disposition of his Estate but the Wine in the Cup or the thing contained under the species cannot be so in any proper sense Again 't is uncertain how the blood in the Cup can properly be called the New Testament in his blood for the blood is a physical a Testament is a moral thing yea 't is uncertain whether Bellarmin's * Explanation of the L. 1. de Eucharist c. 11. words be sense This blood under the species is the New Testament under his blood so that 't is doubtful when they have done all they can whether they can explain these words without a figure Secondly They are perplexed about the meaning of these words as what is meant by hoc est corpus meum for if they cannot resolve what is meant by this Pronoun hoc then they cannot determine what is the full meaning of this Proposition indeed Bellarmin * L. 1. de Euchar. c. 10. tels us Vera est Catholicorum sententia qui volunt illud Hoc non demonstrare panem sed rem contentam sub speciebus panis c. That the opinion of Catholicks was true who say this Pronoun Hoc doth demonstrate not the Bread but a thing contained under it which although it was Bread before yet it is now the Body of Christ But he that consults the Romish Writers will find that Bellarmin only hides their quarrels and obtrudes his own opinion for a general Doctrine Johannes de Rhada * Controv. 5. de Sacr. Euchar. Art 4. acknowledges the perplexity of their Doctors some say the Pronoun Hoc demonstrates the species of bread because the Pronoun must signifie a sensible thing which exists when the designation is made and remains when the signification of the word is finished but there is nothing in the Sacrament which is sensible when the words began to be pronounced and when they are ended besides the accidents first it must signifie the Accidents Some say that this Pronoun demonstrates the body of Christ as it is in it self or intending the body of Christ in Heaven which when the words are spoken begin to be in the Host * Occam quod lib. vet q. 2. and so the words signifie this body is my body Some say it designs the substance of bread under those accidents and so the sense is The bread passes into the body of Christ hoc est * Bonavent q. 1. Art 1. in 2. part dist 8. lib. 4. ad hujus verbi prolationem hoc totum transire in corpus Some say it designs something common to the substance of bread and the Body of Christ under this reason of being contained under the species and so the sense should be hoc quod sub his acccidentibus continetur est corpus meum that which is contained under these accidents is my body and this he pretends both Thomas and Scotus holds But still the perplexity remains what that is which is contained under these accidents when they first say Hoc for 't is not the body till the words are ended If it were the bread then the Proposition is true this bread is my body and that they will not gâ—ant Again the subject of the Proposition must have a distinct sense when first our Saviour took the bread into his hand and said this is there must be some meaning of that part of the Proposition that Demonstrative pronoun Hoc must refer to some thing present * Bellar. l. 1. de Sacr. Euchar c. 11. § h. â—c expl and that which is evident to the senses and not barely apprehended by the imagination what can that be but only bread which they confess was existing during the speaking of the words Thirdly they are perplexed whether this Transubstantiation be wrought by the Prayer of Consecration or the words of Institution that it was wrought by the Prayer as well as the words was the opinion of some that the Consecration was the same with the blessing and giving of thanks was the opinion of Thomas Durand Hugo Cardinalis c. yet still how this can be is wholly intricate and perplexed for if our Saviour Consecrated by blessing and giving of thanks then he consecrated by Prayer but that they will not say for they now conclude he Consecrated by those words hoc est corpus meum as it is determined by the Council of Florence * Conc. Flor. in Instruct. Armen that our Saviours words by which he made the Sacrament are the form of it and that by the virtue of those words the Consecration is wrought and so it is explained in the Roman Catechisme We are taught saies the Catechisme by the Evangelist's Mathew and Luke and by the Apostle this is the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist hoc est corpus meum well but still they are perplexed in what sense the Priest uses these words for some think they are only repeated Historically * Salmero tract 13. tom 9. Soto Art 5. q. 1. dist 11. but they cannot work this change for so they only shew what was done by our Saviour in the first celebration of the Sacrament others say that they are spoken significatively i. e. that the Priest speaking in the person of Christ signifies the turning of that bread into the body so saies the Florentine Council Sacerdos loquens in persona Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum but this will not agree with the Canon of the Mass where they are repeated Historically for after the Prayer that God would make that offering to be to us the body and blood of his Son Jesus Christ 't is immediately added in imitation of the Apostles recital of the Story who the day before he suffered tooke bread into his holy and venerable hands and lifting up his eyes unto Heaven to thee his Father God Allmighty gave thanks he blessed brake and gave to his Disciples saying take eate all of this for this is my body now what connexion can there be betwixt these latter words and the former unless they be joyned as part of the History or what sense in the former words he brake and gave to his Disciples saying take eate all of this if they break off abruptly the repeating of the Story and do not add these words hoc est corpus meum Thus they are perplexed on either hand and first to avoid this intricacy they have divised a new way that these words should both be taken recitativè and significativè both as part of the Story and as the Priests words in the person of Christ by virtue of them turning the bread but still how can this be that the same words should be both a repetition of a former Story and the production of the like effect how is this intelligible that the same word without any variation should be used for these different purposes both to relate what was done and to work the same thing over again and further in the Consecration of the blood 't is added qui pro
vohis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum * Canon miss in missali Rom. Paris 1631. which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins now if these words be understood significatively then they are utterly false as Durand argued because the body of Christ must suffer no more nor the blood be shed thus whether these words shall be taken narratively or significatively or joyntly their Doctors cannot agree and are wholly perplexed to solve the difficulties and yet maintain their Ground Fourthly they are perplexed whether this conversion be productive or adductive or Conservative and so Bellarmine acknowledges that though they agree there is a transubstantiation i. e. conversion of the bread into the body and of the wine into the blood for the authority of the Councils and Church yet in the manner of explaining it they differ for they find so many difficulties in stating the manner of this conversion that though they maintain the decree in the termes of it yet they are perplexed to find the sense i. e. they professe to believe transubstantiation but when they come to tell us what they mean by it they then confesse they believe they know not what For first If this conversion be productive then the body of Christ should be made by these words hoc est eorpus meum but that which already hath it's being cannot by that action receive it's being for it is supposed to have its being before that action Again Every new reall action must have a new reall terme but there can be here no new reall terme because the terme was praeexisting as Io. de Rhada * In 4. lib. sent Con. 7. Art 2. Concl. 3. argues again Albertinus * Coroll tom 2. Cor. 3. dub 3. concl vins § 13. urges this argument if the word doth produce the body then the body of Christ did concurre as an instrument to the production of it selfe but that is a contradiction that the body should be made substantially by it self for then it should be both before and after it self before it self for it is presupposed to that Action by which it should be produced after it self as it is made by that Action and by this means the same thing would be both effect and cause in the same kind i. e. the body of Christ would be the cause of the Action by which it was produced and that Action is the causality or manner by which the body is produced This way of Conversion productive they now dislike though it most agree with the Letter of the Canons for they say the bread is substantially turned into the body of Christ * Conc. Rom. sub Nicol. 2. Greg. 7. they compare this to the turning of water into Wine but the Wine was produced in that miracle they have been used to say the Priest in the Sacrament creates his Creator yea Pope Vrban in the Roman Council makes this his pretence against doing Homage to the Laity for Ecclesiastical honours because it was nimis execrabile manus quae in tantam eminentiam excreverint ut Deum cuncta creantem suo ministerio creent c. because it was abominable that those hands which are advanced to that honour to create God who created all things should be the Servants of those hands which are daily defiled with obscene infection this way of production though it was not defined yet was thus publiquely pleaded by a Pope in Council but is now rejected Secondly If this Conversion be conservative then it will be wholly unintelligible for conservation is the continuance of creation or a continuance of that which already hath its being either first they meant that by the words of Consecration was wrought a Conservation of the body of Christ which was in heaven or a conservation of it under the Sacramental species it cannot be meant that there is wrought a conservation of it under the species unless there had been first an action creandi for it cannot be thought that a thing is conserved there where it is not supposed first to exist but according to them before these words the body did not exist there so it could not be conserved there nor can it be meant of a conservation of the body in Heaven for conservation is the continuance of an Action but here is a new Action and a new dependence wrought by the force of the words of consecration as Albertinus argues * Tom. 2. Corol. 3. dub 3. n. 7. This pretence of conservation hath few maintainers first let us consider the third way which Bellarmine calls communiorem tutiorem viam the more common and safe way of Thomas and other grave Divines I mean adductive conversion i. e. by the words the body of Christ is not made to exist simply but to exist under those species that the bread ceases to be under those accidents and the body begins to be under them that the body succeeds to exist under those accidents not by having a new substance but only a new presence but here they are all together perplexed for if it succeed here where the bread was it must either change place or be produced as Thomas instances in fire if it begin to be in the House where it was not before either it must be brought in hither or be generated here that it doth not change places is plain for then it should leave Heaven when it was adduced under the species of bread on Earth if they say it must be produced here how can that be how can it be produced and not have its being produced or how can it be said that the substance of bread is turned into the substance of the body when no new substance is made but only the substance exists in a different ubi or that one substance passes into another when the one onely succeeds the other or how should it be the most perfect manner of Conversion as Bellarmine saies when there is no change in the Nature of the body but only it is vailed under other accidents when there is no new substance but only a new presence yea Rhada saies out of Scotus * Part. 4. Cont. 6. Art 1. Concl. 3. there is no proper change at all or how can it be most fitly cal'd Transubstantiation yea properly and conveniently as the Council of Trent saies when this conversion of the whole substance of bread into the whole substance of the body is no more then that the one existed where the other did and the term ad quem of this conversion is not any substance but an accidentalis modus a presence where it was not before There are some other inventions wherewith they labour to solve these perplexities but what one thinks that he builds another soon pulls down and there be so many contrary opinions in stating this conversion that 't is easy to see they could not satisfie others who are so wholly unsatisfied themselves Thirdly there
are so many intricacies about the species themselves where they are subjected what Vnion betwixt the body of Christ and those accidents whether this body be an Organical body or no when it ceases to be under the species if there be no substance of bread what then is broken what chewed what digested what is it which nourishes what is it which breeds worms c there are so many intricacies that those who stifly maintain this Doctrine of Transubstantiation know not how to winde themselves out I instance in some few things First what is it that is broken either the body or the species it cannot be the body for the body cannot be divided into parts and first to say that the body is broken and chewed by the teeth unless they be understood in a sound sense in majorem incides haeresin quam ipse habuit Berengarius saies the Gloss * Gloss in Can. Bereng de Consecr dist 2. and yet in these words Berengarius was forced to recant panem vinum non solum esse Sacramentum sed verum corpus c. in veritate manibus Sacerdotum frangi fidelium dentibus atteri †Can. ego Berengâ— ibi that the body was in truth held in the Priest hands broken and chewed with the teeth which words saies Serenus Cressy are far from being justifiable unless they be understood Sacramentally i. e. for the outward species which yet he sees cannot be for it 's said not only is a Sacrament but the body c. and is in truth held in the Priests hand broken and chewed and if it be so then Pope Nicholas and the Council erred which prescribed this recantation and how will he swallow that it cannot be the species for no man can break or chew colour or savour or figure c. but only some substance Secondly what is it that nourishes it is either the body or the species First it cannot be the body for the body of Christ cannot be turned into our bodies otherwise Christs body could not be whole for thousands of men must have part of his body It is nourishment to us saies Cressy but not after a Carnall manner â—ut how can this be for if it be not nourishment after a Carnal manner then it must be after a Spiritual and how can our bodies be nourished Spiritually If there be nourishment there must be something digested but Christs body is not turned into our bodies by digestion saies he If there be nourishment then something must be added to our bodies but Christs body is not added to our bodies Let him first either shew how bodies can be nourished Spiritually or confess that he speaks what he doth not understand Some first among them say The body ceases to be under the species when it comes into the belly others say while it is in the mouth others that while the species remains the body remains and first while the species are in the belly the body of Christ is there * Lindwood in Conâ— prov de sum trin c. altiss p. glutiant but the Gloss on the Canon non iste de consecrat distinct 2. saies the body doth not come down into the belly quousque verò pergulam procedat nescio how far it goeth into the Throat I know not yet he concludeth 't is not digested as other meats are nor passes into the nourishment of the body for it is the food of the Soul and not of the body Well can it be the species Secondly that also is uncertain for nourishing is the reparation of a substance not of accidents and first must be by a substance and not barely by accidents in nourishing the food must be transmuted into the body and how can accidents be so to salve all this God must afford some matter either restore the former matter of bread or produce some new matter or which is most miraculous to me all this must be done without a miracle saies Bellarmine * L. 3. de Euchar. c. 24. resp ad arg 6. for the Naturall Order of things require it i. e. when the dispositions requisite for introducing the form are made after the previous alteration of the species then the order of things requiring it God must substitute matter but what assurance hath Bellarmine that all these things shall be as he fancies that the accidents shall be disposed without matter in which they should be subjected that when these material dispositions are perfected God will substitute matter many such things there are which will trouble him to resolve All this shews that this is a most perplexed Doctrine for if the substance of bread be gone what can nourish it must either be the body or the species and yet neither of these can they certainly fix on Thirdly what is it that is corrupted as when worms are generated of the Host it cannot be the body for God will not suffer his holy one to see Corruption If they say the species neither can that be for Corruption is properly of substance neither can the worms be generated of bare accidents as of colour figure or the like there must be then some new matter created into which the form of worms must be introduced and how strange must this be that men to free themselves from these perplexities are forced to shelter themselves under pretence of multitude of miracles of which not one can be perceived by our senses Durand mentions eleven miracles in Transubstantiation * Rationale div offic l. 4. c. 12. and yet there is not the least appearance to our senses that there is one yea to clear themselves from the perplexities which attend this Doctrine they are forced to fly to more Thomas Aquinas †Part. 3. q. 75. art 8. arg 3. saies there are plura difficiliora c. more difficulties than in the creation And Scotus * In 4. lib. sentent dist 11. q. 3. objects to himself that this one opinion is the occasion of turning all Philosophers and those that follow Natural reason from the faith for they would think that there are greater inconveniencies supposing there be no substance of bread remaining than in the article of the Incarnation propter haec fidem patere contemptui omnium sequentium rationem this exposes Religion to the contempt of all that follow reason for to believe that which seems so much both against sense and reason and so little appearance of revelation to defend it is strange to wise and rational men who know not how to digest such uncertain doubtful and absur'd opinions unless they can bring their faith to believe what they judge impossible The sum of this second argument to prove the perplexities of the Romish Church in the Doctrines she hath defined is taken from the uncertainties intricacies and perplexities in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Thirdly I instance in the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints the Council of Trent * Sess 25. de Invocatione c.
Sancta Trinitas c. And in this the Priest saies he offers this oblation for the memory of our Saviours Passion Resurrection and Assention and in the honour of the Blessed Virgin St. John Baptist and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul that it may profit them for their Honour and us for our Saâ—vation now of what doth the Prayer mean take it either of the Elements or of Christs body yet I understand not how they can offer for the Saints honour how they can intreat God to receive Christs body in honour of his Saints how an immediate act of adoration to God can be said to be profitable for their Saints honour or if it may be profitable to increase their glory how it can stand with their own tenents that it is impious to pray for a Martyr when yet they pray for St. Peter and Paul ut iis proficiat ad honorem but of this more afterwards Thirdly After the Consecration it is said we offer unto thy excellent majesty of thy own gifts a pure Host a holy Host the holy bread of Eternal life and the Cup of Eternal Salvation super quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris upon which things vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene countenance c. Now this is absur'd that we should pray that God would look propitiously on his own Son in whom he is allwaies well pleased or that God would accept this Sacrifice of Christ when it is that sweet smelling Sacrifice which God allwaies doth accept Indeed Bellarmine gives us an excuse for the harshness of these words and faies the offering in respect of the thing offered and of Christ the principal offerer alwaies pleases God yet in respect of the minister or people who offer with him it may not please God and ê‘o they pray that God would look propitiously on this gift as it is offered by them but this evasion will not serve for they tell us that the value of this Sacrifice is not ex opere operantis from the condition or worth of the minister but ex opere operato from the nature of the thing it self because it is done as the Law requires * Bell. l. 2. c. 4. de Missa ◠〈◊〉 â— sâ—cundo and ê‘o it pleases God though he who offer it do not please him †§ tertium est so that since the value of the Sacrifice is wholly from the thing that is offered ê‘o as it is offered by us or not offered by us doth no way alter the acceptableness of it to God but still the prayer must remain absur'd for they pray that God would look propitiously on the body and blood of Christ and accept them when God allwaies doth accept them and can never be displeased with them Fourthly There is a fourth prayer which begins supplices rogamus c. There they pray that God would command these things to be carried by his holy Angels unto the high Altar in the sight of his Divine Majesty c. Now what are these things if they say the prayers of the faithfull that cannot be meant for this prayer is to the thing spoken of in the former prayer and that was the body and blood of Christ the holy bread of Eternal life and the Cup of everlasting Salvation if they say that they are the body and blood of Christ as it is plain from the words that they are then these have been long since in Heaven and Christ lives there to make intercession for us how then can they be carried up into Heaven and ê‘o he fixes another sense * l. 2. de Missa c. 24. Sect. respondâ—â— that those expressions must be understood spiritually and signifie only this that the Angels by their prayers commend our obedience to God but still he forgets that the things here in the prayer are not our obedience and service but the body and blood of Christ that there is no mention of our obedience and service in that prayer but both this and the former prayer are connected with those words we offer to thee a pure Host an holy Host an undefiled Host the holy bread of Eternal life and the Cup of everlasting Salvation for they subjoyne in the next words upon which things vouchsafe to look propitiously c. and then follows this prayer we humbly beseech thee command these things to be carried c. it must then be meant of his body and blood but how unreasonable is it to desire the Angels may commend the Sacrifice of Christ with their prayers or that their prayers should assist to render the Sacrifice of Christ acceptable as if any thing should add any worth to Christs Sacrifice but if this will not remove the incongruities of this expression Durand * Rational Div. Offic. l. 4. c. 44. â—it E. tells us tantae profunditatis sunt haec verba ut intellectus humanus vix ea sufficiat penetrare These are such profound expressions that humane understanding can hardly pierce into them well said a good excuse for non-sense to call it a profound expression or to condemn the weakness of our understandings when 't is the absurdity of their words these are fine things to please them who are wont to admire every thing in the Romish Church like those Courtiers which cry up the Princes stammering for a grace in his speech a strange thing that those expressions must pass for most Divine which have least reason and sense Thus I have instanced in several absurdities untruths and impieties in the Offices of the Romish Church which justifie my third argument That it is unreasonable to be obliged to believe that to be the purest Church whose publique Offices are very corrupt but the Offices of the Romish Church are so ê‘o CHAP. IV. MY fourth Consideration shall be drawn from the Irreconcileable opposition of their prayers to their publique Doctrine very many prayers which are contrary to their present Innovations are expunged and many prayers yet retained cannot be reconciled with their present Doctrine ê‘o we have no reason to adhere to the present Romish Church First Many prayers which were contrary to their present innovations are expunged this is not only our complaint but of one that lived and died in the Roman communion Johannes Marsillius * Defesadis Gio. Marsilio Della 4. prop. contra iâ— Cardâ— Bellarminoâ— â—aies it is a thing known by all that in the books of Councels of Canons and of the Doctors yea in the Breviaries and Missals those places are expunged which speak in favour of the Laity that they might see if they could establish from Antiquity the opinion of the Popes illimited power in temporals so that he who compares the Books Printed in 1530 and 1550 and those at present i at the time of the interdict of Venice will wonder that we have found after such a vintage any gleanings in defence of our Prince and ê‘o first I will give you his Instance