AN ANSWER To Doctor PIERCIE'S SERMON Preached before His MAJESTY at WHITE-HALL Feb. 1 1663. By J. S. Non in persnasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis sed in ostensione spiritûs virtutis 1. Cor. 2. 4. Printed in the year 1663. To the Queen-Mother MADAM THere appeared of late at White-hall a Philistin in black defying the Armies of the living God His strength was in his Tongue not in his Arme His weapons Breath and his combat an houres Boast Yet as to his own conceit a huge Goliah he blew down Mount Sion at a puffe and split in pieces the Rock against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile In that conjuncture because no adversary could securely be seen the applause flew high victory and triumph rebounding from all the hills of great Britany Yet God knowes all was but wind Flaverunt venti The windes blew Sion stands still immoveable and the Rock unshaken The blasts vanisht to nothing at the first jossle against the House of God because it was founded upon a Rock This hath lately been demonstrated by the excellent Pen of S. C. clearly evincing the no lesse ancient then unchangeable truths of our Doctrines But indeed there needed no such Gyant to defeat that Goliah the least of Iesse's Family the Church supported by the power of his Cause may hope for successe in such a Duell Upon which account I was encouraged to trace out another way of answer tending to disable his proofs by stripping his arguments and shewing them in cuerpo Now the Doctor 's Sermon having been both Preached and published under a Royall shadow I come with an humble suit prostrate at your Majesties feet that I may shelter this Answer under your gracious protection whose name as it is most renowned in the Christian world for zeal of Religion so upon your Royall assent 't will render all-secure the Author of this slender work Madam Your Majesties most humble and ever devoted Servant I. S. June 1. 1663. Gentle Reader I Am onely to advertise thee of three things in the perusall of this Treatise First that Doctor Pierce having in his Dedicatory to the King pretended to the publick confessions of our ablâ—…st Doctors in favour of his erronrs clogs both Margin and Text with our profest enemies as Goldastus Armacanus John Hus Hierome Prague Chemnitius Bishop Hall Cook Nilus Balsamon and others or with Authors of suspected faith whose works are forbidden by the Church as Erasmus Cassander Thuanus and Polidor Virgil de inventione rerum enlarged and corrupted by Protestants or if he cites any Orthodox VVriters they differ not in point of faith but in things indifferent or practises alterable upon just occasion Secondly that we alledge against them in our behalf the very prime Pillars of their pretended Church as Luther Calvin Jewell Whitaker and the like and that not onely in matters of indifferency but of the very substance of Faith Thirdly that Doctor Pierce knowing that we for our belief rest onely upon the Churches definition or interpretation of Scripture as an infallible ground and not upon this or that Schooleman Historian or Grammarians speeches yet he hath wearied his sides in declaiming against us upon the fancied credit of a few private mens words which were they truly cited would weigh nothing with us to the main cause of Religion Finally I professe my intent in this short work to be not so much a proof of our Catholick Doctrines as to shew the unconvincivg weaknesse of the Preacher's Arguments which he mistakes for Demonstrations An Answer to Doctor Pierce's Sermon Preached before His Majestie at White-hall Feb. 1. 1662. SIR 1. GIve me leave in the first place to tell you that your application of our Saviours words From the beginning it was not so is no less confus'd then unconcluding Confus'd as speaking in generall of a beginning and not distinguishing what beginning whether of time order institution or what Unconcluding because it either overshoots or falls short of the marke proving too much or nothing at all For neither were all truths revealed or all good practises in use from the beginning nor all heresies or corruptions since the beginning 2. You say our Saviour was sent to reform the Iewes that is not to found a new Law but to renew the old and that he made known the rule of his reformation From the beginning it was not so Well then if you take the beginning from the birth of the World as in Marriage then the whole Leviticus will be either superstition or profanation for from the beginning it was not so The Devils denying God's veracity You shall not die and Adam's eating the forbidden fruit or Cain's murdering his Brother Abel was not heresie or corruption for from the beginning it was so 3. If the rule begin with the Law it self why should the adoring of the Golden Calf be superstition since 't is as old as the self same Law why all that follow'd as David's Psalmes and Musick the adding seven dayes to the Passeover by King Ezâ—…chias 2 Chron. 30. 22. the Encaenia or Feast of Dedication instituted by Iudas Machabaeus kept and honoured by our Saviour Ioan. 10. 22. the reading of Scripture to the people every Sabbath day Act. 13. 22. no superstition since from the beginning it was not so 4. If to reform Christian Churches you set up your Pharos with the precise beginning of the new Law then since nothing with you in point of Religion was from the beginning but what is exprest in the Written word the leaving to abstain from blood and strangled things commanded by the Apostles as necessary the use of the Crosse in Baptisme the change of the Sabbath into Sunday the Baptisme of Infants the non-Rebaptization of Hereticks the verball pronouncing the words in the form of Baptisme as necessary to the validity of the Sacrament the Degrees and Titles of Primates Arch-Bishops Bishops Deanes c. will be superstition errour and profanation for from the beginning it was not so Then on the contrary the Saduces Cerinthians Nicolaits Ebionits will not be Hereticks because they were from the beginning nay nor the Papists neither if as some Learned Protestants affirm Popery began under the Apostles Therefore S. Paul saith Doctor Willet calleth Papistry a mystery of iniquity which began even to work in his dayes And Mr. Middleton No marvel though perusing Councils Fathers and Stories from the Apostles forward we finde the print of the Pope's feet And Mr. Perkins Our Church ever hath been since the dayes of the Apostles and that in the very midst of Papacy Insomuch that Urbanus Rhegius a Learned Protestant being press'd to shew a change in the Roman Church since the Apostles time gives this desperate answer Though it were true that the Roman Church had changed nothing in Religion would it therefore presently follow that she were a true Church I think not A learned thought indeed supposing what S. Paul writes
Cardinal Peròn in his Reply to King Iames clearly evinc'd the Pope's Supreamacy to have been acknowldgâ—…d in the first four Councils Doe not those two Learned Books the Protestants Apology and the Progeny 〈◊〉 of Catholicks and Protestants shew undeniaâ—…ly out of your own Authours that the Roman Church remained pure for the first four hundred and forty yeares after Christ giving that reason why the Fathers of those ages Austin Epiphanius Optatus Tertullian and Irenaeus appealed against Hereticks to the succession of the Roman Bishops because saith Doctor Reynolds it was a proof of the true faith at that time And this answer of your Doctors is highly commended by Bishop Morton in the Protestants Appeale pag. 573. Doe not the same two Books farther shew from your own concessions and out of the ancient Fathers that within those 440 yeares even up to Pope Sylvester and Constantine's time and so to the Apostles there were Churches dedicated in the honour of Martyrs Relicks Pilgrimages to Hierusalem forbidding Priests to marry vowed Virginity Invocation of Saints the Primacy of the Roman Bishop the unbloody Sacrifice Reall presence Transubstantiation Confession Prayer for the Dead Fâ—…ee-will Iustification by Works Merit Tradition Purgatory Vowes Evangelicall Councils Monachisme and other Mysteries of Faith What then doe you talke as if none of our tenets or practises in which we differ from you could be trac't by sure footsteps as far as the times of the purest Christians 25. Do not you beat the ayre whilest you labour to prove those Doctrines to be novelties which your own confesse to have had a being in the very times of your appeal the times of purest Christians But if disowning your domestick witnesses you will needs draw down the birth of such pretended Novelties to the sixth age about S. Gregory the Great 's time in whose dayes Popery say yours was undeâ—… full sail then we justly expect that you demonstrate how such a presse of errours either did or could within the narrow compasse of 160. years crowd into the Church without noise or opposition of Nation City Family oâ—… single Person Especially if we consider first the reluctancy of mans nature to accept of any Doctrines so contrary to flesh and bloud as Confession fasting Celibate in the Clergy Beâ—…ef of the Real Presence c. Secondly the perpetual vigilancy of the Pastours Christ left in his Church to watch upon the walls of Ierusalem day and night which duty thâ—… Pastours of those dayes complyed with so exactly that from the year 327. till the year 680. they held against heresies newly rising six General Councils whereof one was call'd only nine years before the said interval as the Council of Ephesus two during the very space of the 160. years to wit that of Calcedon and the second of Constantinople the last fourscore yeares after How is it imaginable that none of these Councils meeting so frequently to suppresse errours should take notice of so many new Doctrines you object if in truth they had been Novelties Thirdly that those Doctrines stole not into the Roman Church alone but spread through all the Christian Churches then extant in the world both East and West with all which S. Gregory held communion as may be seen in his Epistles Can the wit of man conceive such â—…ilfull obstinate dead silence in all Churches at the starting up of so many false Doctrines in so short a space especially all the Fathers holding Novelties in Doctrine for Errours 26. But here comes in a childish fallacy even of our greatest Gyants in dispute that they shut up the Church in Rome as the Donatists in Africa and then call it the Catholick Church not formally but causally faith Cardinal Peròn If Cardinal Peròn were but a Child 't were no great shame to slip into a fallacy but for a Preacher of the Court to deceive his Royal Auditory cannot be excused from an Imposture Doth Cardinall Peròn shut up the Church in the Citty of Rome even causally Doth he not distinguish two acceptions of the Roman Church The first signifies all the Orthodox Churches of the world united in faiâ—…h and charity with the Roman Bishop as with their Head and Supreame Governour under Christ. And in this sence according to Antiquity the Catholick Church not causally but formally is styled the Roman Church as all Nations under the Roman Emperour and not the City and Territories of Rome alone were called the Roman Empire All the twelve Tribes of Israel the Jewish Church and all Nations under the Patriarch of Constantinople the Greck Church as the Muscovites and Russians though not Grecians by birth In this notion S. Austin himâ—…elf saith that against the Pelagians not onely the Councils of Bishops and the See Apostolâ—…ck but also Univer sam Romanam Ecclesiam the whole Roman Church and the whole Roman Empire were most justly â—…ncens'd Now because the Bishop of the Roman Diocesse as Pope that is as S. Peter's Successoâ—… and Vicar of Christ is the head â—…f all Bâ—…shops and by him all Churches are preserved in unity therefore that particular Chuâ—…ch of the Râ—…man Diocesse is the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches whence in a second acception the Roman Church is not improperly callâ—…d the Catholick Church not formally but causally in regaâ—…d of that unity she infuseth into the Catholick Church knitting all the Members thereof in one Body under one supreame Head What ere you think this was the sence of the ancient Fathers Tertullian speaking of Marcion who had offered money to the Roman Church saith Marcion gave his money to the Catholick Church which was rejected both it and himself when he fell into Heresie S. Cyprian speaks thus to Antorianus You writ that I should send a Copy of the Letters to Cornelius Pope to the end that he might understand that â—…ou communicate with him that is to say with â—…he Catholick Church S. Cyprian also wâ—…ites to Cornelius It seemed good to us thâ—…t Letters should be sent to all our Colle gues aâ—… Româ—… that they should firmly embrace yâ—…ur Commâ—…ion â—…at is to say the Catholick Church And S. Ambrose in his Funerall Oration upon the death of his Brother Satyrus writes that Satyrus comming to Sardinia then infected with the Heresie of the Lucifâ—…rians called for the Bishop enquired of him Utrumnam cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est cum Romanâ—… Ecclesia conveniret Whether he 〈◊〉 iâ—… communion wâ—…h the Catholick Bishops that is with the Church of Rome And â—…ohn Patriarch of Constantinople writes in these words to Pope Hormisâ—… 1000. yeares past We promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of those that have separated themselves from the Catholick Church that is to say who agree not fully with the See Apostolick Note that in all these places I have cited the words that is or that is to say are not mine but the Authours cited 27. This
time of the Apostles constantly taught that there is a Purgatory Secondly that Bellarmine could not give an older instance then Origen and Tertullian a most palpable untruth for Bellarmine in his tenth Chapter cited by your self expressely alledges for Purgatory S. Clement the Roman and S. Dennis both Coetaneans to the Aposâ—…les and though in his Book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Bellarmine seems to doubt of that work of S. Clement yet he constantly defends S. Dennis's books Perhaps because these two were never noted of errour you skipt them over to fasten upon Origen and Tertullian thinking to discredit their authority by advancing their lapses But sweet sir have Origen and Tertullian forfeited their credit since the conference of Divines at Hampton Court before King Iames there Dr. Reynolds scrupling at the use of the Crosse the Dean of Westminster saith Baker shewed out of Tertullian Cyprian Origen and others that in their time it was used And this the King judged antiquity enough to warrant the continuance of it still Was Tertullian no Montanist when in your third Page he is cited to your purpose and is he one now in your eight Page when Bellarmine cites him to ours nay and shall be Orthodox again in your thirty one page when he is fancied to make against us Is Origen in your eighth page not onely an Heretick but an Arch-Heretick and therefore of no authority when he is brought by Bellarmin for Purgatory but will be Orthodox anon when in your 27. page you call for him against prayers in an unknown tongue Yet this very fetch proves Purgatory the more for if their Doctrine of Purgatory had been erroneous or heretical the Fathers and Councils that spared them not for other heresies would questionlesse have censur'd them for that which never any one did Thirdly that the Cardinal having boasted of all the Ancients both Greek and Latin down from the Apostles could not make it good but by recourse to the Heathens as Plato Gorgias Cicero Virgil as if those Heathens were alledged in the same Chapter as holy Fathers of Christian times to prove the doctrine of Purgatory from the Apostles albeit they lived long before the Apostles dayes Yet not to be taken tripping in your margin you cite also Bellarmin's 2d Chapter which nothing concerns either Authorities of Fathers or the age of Purgatory In this Chapter the Cardinal relating divers errours about Purgatory alledges S. Austin who in his 31. book of the City of God the 13. chap. affirms it to have been the Platonicks opinion that all punishments after death were but purging pains and to that effect S. Austin cites Virgil. To this Bellarmin replies that in Plato's works as in his Dialogues intituled Phaedon Gorgias 3. sorts of men are sentenc'd after death the first to the Elysian Fields the second whose sins are curable to temporary pains the third of sins incurable to eternal Afterwards in the 11. chapter amongst other proofs drawn from reason Bellarmin sayes that Purgatory was the sence of all Nations Iewes Mahometans Gentils both Philosophers Poets and proves it out of the Macchabees Alcaron Plato Cicero Virgil. Finally to prevent your cavils he concludes that things wherein all Nations agree can hardly spring but from the light of Nature whil'st other inventions forged by men will ever alter as Nations are divers In all this discourse where is there any recourse to Heathens to make up the antiquity of Purgatory from the Apostles In the margin you bid us see Bellarmin contradicted by the Romanists themselves and then you cite a work of Polydor Virgil corrupted and Printed at Basil amongst the Sectaries and forbidden by the Church Roffensis only intends that the name and nature of Purgatory was but very seldome mentioned amongst the ancientest Grecians But for the thing it self he sayes expâ—…essely Art 37. Whereas Purgatory is affirmed by so many both Greek and Latin Fathers 't is not likely but that the truth of it was made clear unto them by some sufficient proof Thomas ex Albiis neither denies Purgatory nor the Authority of Fathers but onely the manner of purging Soules before the Resurrection Suarez in the place you quote hath not a word of this matter And whether they contradict Bellarmin or no they all contradict you and assert Purgatory 11. Not content with abusing Bellarmin you treat the great S. Austin himself most unworthily perswading your Auditours that he denied Invocation of Saints to have been in his dayes A thing so manifestly false that Protestants themselves acknowledge the contrary I confesse saith Doctor Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristow page 5. that Ambrose Austin and Hâ—…erome held invocation of Saints And Mr. Brightman after he had named Athanasius Basiâ—… Chrysostome Nazianzen Ambrose Hierome Austin he rebukes them as in words condemning Idolatry but indeed establishing it by invocation of Saints Lastly Chemnitius alledgeth S. Austin craving S. Cyprian's prayers adjuvet itaque nos in orationibus and then excuses him saying these things did S. Austen without Scripture yielding to the time and custome But let us hear S. Austin himself giving the reason why Christians did willingly bury their dearest friends near the Martyrs Tombes dum recolunt saith he whil'st they call to mind where the bodies of those that are dear to them are laid they with their prayers commend them to the same Saints as it were to Patrons c. And in his 33. Sermon de diversis he relates how a Woman had recourse to S. Stephen for her Son newly dead praying Holy Martyr restore me my Son Let any one read S. Austin's eight Chapter of the 22. Book de Civitate Dei and if obstinacy doth not blind him he will be convinc'd of S. Austin's mind But you Sir to colour the cheat cite his words in Latine omitting what is most material Take his whole Text as it lies The Saint therefore to shew that Christians do not honour the Martyrs of God as the Heathens did their gods who were but dead men as Hercules and Romulus speaks thus They the Heathens built Temples erected Altars appointed Priests and offered Sacrifices to these their Gods But we build no Temples to our Martyrs as to Gods but Monuments as to dead men whose spirits live with God Nor do we set up Altars there whereon to Sacrifice to the Martyrs we offer Sacrifice to the one God both of Martyrs and ours at which Sacrifice as men of God who in confessing him overcame the world they are nominated in their due place and order yet are they not invocated by the Priest that Sacrificeth for he Sacrificeth to God not to them although at their Monuments because he is God's not their Priest By this Text intirely cited is it not evident that S. Austin in those words Yet are they not invocated by the Priest that Sacrificeth which you quote and there make a stop meaneth a Religious invocation due to God
â—…n at Ierusalem 'T is a notoâ—…ious vanity in yoâ—…â—…-men to be alwayâ—…s pecking arâ—… grâ—…ones Who denies that mâ—… mâ—…y of time other Churches might prevent 〈◊〉 Roman and in that sense pâ—…ecisely be either Mâ—…hers oâ—… Sâ—…sters her as you please The Motherhood of the Roman Church consists in her prioâ—…ity nor â—…f time but of Dignity and Jurisdictâ—…on grounded â—…pon S. Peters Pâ—…imacy who as he was Father anâ—… Head of all Bishops so the Roman Church in which by his Successours he still lâ—…veth and governeth saith S. Chrysologus is the Mother and Head of all Churches or with S. Cyprian The root and originall of the Catholick Church The Church of Caesarea began after that of Ierusalem and yet was made her Metropolitan as the first Council of Nice declared and Antioch was her Primate Even so Antioch Ierusalem and all other Churches founded before the Roman were afterwards made subject unto her For which reason Iuvenal the Bishop of Ierusalem said publickly in the Council of Ephesus that the ancient Custome and Apostolicall Tradition was that the Church of Antioch is to be ruled and judged by the Roman 33. You falsifie Gildas egregiously and by misplacing his words make him say what he never dreamt of namely that Christian Religion was planted in Britany in the dayes of Tiberius Caesar about seven yeares before S. Peter came to Rome But Gildas having spoken of the extreame desolation of his Countrey caused by the Warres with the Romans which Warres beginning not under Tiberius or Caius who never Warred with the Britains but under Claudius lasted 40. yeares Interea saith he In the mean time to wit during those Warres there appeared and imparted it self to this cold Island more remote from the visible Sun then other Nâ—…tions the true and invisible Sun which in the time of Tiberius Caesar had manifested himself to the whole world I mean Christ vouchsafed to impart his Precepts c. Here Gildas onely sayes that during the Warres with Claudius the Sun of justice that manifested himself to the world by his Preaching in Ierusalem under Tiberius appeared at length to the Britains that is in the dayes of Claudius in whose second year S. Peter comming to Rome was entertained by a noble British Lady named Claudia Rufâ—…ina But when all the Jewes were banisht from Rome he took that occasion to go Preaching into France and from thence into Britany where he planted the Gospel founded Churches and ordained Priests and Deacons as Metaphrastes recounts and S. Peter himself in the time of S. Edward the Confessour revealed to a holy man so hath Alredus Rhieuallis left upon Râ—…ord 500. yeares since Whence it appeares that not S. Ioseph of Arimathea in the time of Tiberius but S. Peter in the time of Claudius founded the British Church after he had founded the Church of Rome and fixt his Seat there 34. But let us suppose Christianity to have been in Britany before St. Peter came to Rome was it then planted in the Soil upon the hills and dales of the Land or in the hearts of the Britains if in the hearts then I ask were those Britains English men or did the Saxons receive their Christianity from them Had not England as England the first newes of Christ from Rome by St. Austin the Monk whom blessed St. Gregory diâ—…ected to our Conversion And are not all English Protestants now living who call themseves a Christian Church the off-spring of those first converted Saxons what hideous ingratitude is it then to smother the memory of so incomparable a benefit by still prating of old Britany whose faith whencesoever it sprung up first lasted not but Paganisme overgrowing it perisht in a short space root and branch till Pope Eleutherius replanted it durably yet so as it never spread thence to us English so great was the Britains hatred to the Saxons for usurping their Kingdome I conclude therefore with the two Roâ—…al testimonies of our Kings the first of Henry the 8. professing that all the Churches of the Faithful much more England acknowledge and reverence the most holy See of Rome for their Mother The second of King Iames of gloâ—…ous memory in the summe of the Conference before Majestie affirming that the Roman Church was once the Mother Churche let Sir Edward Cook â—…e the Appendix We do not deâ—…y saith he but that Rome was the Mother Church and had thirty two Virginal Martyrs of her Popes a row 35. Thus having gone over the undemonstrable principles of your Sermon asserting much and proving nothing I come now to your pretended demonstrations But first I must mind you that in case you should demonstrate as you promise the Novelty of our pretentions and evince the antiquity of your own yet to the maâ—… truth or falsity of Religion by your own confession 't were but a Topick reaching no farther then a mere probability which may in it self be as well false as true For in your third page you cite and approve the principle of Vincentius Lirinensis who say you to prove the truth of any Doctrine argues the case from a threefold Topick the universality the consent and the antiquity of tradition wherefore in your opinion not only universality of place wherein a Doctrine is believed or the consent of Fathers that believe and teach the same but also antiquity of time though from the beginning when it is believed is but a bare Topick And yet God knows this very Rule is your open condemnation Since it is impossible for you or all the Protestants in the world to shew that any one point of Doctrine wherein you differ from the Roman Church was ever believed not only in all places at all times or by all the Fathers but not so much as any one place at any one time or by any one Father nay or by any one person before Luther except perhaps by some such as were noted and condemned for Hereticks Doctor Pierce's Engagement to domonstrate the Novelties of the Roman Church Page 6. and 7. We cannot better put them to shame then by demonstrating the Novelties of their pretensions whil'st at the same time we evince the sacred antiquity of our own Thus you 36. Who can but wonder that a Doctor understanding what a demonstration is should esteem the flourishes of a Pulpit demonstrations and then blunder out nothing but old arguments which have been answered a hundred times over If you say the sence of Scripture on your side is evident Our men ten to one more in number equall in Learning not to say more and as upright in conscience doe averre the contrary And the conâ—…st it self destroyes your assertion For whence I pray arises this very controversie amongst men of equall abilities to judge a right but from the obscurity of Scripture Did ever men in their right wits having their eyes open dispute whether the Sun shin'd at mid-day To Demonstrations from universall
as held for a point of Faith in the whole Church And if S. Cyprian was confessedly deceived in holding rebaptization of Hereticks an Apostolicall Tradition and as S. Austin sayes would have submitted to a Generall Council defining the contrary why might not S. Austin be mistaken in the Traditions of Infant-Communion and if now living would humbly submit to the Council of Trent defining against it Against Transubstantiation The thirteenth Demonstration Page 23. 72. If the age of Transubstantiation may be measured by the very first date of it's definition the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may be allowed to be as old as the Lateran Council held under Pope Innocent the third somewhat more then four hundred yeares past But according to you if ye be serious and doe not trifle it 's age may be measured by the first date of it's definition Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation is but somewhat more then four hundred yeares old and was not so from the beginning 73. Sir I suppose you could not chuse but eveâ—… feel with your hands the lightnesse of this Argument together with the train of bad consequences it drawes after it For hence must necessarily follow that no point of Faith can be elder in it self then the Council that defines it Consequently the Consubstantiality of the Son the Divinity of the Holy Ghost the Unity of Person in Christ consisting with the duality of Natures and the unconfusion of Natures in one Person have no greater antiquity then the four first Generall Councils by which they were first respectively defined above 300. yeares after Christ. As if the age of Divine Mysteries revealed could not prevent their Conciliary definitions occasioned by the emergency of heresies against them For if it can why may not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation have been from the beginning as well as that of the four Mysteries above mentioned though it 's Conciliary definition be much younger 74. Nay but our Lord having said This is my Blood explaineth himself in the same breath by calling it expressely the fruit of the Vine So was Eve called Adam's Bone which then she was not but had been Aaron's Rod whil'st it was a Serpent still call'd a Rod And Angels call'd Men because they appeared like men though substantially no Men. But howsoever there still remained in the Chalice the Accidents of Wine which were truly genimen Vitis a product of the Vine that word signifying not Wine onely or necessarily but whatsoever growes of the Vine the Flowers the Leaves the Grapes c. Pag. 9. in the Margin you wrong Scotus as if he held Transubstantiation not a point of Faith before the Lateran Council whereas he onely sayes speaking of the like Definitions that it was not explicitely believed under the notion of that word till the Councils definition Quae veritas saith he etsi prius eâ—…at de fide non tamen erat prius tantum declarata Which truth though it was before matter of Faith yet it was not before so much declared Is not this to abuse Authours and Auditours The fourteenth Demonstration Making the Romanists asham'd of their Doctrine 75. When two particular Divines disagree in the manner of explaining a Mystery of Faith but agree both in the truth and Faith of the Mystery it self then all those that joyn with them in the belief of the same Mystery are made asham'd of their Doctrine But Aquinas and Bellarmin disagree in the manner of explaining the Mystery of the Eucharist and both agree in the truth and Faith of the Mystery it self Therefore all that joyn with them in the belief of the same mystery as all Romanists doe are made asham'd of their Doctrine 76. Surely this Demonstration will shame none but the owner of it A Schollar and not blush to argue so How many Mysteries doe Christians believe and yet the greatest Divines doe so clash in the explications of them that each party holds the Mystery impossible in the others opinion We all believe the blessed Trinity Now if one should argue thus The Scotists hold the Mystery impossible without a certain distinction which they call Ex natura rei betwixt the Divine essence and the three personalities or Relations The Thomists cry out against that distinction as destructive of the Mystery and importing a quaternity must therefore all Christians be ashamed of their belief of the Mystery it self because those two learned Schooles jaâ—…e in the expounding of it or rather he that makes so wise an argument 77. But in very deed S. Thomas and Bellarmin differ not about the manner of Christs being in the Sacrament as you would make your Auditours believe They both agree that Christ is there definitively all in all and all in every part of the sacred Hoste which way of existing S. Thomas calls Sacramentall Their difference is in a philosophicall Question whether a Body can be in two places at once circumscriptively that is with all it 's locall dimensions answering to the extensive parts of the place S. Thomas holds it cannot as implying a division of the body from it self Bellermine replies with great respect to S. Thomas Haec ratio pace tanti Doctoris dixerim non est solida This reason be it spoken under favour of so great a Doctor is not solid Which having modestly shown Adde to this saith he that if a body cannot be locally in two places truly neither Sacramentally What is here to shame the Catholicks Where is Bellarmine's anger Where his revenge upon the Angelical Doctor I see nothing here but your vanity seeking at the cost of others wrong to purchase applause to your self 78. You seem likewise to be unvers'd in School affairs seeing that Bellarmine's inference in that question is common to all Schoolmen that defend the local existence of a body in two places Had your intent been to evince the impossibility of the Real Presence from the cross opinions of those two Doctors you might perhaps have argued thus According to S. Thomas Christs body cannot be locally in two places at once But according to Bellarmine if it cannot be locally it cannot be Sacramentally in two places at once Therefore according to both it can neither be locally nor Sacramentally in two places at once and consequently not at all in many Hostes. In this Paralogisme no asserter of the Real Presence will be so senseless as to grant both premises but if with S. Thomas he grant the Major with S. Thomas he will deny the Minor And if with Bellarminâ—… â—…e grant the Minor with Bellarmine he will deny the Major And so nothing will follow inconsistent with his Belief The fifteenth Demonstration Page 24. 79. If so long agoe as the time of Pope Nicholas the Second either Transubstantiation was not forged and hammered out into the shape in which we find it nor at all understood by the Pope himself then Transubstantiation as we now find it is a Novelty invented since the time of Berengarius