discourse the word Circumscription in place is used in a large Acception for every limitation of a Body in a space or Vbi adequate unto the thing Circumscribed âšœ Wee conclude If Christ himselfe gave a Caveat not to believe such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world after his Resurrection * Mat. 24 23. Behold heere is Christ and behold there is Christ then doubtlesse much lesse credit is to be given to your Church which teacheth and professeth an Here is Christ and a There is Christ in the same instant as wee shall furthermore confirme by like verdict of Antiquitie when wee shall heare the Fathers prove both that * See Cap. 6. §. 3. Angels and all Created Spirits are finite Creatures and not Gods even because they are contained in one place and also that the * Chap 6. §. 2. Holy Ghost is God and no finite Creature because it is in divers places at once But wee must handle our matters in order That the Romish Doctors in their Objections have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once from the Iuagement of Antiquitie SECT VI. IT is a kinde of Morosity and Perversnesse in our Opposites to object those Testimonies which have their Answers as it were tongues in their mouthes ready to confute their Objections For Å¿ Chrysost li 3. de Sacerdoâ—â— O miraculum O Dei benignitatem qui cum patre suâ—â—tâ— sedet eodem tempore omniuÌ„ manibus pertractatur Obijcit Bellar lib 2. le Euch. cap. 22 Not considering what went before 〈◊〉 words in the sauâ—e place where â—hrysostâ—â— will not have his heart beleeve that the Priest and people â—â—â—taking doe noâ— in tertis consiâ—st sed ponus in coelum transferrâ— then followeth O miraculâ—â— c. adâ—st enim Sacerdos non ignem gestans sed Spiritum Sanctum Chrysostome saith not more plainly ô Miracle that Christ at one and the same time sitting with his Father in Heaven is heere
and in Hell at once As for the Being of God in divers places at once which was your Cardinalls instance for proofe of a Possibility of the Being of Christ's Body in many places without Contradiction of making One not One by dividing it from it selfe wee know not whether rather to censure it egregiously absurd or extremely impious seeing that the Being of God in divers places at once without Contradiction ariseth from the very nature of Gods Infinitenesse of Being in whatsoever place which is as your owne Schoole might have taught him so as p Aquinas 1â— quaest 52. Art 2. Containing all places and not contained in any which the Fathers have as fully declared in making Being in all places as filling them with his presence to be the property of his Deity Such then is the impiety of your arguing by labouring to defend the maner of the Being of a Body by the maner of Being of a Soule or Spirit denyed by q Nazian Orat 51. cont Apollinar Obijcientem Duo perfecta non continebat Christus vz. divinitatem et humanitatem Resp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut vas unius modij non duos modios continet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Nazianzene and maner of the Being of a Creature by the maner of the Being of God the Creator exceedeth all Absurdities that can be named The holy Fathers will have something more to * Below Chap. 7. Sect. 2. 4. say to you but first wee are willing to heare what you can say for your selves A Confutation of the Third Romish Pretence why they need not yeeld to these Reasons whereby their Doctrine is proved to be so grossely Vnreasonable SECT IV. MYsteries of Faith saith your r Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Argumentum sumitur à mysterijs c. Cardinall which exceed man's understanding are onely to be apprehended by Faith Such as are the Articles of the Trinity of Christ his Incarnation of the Resurrection of the Creation and of Eternity it selfe and so ought this concerning the Presence of Christ his Body notwithstanding any Objection from Reason So you Wee answer Some of these former Mysteries wee confesse to be such as exceed man's understanding yet such againe they are as are not contrary to understanding though above it that is to say such and this you will confesse with us as admit not Contradiction in themselves for it is no Contradiction to say of the Trinitie there is One God and Three Persons because the Essence of the God-head is common to each person or to say in the Incarnation there is one Person and two natures no more than to say that in one man there is one person and two essentiall parts one his Body the other his Spirit or in the Resurrection to beleeve the same that was created might be restored to life more than to beleeve that one grane of Corne dying might revive againe or in the Creation to beleeve that something may be made of nothing than to say that a blinde man was made to see As for the last Objection saying that Å¿ Aeternitas est instans Darationis Bellar. ibid. §. Quintum Eternity is the instant of Duration it is a Paradox for t Aeternitas est duratio immutabilis principio fine carens Lessias Ies Opusâ— Var. de Perfect devia l 4 c. 1. yet is it true that Aeternitas est nunc stans non nunc volans ut tempus Cap. 3. Eternitie is Duration it selfe without beginning or ending which is conceived without Contradiction In all these your former Pretences nothing is more considerable than the miserable Exigence whereunto your Disputers are brought whilest they are constrained for avoiding of Contradictions in things subject to the determination of Sense to pose us with Spiritual Mysteries which are Objects onely of Faith by reason of the Infinitenesse of their properties and therefore may well exceed the reach of mans wit and apprehension without any prejudice unto Truth by Contradiction as if they meant to teach men to put out their eyes and never any more to discerne any sensible things by sensible meanes By which maner of reasoning all the Arguments used by the Apostles against Infidels for proofe of the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ's Body all the Reasons of Fathers against Heretikes in distinguishing of the Properties of the Divine and Humane nature of Christ in himselfe and their former Testimonies in discerning Bodies from Spirits by Circumscription and Spirits from God by Determination in one place and lastly your owne Consequences of many confessed Impossibities concerning Place as the Impossibilitie that God should be contained in Place as for one Body having Qantity to be incapable of a Place and the like are all utterly made voyd For to what end were any of these if your Pretences have in them any shadow of Truth âšœ You other Cardinall Contarenus observed more solidly out of Dionysius Areopagita that the * Set hereafter Chap. 10. Sect. 6. nu 6. God-head differeth from all other things in that it exceedeth all apprehension of man âšœ CHAP. VII The third Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODIE is by making a Body Finite to be a Body not finite SECT I. IF as you have said the Body of Christ is or may be at one time in so many places then may it bee in moe and consequently every-where at one instant This Consequence your ancient Schoolemen taught and your Iesuite a Quasi non possit creatura esse ubique hoc inquam non obstat nam omnipotentiam illi intellexerunt prorsus naturalem quia si non alienâ virtute sed suapte naturâ res existat ubique praesens haec reverà nulli creaturae convenit At nos altero modo non nisi per absolutam Dei potentiam ubiquitatem creaturae arbitramur Valent. Ies lib. 1. de vera Christi praesent in Euch. cap. 12. §. Quae sanè pag. 241. Valentia doth seeme to avow saying What hindereth that a Body may be Vbique every-where at once not by it's naturall power but by the Omnipotencie of God So hee This wee say is to make a Finite Infinite and your old Schoole-Doctors are hereunto witnesses who have judged it b Veterum Theologorum apud D. 〈◊〉 ratio 〈◊〉 est si idem corpus â—ssit esse in â—â—â—â—bus locis simul potest in â—luribus atque 〈◊〉 ubique Et qua â—um eodem Thoma dicunt Haereticum esse affirâ—â—â—â—e corpus Christi esse 〈◊〉 in duobus locis simul quia ubiquâ— esse est pâ—oprium Deo Peste Suâ—rez tom 3. qu 7â— Artic. 1. disput 48. Sect. 4. Hereticall to say That the Body of Christ can be in divers places at once because then he may be in infinite So they And heare you what your Cardinall Bellarmine hath publikely taught To say c Dicere corpus Christi esse vel esse posse in insinitis locis â—â—nul immensitatem divinam
Holy Ghost filleth all things and is therefore infinite in Essence But how is this Infinitenesse of Being in all places proved The Reason followeth in the same place from the Instances of Being in divers places at once If I goe into Heaven Thou art there If into Hell Thou art there also So that still the Argument for the Godhead is taken from Being both There and There âšœ Didymus of Alexandria whom Hierome acknowledgeth as his Master for the understanding of Scripture thus k Didymus Alex. lib. 1. de Spirit Sanct. Hieronym interprete â—xtatin Bibliotheca S. Patrum Tom. 6. pag. 679. Ipse Spiritus Sanctus si unus ellect de creaturis saltem circumscriptam haberet substantiam Spiritus autem Sanctus cùm in pluribus sit non habet substantiam circumscriptam sicut universa quae facta 〈◊〉 And â—ee proveth 〈…〉 pluribus 〈◊〉 in Prnphetis Apostolis c. The Holy Ghost if it were a Creature should have it's Substance circumscribed which because it is in many places at once cannot be circumscribed as all things that are made Vpon the same ground Cyrill of Alexandria maketh the same Conclusion l Cyril Alex. de Spiritu Sancto quod non est Creatura Cum in loco circum scriptione intelligant quae facta sunt Spiritus autem sancti non sit de quo psallit David Quo ibo a Spiritu tuo The Spirit of God is no Creature saith hee because things Created are in one place but of the Spirit of God it is written whither shall I goe from thy presence âšœ Let us fall to Reasoning The Enthymemâ— of the Fathers being this The Holy Chost is in divers places at once Therefore is hee God The Major Proposition you know by the Rule of Art must needs be this Whatsoever is in divers places at once is God So then the Syllogisme or forme of Argumentation must necessarily stand thus Ma. Whatsoever is in divers places at once is God Mi. But the Holy-Ghost to in divers places at once The Conclusion necessarily following is this Con. Therefore the Holy Ghost is God So these holy Fathers every one Catholike without exception pleading for the Godhead of the Holy Ghost By whose Iudgements wee are taught that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth Infallibly inferre a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that therefore the Contrary Profession of a Being of a Creature in divers places or spaces at once is Hereticall because the aforesayd Fathers Disputed against the Heretikes named by 3 Epiphan Haeres 69. Contra Arâ—omanita qui dicunt Spiritum Sanctum esse creaturam creaturae Epiphanus the Ariomanitae who as Pneumatomachi madly oppugned the Godhead of the Holy Ghost Now lest when wee seeke to pleade our owne Cause Wee might seeme to desert them whom you call Lutheranes We held it a part of Brother-hood to take with us an excellently learned Doctor of Wittenberg Iohn Gerhard who producing Bellarmines Objection against them to proove them them to be Heretikes in the opinion of the Presence of Christs Body thus If you give Divine Attributes to Christ's Body as Essentially then are you Eutychians and if you give them accidntally then are you Nestorians The same Gorhard argueth thus 4 Ioh. Gerhard Confes Cathol lib. 1. part 2 cap. 19. pag. 887. In hunc modum bellar lib. 3. de Christo cap 1. contra nos tale producit Argumentum Eutherani docent carnem Christi habere Attributa Divinitatis ex quo sequitur eos vel esse Eutychiâ—nos vel Nectorianos vel Monstrum ex utraque Haeresi Si enim dixerint ea esse communicata essentialiter erint Eutychiani si Accidentaliter erint Nestoriani Respondet Gerhardus Nec Essentiaiiter nec Accidentolâ—â—er ea communicata dicimus sed Personaliter Wee saith hee give not Divine Attributes to the Body of Christ either Essentially or Accidentally but Personally So hee which hath in it a true and Orthodox Sense âšœ CHALLENGE AGaine another Syllogisme from these Premises will set all straight To ascribe to a Body an Omni-presency and power of Being every-where is Hereticall But to say that a Bodie is in divers places at once doth consequently inferre a power of Being in every place as it doth in demonstrating the Holy Ghost to be a Divine Spirit Therefore to attribute to a Body a Being in divers places at once is a Doctrine Hereticall and implyeth a Contradiction by affirming that a Finite thing either is or possibly may be Infinite Adde but hereunto the former * See above Chap. 5. 6. Testimonies of Fathers who have distinguished the humane nature of Christ from his God-head and their denying of all Possibilities of Existence of Angels in two places at once and your Consciences must needes tell you that it was Impossible for the Fathers to have believed your Romish Article of a Corporall Presence in every Hoast Consecrated at one time on divers Altars in your severall Churches What shall wee then furher say concerning the Being of a Body in divers places at once surely that which hath beene plentifully proved already that such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or without Place is egregiously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and absurd as well in Divine as naturall Philosophy because as this whole Discourse sheweth they have verified that saying of Aristoile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ A Vindication of Truth against an egregious Infatuation of the Iesuite Lessius in framing an whole Army consisting of but one man SECT III. AMong other multitudes of Absurdities take unto you the Assertion of your Iesuite Lessius wherein notwithstanding hee is not alone which wee propound unto you not for your Instruction but for your Recreation 5 Lessius Ies Opusc de perfect divin lib. 12. cap. 16 nu 199. Existentia rei non impedit quo minus secundò tertiò quartò centies millies eadem res produci possit Vnde sequitur ex uno homine effici posse integrum exercitum And this multiplication by production is desended by Iohannes Lotâ—us the â—esuit in his Epistle to Conradus Verstius Secundò tertiò quartò Iohannâ—m product posse c. The Existence of a thing saith he hindereth not but the same thing may be produced once twice thrice an hundred or a thousand times so that an whole Army and Host may consist of one man Do you heare your Jesuit telling you of an Army of a Thousand or and if you will a thousand thousands of one man which Army if you shall range into certaine Quarters you shall have in one a Squardon of five thousand of a Horseman in another Five thousand of a Pike-man in a third Five thousand of a Musketier in a Fourth Five thousand of a Pyoner Insomuch that upon such a multiplicity of Productions of this one man the said one man should be sayd to be furnished with all the different thousands of Armour and weapons of Pikes Muskets Pickaxes or Shovells as might belong to so
quibus Divites comparantur cum depâ—â—â—â—â— grave in Sarciaâ—â—â— peccatorum totius corporis privitatem intrare possint per aâ—gustam portam As the Camels Beasts to whom the rich are resembled could passe through the straight gate of Hierusalem as soone as they were disburthened of their loads So Rich men casting off the load of their sins may enter in at the straight gate that leadeth unto life A Vindication of Truth against an Objected Testimony under the name of Pope Hilary for proofe of the Being of the whole Body of Christ in every part of the Hoast SECT VIII VVE are to insert in this place the forgotten Objected words which passe under the name of Pope Hilarie and recorded in your Papall decrees 10 Decret de Consecratione Dist 2. Vbi pars ex Hilario Papa Vbi pars est corporis est totum eadem est ratio in corpore Domini qâ—ae est in Manna quod in cjus figura praecessit de quo dicitum Qui plus collogerat ' non habuit amplius neque qui minus 〈◊〉 habâ—â—â— minus Non enim est quantites visibilis aestimanda in hoc mysterio sed virtus 〈◊〉 spiritualis 〈…〉 Non est quantitas aestimanda ut sub minori quantitate minus sic Corpus Christi sub 〈◊〉 where there is part of Christs Body in the Sacrament there is the whole there being the same reason of this as there was of Manna whereof it is written Hee that gathered much had no more than others and hee that gathered not so much had no whit lesse Which your Romish Glosse applyeth to the Sacrament to signifie that There is no lesse quantity of Christs Body under a lesse quantity of the Sacrament none greater under a greater Our Answer is Three-fold I. That your Doctors could never yet prove the writings which goe under the name of Popes * Legat qai velit nostri Roberti Coci Censuram Scriptorum Decret all Epistles to have beene truly theirs whereof many of themselves have doubted and which some also have denyed II. That the Comparison fighteth mainly against your professed Romane Faith in this very point which you contend for For you teach Body of Christ to be whole in the whole and in every the least imaginable part of the Hoast without all maner of situation therein so as not having the Head above and the Feete below This you cannot deny to be your owne positive Tridentine Sense But the Manna which was diminished and augmented in Quantity by Gods providence had notwithstanding a certaine determinate Quantitie expressely mentioned in the same Text Every man a Gomer according to their families namely every one an equall but yet a severall measure and Quantity for one mans Manna was not the same which another had This agreeth not with your Corporall eating of one and the same Body of Christ Next the Granes of the same Manna for it was like Coriander-seed had their severall situations and distinct places in every Gomer some lying above and some below some on the right side and some on the left side of the Measure which differences you absolutely deny to accord with the maner of Christs being in this Sacrament III. The Comparison will farre better suite with the Spirituall soules receiving of the Body of Christ Every Faithfull one indeed participating the same whole Christ by Faith whether in a Greater or lesser Hoast without all proportioning of his Bodily Dimensions âšœ CHALLENGE SHall not then the Novelty of your Romish Article which was no so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianitie Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Principle Shall not the expresse Testimony of Saint Augustine who as hee was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father so was hee never condemned by any other Catholike Father for this his Doctrine concerning the Existence of Bodily parts according to proportionable Dimensions of Space Finally shall not the affinity which your opinion hath with damnable Heresies perswade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith CHAP. IX Of the fift Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY as the same Body is now considered to be most perfect by making it most Imperfect SECT I NOne will thinke we neede to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church the Absurdities which wee have already heard professed therin under the testifications of your owne Disputers having beene so marvellously and palpably absurd as hath beene shewne Among which wee may reckon this that followeth as not the least prodigious Consequence of your Romish Corporall Presence to wit That your Church of Rome alloweth a Doctrine teaching a Body of Christ now glorified to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sense and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholike Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that hee was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sense and motion according to the liberty of his owne will This Doctrine was above a thousand yeeres Catholike But your now Romane Faith is to beleeve as followeth in the Conclusions set downe by your Jesuite a Suarez Ies Dico secundò corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento potest per se moveri localiter à Deo loquor de potentia Dei absoluta Nam juxta legem statutam suppono corpus Christi nunquam separari à speciebus nec moveri nisi motis illis neque in hac conclusione invenies Theologum ullum aperte contradicentem In tertiam Tho. qu. 76. Art 7. Disput 32. Conc. 2. Conclus 3. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento non possit naturaliter moveri localiter ab intrinseco à propria anima interna virtute motiva naturall neque per se neque per accidens Loquor de naturali virtute non ut est instrumentum verbi operans per virtutem miraculorum effectricem Ratio quia non potest anima movere corpus suum nisi per membra organica quae habent extensionem in locum Sed membra corporis Christi non hoc modo existunt in hoc Sacramento multo minus potest movere species Sacramentales quas nec physice contingere possit neque ad motum voluntatis movere Ibid Conclus ult Potest ut est in hoc Sacramento virtue extrinseca moveri per Accidens quia possunt Sacramentales species moveri ut a Sacerdote Elevando Sect. 3. De sensibus exterioribus Nominales citati dicunt posse Christum ut est in hoc Sacramento ut Deum audire c. Alij hoc negant Sunt nonnulli qui negant id fieri posse de Potentiâ Dei absolutâ ut corpus in extensum à loco aut seipsum videat aut alia Dico non
Infirmities Wee returne to the written word of God When the Apostle for the magnifying of the perfection of Christs glorious Resurrection as the Head by Analogy with the promised Corporall Glory of faithfull Christians as his Members by the virtue of Christs owne Resurrection saith of these Phil. 3. Hee shall transforme our vile Bodies and make them conformable to his owne glorious Body namely according to those Celestiall Dotes and Indowments set downe 1. Cor. 11. Incorruption Immortalitie Glory Power By all which the excellencie of the Corporall state of the Saints is delineated whereby to excite all the faithfull to possesse their bodies in sanctity and to prepare them to Martyrdome for the hope-sake of the glory whereof it is said The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed Wee suppose the Apostle could not then dreame of a Body of Christ without facultie of Sense or power of Motion âšœ You must therefore derive this from him whom Christ calleth the Father of lyes Wee shall give you good reason for this our Declamation That this Romish Doctrine is Blasphemously Derogatory from the Majesticall Body of Christ SECT IV. WHat is this which we have heard Christ his humanity after his Resurection not to have so much Capacity as a Child which is as hee is here to understand or imagine any thing done not the power of a Moale or Mouse which is to heare or see not the faculty of a little Ant so as to move it selfe as if this were not an Antichristian Blasphemy against that all-Majesticall Body and humane nature of Christ which being once * 1. Cor. 15. 44 Sowen in Infirmitie is as the Scripture saith since risen in power Do you heare In power saith the Spirit of God shewing that Infirmitie is changed into Potencie in the Body of every Christian and you have turned Power into infirmity even in Christ himselfe whom you have now transformed into an * Psal 116. Idoll having eyes and seeth not eares and heareth not feete and walketh not heart and imagineth not and yet this you professe to adore as the person of the Sonne of God O the strength of Satanicall Delusion That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle SECT V. REmember your * See above 〈…〉 former generall Principle which wee acknowledged to be sound and true viz. All such Actions and Qualities which are reall in any Body without any relation to Place cannot be sayd to be multiplyed in respect of divers places wherein a Body is supposed to be As for example The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar and hot in another wounded and whole in joy and griefe dead and alive at the same time The reason These are impossible say you because of Contradiction for that the same thing should be capable of such Contrarieties it is repugnant to the understanding of man So you which is an infallible Truth when the Modus or Maner of a thing is compared to it selfe and not to any thing else it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one the same Jesuit cannot be sicke in Iapan and sound and in health at Rome in the same instant âšœ Take you for a Conclusion the Confession of your much approved Doctor who doubteth not to call the opinion which holdeth that The Body of Christ is imperfect to be 4 Petrus Arcad. Corcyren de Concord Eccles Occid Orient Anno 1626. Approbantibus Episcopo Bargi Episc Zacinth Andraea Eudâ—emone Ioh. Doctoribus Facult Parisien Tract de Eucharistia Dicere corpus Christi esse quandoque imperfectum est mira blasphemia Blasphemous Nor may you deny the Disabilitie of Motion in Christs Body to be an Imperfection seeing that as the Head of your Church taught that which all Christian Churches ever professed to wit 5 Innocent 3. Papa de offic Mâ—ssae lib 3. cap. 22. Quatuor sunt corporis glorificati propriae qualitates Claritas subtilitas Agilitas Impassibilitas Agility is a proper 〈…〉 of every glorified Bodie wheresoever it is And you may call to minde the Conclusion of your Iesuite Conincks above-mentioned Cap. 4. Sect. 10. Shewing that for the Same Body to be sayd to move in one place and stand still in another is as flat a Contradiction as to say It is frozen and warme both at once Which hee confirmed in the Margin with severall Reasons which do accordingly confute your Doctrine of Possibility of the voluntary Motion of Christs Body in Heaven and the Impossibilitie thereof as it is in this Sacrament âšœ CHALLENGE NOw say wee beseech you is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time as hee is in Heaven Intelligent and Sensitive and as on earth Ignorant and Senslesse Or Powerfull to move of himselfe on the Throne of Majestie and absolutely Impotent as hee is on the Altar Because these Attributes of Christ being Intelligent and Potent equally have no Relation to Place Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse ignorant and feeble Christ O come out of Babylon and be no more bewitched by such her Sorceries CHAP. X. The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words Of Christ MY BODY as it is now most Glorious by making it most Inglorious SECT I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point wee are willing to heare your a In his booke of the Liturgie of the Masse Tract 2. §. 4. Subd 1. M. Brerely his preface in your defence The carnall maâ— saith he is not for all this satisfied but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd and undecent indignities Calvin saying That hee rejected them as unworthy of the Majesty of Christ And Doctor Willet saith That they are unseemely and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ So hee at once relating and rejecting their opinions That the Indignities whereunto the Body of Christ is made subject by the Romish Doctrine are most vile and derogatory to the Majesty of Christ SECT II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God that is in perfection of glory But your Jesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines d Suarez Ies Dicendum tamdiu conservaâ—i Christum praesentem sub speciebus quamdiu species illae ibi ita permanent ut sub ijs possit substantia panis vini conservari Haec conclusio fere colligitur ex omnibus Theologis Catholicis Scriptoribus D. Thoma c. Sequitur falsam esse sententiam illorum qui dicunt corpus Christi recedere si in lutum cadant species In tertiam Tho. quaest 75. Art 1. Disp 46. §. Dicendum Sect. 8. Rursus q 76. Disp 54. §. 2. Christus non receditx hoc Sacramento donec in Accidentibus talis fiat Alteâ—atio quae ad corrumpendum panem
Naturall but Spirituall So Suarez Not Physicall or Naturall but Metaphoricall So Vasquez But yet how Mysticall it is this will be handled in the next Section Can there then be any thing more Odious or Vnjust than for your Disputers to proclame their Adversaries Heretikes for expounding the aforesayd Sentences of the Fathers in an unproper Sense which liberty They themselves both now have practised and also instructed Others to doe the like by their owne words and examples wherein as they are generally found Contradictory to themselves so are they more particularly one to another For Doctor Heskins objecting the Sayings of Chrysostome and Cyril concerning the Conjunction of Christs Body with ours to be like as when Waxe is melted with waxe in one Vnion Hee himselfe waxed wroth with Protestants so farre as to iudge them Men given over to the Devill because they did not believe them according to the outward letter Notwithstanding your owne Vasquez as you have heard taught that the same words cannot be admitted in the strictnesse of the Termes as also your Suarez and Tolet in saying that to Interpret them Literally were to detract from the Wisdome of those Fathers and from the Dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament itselfe Lastly albeit your * Vide Bellar. quo supra de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 13. supra citat Bellarmine presseth much this Testimony of Cyril wherein the Christian Communicants are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Cariers of Christ yet your Suarez expounding this and that other of Damascen calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Ioynt Bodies with Christ and so partakers of the Divine Nature alloweth no more in the Continuance of this Carying of Christs Body and Vnion therewith but onely a Spirituall that is of Grace and Affection That the Former Objected Testimonies of the Fathers make flatly against the Romish Faith of a proper Corporall Conjunction and Mixture of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants in two more especiall Points SECT IV. ALl the Bodily Conjunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants which your Romish â—aith teacheth consisteth onely in a Mutuall Contactus or Touch of his Body with theirs as your Iesuites every where teach Our Observables hereupon at this present are especially two One in respect of the Time of Continuance of the same Vnion The other in respect of the Persons united together Of the former you professe by your 10 Vasquez in 3. Tho. qu 7â— Art 2. cap 4 Disp 204 Christus tamdiu est in nobis quamdiu speciâ—s in nobis incorruptae perseverant atque extra eas non est antequam corrumpantur Jesuite that Christ is but onely so long in the Bodies of the Receivers as the formes of Bread and Wine do continue uncorrupt And concerning the Persons you hold of this your Bodily Vnion as your 11 Suarez in 3. Tho qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Quoad hoc unio haec coÌ„munis est peccatoribus indignè manducanâ—ibus Corpus Christi Suarez relateth that It is common to the wicked and to the faithfull Communicants of the Body of Christ So you And now O you great pretenders of Antiquity behold a Torrent of Ancient Fathers against you both in respect of Continuance of Time and of the Difference of Persons to wit Irenaeus Origen Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustine Hilarie Cyril of Alexandria under the Confession of your forenamed Jesuites to whom wee may adjoyne both Basil and Theodoret acknowledging that whereas the Vnion which you believe to have with Christs Body in this Sacrament onely by Bodily Touch is Transient during 12 Suarez quo supra Sancti Patres non loquuntur de unione Transeunte ut sic dicam cum speciebus SacrameÌ„talibus sed permanente Durabili no longer than the formes of Bread and Wine eaten and transmitted into the stomacke of the Eater are uncorrupt this Conjunction being indeed momentary They I say do contrarily teach a Conjunction absolutely Permanent even to Immortality it selfe And againe your Romish Conjunction being Common to the wickedest of men and this Conjunction spoken of by the Fathers being 13 Vasquez in 3. Tho qu. 79. Art 2. Disp 204. cap 3. Vnio quam Patres constituunt inter nostram carnem carnem Christi tamdiu manet quamdiu a Charitate Christi non separamur Proper onely to the Godly and Faithfull who are joyned together in Faith with Christ and in Charity with all Christians which therefore you your selves call a 14 Suarez quo supra Non est haec unio corporalis aut Physica sed spiritualis Mystica Et Vasquez quo supra Neque aliam quam moralem mysticam Paties inter carnem nostram carnem Christi intelligi voluerunt Morall and Mysticall Vnion It followeth in both these Respects that you may easily deserne in your Romish Faith notable degeneration from the Judgement of Antiquity The seeming Contradictions of the former Speeches of the Fathers will be reconciled in the next Chapter and the Third Section CHAP. IX Of the Second kind of Objections out of the Fathers from their Similitudes especially insisted upon by Romish Sophisters because of their calling Christ both Feast and Guest and the Eucharist Viands and Pledge Confuted by the like language of the same Fathers in respect of other things SECT I. LEt us looke downe to the Idiome and language of the Fathers and compare their Sayings together and wee shall finde these Testimonies no lesse vehemently than violently and unconscionably objected 1 Hier Epist 15. ad Hebdidiam objected by Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 23. and Doctor Heskins cap. 53. and others Dominus Iesus ipse est conviva convivium ipse comedens qui comeditur illius bibimus sanguinem sine illo potare non possimus quotidie in Sacrificijs ejus ex genimine verae vitis vineae Soreâ— quae interpretatur electa rubentia musta calcamus novum ex ijs bibimus vinum in ecclesia quod regnum patris est Hierome is alleged as calling Christ both Feast and Guest namely by giving this Sacrament to be Eaten of others and Eating it himselfe which you for proofe of his Corporall Presence in the Eucharist Interpret to be Properly understood But wee say not Properly but Figuratively and Vnproperly even as well as are his words following where hee nameth our Drinking Christs Blood the Pressing out with the feet the elect and chosen Vines as also in calling the Church of Christ the Kingdome of the Father Might not these his latter Improper Phrases of Speech have beene cleare Spectales unto you to Diserne the like Impropriety in the former The same Answer may be given to the like objected speech of Chrysostome concerning Christs 2 And Chrysostome also by Doctor Heskins See in the Section following Eating himselfe which is together with the former to be Discussed in the next Section following In the
which is transcendently Religious and Spirituall And the Outward is common to each Degree three onely outward Acts excepted Sacrificing Vowing unto and Swearing by Homages appropriated to the Majestie of God Sacrifice to betoken his Soveraignty Vowing to testifie his Providence and Swearing for the acknowledging of his Wisedome in discerning Iustice in condemning and Omnipotencie in revenging all Perjury be it never so secret That the Reverence used by Protestants in receiving this Sacrament is Christianly Religious SECT II. THeir Inward is their religious Estimation of this Sacrament in accounting the Consecrated Elements to be in themselves Symbols and Signes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ a Memoriall of his death which is the price of mans Redemption and to the Faithfull a Token of their spirituall Vnion with all the Members of Christ and by the incorporation of them in their flesh a Pledge of their Resurrection unto life Secondly their outward Application for testifying their inward estimation consisteth not essentially in any one peculiar Gesture in it selfe as you will a Conc. Carth. 6. Can. 20. Quoniam sunt quidam qui die Dominico slectunt genua in diebus Pentecostes placuit sanctae magnae Synodo cunctos stantes Deum orare debere Durant de Ritib lib. 3. cap. 2. num 21. Hoc ipsum diebus quinquaginta à Pascha usque ad Pentecosten observari consuetum veteres Patres testantur Ratio ex Ambrosio Serm. 21. de Pentecoste quia Resurrectionem Domini celebremus ut Hieron Proem in Epist ad Ephes Non â—lectimus genua non cuâ—vamur in terra sed cum Domino surgentes ad alta sustollimus confesse from Antiquity whether it be in Standing Bowing Kneeling or the like even because the Gestures of Vncovering Bowing and Kneeling are outward behaviours communicable to other persons besides God according to their Naturall Morall Politike and Religious respects Howbeit any of these outward Gestures which carry in them a greater respect of Reverence may be injoyned by the Church whereunto obedience is due according to the just occasions inducing thereunto And where there is no such necessary occasion there the publike observation of the Rites of Communicating commanded by Christ in his first Institution performed namely by Supplications and Praises is a plaine profession of Reverence and more especially that Invitation used in most Churches Christian of the Priest to the People Lift up your hearts and their answerable Conclamation Wee lift them up unto the Lord. It will be objected by Some who pretend to have some Patronage from Calvin that Kneeling at the receiving of the Communion is Vnlawful Every such One is to be intreated to be better acquainted with Calvin where speaking of the Reverence of kneeling hee saith b Calvin Institut lib. 4. §. 37. Iam verò longius prolapsi sunt viz. Papistae ritus enim excogitârunt prorsùs extranâ—os in hoc ut signum divinis honoribus afficiant At Christo inquiunt hanc venerationem deferimus Primùm si in coena hoc fieret dicerem eam esse adorationem legitimam quae non in signo residet sed ad ChristuÌ„ in coelo sedentem dirigitur It is lawfull if it be directed not to the Signe but to Christ himselfe in Heaven which is the resolute profession of our English Church in the use of this Gesture âšœ And the use of Bowing towards the Lords Table hath in it no other nature or meaning than Daniel his Kneeling with his face towards Ierusalem and the Temple For as this was a Testification of his joynt-Society in that religious worship which had beene exercised in the Temple and Altar thereof at Hierusalem so ours is a Symbol of our union in profession with them who do faithfully Communicate at the Table of the Lord. âšœ But to returne unto you who thinke it no Reverence which is not given by Divine Adoration of this Sacrament wee aske Do not you use the Sacrament of Baptisme Reverently you do yet do you not adore the water with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you yield unto the Eucharist All this notwithstanding Calvin his estimation of this Sacrament seemeth but prophane to many of you but the Reason is you would rather condemne him than judge him lest that his Doctrine if it come to examination might condemne you For albeit hee abhorre your Divine Adoration of the Host yet doth he also c Calvin deâ—ens Sanct. Doctâ— advers Westphal Sive utilitas nostra spectetur sive dignitas reverentia quam Sacramento deferri par est pag. 25. Rursus Profani quià sacrae coÌ„municationis pignus quod reverenter suscipere decebat non mirum si corporis sanguinis Christi rei censeantur Ibid pag. 39. condemne every Prophane man who shall partake thereof in the state of Impenitencie To be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ Your next Question will be after this our Discovery of the manifold Perplexities wherein you by your Romish Doctrine are so miserably plunged how Protestants can avoid in many of them the like Intanglements That Protestants in their Profession and Practice stand secure from the first two Romish Perplexities in respect of Preparation of the Elements and undue Pronunciation of the words of Consecration SECT III. OVr Church commandeth that the best Bread and Wine be provided for this best of Banquets the Supper of our Lord yet doth it beleeve that Christ the Ordainer thereof will not deprive the soules of his guests of their desired spirituall Blessings for the negligence of his steward in being defective to provide the Materiall Elements if so be that there be therein according to Christ his Institution the substance of Bread and Wine As for Pronunciation you know Protestants make their Celebration in a tongue knowen unto all the people communicating and in a loud voice according to the universall Practice of the Church of Christ in primitive times as * See above Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. 7. hath beene confessed So that the Peoples eares may be their owne witnesses whether the words of Consecration either by Prayer or together with the forme of Repetition of the words of Institution be truly delivered which freeth them from your Romish perplexity of not knowing whether the Priest hath truly Consecrated by his muttering of the words in an unaudible voice The Protestants Security in respect of the third Romish Perplexity of Adoring in a Morall Certaintie SECT IV. OVr Profession is to adore Christ with an infallible faith and not with a conjecturall Credulity or Probability as wee are taught by the holy Scripture the Canonicall foundation of Christian faith defining Faith to be an * Heb. 11. 1. Evidence of things not seene namely a more infallible apprehension of the minde than any perception of sight can be a faith required of every one which shall approach in supplication to God * Heb. 11. 6. Hee that cometh to God must beleeve that God
yea and in Millions of distant Altars at the same time and consequently in all places whatsoever Now whether this Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence in many places at once was held of the Catholike Fathers for Hereticall it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one onely place not onely Definitively but also Circumscriptively both which do teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the maner of Christs Bodily Being in place as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being lest that the deniall of its Bodily maner of being might destroy the nature of his Body âšœ So farre that the Ancient Father Vigilius * Vigilius B. 4. C. 5. §. 5. testifieth that to believe The Body of Christ wheresoever it was to be Circumscribed in one place was the Ancient Catholike Doctrine of those Ages âšœ To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place sometime in a x Chap. 4 thorowout Circumscriptive Finitenesse thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits and sometime by a Definitive Termination which they set downe first by Exemplications thus y Ibid. Sect. â— If Christ his Body be on Earth then it is absent from Heaven and thus Being in the Sunne it could not be in the Moone Secondly by divers Comparisons for comparing the Creature with the Creator God they a Ibid. conclude that The Creature is not God because it is determinated in one place and comparing the humane and divine Nature of Christ together they b Cha. 4. Sect. â— conclude that they are herein different because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place and lastly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost they c Cha. â— Sect â— conclude a difference by the same Argument because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once and all these in confutation of divers Heretikes A thing so well knowne to your elder Romish Schoole that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in divers places at once in the judgement of Antiquity to be d Ibid. Hereticall âšœ Yea and so Hereticall that it openeth a Sluce for the old raucid Heresie of the Ariomanitae by interpretation Maddish-Arians to â—low in upon us who denied the Holy Ghost to be God as not being every where whom the Primitive Fathers did Confute * See B. 4. C. 7. §. 2. Seven in number by proving the Holy Ghost to be every where and therefore God because Hee is in divers places at once Which was likewise * B. 4. â— 6. §. 3. Tertullians Argument to prove the Godhead of Christ II. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Ancient Fathers in confutation of Heretikes by teaching e Chap. 7. Sect. 6. Christs Body to be necessarily Palpable against their Impalpabilitie and to have a Thicknesse against their feigned subtile Body as the Aire âšœ A whole * Booke 4. c. 8. §. â— Generall Councel of Ephesus determining that The Body of Christ is palpable wheresoever it is âšœ and furthermore controlling these opinions following which are also your Crotchets of a Bodies f Cha. 7. Sect. 6. Being whole in the whole space and in every part thereof and of Christ's Body g Cha. 4 Sect. 9 taking the Right hand or left of it selfe III The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ wheresoever in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse This one would thinke every Christian heart should assent unto at the first hearing wherefore if that they were judged Heretickes by Ancient Fathers who h Prateol Elench haeres Tit. Philoponus Alexandrinus Statuit mortuorum resurrectionem esse viz. rationalium animarum cum corruptibili corpore indissolubilem unionem taught an Indivisible Vnion of mens soules with their Bodies naturally still subject to corruption after the resurrection who can imagine that the holy Catholicke Fathers would otherwise have judged of this your generall Tenet viz. to beleeve a Body of Christ now since his Glorification which is destitute of all power of naturall motion sense appetite or understanding otherwise than of a senselesse and Antichristian Deliration and Delusion âšœ Fie no! for they believed no Body of Christ after his Resurrection but such as is * Booke 4. Cha. 9. §. 3. void of all infirmity and in all integrity most perfect âšœ Yea and that which is your onely Reason you allege to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases to wit i Booke 4. Ch. 5. Sect. â— The Omnipotencie of God the same was the Pretence of Heretikes of old in the like Assertions which occasioned the Ancient Fathers to terme the Pretence of Omnipotencie k Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. The Sanctuary of Heretikes albeit the same Heretikes as well as you intended as a Father speaketh to magnifie God thereby namely inbeleeving the Body of Christ after his Ascension to be wholly Spirituall To which Heretikes the same Father readily answered as wee may to you saying l Chap. 4. Sect. â— at b c. When you will so magnifie Christ you do but accuse him of falshood not that wee do any whit detract from the Omnipotencie of Christ farre be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us but that as you have beene instructed by Ancient Fathers the attributing an Impossibility to God in such Cases of Contradiction is not a diminishing but an ample advancing of the m Ibid. Omnipotencie of God BOOKE V. Your Orall Eating Gutturall Swallowing and Inward Digestion as you have n Booke â— thorowout taught of the Body of Christ into your Entrails and from thence into the Draught hath beene proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaiticall and termed by them a Sense both o Booke 5. Cha. 6. Sect. 4 Pernicious and Flagitious Besides you have a Confutation of the Hereticall Manichees for their p Booke 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 3. Opinion of Fastning Christ to mens guts and loosing him againe by their belchings Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's q Booke 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 1. Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants and r Booke 5. Cha. 6. Sect. 2. Vomiting it up againe when you have done âšœ Besides the same Fathers condemned the Heresie of the same Capernaites * See Booke 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. Chap. 3. â— 2. Ch 8. §. 2. for not discerning Christs words after his speaking of Eating his flesh Hee made mention of his Ascension into Heaven saying When you shall see the Sonne of man ascending where hee first was they did not understand that they therefore could not Eate him on Earth as they imagined because hee should ascend to Heaven âšœ BOOKE VI. This is spent wholly in examining the Romish Doctrine of Masse-Sacrifice and in proving it to be