mans face in the divers fractions and pieces of a Broken glasse âšœ CHALLENGE BVt the Doctor was answered that the Example is many thousand miles remote from the Cause for our Question is of the Presence of the same Body in divers places at once Wee say the same Body but this your Example of Word or Voice which you Both call the same is not individually the same in every mans hearing as is here affirmed but onely the same in kinde by a multiplication of the sounds and words uttered as Philosophy teacheth Like as wee see in throwing a stone into the water it maketh at the first a Circle and circle multiplieth upon circle till the last come to a large Circumference Even so the * Verbum quasi â—aërem verberans Cicero Word by Voyce breaking thâ— Ayre doth make in the Ayre Circle upon circle till a â—ound come to the eares of the hearers every of the parts of the Circle being articulated through the multiplication of the first forme from the severall emanations of the Rayes the divers eares do no more receive the same individuall Voyce than they do the same individuall Ayre whereby the Voyce is conveyed So that this Example is no more in effect than to prove the same Body in divers places at once by the sound of a word in many mens eares which is not individually the same and serveth for nothing rather than to make the Disputer ridiculous Thus was that Doctor answered when hee confessed of the voice of the Preacher in the Pulpit which is received by multitudes of Hearers and of his other Example of a colour of a red Cow by multiplication of it's formes seene of thousand men's eyes at once that it is not Numerically the same âšœ And this you must grant whether you will or no because if as your Doctor hath * A little above at Num. 2. confessed See the Margin the Voice be nothing else but Ayre moved then seeing the Ayre which entreth into one mans eare is not the same with that which is received into another man's eare the voice which is an Articulate impression of the Ayre can be said to be no more the same than are the eares of the Hearers Which is furthermore demonstrable in this that the voice is more and lesse perceived of men according to their distances in place from the Speaker some hearing it more and some lesse some in whole and some in part But more and lesse cannot accord to one and the selfe-same thing âšœ Take unto you a cleere Example which is also your owne and Apposite when in a * See the Testimoâ—iâ— last proceding of Ioh. Garietius Looking-glasse broken into many pieces you see many faces all of them being but so many multiplied and reflected Images of one face you may see that every Image in every broken piece of the glasse is not individually the same âšœ For so many Apparitions in the Glasse are by the Confession of your owne 3 Aâ—uin part 3 qu. 76. Art 3 Resp Quod totus Christus est sub quâ— libet parte specietum Panis hostâ—â â—â—egrà manente Quidam exemplum ponunt in imagine quae apparet in speculo quae apparet una in speculo integro in speculo autem fracto apparent singulae in singulis partibus Quod autem noâ—â—e simile quia multiplicatio hujusmodi Imaginum accidit speculo propter diversas reflexiones ad diversas partes speculi Hic autemâ—â— non est nisi una Consecratio propter quam Christus dicitur esse in hoc Sacramento Aquinas so many divers Reflections âšœ Wherefore these kinds of Instances are but Mountebanke-trickes devised to delude men that Love darkenesse better than light It might seeme to be a superstitious diligence to confute such sottishnesse with the serious judgement of any grave Father otherwise c Greg Naz. Orat. 51. Vnius corporis locus duorum aut plurium non est capax sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregory Nazianzen is at hand ready to tell you that there is as great a difference betweene Bodies and Voices or Sights as there is betwixt Bodies and Spirits so that whereas two Bodies cannot be in one place yet voices and sights 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are by an Incorporeall maner apprehended so that the same Eare is capables of many Voices and the same sight of many Visibles A Confutation of their second and third Reasons taken from the Similitude of mans Soule or Presence of God devised to demonstrate a No-Contradiction of a Bodies Being in two places at once SECT II. TWo other d Argumentum sumitur ab exemplis Dei animae rationalis Deus est unus in infinitis locis indivisibilis anima humana est tota in qualibet parte corporis Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Instances you have whereby to maintaine your supposed Bodily Presence in two places at once one is in mans Soule the other in God himselfe First wee will enquire into the nature of the soule Our exception against a Bodies Being in divers places at once is by reason of the distance betweene place and place for it is farre lesse than imaginable that one Body should in one and the same moment be at Toledo in Spaine and at Paris in France and yet not to be in the intermediate Space betweene both which divideth Toledo from Paris But the Condition of the humane Soule is utterly different for it is in the Bodily members not as a Body in divers places but as a forme in its owne matter being virtually and operatively in each part nor having Quantity and extension the unseperable properties of a Body but by a formall perfection As containing the Body and not contained thereof c Anima est in corpore ut continens non ut contenta Aquin 1. qu. 52. Art 1. saith your Aquinas For the Soule is so in the head and foot that it is aswell in the parts and members betweene both and therefore not being possibly severed from them cannot be said to be divided from it selfe Insomuch that if any member of the Body as for example the hand should be cut off and divided from the Body the Soule being indivisible ceaseth to be therein So utterly dissonant is the Soules Being in divers places Saint Augustine will tell you in the VIII Chapter following Section 6. that there is in this respect a Greater difference betweene a Soule and a Body And another Father will illustrate the like difference betweene Bodies and Angelicall Spirits in the next Section Nay and your Cardinall having * See above Ch. 3. Sect. 3. confessed already that It is not possible by any divine power that a spirit should be divisible after the maner of a Body doth hereby as fully confute himselfe as if hee had said there is no comparison to be made betweene Body and Spirit in respect of Locall Being how much lesse betweene it and God the Father of all Spirits who
judged by the different Dispositions of Professors then may this former Confession witnes for us that there is as much difference betweene the Primitive and the now Romish Custome as there is betweene lively Fervencie and senselesse Numnes and Coldnes that is to say Godly zeale and Godlesse Indevotion and Negligence yet a Negligence not only approved which is impious but that which is the height of Impiety even applauded also by your Priests among whom the m Vt nobis Iocupletissiâ—i testes atque omni exceptione majores retulerunt in Germania qui eò loci per omnia obediunt Romanis Pontificibus non solùm Reverendi Patres Calicem vitae non cupiunt aut petere audent c. Gasp Card Villalp apud Act. Concil Trident. pag. 222. §. Accedit above-said Gasper Cardillo in the Councell of Trent with exultation told their Father-hoods as being a matter of great joy that they who are under the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome in Germany dare not so much as desire the Cup of life So hee A GENERALL CHALLENGE Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Massè SECT XIII IN this wee are to make an open discovery of the odious Vncharitablenesse the intolerable Arrogancie the vile Perjury the extreame Madnesse and Folly together with a note of plaine Blasphemie of your Romish Disputers in Defence of this one Romane Custome of forbidding the Cup to faithfull Communicants For what Vnâ—â—aritablenesse can be more odious than when they cannot but confesse that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in Both kindes do notwithstanding boast even in the open Councel of Trent of some of their Professors who in obedience to the Church of Rome do not onely * See the last testimonie above their owne words not desire the Cup of life but also dare not so much as desire it Which Vaunt wee thinke besides the Impietie thereof inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny Secondly when wee compare these Fathers of Trent with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity they answer n Tertio loco objiciunt Ecclesiae sapientiam antiquitatem atque potestatem atque potestatem aiunt enim Ecclesiam primitivam quae antiquior scientiâ atque vitae sanctitate praestantior erat utraque specie usam fuisse nostra igitur illam imitari debet praesertim eum eandem atque illa habet potestatem in ejusmodi legibus positivis sive abrogandis sive dispensandis Respondemus non esse dubium quin Ecclesia primitiva nostrae majore charitate ac proindè uberiori sapientia praecelluerit nihilominus tamen interdum contingit minùs sapientem in aliquo maliùs sapere quâm alium absolute sapientiorem Saepe etiam accidit minùs perfectum hominem vitare aliquem errorem quem melior non vitat Salmcron Ies Tom. 9. Tractat. 38. §. Tertio loco pag. 320. Although the primitive Church say they did exceed our's in Zeale Wisdome and Charity neverthelesse it falleth out sometimes that the wiser may in some things be lessè wise than another Which answer if wee consider the many Reasons which you have heard the Fathers give for the use of Both kinds and their consonant practice thereof what is it but a vilifying of the authority of all ancient Fathers and indeed as the saying is To put upon them the Foole. The like answer two of their Iesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles saying that your Church having the same spirit hath the same power to alter the Custome whereas we have proved that the ground which the Apostles lay for their Custome was the Institution of Christ But that which the Romane Church allegeth is meerely a Pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authority It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit And can there be a more intollerable Arrogancie than is this which this Romane spirit bewrayeth in both these Thirdly upon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolicall and primitive Antiquity in this Cause wee finde that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest perjurie also for in the Forme of Oath for the profession of the Romish Faith every Priest and Ecclesiasticke is sworn o Forma Iuramenti per Bullam Pij quarti Apostolicas Ecclesiasticas Traditiones admitto Ego spondeo juro c. To admit of all Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall Traditions as also to hold what the p Caetera omnia à Concilio Tridentino declarata confirmata firmissimè teneo Ibid. Romanam Ecclesiam Magistram esse Ecclesiarum credo c. Councel of Trent hath decreed But this Custome of administration of Both kindes as hath been acknowledged was an Apostolicall Custome and from them also remained in an Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space which your Church of Rome notwithstanding in her Councel of Trent whereunto likewise you are sworne hath altered and perverted which doth evidently involve your Priests and Iesuites in a notorious and unavoydable Perjurie Fourthly As for the note of Foolishnesse what more mad folly can there be seene in any than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custome for satisfaction of all others and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves so that both the Objections urged by Protestants against that Abuse are fortified and also all your Reasons for it are refuted either by the direct Testimonies of your owne Doctors or by the common Principles and Tenents of your Church or else by the Absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answers divers of them being no lesse grosse than was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church for lesse than three hundred yeeres and to preferre it before the confessed Vniversall primitive Custome of above the Compasse of a Thousand yeares continuance before the other Fiftly the last is the note of Blasphemy for this name the contempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs deserve and what greater contempt can there be than contrary to Christ his Do this concerning Both kinds to professe that Sacrilegious dismembring of the holy Sacrament which Gelasius the Pope himselfe had anciently condemned or if this be not Blasphemous enough then supposing that Christ indeed had commanded Consecration in Both kindes upon divine right yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable as saith your Iesuit q Licet Gabriel quidam alij sentiunt divini juris esse ut Sacerdos in utraque specie sacrificet nihilominùs tamen opinantur authoritate Romani Pontificis fieri posse ut in una tantum specie sacrificet viz. in consecratione panis sine vino quià putant multa esse juris divini quae remittere relaxare queat Pontifex ob publicam aliquam gravem necessitatem ut videmus votum jus-jâ—randum Matrimonium ratum non consummatum authoritate Pontificis relaxari dissolvi Et ità in hac questione prima
se includit Contradictionem sicut quòd Homo careat ratione Et qu. 8â— Art 2. ad 1. Corpus non potest actu esse in pluribus locis simul hoc enim est solius Dei Possibility as proper only to God Which though hee speake concerning the locall maner of Being yet his Reason as * See the former testimony your Cardinall confesseth doth as well concerne your Sacramentall maner of being on earth to deny the Body of Christ to be really in many Hoasts and on many Altars at once And Aquinas his reason being this Vnum One saith he is that which is not divided from it selfe but to be in divers places at once doth divide one from it selfe and consequently maketh it not to be One which being a Contradiction doth inferre an Impossbility So hee âšœ Accordingly your Iesuite Conincks 3 AEgid Conincks Ies de Sacram. qu. 75. Art 4. Dub. 3. Thomas in 4. Dist 44. qu. 2. Art â—â— ait Per miraculum fieri non posse ut corpus sit simul in duobus locis sc modo quantirativo Quià esse in pluribus locis repugnat Individuo ratione ejus quod est esse indivisum per sc Sanè haec ratio si absolutè nâ— sonat intelligatur corpus Christi non potest esse simul in coelo in hoc Sacramento If as Thomas saith saith he a Body cannot be in two places at once Quantitaetively no not by any Miracle of God because the thing should so be divided from it selfe then the words being taken as they sound cannot Christ's Body be at once locally in heaven and on earth in this Sacrament So he Thus is the maine Article of your Romish Faith concerning the Corporall Presence of Christ in many places at once wholly overthrowne by the judgement of Thomas Aquinas the Oracle of your Romish Shooles But when as Protestants argue accordingly as you have done your Ies 4 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 189 Cap 7. Ratio quae ab Haereticis affertur est Corpus idem si in diversis locis collocetur esse divisum à se Vasquez spareth not to call it the Reason of Heretikes Which bewrayeth the distorted and squint-eyed sight of our Romish Adversaries who knowing the same Argument to be used by your owne Aquinas as well as by Protestants do notwithstanding honor the one with the Title of Angelicall and upbraid the other with the black marke of Hereticall Earnestly have wee sought for some Answer to this insoluble Argument as wee thinke and your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say but that the p Duplex est divisio una intrinseca in se altera extrinseca accidentalis in respectu loci Itaque cum corpus est in diversis locis non tollitur indivisio in se sed extrinseca in respectu loci ut cùm Deus sit unus est in diversis locis anima rationalis est in diversis partibus corporis una Bellar. ibid. Being in a place is not the essentiall property of a thing and therefore can be no more said to divide the Body from it selfe than it can be said to divide God who is every where or the soule of man which is one in every part or member of the Body So he Wee throughout this whole Tractate wherein wee dispute of the Existence of a Body in a Place do not tye our selves every where to the precise Acception of place as it is defined to be Superficies c. but as it signifieth one space or distinct Vbi from another which wee call here and there We returne to your Cardinals Answer CHALLENGE AN answer you have heard from your Cardinall unworthy any man of Iudgement because of a Triple falsity therein First in the Antecedent and Assertion saying that Being in a Place or space is not inseparable from a Body Secondly in the Ground of that because Place is not of the Essence of a Body Thirdly in his Instances which hee insisteth upon for Example-sake which are both Heterogenies Contrary to this Assertion wee have already proved the necessity of the Locall Being of a Body wheresoever it is and now wee confirme it by the Assertion of One than whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate and accomplished with Philosophicall learning even q Si dicas corpus est hîc ibi idem ipsum quidem distrahas in diversa principio ptimo per se immediato prohibetur corpus esse in pluribus ubi est autem continuitas affectus consequens immediate unitatem Contradictiones enim sunt Iulius Scalliger Exercit. 5. quaest 6. For how can there hee Continuity in that 5. the Termiâ—i whereof are separated by divers places Iulius Scaliger by name a Professed Romanist who hath concluded as a Principle infallible that Continuity being an immediate affection and property of Vnity One Body cannot be said to be in two places as here and there without dividing it selfe from it selfe So hee Certainly because Place being the Terminus to wit that which doth confine the Body that is in it it is no more possible for the Body to be in many places at once than it is for an Vnity to be a multitude or many Which truth if that you should need any further proofe may seeme to be confirmed in this that your Disputers are driven to so miserable Straits as that they are not able to instance in any one thing in the world to exemplifie a Possibility of the being of a Body in divers places at once but onely Man's soule which is a spirit and God himselfe the Spirit of Spirits of both which * See below Ch ◠§. 2. 〈◊〉 §. 2. hereafter Onely you are to observe that the Cardinals Argument in proving Space to be separable from a Body because it is not of the Essence of a Body is in it selfe a Non sequitur as may appeare in the Adjunct of Time which although it be not of the Essence of any thing yet is it impossible for any thing to be without Time or yet to be in two different Times together âšœ And for the better discovery of the weakenesse of this their common Objection Wee adde that although Vbi Place or Space be not of the essence of a Body to constitute it one yet may it be sufficient to demonstrate it to be but one Body because of Contradiction as well as all proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or properties as Risibility in a man or else as Quantity to a Body and Circumscription to Quantity which although they be after their Substances in nature yet are they joyntly and inseparably with them in Times But that wee may argue from the very termes of Contradiction Your asserting the same Body of Christ to be Locall according to the dimensions of Place and not Locall according to the dimensions of Place at one time implies a Contradiction But you teach the same Body of Christ to be
signo Ratio est clara Quia corpus Christi est res omnino distincta speciebus Iuxtà hanc Conclusionem interpretantur multi quod alibi dixit August Sacramentum corporis Christi Quodammodo dici corpus Christi who relateth thus much saying that whereas Saint Augustine hath these words viz. The Sacrament is called Quodammodo that iâ— after a maner the Body of Christ Many saith hee doe expound them as spoken very Metaphorically and Improperly the reason whereof is cleare because the Body of Christ is a thing distinct from the formes So hee Confessing that those Many yield unto us that True and Figurative Sense of Saint Augustines Quodammodo which wee have all this while contended for âšœ In a word rightly might d Calvin Admonit uâ—t ad Westphol Augustinum totum esse nostrum omnes libâ—â— clamant Calvin say speaking of these Controversies concerning this Sacrament All the Bookes of Augustine upon this subject proclame that hee is wholly ours Much more concerning Christ his not being Corporally here on Earth will by the judgement of Augustine and other Fathers be found in the fifth sixt and seventh Bookes besides that which they affirme in this Booke in the Chapters following THE SIXT CHALLENGE In generall Concluding the maine Point BY this time wee thinke you may discerne betweene plaine dealing and false juggling for your Disputers have usually alleged for defence of your Transubstantiation and Corporall Presence in the Sacrament the Sentences of Fathers used in their Sermons and Exhortations wherein commonly they exercised their Rhetoricke in Figurative and Hyperbolicall speeches as hath beene confessed by your owne Doctours and proved by many their like Sayings concerning other Sacramentall Rites but especially of the Sacrament of Baptisme whereas our proofes arise directly from the Testimonies of the Fathers which they have commonly had in their sad and earnest Disputation in confutation of many and maine Heresies where indeed they were necessarily to make use both of their Logicko for discerning Truth from Errour and also of Grammer wee meane the Exactnesse and proprietie of Speech void of Amphibologies Hyperboles and Ambiguities whereby the minds of their Hearers or Readers might be perplexed and the Truth darkned This one Consideration wee judge to be of necessary importance And thus much concerning the judgement of ancient Fathers touching this second Contradiction That thirdly the Contradiction and consequently the Impossibility of the Being of one Body in divers Places at once is evicted by two sound Reasons the first taken from Contradictory Relations SECT VIII YOu have already * See above 〈◊〉 5. §. â— heard of the Antecedent which was granted by Aquinas viz. It implyeth a Contradiction to say a Body is Corporally in two places at once because this maketh that one Body not to be one Which being confessed your have also heard your Cardinall making this Consequence viz. by the same reason it muct follow that it is absolutely Impossible But besides there are Actions and Qualities whereof some are Relatives and have respect to some place and others are Absolutes Of the Relatives you have determined that c Vnum corpus in diversis locis positum unum habet esse substantiale sed multa habet esse localia ex quo fit ut omnia multiplicari debeant quae consequuntur esse locale illa autem non multiplicantur quae aliunde proveniunt Relationes verò ad loca necessariò multiplicantur propter dimensiones locorum Itaque erit idem corpus sursum deorsum propinqusi remotum poterit moveri in locum quiescere in alio loco nec tamen implicatur ulla contradictio Illa enim dicuntur Contradicentra quae conveniunt uni respectu eodem eodem tempore modo loco Ac nè id mirum videatur Anima humana quae tota est in toto corpore quolibet membro Corporis certè ut est in capite est remota à terra ut in pedibus propinqua ut in brachio quiescere dicitur ut in altero moâ— movere Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. § Ac primum One Body say you as it is in diverse places at once might be below and above on the right hand and on the left behind and before it selfe may move and not move at the same instant without Contradiction because it is so said in divers Respects namely of divers places as the soule of man in divers parts of the Body So you These are but Capriccious Chimera's and mungrell fancies of addle braines who disputing of Bodily Locality can finde no Example within the Circumferences of the Vniversitie of Creatures but onely Man's soule which is a Spirit which point is to be discussed in the fift Chapter In the Interim know you that although Relations do sometimes take away Contradictions where they are applyable As namely for the same Body to be high and low in respect of it's owne divers parts to wit high in respect of the head and low in respect of the heele wherein there is no comparison of any whole or part with it selfe yet if any should say as much of the same Body whether whole or part as thus The same whole head goeth before and after it selfe or the same one finger is longer and shorter than it selfe hee may justly be suspected to be besides himselfe all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves and consequently Impossible as for a man to say hee is elder and younger than himselfe âšœ Which peradventure one of your Doctors saw when hee denyed in this Sacrament any Motion at all Because els saith 21 Ioh. Paluter à Castro S. T. D. Lect. our in 4. Sect Tom. 4. Lect. 58 Christi corpus in hoc Sacramento non movetur neque per se ne que per Accidens Et paulò post Si ad Hostiae motum moveretur time ad Hostiae motum esseâ— sursum simùl deorsum At hoc ex dictis non sapit verum hee at the Motion of the Hoast Christ's Body should be both below and above at once which savoureth not of Truth So hee And although your 22 Gabriel Biel. Lect. 47. Cùâ—n innumera sint altaria in quibus celebratur sacrum illud mysterium si moveretur per modios orbes coelis sphaeras elementares ad sâ—gula hujusmodi Altaria corpus Christi esset in continuo motu moveretur ad contrari is positionum differentias simul se ad oriâ—ntem ad occidentem meridianum septentrionem pro varietate situs Altarium quod est Absurdum Ridiculosum Gabriel Biel defendeth the Corporall Presence of Christ in Heaven and on your Altars at once yet that If should move from North and South East and West and all at the same time according to the variety of Altars This saith hee is Absurd and Ridiculous âšœ You * See above Chap. 5. §. â— will say and it is your common Sanctuary that Place is not essentiall
cannot be so in many places at once that hee is not likewise both in every intermediate space betweene place and place and also in all places without them this being the propertie of his infinitenesse to containe all places and not to be contained of any And therefore cannot this maner of Presence without irreligious impietie be applyed to any creature which notwithstanding f Quòd si quis requirat esse in loco â—à m circumscriptivâ— quà m definitivè id requirere ut non sit aâ—â—bi dicere possumus dari tertium modum existendi in loco nimirùm per solam praesentiam quomodò Deus est in loco Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. §. Altero your Cardinall blusheth not to do in that maner as was hitherto wee thinke never imagined by any Divine before him namely a maner of being of a Body in a place which is neither Circumscriptively as naturall Bodies are nor Definitively that is so that being in one place it is not at the same time in another as Angels and Spirits are but a third how By onely presence after the maner as God is in place So hee O golden Divine for who knoweth not that Existence in place onely by presence is a propertie of Divine Infinitenesse which being attributed to any thing that is not God doth equall the creature with the Creator God himselfe âšœ Not to mention the Difference of Opinions among Philosophers themselves touching the particular Seats of the Soule of Man One sort of them assigning the Heart as did Hypocrates Chrysippus and Aristotle Another party placing it in the Braine to wit Plato Gallen and Averroës all admitting a Determinate Seate to the Soule do thereby gain-say the Being therof in many parts of the Body as properly occupying so many places âšœ A Confutation of the former two Romish Instances in Mans Soule and God himselfe by Ancient Fathers in their Doctrine concerning Angels and Mens Spirits SECT III. ANcient Fathers wee trow were profoundly learned both in Philosophicall and in Theologicall Mysteries who notwithstanding as your g Iob 1. 6. Cum venissent et astitissent Angeli c. Origen Athanas Greg. Nazianz tanquà m dogma fidei tradunt Angelos moveri localiter neque omnibus locis praesentes sed esse cuique locum suum spatium praefinitum cùm illud necessariò requiratur ut ab uno loco in locum alium veniant Simili ratione confirmat hanc veritaâ—em Tert. Apol. cap. 22. Chryso Hom. in Heb. 1. Ambros lib 1. de Sp. S. c. 10. Damasc l. 2. de fide cap. 3. Nazian Orat. 2. de Theol. Athanas Epist ad Scrap Teste Piâ—eds Ies in eundem locum Iob. Iesuite witnesseth held it as a Doctrine of Faith that Angels which are Spirits have every one their owne definite places and space and that they cannot be in divers places but by moving from one place to another which cannot be said of any Body that as you say is without motion in divers places at once Surely if ever such strange and paraphysicall nay more than Hyperphysicall Crotchets had entred into the minds of ancient Fathers wee should have heard you allege at least some one of them if not for proofe yet in pretext and colour of patronizing these your repugnant Paradoxes concerning a Body taking the right hand or left of it selfe and the like Velut aegri somnia vanae singuntur Species For your better satisfaction wee shall allege some Testimonies which may sufficiently declare their Iudgement of an Impossibilitie of a Spirits being in divers places at one time whether wee consider the Spirits of Angels or of men yea or the Humane Spirit or soule of Christ Of Angels Damascen h Damascen Orthod fid l. 1. c. 17 l. 3. cap. 7. Angelus dicitur esse in loco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deus autem ubique existens copora vero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are so circumscribed in the place where they worke that they cannot possibly be in moe places at once Athanasius i Athanas Tom. 1 Epist ad Serap p. 201. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As the holy Ghost filleth all places so Angels are contained in a certaine place Accordingly Ambrose k Ambros de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 10. Seraphim quod jubetuâ— exequitur Spiritus quod vult dividit Seraphim de loco ad locum transit non enim complet omnia sed ipsum repletur a Spiritu Herein do Angels differ from the holy Ghost which filleth all things that the Seraphims do move from place to place Pope Gregory would be heard speake l Greg. Moral lib. 2. cap. 3. Angeli ut nos loco circumscribuntur comparatione quideÌ„ corporum nostrorum Spiritus sunt con paratione Dei incircumscripti Corpus sunt Angels are circumscribed being in respect of our Bodies Spirits but in comparison of the uncircumscribed God they are to be esteemed as Bodies So they Our next speculation must be touching the soules of Saints departed The Author set out by your selves in the name of Athanasius unto this Objection How do the soules of Saints so often appear at one moment of time in the Sepulchres as they seeme to have done Answereth that They are not the same Saints but rather visions and adumbrations of them by transfigurations of Angels Hee giveth his Reason why hee thinketh the other impossible m Athanas quaest â—l Antioch 26. Quomodò cedo mihi una existens Petri aut Pauli anima 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apparere in suo monumento in mille templis per totum mundum nec Angelus potest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edit Paris Anno 1627. Because it is proper saith he to God alone to be at one moment of time in two places at once So hee And if the Fathers shall say in effect as much of the humane soule of Christ you wee should think would require no more Tertullian among his many divine Answers to prove Christ to be God he urgeth the Arian Heretikes with this one as not the least n Tert. de Trinit circiter medium against the Ebionites Si homo 〈◊〉 modò Christus quomodò adest ubique invocatus cùm haec non hominis natura sit sed Dei ut adesse 〈◊〉 in omni loco si homo tantummodò Christus cur Mediator invocatur c. Because Christ is present in all places where he is invocated which is a power not incident unto man but proper to the nature of God So he How like you this And Augustine may not be thought to dissent when in arguing he tooke as granted that the o Aug. Epist 57 ad 〈◊〉 Mecum eris in Paradiso Non ex his verbis in coelo existimandus Paradisus neque enim in ipso die futurus erat in coelo homo Christus sed in inferno secundùm animam in sepulchro secundùm carnem Soule of Christ when it departed this life could not be in Heaven
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
in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and Indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illumnate the Eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and Humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of later times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and ancient Schoolemen who as your a Totum Christi corpus in partibus indivisibilibus specierum panis esse negaâ—â—â— Albertus Scotus Aegidius quia videtur impossible in se corpus extensum magnae molis cum tota organizatione figura in puncto collocari Suarez quo supra pag. 683. Jesuite testifieth Though it impossible that a Body that hath Extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Jesuites as ancient unto b Opinio antiqua quae fuit Durandi dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non habere quantitatem Fundamentum hujus opinionis fuit quod essentia quantitatis est habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se sieri autem non possit ut si corpus Christi habeat partes distinctas in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte Teste Maldonat Ies Tom. 1. de Euch cap. 8. Arg pag. 180. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Durand and c Occham alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia sed ita ut nulla sit figura nec distinctio partium Sic Occham Bellar. ibid §. â—t Occham Now what greater injury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundred yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoolemen an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Hoast to impose upon mens consciences as an Article of Faith so found and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand Occham and other 1 Suarez Ies in 3. Thom. disp 48. Sect. 1. De Distantis partium Nominales concedunt in corpore Christi existentem in Eucharistia pedem non distare magis à capite quam collum Ità Occham Ailliaco Nominals such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needs follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confouded with the legs which as your Cardinal Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether * See above in this Chapter Sect. 2. monstrous âšœ And it may be that divers of you are of the minde of that Doctor of the Seraphicall order who teacheth you to 2 Corpus Christi non est nisi sub specie Panis partibus ejus ipsum esse sub quolibet indivisibili ipsius Hostiae per se negandum est Magister de media villa Sâ—raph Ord. in 4. Sent. Tom. 4. Deny that the Body of Christ is in any indivisible part of the Hoast âšœ That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THE reason which your * See above § 2. Cardinall layet downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule he taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length breadth and depth This saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in it's owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee justly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Body of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of Place and Space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then the Arme must be here and thus farre longer than the Foot the Legge here and thus farre thicker than the Finger the Hand here and thus farre broader than the Toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucâ—sque Here and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of Space and Place do demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi Place or Space wherein the Body is If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathematicall or Phantasticall Body oâ— Christ you must deny the Article of Trent untill you can beleeve and make good that a part of a divisible Body longer or shorter broader or narrower can be and that equally in one indivisible point This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Body as you confesse it to be now in Heaven possessing a Reall place in the sayd proportion of Spaces of length and breadth as it had here upon earth which it doth by the naturall Magnitude or Quantity thereof But the sayd naturall Magnitude or quantity of the sayd Body of Christ is according to your wone generall Doctrine in this Sacrament Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space although not of the same Space which is one earth Wee should be loath to trouble your wits with these speculations if that the necessity of the Cause by reason of the Absurdities of your Romish profession did not inforce us hereunto Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousnesse who writing of this Divine Sacrament and seeing it to be round solid broken moulded in the one kind and liquid frozen and sowring in the other do attribute all these to Quantities and Qualities and Accidents without any other subject at all So then by the Romish Faith wee shall be constrained to beleeve in effect that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines the Mouse eating the Hoast is sed with colours and formes that it is Coldnesse that is frozen and Roundnesse which weigheth downe and falleth to the ground as if you should describe a Romish
Luc. 2. 23. Disputers with the blacke marke of the Heresie of those wicked Spirits who taught the Corruption of her Virginitie Which objection nothing but personall malice could make or Impudency defend as the Objecters themselves well knew one of them confessing that divers Fathers in interpreting that Scripture which is by the Evangelist applyed to the Virgin Mary and Birth of Christ viz. Every Male child that openeth the Wombe shall be holy unto the Lord Luk. 2. did teach that n Docuerunt solum Christum aperuisse vulvam Mald. in Luc. 2. Christ alone did properly open the Wombe of a Woman who onely found it shut Hee reckoneth for this opinion these holy o Origen in hunc locum Hom. 14. Tert. de carne Christi Ambr Greg. Nyssen in Testimonijs ex vet Testamento collectis Epiphâ—n Haeies 78. Hier lib. 2. cont pelag Theophylact. Euseb That which hee addeth of their pius sensus is frivolous even as his Impuration to Protestants saying that they deny that Mary the Mother of our Lord was a Virgin in her birth is standerous and Ianseniâ—â— Conco cap. 13. Alij Patres hanc legem aperiundi vulvam ad solum Christum properiè pertinuâ—â—e asserunt Theophyl Ambr. Non enim virilis coitus virginalis secreta reseravit Similia habet Origenes Hom. 14 In Luc. Aed Beatâ—â— Rhenanus in Tert. de carne Christi before that he fell into the hand of Inquisitors and their Index Expurgat durst say Tert. contra Recentiorum placita dixit Mariam patefacti coporis lege peperiss Fathers Origen Tertullian Ambrose Gregory Nyssen Epiphanius Hierome Theophylact Eusebius So hee A faire company of fellow Heretikes with Protestants wee trowe to whom the same Jesuite joyneth divers Doctors of your Romish Church whom he calleth Docti Catholici Thus your owne spirit of Contradiction whereas two words might have quit the Heresie maintained the Miracle and defended the Integrity of that sanctified Wombe of the Blessed Virgin to wit that the Virginall cell might be said to open it selfe which was shut in respect of other Women who necessarily suffer violent rupture by the Birth being preserved from all hurtfull violence either from within or without which could not be without a perfect Miracle Furthermore hearken to the Answer of some other Doctors of your Church and you shall find your owne Doctrine to smell ranke of the Heresie of the Marcionites in the opinion of the fore-cited ancient Fathers for your fore-named a Apud Maldon Ies in Luc. â— Id Patrea dixisse ardore abreptos disputationis contra Marcionitas ne Christum corporeum phantasma facere viderntur si dixissent matris uterum non aperuisse Jesuite telleth you of some Doctors in your Church whom hee himselfe approveth who taught that The Fathers who sayd that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother spake it in the heat of Dispute against the Hereticall Marcionites who denyed that Christ had any true Body because that els the sayd Fathers should seeme to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeall and only imaginary thing So they Which proveth that in the judgment of those Ancient Fathers all your defence in this Case is at least Phantasticall Let Isiodore Pelusiota his sufferage be aded to the rest who in an Epistle calmely and as it were in coole blood teacheth that b Ibid. Pelusiot lib. 1. Epist 23. Apeâ—iâ—e vulvam Luc. 2. non dicitur de quovis primogenito 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ is the onely he who by his Birth opened his Mothers Wombe and left it shut and sealed up againe And maketh bold to tearme them Vnlearned that thinke the contrary who living above a thousand yeeres agoe is therefore so much the more competent a witnesse of the Catholike truth âšœ Yet that you may know this Father not to be alone in this Doctrine peruse the 7 The Fathers in their places above cited Origen Non sic quisquam aperuit vulvam matris absque coitu Ambros in eum locum Non virilis coitus vulvae secreta reserâ—vit hic solus apeâ—uâ—t sibi vulvam Hieron Solus Christus clausas portas vulvae virginitatis aperuit quae tamen clausae vigiter permanserunt Theoph. ineum locum In Christum solum hoc propri◠〈◊〉 is enim virginis vulvam aperuit cum reliquis mattribus vir aperuit Tert. Dei filius quis propâ—tè vulvam matris suae aperuit quam qui clausam patefecit â—bio Tert. Virgo quantum à viro non quantum à partu Leo ad Flaviam cap. 4. pag. 36. Quiâ inviolata virginitas concupiscentiam nescivit Aug. de Symbolo cap. 5. Quae virum nesciens sibi portat Erasmus Annot. in Luc. 2. Certe Ambrosius ab Originis sencentia non abhorruit Ianscinius Concord in Luc. 2. Christum matris vulvam propriè adaperuisse est sententia Theophylacti in hunc locum Ambrosij Originis As for the Entrance of the * Matt. 19. 24 Camell which is said by Christ to passe through the eye of a needle the subtlty of your Objection is not so needle-sharpe but that it may be easily blunted for Christ spake by way of comparison and implyed as well an Impossibility as a Possibility Thus as it is simply Impossible for a Camell be it Rope or be it Beast to passe through the eye of a Needle retaining the same Dimension and Property so is it Impossible for a Rich man so long as hee hath on him a great Bunch or grossenesse of confidence in his riches and worldly affections to enter into the Kingdome of God Although otherwise as it is possible for God by his miraculous power so to contract the Camell that it may passe through the Needles eye so is it as possible to him by his Omnipotent power of Grace to abate the swelling bunch of worldly Confidence in the heart of the Rich-man that hee being truly mortified may repose his whole trust in God himselfe and at length enter into the Kingdome of Heaven âšœ This you might have learned from Saint Hierome who saith that in this Similitude 8 Hieron advers pelag lib. 2. Vndè difficultas difficultati imo impossibile impossibili comparatur quià nec Camelus potest intrare per foramen acus nec divites in Regnum Dei Impossibilitie is compared with Impossibilitie because as a Camell cannot passe through the Needles eye no more can richmen enter into the Kingdome of Heaven So he speaking of the Rich-man in Sensu Compositio so living and dying as making Mammon their God and not using them unto works of Piety and Charity for so the same holy Father expresseth himselfe 9 Hieron in Matth. 19. v. 24. Sed si legamus Esaram quomodo Cameli Madiam Epha veniant Hierusalem cum donis atque muâ—â—â—bus qui pâ—ius curvi erant vitiorum pravitate distotâ—i ingrediantur portâ—s Hierusalem videbimus quomodo â—sti Camâ—li
de Missa Cap. 27. §. Tertiò that The Body of Christ indeed suffereth not herein any naturall Destruction but onely Sacramentall that is Metaphoricall Ergo your Romish Masse is destitute of the proper Sacrificing Act of Destruction And againe whereas the word Immolation is taken of h Lombardus cum quaeritat quid Sacerdos gerit sit dicendum Sacrificium aut Immolatio accipit nomen Immolationis pro occisione respondet autem rectissimè Christum semel tantùm immolatum id est occisum fuisse non autem immolari id est occidi in Sacramento repraesentatione Bellorm lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. Rursus paulò superius § Ad hanc Cruenta Immolatio semel tantùm verè propriè facta est nunc autem non propriè sed pâ—r Repraesentationem Lib. 4. Dist 12. §. Post haec Lombard for being Slaine or suffering by Death It was most truly said by him saith your Cardinall that Christ is not properly immolated meaning not slaine but onely in Representation Well then the State of the Question as your Cardinall himselfe hath set it downe is seeing that every Proper Sacrifice requireth a Proper Destruction and if it be a living Sacrifice a Destruction by death Whether Christ be properly Sacrificed or no. Marke wee pray you your Cardinal's Resolution His bloody Sacrifice was but once truly and properly done but now it is not properly done but by Representation O Spirit of Contradiction For that which is but once onely properly offered can never be said to be againe properly offered and that which is a Bloody Oblation by your owne learning cannot be Vnbloody And as great an Intoxication is to be seene in your Disputers in respect of the other part of the Sacrament touching the Cup For your Cardinall Alan defendeth a Reall Destruction in this maner i Alanus de Eucharist lib. 2 cap. 13. In carnis sanguinis separatione undè propriè in animalibus mactatio consistit vis hujus mysterij ut in eo solo cernatur divinae mortis repraesentatio sequitur Christum esse praesentem modò immolatio quod sunditur in remissione peccatorum ergo per modum Victimae praesens est imò Christus hic praesens induit eum modum quem habuit ut se offerens in Sacrificio Crucis Aliquantò post haec Propter concomitantiam de qua superius diximus in seipso non moritur In creatures living saith hee the thing sacrificed must be slaine and in this slaying by the separation of blood from the Body doth consist all force and virtue of this Mystery because Christ is herein after the maner of Sacrifice taking upon him the maner of Sacrificing which hee had in offering himselfe upon the Crosse by separation of his Blood So hee All which doth inferre a Reall and Proper separation and effusion of Blood yet immediatly after standeth hee to the Defence of Concomitancie which teacheth an Vnion of Body and Blood together in as full a maner as it was in Christ his most perfect estate But Blood Separated and Vnited are as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrarie as can be How much better would it beseeme you to confesse plainly and truly with your Costerus that k Costerus Christian Institut lib. 1. cap. 10. Christus in cruce solus seipsum obtulit per veraÌ„ sanguinis effusionem mortem hic per Sacerdotem tanquam ministrum se offert sine Sanguinis effusione morte sed per utrâ—usque repraesentationem Christ is not offered herewith effusion of Blood but by a representation thereof Thus still wee see your owne Doctors come in your most controverted points towards us albeit as Rowers looking backwards to their owne purposes and conclusions CHALLENGE A Syllogisme will quit the Businesse as for Example Every proper Sacrifice is properly Visible of Prophane is made Sacred and properly suffereth Destruction This is your owne Proposition in each part But the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is neither properly Visible nor properly of Prophane made Sacred nor suffereth any proper Destruction This is also your owne Assumption Therefore the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is not a proper Sacrifice nor properly Sacrificed This except men have lost their braines must needs be every mans Conclusion And that so much the rather because it cannot be sufficient that Christs Body be present in the Eucharist to make it a Sacrifice without some Sacrificing Act. A Sheepe is no Sacrifice whil'st it remaineth in the Fold nor can every Action serve the turne except it be a Destructive Act for the Sheep doth not become therefore a Sacrifice because it is shorne nor yet can any Destructive Act be held Sacrificing which is not prescribed by Divine Authority which onely cun ordaine a Sacrifice as hath beene confessed But no such divine ordinance hath hitherto beene proved Is it not then a miserable case which you are in to suffer your selves to be deceived by such Mountebankes who pretend to direct mens Consciences in the Mysteries of Christian Faith and particularly concerning this high point of Proper Sacrifice and in the end give no other satisfaction than by meere Riddles of a Visible not Visible Consecrated not Consecrated Destroyed and not Destroyed with Blood separated and not separated from the Body and each one spoken of the same Body of Christ Our last point concerning a proper Sacrifice followeth CHAP. VII Our Fourth Examination is of the Doctrine of PROTESTANTS in the point of Sacrifice IN discussion whereof wee are to consider first the Acts which are incident unto the Celebration of this Sacrament and then the Object thereof which is the true and reall Body of Christ as it was Sacrificed upon the Crosse In respect of the Acts wee say I. That Spirituall Sacrifices albeit Vnproper are in one respect more true and do farre excell all merely Corporall Sacrifices according to Scripture SECT I. WHen Christ called himselfe the True Vine the True light the True Bread in respect of the Naturall Vine Light and Bread Hee taught us to distinguish betweene a Truth of Excellencie and a Truth of Propriety by their different Effects That which hath the naturall property of Bread although Manna preserveth but the temporall life for * Iohn 6. See above Booke 5. Sect. 6. They ate Manna and dyed but the Bread of Excellencie which is Christs Body preserveth to * Ibid. Immortality It is a good Observation which your Canus hath that a Canus Quià per Sacrificia legis externae res quaedam spirituales potiores praesignabantur has omninò res Sacrificia holocausta hostias sacrae literae appellant ut mactationes brutorum animalium figurae erant mortificationis Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. In secundo Many spirituall things are called Sacrifices in Scriptur because they were prefigured by the outward bodily Sacrifices of the Lambe as the killing of Beasts were signes of mortification which is a killing of sinne So hee
accept of Christ but of the Gift for Christ's sake and to the honour of Christ in whom God is Propitious unto us wee say againe the Gift for Christ and not Christ for the Gift what can be more plaine against all Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and to receive it into his Celestiall Altar but how by intercession of Angels No but expresly thus By Christ the Mediatour In the Liturgie of e Missa Chrysostomi antè Consecrationem Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile incruentuÌ„ hoc obsequium Deposcimus ut mittas Spiritum sanctum super nos et super apposita munera Sequitur Consecratio Fac Panem istum preciosum Corpus c. Post Consecrationem Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile hoc obsequium pro fideliter doâ—mientibê° c. Post Dominum deprecemur ut qui suscepit ea in sancto et coelesti Altari suo mittat nobis proprerea gratiam et donuÌ„ Spiritus sancti Chrysostome before Consecration God is prayed unto and supplicated thus Wee beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts set before us Even as f Ambros de Sacram lib 4. cap. 6. post Consecrationem Offerimus tibi hunc Papem sanctum et Calicem et perimus ut hanc OblationeÌ„ suscipias in sublimi Altari tuo per manus Angelorum sicut accipere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel c. Ambrose explaineth his Supplication after Consecration for God To accept this Oblation namely that which hee called Holy Bread and Cup. If therefore these former Formes may interpret your Romane Liturgie as it was Ancient the prayer therein to God desiring him to be Propitious must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation as distinguished from Priest and People Wherefore your Romane Missals being so Ancient in this one point in praying God after Consecration to be Propitious to that which is called the Bread of life eternall and Cup of everlasting salvation lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sense to wit that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist and consequently to need a Propitiation to God by virtue of mens prayers thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ you ought to reduce this your Romane Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Ancient Liturgies above mentioned and to understand it Sacramentally onely namely our Objective Representation Commemoration and Application thereof by us which is our Act of Celebration To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions and Practices wee may adde your other many vile and impious g Booke 5. thorowout Indignities offered to the all-glorious Sonne of God in making his sacred Body in your owne opinions obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes Tearing with mens Teeth Devouring Vomiting it by the Communicants and the Transmittance into your guts yea and into the parts inferior together with the Eating and Feeding thereupon by Dogs Mice Wormes and which transcendeth if it may be all your other Absurdities to be deprived of all naturall power of Motion Sense and Vnderstanding O Abominable Abominable A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof by many Evidences from Antiquity SECT V. OVr first Argument is against the foundation thereof which is your Interpretation of the Article HOC by denying it to have Relation to Bread contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Ancient Fathers shewing that the same pointeth out Bread as you have a Booke 2. Cha. 1. Sect. 6. heard whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe Insomuch that sometimes they expressely * Ibid. interpret it thus Christs Body and Blood that is say they The Bread and Wine Item Hee gave the name of the Signe to the thing signified Item Bread the Signe of his Body And lastly Bread is called Christs Body because it signifieth his Body Secondly in the point of Transubstantiation it selfe They calling the Eucharist which you dare not b Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5. 11. Sect. 14. in Chrysost and by Cyprian his Confutation of the Aquarii ibid. Sect. 5. Book 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Bread and c Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 5. Wine after Consecration and naming them * Ibid. Sect. 13. Earthly materialls and Matter of Bread and also as you have heard out of the Ancient Liturgies d Above in this Booke Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Fruits of the Earth and yet more plainely by way of Periphrasis describing them to consist of e Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Divers granes and Divers grapes After by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our f Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 8 9 c. Senses in discerning all Sensible things and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the g Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 11. Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity Thirdly against your Faith concerning the maner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in h Booke 4. thorowout divers places as you say in Millions at one time that by this property of Being in many places at once they have discerned Angells to be Finite Spirits and not God They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God and no Creature by the same Reason Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent Whereunto you may adde the Fathers speeches contradicting your Dreame of a Body whole in every part in whatsoever space or place by judging it Impossible and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven to argue his Absence from Earth all which have i Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect 6. and Booke 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beene discussed from point to point Our Fourth Generall Argument is that whereas your Corporall Presence must needs inferre Corporall Eating thereof by the Communicants notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Ancient Fathers against k Booke 5. thorowout Tearing and Swallowing of Christ's Body and Bodily Egestion Next concerning the Eaters that onely the Godly faithfull are partakers thereof insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same Then of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts that they were l Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 10. Earen by the ordinance of the Church by Schoole-boyes and sometimes Burnt in the fire Besides they called them m Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and Booke 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. Bits and Fragments of Bread broken after Consecration and diminished And lastly in respect of the End of Eating n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. They held the
esse hujus Authorem Editionis Spiritus Sancti mentem assequutum In omnibus igitur locis vult Concilium Eam haberi pro Authenticâ exceptis erroribus Typographorum Vt Iudic. cap. 11. pro altera Matre lectum fuisse adultera Matre ut quidam objiciunt Nam Concilium probavit veterem benè Typis impressam Post §. Porrò Nullo modo audiendi sunt ii qui post Concilium Tridentinum contendunt Editionem Vulgatam aliquibus in locis quod ad ipsam sententiam attinet emendari Quin potiùs Graeci Hebraici Codices siquidem dissideant à nostra sunt per eam corrigendi Valentia who thinke that Oath to be violated if the Vulgar Latine be rejected at all as lesse true than the Originals And your Spanish Inquisitors finding in one of your Romish Doctors the Rule of Hierome and Augustine urged which is that no Translation Latine or other be further allowed than as it agreeth with the Originals they faire and cleanly wipe it out saying that h Index Expurgatorius Hispanicus ad nomen Martinz Quamvis haec quae Hieronymus Augustinus docuerunt vera sunt tamen post Concilii Tridentini Decretum non licet Vulgatae Latinae Testimonia quovis praetextu rejicere prout in ipsius Concilii Decreto constitutum est fol. 145. Although that which Hierome and Augustine taught be true yet now since the Councel of Trent it is not lawfull to reject the same Translation upon any pretence whatsoever ⚜ Accordingly your Iesuite Lorinus in a matter concerning neither faith nor maners i Lorinus Ies Comment in Lib. Sap. ca. 12. Versq 6. §. Vatablus Non licet nobis discrepantem expositionem ab Editione nostra Vulgata jam correcta sequi It is not lawfull for us saith hee to follow an Exposition differing from the Vulgar Edition which is now corrected ⚜ So they And so farre unsatisfied are your Doctors in taking this Oath Wee are furthermore not destiture of matter for a large Confutation first of your assuming Saint Hierome as the Author of your Vulgar Latine Translation to manifest that it is no more the Translation of Hierome or yet of any one Author than the divers habits of a mans Body from head to foot can be called the worke of one singular work-man Secondly concerning the Authority thereof you professe it to be Authenticall that is as you have defined Conformable to the Originall Hebrew and Greeke although it may be as easily proved not to be that Ancient Vulgar which had continued as the Decree speaketh from divers ages than the Ship of Theseus which after some Ages had beene so thorowly battered and pierced that at last the keele and bottome therof did onely remaine which could be called the Same But passing by all further Dispute wee shall referre you to the judgement of the Patrones of the former Rule so insolently contemned by the Spanish Inquisitors as you have heard by one Instance which may be sufficient in it selfe for triall of the Case now in hand The Text of Scripture is Ephes 1. 14. in the Latine Translation even in that which is set forth by Pope i Clem. Octavus In perpetuam rei memoriam Textus accuratissime mendis purgatus Clement as The most accurate Edition thus k Ephes 1. 14. Lat. Vulg. Spiritu signati promissionis quae est pignus haereditatis Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in quem locum Hieronym Pignus Latinus interpres pro Arrhabone posuit Arrhabo futurae emptionis quasi quoddam testimonium obligamentum datur Pignus verò pro mutuâ pecuniâ ponitur cùm illa reddita fuerit reddenti debitum pignus à Creditore Aug. Serm. de visione Dei Tom. 10. pag. 1687. Accipis Codicem ab amico cui das pignus cum reddideris quod accopisti illc cui reddis habebit tu pignus accipies non enim habebit ambas res sed quando pretium paras dare pro ea re quam tenes bonae fidei contractu de ipso pretio das aliquid exit Arrha non pignus quod sit complendum non quod sit auferendum Sed si Deus charitatem dat tanquam pignus per spiritum suum cum eam rem ipsam reddiderit quâ promissa pignus dedit auferendum est à nobis Pignus Absit Sed quod dedit hoc implebit ideo melius Arrha quà m pignus hoc enim implebitur cum Arrha data est You are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the Pledge of your inheritance But in the Greeke it is You are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the Earnest of your inheritance The Question is whether of these is to be preferred and Hierome and Augustine are ready to resolve you herein both of them Correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge and one of them giving an Absit against this Sense of it The Reason of both is because hee that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe when the Thing for which it was pledged is received But hee that giveth an Earnest will have it continue with him to whom it was given And so God assuring his Chosen by his Spirit doth for their greater Confidence give it as an Earnest and not as a Pledge So they Therby advancing Gods gracious love towards man and mans faith in Gods love Here will be no corner of Pretence that this being an Errour of Print and not of Doctrine may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath no for Errour of Print ariseth from some affinity of words as where these words This is a sound Reason being delivered to the Print was returned from the Presse thus This is a fond Reason But betweene Pignus and Arrhabo there is no more Symphonie than betweene an Horse and a Saddle Nor will it avayle you to say that the Originall Greeke was corrupted for it is the same Greeke word which Hierome himselfe who as you know used the perfectest Greeke Text doth here avow to be True II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture THe Tenour of the Oath in this respect is a Bulla eadem Sacram Scripturam admitto juxta eum sensum quem Tenuit Tenet Mater Ecclesia extra quam nemo salvus c. I admit the sacred Scriptures in that Sense which the Mother Church hath held and doth hold By Mother Church understanding the Church of Rome as without which there is no salvation which is expressed in the same Oath as another Article therein and which else-where wee have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE in a full Tractate from the Doctrine of the Apostles of Generall Councels of severall Catholike Churches and from such Primitive Fathers whose memories are at this day registred in the Romish Calender of Saints How then can the Oath for this point be taken without danger of Perjury But to come to the Article concerning the Expositions of
Sacrilegiousnesse it selfe as you have seene in a former ſ See above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Synopsis BOOKE VII This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretikes but in one respect exceeding the infatuation of the very t Booke 7. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Pagans besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests u Cha. 5. Sect. 3. Intention in consecrating hath beene yoaked by your owne Jesuite with the Heresies of the * Cha. 9. Sect. 5. Donatists When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses wee pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Masse may draw you to a just Detestation of it and bring you to that true worship of God which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth and to the saving of every one of your soules through his Grace in Christ Iesus AMEN * ⎠* ALL GLORY BE ONELY TO GOD. AN INDEX Of the Matters contained in the Eight precedent Bookes against the ROMISH MASSE A ABSTEMIOVSNES No sufficient reason for Altering Christs Ordinance in the use of the Cup. pag. 79. ABSVRD to hold with many Romish Doctors Production to be the means of Transubstantiation p. 153. Absurdities expostulated by Master Brerely p. 286. Absurdities of the Romish Doctrine concerning Transubstantiation and the Bodily Being of Christ in the Eucharist with the palpable Absurdities of the Iesuites defence thereof p. 291. unto p. 301. ACCIDENTS No Substance ingendred out of meere Accidents Confessed p. 174. Not Accidents but Aire maketh drunke pag. 175. Accidents newly happening to the Sacrament cannot be without their Subjects p. 178. 179. This Figment never dreamed off by Ancient Fathers Book 3. chap. 3. throughout Accidents nourishing Substance absurdly confirmed by the Iesuite Fisher from Substances nourishing Substances p. 296. num 6. ADDVCTION pretended to be the sole maner of Transubstantiation by some Iesuites and confuted as false by others pag. 153. unto p. 156. ADORATION Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is the Romish Profession pag. 504. Not proved by Christs Institution p. 505. Nor by Antiquity either in their objected Verball speeches p. 506. unto p. 511 Nor in their Reall Objected Practices Ibid. c 3. throughout p. 511. unto pag. 524. Nay it is repugnant to Antiquity pag 524. unto pag. 528. Proved by their owne Principles to be Materially Idolatrous pag. 528. unto p. 533. Because of the many hundred defects in their Consecration in sixe Sections that it is Formally Idolatrous pag. 533. 534. Notwithstanding their Three Pretences p. 534. unto 539. The Impious Iesuiticall Evasion and Delusion to make the Romish worship seeme tollerable p. 539. Which is as ill as any Heathen p. 540. In one respect worse p. 541. Divine Adoration ought toprocede from an Infallible Faith in the God-head of him whom wee Invocate contrary to the Romish Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist Ibid. AELFRICK King his Faith objected for Transubstantiation untruly pag. 160. AETERNITIE What it is p. 263. ALTAR called Table by the Councell of Nice p. 303. Altar Priest Sacrifice and Temple properly so called on Earth all dissolved by Ancient Fathers pag. 415. unto pag. 418. Our Altar in Heaven pag. 418. The word Altar in the Masse not used with the Apostles p 461. 462. confessed Ibid. Allusions of Fathers in their termes Pascha c. Ibid. It is properly a Table Ibid. throughout the Sections AMBROSE Against Prayer in an unknowne Tongue p. 35. He teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. and a Figurative sense therein 125. Corruptly objected by Bellarmine for proofe of a proper sense therein Ibid. His sayings Ob. Of Bread is made Christs Body p. 202. Item They are the same that they were p. 178. Ob. Worke of Omnipotencie pag. 188. Ob. Nature is Changed pag. 190. Ambrose corrupted in some Romish Editions Ibid. Hee granteth something to bee Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie pag. 229. Proveth the Holy Ghost to be God by its being in divers places at once 239. 262 Holds that Christ at his Birth opened the Coll of the Blessed Virgin p. 278. And that Angels have their definite place and space 262. Hee is objected for penetration of the doores by Christs Body 275. Apparitions of some in two places at once Objected and Answered p. 262. Of Christs Bodily Presence onely in Heaven p. 306. That the Eucharist is nourishment for the soule 310. 385. Holdeth that the Godly onely are Partakers of Christs Body p. 321. See Guilty Hee is wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 404. He granteth Christs exercising of his Priesthood now in heaven 415. He disclaimeth all properly called Altars Priesthood and Sacrifice here on earth p. 417. The Sacrifice on the Crosse our Iuge Sacrificium pag. 419. That Christ is only offered in an Image here but in Heaven in Truth p 441. Hee nameth the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof p. 443. Hee called the Bread before Consecration an Vnbloody Sacrifice 453. and calleth Baptisme a Sacrifice p. 457. His words Here Christ offereth himself Objected 479. And Wee adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ as the footstoole of his Deity p. 508. To reverence him whose Body wee come to eate Objected Ibid. His Liturgie for praying God propitiously to receive the Gift 563. Calumniously objected 494. See Guilty ANGELS cannot possibly be in divers places at once by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 261. 262. Their objected Association at the receiving the Eucharist is no Argument of Divine Adoration thereof 506. 507. Angels present also at Baptisme Nazian Ibid. p. 507. ANNIHILATION of Bread is a necessary Consequence of the Romish manner of Transubstantiation pag. 156. ANSELME his saying Iewes ate the same spirituall meate with Christians p. 314. ANCIENT Fathers their wisedome contemned professedly by Romish Disputers in respect of their owne pag. 85. 86. ANTITYPE used of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Eucharist proveth Christs speech to be Figurative pag. 115 The use of this word Antitype pag 454. 455 APOSTLES not made Priests by those words of Christ Hoc Facite p. 57 Apostolicall authority contemned in respect of the now Papall by Romish Doctors pag 86 87 They are rudely called Rude pag. 135. APPARITIONS of Christ unto Peter out of Egesippus and other Fathers Objected and Answered by your Iesuite Vasquez p 240 241. Apparitions of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist manifoldly objected by the Romish Disputers for proofe of a Corporal Presence therein p. 218 219 220. Acknowledged by their owne Schoole-men to be no True flesh or Blood but feigned p. 221. 222. The Suggesters thereof of what disposition they were p. 223 224. APPLICATION of the Sacrifice of Christ in the Romish Partiall p. 483.