in the bodies of St. Peter and the three yong men St. Luke c. 4.30 affirmeth not that our Sauiours bodie was inuisible but that he passed thorow the midst of the people and yet admitting that he was then inuisible the cause might be in the peoples eyes Luke 24. 16. or in the Aire and not in his bodie Genes 19. 11. Neither is actuall grauitie or actuall combustibilitie or visibilitie so inseparable from a bodie as circumscription and distinction of parts Lastly For a bodie to bee resplendent and to shine as the Sunne in glorie is not repugnant to the nature of the bodie but is of the perfection and happinesse thereof Matth. 13. 43. But that an indiuiduall bodie may bee in many places at once and in diuers formes and according to diuers actions and haue no reference to place nor any properties inward or outward of a true bodie is not Diuine veritie but an audacious fiction or rather an incongruous dreame and contradictorie Chymera But that is verified in this Question of the Romists which Ireneus saith Multa male oportet interpretari eos qui vnum non volunt rectè intelligere They are compelled to expound many things amisse which will not vnderstand one thing aright IESVIT § 2. Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of the Reall Presence THis J prooue That belongs to the substance of this Mysterie of the reall Presence which being denied and taken away the words of Christ This is my Bodie cannot be true taken in the literall sence in which sence they are to be taken as hath beene shewed But without granting Transubstantiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sence Ergo Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this Mysterie of the reall Presence The Minor is prooued Because these words This is my Bodie signifie that the thing the Priest holds in his hand is truely really and substantially the bodie of Christ for in this Proposition This is my Bodie the Verb est signifies a coniunction betweene this in the Priests hand and the bodie of Christ and being a Verb substantiue taken in his proper signification it signifies a substantiall Identitie betweene this in the Priests hands and the bodie of Christ. But this in the Priests hands being before Consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the bodie of Christ cannot by consecration bee made substantially the bodie of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change and what other substantiall change can make bread to become truely the bodie of Christ beside substantiall conuersion of the same into his Bodie ANSVVER You cannot demonstrate that our Sauiours words must be expounded literally for the Instance of the cup Luke 22.20 besides other Arguments choakes you and therefore the mayne ground of your Doctrine being sandie the Arguments inferred vpon the same are infirme The waight of the first Argument lyeth in this Proposition Our Sauiours words cannot bee expounded literally vnlesse the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation bee granted I answere First if Transubstantiation were admitted the words of Christ This is my bodie This Cup is the New Testament in my blood cannot bee litterall for where there is any figure or trope the speech is not literall but in the Sacramentall words there is some figure or trope by our Aduersaries confession Secondly If the said words be vnderstood litterally then the bodie of Christ is properly broken and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul saith This is my bodie which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you But the bodie of Christ is not properly broken nor his blood properly shed in the holy Eucharist Thirdly It is an improper speech to say This is my bodie that is the thing contained vnder these formes is by conuersion and substantiall Transmutation my bodie but Papists maintaining Transubstantiation expound Christs words in this or in some other manner whereby they depart from the proprietie of the letter therefore in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation they depart from the letter of the words and consequently they make the same figuratiue IESVIT But some may obiect That as a man shewing a leather purse full of gold may truely say this is gold or a paper wrapt vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the bodie of Christ being vnder consecrated bread wee may truely say This is the bodie of Christ though the substance of bread remaine ANSWER Many famous scholemen teach that the doctrine of Consubstantiation to wit such a presence as maintaineth the substance of Bread and Wine to remaine together with the Bodie and Bloud of Christ is in it selfe more probable and were rather to be followed than the doctrine of Transubstantiation but onely because of the contrarie definition of the Romane Church and some of these Doctors hold that the opinion of Transubstantiation is not verie antient And Card. Caietan affirmeth that secluding the authoritie of the Roman Church there is nothing in the Scripture which may compell one to vnderstand the words properly IESVIT I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordained by vse to containe other substances then shewing the substance that containes we may signifie the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to containe other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passes from the consideration of the substances containing to thinke of the thing contained therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordained to containe others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifies immediately the substance contained in them For example one puts a peece of gold in an apple and shewing it cries this is gold in rigor of speech he sayes not true because the sence of his word is that the thing demonstrated immediately by the formes and accidents of that apple is gold Yea put the case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to containe any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise hee had put secretly into it a peece of gold because when the paper is shewed displaied and not as containing something in it and yet is tearmed gold the proper sence of that speech is that the substance immediatly contained vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents than those that vsually accompanie the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my Bodie being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to containe an humane bodie it cannot be vnderstood litterally but of the subiect immediately contained vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of Bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediately vnder the accidents
formerly vpon the crosse or which they haue not at this present in heauen And transmutation and transubstantiation are different conuersions as appeareth by the examples of Lots wife changed into a pillar of salt Gen. 19. 26. and water changed into wine Ioh. 2.9 for in these transmutations the common materiall substance remaining the formes and accidents were onely changed IESVIT First by the expressenesse of their words for there can be no words more significant and expressiue of a substantiall change betweene Bread and our Sauiours bodie than those the Fathers vse ANSWER Expresse words if they be figuratiue prooue not a substantiall change for the Fathers vse words which according to the letter import a substantiall change when they treat of regeneration and the Sacrament of Baptisme Also treating of the holy Eucharist they affirme that faithfull Communicants are changed into the body and flesh of Christ which our Aduersaries themselues vnderstand not of a substantiall change IESVIT S. Nyssen That the word made flesh is inserted within euery faithfull man by his flesh taking his consistence of Bread and Wine Consecration transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh ANSVVER If the words of this Father be vnderstood of Transubstantiation then the bodies of faithfull receiuers are conuerted into the substance of Christs flesh for he saith Whē the immortal body of Christ is within him which hath receiued it it transmuteth him wholy into his owne nature Also the humane nature of Christ should be conuerted into the diuine nature and Christ should be commixed and contempered with the bodies of beleeuers and bread should be changed into Christs bodie as meat is into mans bodie Also Gregorie Nyssen saith That Christs body is inserted into beleeuers onely Lastly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transelementation prooueth not Transubstantiation for in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed and the quantitie and accidents remaine and in Transelementation the matter remaineth and the essentiall and accidentall formes are altered IESVIT S. Cyril saith That we might not feele horror seeing flesh and blood on the sacred Altars the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmities doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit Bread and Wine conuerting them into the veritie of his owne flesh that the body of life as it were a certaine seed of viuification might be found in vs. ANSVVER This Tract of S. Cyril according to Vasques the Iesuit is not found among his antient workes but cyted out of him by Thomas Aquinas and therefore the authoritie thereof may bee suspected notwithstanding I answer as followeth First S. Cyrill by the words Conuerting them into the veritie of his flesh vnderstandeth not Popish Transubst but mysticall and Sacramentall Conuersion to wit conuersion of signification vse and operation for he speaketh of Bread and Wine not according to a part of their nature to witte their matter and substance but according to their whole nature containing substance accidents and quantitie now if the things offered to God in the holy Eucharist are the whole creatures of Bread and Wine and the same are conuerted into Christs flesh then the accidents and quantitie are conuerted into Christs body as well as the matter and forme which Romists deny Secondly from the word Conuersion Romists cannot prooue Transubstantiation for if the conuersion be onely of vse relation and operation as in the water of Baptisme then it followeth not That because S. Cyrill taught conuersion Ergo hee taught Transubstantiation And if it be a substantiall conuersion then also there cannot be Popish Transubstantiation for in this forme and substance perish and the accidents remaine in the other the common matter remaineth and the forme and accidents perish In all substantiall conuersions naturall or miraculous there is a new thing produced out of that which is conuerted as appeareth in the conuersion of Water into Wine and Lots wife into a Pillar of salt c. But in Popish Transubstantiation the body of Christ is not produced anew for it is praeexistent and receiueth no substantiall change by the confession of 〈◊〉 themselues neither is it substantially vnited vnto the accidents of Bread and Wine for it giueth no subsistance to them and it sustaineth them not but it is vnited accidentally onely by being made present where the substance of the Elements formerly were Now if water should be poured vpon the ground or otherwise consumed and wine be brought from 〈◊〉 as haile and snow are and be placed where water formerly was here is no substantiall conuersion so likewise when the substance of Bread and Wine cease and Christs body and bloud are brought 〈◊〉 the place where these were no substantiall thing is produced but one substance succeedeth in the roome of another by that which they stile vbiation It is in vaine therefore for Romists to obiect the Fathers words speaking of conuersion of bread and wine into Christs bodie and blood because in Popish Transubstantiation there is not conuersion of bread into Christs bodie but onely a locall succession of Christs bodie into the same vbitie where the substance of bread formerly was Thirdly In all substantiall conuersions either a new thing is produced or the old preserued In Transubstantiation no new thing is produced nor any old preserued Ergo Transubstantiation is no conuersion If they answere That some new thing is produced to wit an vnion of Christs bodie with the Sacramentall signes I answere That when a garment and a bodie are vnited here is no substantiall conuersion or when a Diamond and gold Ring are vnited or when the humanitie or Deitie are vnited in the person of Christ. If they say That the bodie of Christ 〈◊〉 is preserued as when nourishment is receiued into the bodie it preserueth the same then I demand Whether Christs bodie is preserued in regard of the being and if they affirme then it is also produced according to the being because the same thing which produced the bodie of Christ doth at this present onely preserue it and no new thing super-added but it is not produced anew Ergo It is not preserued or continued in the being which it formerly had by any new Action If they answere It is preserued according to the Sacramentall being I reply That this Sacramentall being must be either the being of Christs bodie according to matter and forme but then Christs bodie receiueth no such being for it was preexistent Or else it is the vnion and application of Christs bodie to the Sacramentall signes and then I reply That this vnion is onely accidentall and in regard of presentialitie and vbitie and consequently it is no conuersion of bread into Christs bodie but a translation and adduction of Christs bodie from heauen vnto the place of the substance of bread but translation and adduction of one substance into
Heb. 7.23.27.28 ca. 10. 21. Neither is there any word or sentence in our Sauiours Doctrine concerning any reall sacrifice but only of himselfe vpon the Crosse neither was any altar vsed and ordained by Christ and his Apostles And if in all reall sacrifices the matter of the oblation must be really destroyed and changed and no physicall destruction or change is made in the bodie of Christ or in the elements of Bread and Wine by Transubstantiation then Romists haue deuised a reall sacrifice in the new Testament which hath no diuine Institution Secondly There is no created vertue inhaerent in the Sacramentall words as they are pronounced by a Priest to make the bodie of Christ locally present in the holy Eucharist but when all the words and all the actions are lawfully performed which Christ commanded the holy Ghost is assistant to his owne ordinance and deliuereth vnto faithfull people the crucified Bodie of Christ and the Bloud of Christ shed for our sinnes vpon the crosse And although the crucified bodie of our Sauiour was seuered from the soule yet the deitie euen then remained vnited to that bodie which then was not dead in regard of merit and satisfaction and all they which receiue that bodie by operatiue faith are made partakers of the merit and satisfaction thereof and by this receiuing are more and more ingraffed into Christ. IESVIT Thirdly If vnder the forme of bread were onely the bodie of Christ and his soule and bloud were not by concomitancie there the communicants should receiue the body of Christ but not truely Christ as our Aduersaries grant Caluin specially saying Quis sanus sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat And againe Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi aut sanguinem Deum hominem appellari But Fathers affirme most constantly that not onely the bodie of Christ but also Christ himselfe is in the Sacrament that we take in the Dominicall refection The word made flesh that by the consecration of the Mysteries wee receiue the verie Sonne of God that vnder the forme of Bread we lodge within vs the Soueraigne King and that we see Christ feele Christ eate Christ Non regium puerum sed ipsum vnigenitum Dei filium An hundred other places might be brought where the Fathers call the consecrated Bread Christ and consequently they did not thinke there was the meere Bodie without Blood and Soule seeing as Caluin doth confesse Jt is an absurd manner of speech to terme Christ the meere bodie of Christ and such a forme of speech was neuer heard of hitherto in the world Ergo Concomitancie that is Christs reall and entire Bodie Soule Flesh Blood to be vnder the forme of Bread was acknowledged by the Fathers ANSVVER It is granted that worthie Communicants in the holy Eucharist receiue Christ Ioh. 6. 33 35 48. but Sacramentall eating his flesh and drinking his blood is the meanes by which they are vnited and incorporated with Christ himselfe therefore the Obiection to wit if the soule and blood were not in Christs bodie by Concomitancie Communicants should receiue the bodie of Christ but not truely Christ is inconsequent because by receiuing the one they receiue the other and the former is the instrumentall cause of the latter So in this kinde of spirituall Concomitancie neither the Fathers nor Caluin nor we nor you need be at any difference IESVIT This Principle which is no lesse certaine than the true reall Presence supposed I inferre the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde to wit vnder the sole forme of Bread by this Argument If Communion vnder one kinde be not against the substance either of Christs Institution or of his Sacrament or his Precept or of the Practise of the Primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable and for iust Reasons may be commanded by the Church This Proposition is true because there neither are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neither doe Christs Institution or Sacrament or Precept or the Primitiue practise bind vs to keepe them further than in substance the accidentall Circumstances of Institutions Sacraments Precepts Primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of things vnto which the Church Militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancie being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not against the substance either of Christs Institution or of the Sacrament or of his Precept or of his Primitiue practise For the substance of these foure Obligations is one and the same to wit that we be truly and really partakers of the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour which is fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections ANSWER If Concomitancie which is stiled in this place by the name of a Principle were graunted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifiable For although it depriue not people of Christs Bloud as it is a bodily part contained in the veines yet it depriueth them of the Bloud of Christ as it was shed and poured out and offered in Sacrifice for them To the maine Argument I answer denying the Assumption For Communion in one kind is repugnant to the first Institution of the Eucharist by Christ who hallowed two materiall Elements Bread and Wine appointed them a distinct signification deliuered them indifferently to all the Communicants and annexed a Promise to the reception of the one as well as to the sumption of the other Secondly It is repugnant to the expresse Precept of Christ saying Drinke yee all of this and to S. Pauls Precept 1. Cor. 11. 28. Thirdly The practise of the holy Apostles and of the Primitiue Church is against it Fourthly The people which receiue in one kind receiue onely a Moitie and piece but not the whole and entire Sacrament IESVIT § 2. Communion vnder one kind not against the substance of the Institution of Christ. DIuine Institution is an Action of God whereby hee giues being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreeable 〈◊〉 meanes that men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the said life being had hee or dained many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtaining of grace and spirituall life the Sacrament of Baptisme and Penance and for the preseruing of grace and increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man bee bound to vse the Jnstitution of God two things are required First that the end thereof bee necessarie and hee bound to indeuour the attaining thereof Hence it is that though marriage bee the Jnstitution of God appointed to propagate mankinde yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate
belong to the substance of this Mysterie and cannot be called in question without danger of misbeleefe First the Reall presence of the whole Bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation ANSWER Whatsoeuer is certainely reuealed in holy Scripture concerning the manner of Christs Presence in the Sacrament must be beleeued and not denied and so much is reuealed as is sufficient to inable the Minister people to vnderstand by Faith that Christs word and promise saying This is my bodie are infalliblie true and alwayes fulfilled when his Ordinance is obserued But Christ affirmeth not that the shapes of bread and wine are his Bodie and Blood neither that he is present by carnall vnion of his naturall Bodie and Blood with the formes or accidents of the Elements or that his Bodie and Blood are present in the holy Eucharist by Transubstantiation IESVIT §. 1. That the Reall presence of the whole Bodie of Christ vnder the formes of Bread belongs to the substance of the Mysterie TO prooue this I suppose as certaine that the Bodie of Christ is truely and really in the Sacrament of his Supper This I may iustly suppose seeing your Maiestie doth professe to hold a presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse true than we hold and consequently you will not vnderstand the words of Christ figuratiuely as Sacramentaries doe for they make the Body of Christ present in the Eucharisticall Bread but as in a figure holding not a true nor a reall presence but onely a presence by imagination and conceit as is euident ANSVVER Reall presence is taken two wayes First for a true and effectuall presence of the body and blood of Christ so as man receiuing the externall signes by his naturall parts receiueth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spirituall facultie to wit by an operatiue faith Ioh. 6.51.53 54 55 56 57. Secondly for a corporall presence when the thing signified and presented is according to the naturall substance thereof contayned vnder the shapes of the outward signes and together with them conueyed into the mouth stomacke and bodily parts His most excellent Maiestie and all his Orthodoxall people beleeue reall presence according to the first acceptation but the fame is denyed according to the latter acceptation The Iesuit being ignorant of this distinction or else dissembling the same disputeth as followeth They which hold a reall presence of Christs body no lesse true than Papists themselues hold cannot vnderstand the words of Christ This is my body c. figuratiuely But his Maiestie holdeth a reall presence of Christs body no lesse true than Papists themselues hold Ergo His Maiestie cannot vnderstand the words of Christ This is my body figuratiuely I answer The Maior of the former argument is denyed for a true reall and effectuall presence of Christs body and blood may bee taught and deliuered by a figuratiue speech for First the mysticall head is really truely and effectually present to the mysticall body and yet notwithstanding this presence is taught in holy Scripture by figuratiue words Read Psal. 45. Salomons song Eph. 5. Ioh. 15. Secondly one part of our Sauiours words about the Sacrament to wit This cup is the new Testament in my blood Luc. 22.20 is figuratiue by confession of Romists themselues and yet they hold the thing expressed and meant by those words to be really giuen It is false therefore which the Iesuit and his consorts affirme That Protestants expounding the words of Christ This is my body figuratiuely doe by this sence ouerthrow the true presence of Christs body and bloud in the holy Eucharist and bring in onely a fantasticall and imaginarie presence for a mysticall Presence wrought by the power of the holy Ghost is as reall and true a presence in one kind as a corporall and carnall presence is in another kind But the Romists themselues are the men which contending for their carnall Presence giue vs a fantasticall body of Christ in stead of a true and naturall body and Phantasticall Elements to wit Accidents and emptie shadowes of Elements in stead of the substantiall creatures of Bread and Wine by this absurd doctrine vtterly subuerting the holy Sacrament IESVIT Wherein as your Maiestie knowes they contradict the antient Church which teacheth expresly That Christ did not say this is a figure of my body but this is my body and exhorts vs to beleeue Christ on his word he said This is my body I pray you let vs beleeue him whom we haue beleeued veritie cannot vtter vntruth and herein acknowledge with your Maiestie a most high and incomprehensible Mysterie which were no Mysterie at all the words being vnderstood in a meere figuratiue sence ANSWER The question is not Whether Christ vttered these words or not This is my body This cup is the new Testament in my bloud Neither is there any doubt of the veritie of our Sauiours speech or whether we must beleeue his word or not to which purpose Gaudentius speaketh but the question is concerning the sence of the words to wit whether This is my body This cup is the new Testament in my blood are to be expounded literally Arguments for the negatiue part are these which follow First if the substance of Bread and Wine be deliuered in the Eucharist our Aduersarie will grant that the words are figuratiue because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly But it shall be prooued in the sections following both out of Scripture and Fathers that the substance of Bread and Wine are deliuered in the holy Eucharist Secondly the words whereby the wine is consecrated Luc. 22.20 are tropicall by the confession of our Aduersaries Thirdly if the words be taken properly then the body of Christ and the bloud of Christ are deliuered and receiued without the soule and deitie of Christ for in proprietie of speech the body is a distinct and diuers thing from the soule and likewise the blood Fourthly that which Christ deliuered to bee eaten and drunke by his Disciples he did sacramentally eate and drinke himselfe Luc. 22.15 as S. Hierome S. Chrysostome Euthymius with many Schoole-men affirme But if the words be litterally vnderstood then he did eat his owne body and drinke his owne blood Fiftly if the words be vnderstood literally then Christ gaue his passible and mortall body to the Disciples but I trow no Iesuit will maintaine that a body mortall and passible can be in many Hosts or mouths at once neither can the same be corporally eaten without sensible touching and feeling thereof or diuiding one part thereof from another Sixtly if our Sauiours words be literally expounded then Infidells dogges and swine may eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man but all that eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man haue
euerlasting life Ioh. 6.49.50 51.54.56 Seauenthly if our Sauiours words were literall regular and plaine as Papists pretend then they themselues could not bee distracted and diuided about the sence thereof But they are notoriously diuided First Some of them say that the Pronoune This signifieth nothing Others say it signifies the Bread Alex. Hales Hocest corpus meum sensus est signatum hoc signo quod est panis transubstantiandus in corpus meum est corpus meum that is The sence of these words This is my body is the Bread presently to bee transubstantiate into my body is my body Some say it signifieth the Accidents and formes of Bread others it signifieth the body of Christ. Some say it signifieth confusedly that which is contayned vnder the formes And euery of these opinions hath sundry crookes windings and limitations Secondly Touching the Verbe substantiue est is some expound it by continetur vnder these formes my bodie is contained Others expound it by Erit This shall be my bodie when the sentence is ended Some say it signifieth Transmutatur It is changed and conuerted Thirdly Touching the words Corpus meum my Bodie Some say it is Materia prima The first matter of Christs Bodie Others The materiate Bodie with the reasonable soule Others A Bodie organicall without reference to being a liuing Bodie or a dead Others A liuing Bodie Some say it is a Bodie without quantitie dimensions or parts Others A Bodie hauing quantitie without extension figure order of parts Others A bodie hauing quantitie without extrinsecall reference to place an immateriall Bodie like vnto Angels and Spirits and they resemble the same by the Image of mans face reflecting in a glasse A Bodie hauing the stature of a man and yet contained in euerie crumme of bread Thus whiles Romists denie that there is a figure in our Sauiours words they fall into innumerable absurdities in stead of the true and perfect bodie of Christ crucified for vs and communicated in the holy Eucharist they reach vs a fantasticall bodie and a very vaine shadow and Image of Christs reall bodie But the Aduersarie to make the contrarie Tenet appeare Catholicke affirmeth That the antient Church expresly denied our Sauiours words to be figuratiue and in his Margen he pointeth out certaine Authours Euthymius Theophilact Damascene c. I answere although these Authours being none of them antient but post nati affirme that Christ in the holy Eucharist deliuereth not onely a figure of his bodie but his true bodie which is also our Tenet yet they say not that there is no trope or figure in our Sauiours words Theophylacts words are Non tantum figura exemplar est corporis Christi c. It is not onely a figure or similitude of Christs bodie Euthymius Esaias beheld a fierie coale the coale was not simply or onely wood but fierie wood such is this fierie coale in this great Mysterie Secondly It is to be obserued that these Authours teaching that bread and wine are Sacramentally or mystically conuerted doe also maintaine that the said Elements remaine in their materiall substance and that Christs bodie and blood are receiued into the spirituall powers of the soule and they say farther That Christ changeth the worthie Receiuers into his Bodie IESVIT As for some places of Fathers brought to the contrarie how they are to be vnderstood your Maiestie is not ignorant Saint Augustine saying That Christ gaue to his Disciples a figure of his Bodie and Blood spoke not of a bare emptie figure but of the figure of a thing really present as likewise in another place when he saith Christ affirmed it was his Bodie when he gaue a signe of his Bodie though there he may seeme to speake in the opinion of the Manichees who held That Christ had not true flesh but a meere figure shape and shaddow of flesh against whom in that place he vndertakes to prooue That the figure of a thing may bee tearmed the thing it selfe Argumento ad hominem that Christ said This is my Bodie when hee gaue but a figure of his Bodie to wit as you thinke Tertullian hath this speech Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his Disciples made the same his Body saying Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei where figura corporis mei is referred not vnto corpus meum as an explication thereof but vnto hoc in this maner hoc id est figura corporis mei est corpus meum This to bee Tertullians meaning appeares by the drift of his discourse in that place for Tertullian is to shew that whereas in the Old Testament Bread was afigure of the Bodie of Christ as appeares by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius id est crucem in corpus eius Christ in the New Testament made this figure to be truely and really his Bodie taking Bread into his hands saying this that is This figure of my Bodie is my Bodie as if he said Bread which antiently was a figure of my Bodie I doe now make to be truely and really my Bodie and this is an vsuall phrase in Tertullian who not to interrupt the sentence of holy Scripture addeth his explication of the subiect not presently but after the Attribute as when he said Christus mortuus est id est vnctus the sence whereof is Christus id est vnctus mortuus est ANSWER Many of the Fathers treating of the Sacramentall signes call them Figures Representations Similitudes Memorials Antitipes c. of the Bodie and Blood of Christ. But that which is a figure similitude and representation of a thing is not properly the same Saint Augustine It is a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords Passion and sweetly and profitably to keepe in minde that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. The Lord did not sticke to say This is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie Origen This I speake of the typicall and figuratiue bodie Saint Ambrose Which is the figure of the bodie and blood of the Lord Iesus Saint Chrysostome In the sanctified vessell there is not the true bodie of Christ but a mysterie of his bodie is there contained Gratians Glosse The Diuine bread which representeth the flesh of Christ is called The bodie of Christ but improperly Beda Substituting his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine Druthmarus The blood of Christ is aptly figured thereby Bertram Bread and Wine is figuratiuely the Bodie and Blood of Christ. And Tertullian more antient than any of these saith That Bread representeth the Bodie of Christ And he saith in two places That it is a figure of Christs Bodie The Iesuit in his answer to these plaine testimonies taketh notice onely of S.
Augustine and Tertullian and concerning the first he saith that S. Augustine spake not of a bare and emptie figure but of the figure of a thing really present but this answere is deceitfull for the Sacramentall elements are a true and liuely figure and not a bare and emptie signe of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And although the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are not essentially contained and inclosed in the shapes or materiall substance of the elements yet they are really communicated by the holy Ghost at and by the faithfull and worthie receiuing of these diuine mysteries The second place of S. Augustine admitteth not the Iesuits solution for one difference betweene the Manichee and this Father was concerning Moses his words Deut. 12.23 Thou shalt not eat the Bloud for the Bloud is the Soule S. Augustine saith Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum I may expound that commandement by saying it was set downe in a signe for Christ doubted not to affirme This is my bodie when he gaue a signe of his Bodie In these words S. Augustine teacheth that as the Bloud is called the Soule after the manner of a signe so likewise the Bread in the holy Eucharist is called the bodie of Christ because it is a signe of his bodie This similitude prooueth that S. Augustine held our Sauiours words This is my Bodie to be a siguratiue enunciation which is the thing affirmed by vs. Tertullian affirmeth expressely of Bread which he receiued into his hand and distributed to his disciples that it is a figure of Christs Bodie And the Aduersaries 〈◊〉 expounding his words in this manner The figure of my bodie is my bodie is voluntarie or rather sophisticall for the words immediately following are he called bread his Bodie and in other places he maketh bread the subiect of the proposition This is my Bodie But the accidents and shape of bread are not bread neither did our Sauiour when he said This is my Bodie demonstrate the forme only of Bread or command the formes only of Bread and Wine to be corporally receiued for he did demonstrate that which was sacramentally changed but the accidents of Bread and Wine are not changed into Christs Bodie and Bloud by the confession of Papists themselues IESVIT This supposed I inferre that the bodie of Christ is present in the mysticall Supper not onely to the faithfull that receiue the Sacrament nor onely to the place or Church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes of Bread in the verie same place therewith This manner of presence is cleerely consequent vpon the precedent and that granted this cannot be denyed For the reason for which Christians hold the bodie of Christ to be really truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper and plaine sence verifie the word of Christ to say of Bread this is my bodie Wherefore we must either put no real presence at all or els put such a real presence as is able to verifie the foresaid speech in proper and rigorous sence But if the bodie of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated Bread contained vnder the formes thereof it cannot be said to be verily and really the body of Christ. For though we should suppose the Body of Christ to leaue heauen and be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed presence would no waies further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my Bodie except his bodie be vailed and couered with the sensible accidents of Bread so that it be demonstrated by them and pointing vnto them one may truely say This is the Body of Christ. For why should consecrated Bread be tearmed truely and substantially the Bodie of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is vailed with the semblances of Bread as S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in his Booke highly commended by Dr. Whitaker saith Let vs therefore with all certitude receiue the Bodie and Bloud of Christ For vnder the forme of Bread is giuen Thee his Bodie Yea Caluin saith In the supper Christ Jesus to wit his Bodie and Bloud is truely giuen vnder the signes of Bread and Wine ANSVVER Although the mysticall words be not vnderstood properly and rigorously yet we may truely and really though spiritually eat the Flesh and drinke the Bloud of the sonne of man by a liuing Faith Ioh. 6.54 1. Cor. 10.16 The food which entreth into the bodie must be locally present but this food entreth not into the bodie but it is the bread of life which nourisheth the substance of the soule saith S. Ambrose But the Obiector demandeth Why consecrated bread should be tearmed truely substantially the body of Christ if his bodie be not so much as in the same place with it Our answer is because of the Sacramentall vnion betweene the signes and the bodie of Christ represented and spiritually communicated to the worthie receiuor by that signe As a Kings crowne may be called a kingdome because it is a signe thereof and the placing thereof vpon the head may be a meanes of conferring a kingdome So likewise in Sacramentall speeches the outward signe is called by the name of the thing signified because it representeth it and is by diuine institution an effectual instrument to applie and communicate the same 1. Cor. 10.16 And by the same reason Christs Bodie may be said to be in the bread and his Bloud in the Cup not by locall presence or as wine is contained in a vessell which S. Cyrill affirmeth not but vertually and by relation and spirituall donation because when the Minister deliuereth the outward signe and the Communicant receiueth the same The holy Ghost deliuereth and communicates the thing signified to the beleeuing soule IESVIT Whence it is also consequent that the whole bodie of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated Host be the same neuer so little for by this mysterie the bodie of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidents so that consecrated bread may be termed truly really substantially the bodie of Christ not a parcell or part thereof only But were not the bodie of Christ wholly and entirely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truely and properly be tearmed the bodie of Christ but a sole part and 〈◊〉 thereof Againe we haue no reason to beleeue the bodie of Christ is truely and really present in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truely and really eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if he be eaten onely mentally by Faith we haue no ground to thinke that he is present more than mentally by Faith the presence of his bodie being ordained vnto the manducation thereof for else why did he institute this Sacrament
of Bread which was once substantially Bread cannot become substantially the bodie of Christ except it bee substantially conuerted into his bodie or personally assumed by the same bodie And seeing this second manner of vnion betweene Bread and Christs Bodie is impossible and reiected by Protestants as well as by Catholickes Wee may conclude that the mysterie of Christs reall presence cannot be beleeued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation specially seeing our Sauiour did not say here is my Bodie which speech may be verefyed by the presence of his Bodie locally within the Bread but This is my Bodie which imports that not onely his Bodie is truely and substantially present but also that it is the substance contained immediately vnder the accidents of Bread ANSWER First if a substance be either by nature humane Custome or diuine Ordination appointed to containe another substance then demonstrating the externall substance which containes we may signifie the hidden substance contained But according to that Tenet which maintaineth Consubstantiation the substance of bread is by diuine Ordination appointed to containe the substance of Christs bodie therefore demonstrating by words the substance of bread one may signifie the hidden substance which is Christs bodie Secondly Scotus Durand and Paludanus affirme that although the substance of Bread remaine yet because the substance of Christs bodie is also present it might truely and properly be said by our Sauiour This is my Bodie Now if such profound Scholemen haue weighed the Iesuits obiection do find the same light the propugnors of Consubstantiation haue smal reason to regard it Thirdly the former obiection is nothing to vs which maintaine a true mysticall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist and refuse both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation for we beleeue and are able to demonstrate that our Sauiours words are figuratiue in part and yet the true Bodie and Bloud of Christ are really and verely communicated according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. IESVIT Jf any man say that by this Argument it appeares that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the words of the Jnstitution subtilly deduced and so may perchance bee numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answer That the consequence of this Argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The Doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not Metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe by Scripture but by subtile deduction inferred from the mysterie which Scripture and Tradition deliuers Notwithstanding because these subtile deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the foresaid mysterie they cannot be denied without preiudice of Faith In this sort the Doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denied by them that will be perfect beleeuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertaine to the proper sence of Christ his words and substance of the mysterie ANSVVER I know at whom you glance when you say inter scita Scholae but your solution from the Doctrine of Incarnation is not leuell to the scope for illations are of two sorts some are immediate formall necessarie euident and illustrious to wit Christ Iesus is a true and perfect man therefore he hath an humane will some are obscure contingent remote and sophisticall to wit Christ said This is my bodie Ergo the consecrate host is Christs substantiall bodie by Transubstantiation Christ said Do this in remembrance of me Ergo he made his Disciples sacrificing Priests That which is deriued from Scripture the first way is Doctrine of Faith that which is inferred the other way may be loose vncertaine infirme and many times ridiculous and apparantly false Now let me intreate you vntill you prooue your deduction necessarie to ranke your Popish Masse and Transubstantiation among this latter kind of deriuatiue Articles Neither can the swelling vsurpation of Romish Prelates which you stile the Church make euery subtile speculation of Schoolemen and nice figment of humane wisedome an Article of Christian Faith any more than a bragging 〈◊〉 can by outfacing conuert copper into gold for Articles of Faith come downe from heauen by the holy Ghost and are such onely from their forme and originall causes As for your Romane Synode of Pope Nicholas and your Laterane vnder Innocent the third These were your owne Idols the definitions that passed in them were the breath of the Popes nostrils and therefore why are you so fantasticall as to enammell them with the title and authoritie of the Catholicke Church And in one of these conuenticles your Pope hath so rudely and grossely determined the Question of Reall presence that Romists themselues are now ashamed and forced to Glosses and strained Expositions to metamorphise and new mould those vndigested crudities IESVIT §. 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers IT is certaine the Fathers acknowledge a Transmutation of bread into the Bodie of Christ and that they meant Transubstantiation that is not onely a mysticall and significatiue but also a reall and substantiall change appeares by these fiue Circumstances of their Doctrine in this point ANSWER THat we may rightly vnderstand the testimonies of Fathers alleadged in this question wee are in the first place to examine what transubstantiation is according to Papalls The Trident Councell saith It is a conuersion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christs body and bloud wrought by the words of consecration First by the whole substance they vnderstand the whole substantiall matter and forme Secondly they affirme that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed or ceaseth to be Thirdly the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the accidentall shapes of Bread and Wine Fourthly by the force of the words of consecration the substance of Bread and Wine ceasing the body and blood of Christ acquire a new manner of being vnder the externall formes differing from his being in heauen Fiftly the shapes and accidents of Bread and Wine subsist without any materiall subiect of inherencie and affect the senses and nourish in like manner as formerly they did This doctrine of Popish Transubstantiation is new according to the iudgement of many learned Schoolemen and the Primitiue Fathers neuer taught the same for many of them maintaine expresly That the substance of Bread and Wine remaine and none of them affirme either that the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the naked formes and shapes of Bread and Wine or that the Accidents haue no materiall subiect of inherencie or that the body and bloud of Christ acquire a new being in the Sacrament differing from that which they had
the roome or seate of another is not substantiall conuersion but alteration of place IESVIT Saint Chrysostome When waxe is put into fire nothing of the substance thereof is left nothing remaines vnconsumed so likewise doe thou thinke that the Mysteries are consumed by the substance of the bodie of Christ. ANSWER This Father saith not That nothing of the substance of bread and wine is left but cleane contrarie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing of the substance goeth away And the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are falsly translated for they are not Is consumed by the substance but Is coabsumed with the substance Also the substance of bread is not consumed by the bodie of Christ according to the Tenet of many Schoolemen The substance of the externall elements passeth into the bodie of the Receiuer and is consumed or vnited to the flesh of the Receiuer The bodie and blood of Christ represented by the same and receiued by Faith nourish the soule to life eternall Iohn 6. 54. And if our Aduersaries following their owne translation will expound Saint Chrysostome literally then Communicants receiue Christs bodie by the hands of the Seraphim and not by the Priests hands IESVIT S. Ambrose What arguments shall we bring to prooue That in the Sacrament is not the thing which nature hath framed but that thing which benediction hath consecrated and that greater is the force of benediction than of nature seeing by the benediction euen nature is changed ANSVVER The quantitie and accidents of the outward signes are framed by nature as well as the substance and the force of consecration and benediction passeth vpon the one as well as vpon the other and therefore the change of nature which Saint Ambrose intendeth is not the destruction of the elements and the conuersion thereof into another substance but the eleuating of these earthly creatures to be mysteries of grace and holy instruments to apply and communicate that which is represented by them It is inconsequent to argue They are changed in their nature Ergo Their naturall substance is destroyed for nature implieth qualities and properties as well as substance and it is taken Theologicè as well as Physicè for S. Peter speaking of regenerate persons 2. Pet. 1. v. 4. saith They are made partakers of the Diuine nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet his meaning is not that their former substance is abolished The nature of glorified bodies is changed and they are made spirituall 1. Cor. 15. 44. and yet they retaine the same substance Mans nature was changed after his fall Ephes. 2. 3. yet the substance of his nature remained Saint Ambrose himselfe saith That in Baptisme man is changed and made a new creature and treating farther of the Sacrament of Baptisme he saith Learne how the word of Christ is accustomed to change euery creature and when he will he altereth the course of nature IESVIT Secondly They require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his Bodie be omnipotent and consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall S. Cyprian This Bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill Hee that in the marriage of Cana changed Water into Wine by his onely will is not hee worthie that we beleeue him that he hath changed Wine into his Bloud S. Gaudentius The Lord and Creator of Natures that of Earth made Bread againe because he can doe it and hath promised to doe it makes of Bread his owne Bodie and he that of Water made Wine now of Wine hath made his Bloud ANSWER S. Cyprian was not the author of the Booke de Coena Domini so Bellarmine confesseth and before him Iohannes Hessels but in some copies it passeth vnder the name of Arnoldus who liued manie ages after Cyprian And yet in one part of that worke d. vnctione Chrysmatis there is a manifest place against Transubstantiation Our Lord saith he in the table wherein he banqueted with his Disciples with his owne hands deliuered Bread and Wine c. declaring also how the thing signifying and the thing signified are called by the same name Secondly to a mysticall change the omnipotent power of God is necessarie as appeareth in the water of Baptisme and earthly creatures cannot be instruments of grace or meanes to communicate spirituall or miraculous benefits without the same as appeareth in the waters of Iordan 2. Reg. 5. and in the poole of Bethesda Ioh. 5. Therefore although some do require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of Bread and Wine yet it followeth not that they maintained Transubstantiation Thirdly the author by the words Natura mutatus changed in nature vnderstood not a corporall change for in the same sentence he declareth himselfe by the example of Christs humanitie which being personally vnited to the deitie is changed but not so as that it looseth his naturall forme and substance And in the same Booke this Father faith That although the immortall food deliuered in the Eucharist differ from common meat yet it retaineth in the kind of corporal substance He saith not Species in the plurall number meaning according to the new Popish sence the externall shapes and accidents for let the Aduersarie prooue out of antiquitie that S. Cyprian or the Primatiue Church maintained the late Romish Doctrine concerning shapes of Bread and Wine without the materiall substance and we will freely grant that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is antient but he saith Speciem the kind in the singular number that is the corporall substance and forme in the same sence in which S. Ambrose vseth the word saying Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur Before the benediction of wordes applied it is called another kind of thing S. Cyrills place maintaineth not Popish Transubstantiation for in this the shapes and accidents remaine and the materiall substance is corrupted but in our Sauiours miracle Ioh. 2. the shapes accidents and forme were changed and the materiall substance remained Gaudentius saith Satis declarat Sanguinem suum esse omne Vinum quod in figura passionis sua offertur Bonauent d. 11. q. 6. in 4. sent Omnia verba significantia innouationē circà corp ' Christi sunt falsè dicta Haec est simplicitèr impropria Corpus Christi fit Ne 〈◊〉 putes quod Coeleste effectum est per eū qui transit in 〈◊〉 Nam cum panem consecratum vinum Discipulis suis porrigerat c. The Lord makes Bread of his owne Bodie and he makes Wine of his Bloud and then he saith further of Bread he makes his owne Bodie and of Wine his owne Bloud but he saith not that this is done by Transubstantiation for Christs Bodie and Bloud are not transubstantiate but calling the same coelestiall food he declareth his meaning
Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to bee bruised with stones to death than disclose it to the Persecutors who when they had crowned the Martyr searching seriously for the Sacrament in his cloathes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands S. Cyprian records diuers miracles done in confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the Sacrament namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the Chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out Tanta est Domini potentia saith S. Cyprian Tanta Maiestas And so fully were they persuaded in this opinion That Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyril dareth say Insaniant qui dicunt benedictionem a Sanctificatione cessare Si quae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem non enim mutabitur sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuancy of our Sauiour in the Sacrament but that they beleeued Bread to be changed into his body remaining demonstrable by the formes and accidences thereof so long as they remained entire and were not changed into the accidences of some other substance ANSWER Your obiection reduced to forme of argument is All they which vsed reseruation of the Sacrament and maintained continuancie of Christs body therein beleeued Transubstantiation The antient Fathers vsed reseruation of the Sacrament and maintained continuancie of Christs body therein Ergo The ancient Fathers beleeued Transubstantiation If the argument be thus formed First the Maior Proposition is denyed for the Fathers might vse reseruation of the Sacrament and beleeue the permanencie of Christs body therein vpon the Tenet of reall Presence by Consubstantiation and not vpon beleefe of Transubstantiation Secondly the Primitiue Church and antient Fathers generally or vniuersally vsed not reseruation of the Sacramentall signes and Iustin Martyr and Ireneus speake onely of the sending of the Sacrament from the Church where it was administred to sick persons and strangers Some examples of reseruation proceeded vpon the ignorance and superstition of priuate persons in which case although some Fathers vsed conniuence yet these abuses were afterwards reformed The Minor therefore if it be generall is denyed and if it be particular then the Maior and Minor inferre not the conclusion because that which was done by some vpon priuate opinion and in another kind or manner than Romists doe at this day and was also opposed and corrected by others cannot be a matter of Catholike doctrine or practise But this question of Reseruation hath beene largely handled by many of our part and whatsoeuer Romists haue obiected concerning the same is fully answered and therefore because this Iesuit produceth no new matter but onely repeateth what wee haue formerly confuted and especially because Reseruation concludeth not Transubstantiation which is the matter now in question I forbeare further examination of the particular Testimonies produced by him IESVIT Against this consent of Fathers Protestants obiect the Testimonie of Theodoret and Gelasius who in plaine tearmes affirme That the substance of Bread and Wine remaines in this holy Eucharist bringing this as an example of the Incarnation where the Natures of God and man remaine in Christ Signa mystica saith Theodoret post sanctificationem non recedunt à sua natura And Gelasius Non esse desinit substantia vel natura Panis Vini I answer That these Fathers by the substance of Bread and Wine vnderstand the naturall qualities that flow from the nature and essence of Bread and Wine for ordinarily and in common speech the naturall accidents and proprieties of a thing are tearmed the nature of the thing Thus wee say That to be heauie and to fall downeward is the nature of the Stone to be hot and to burne is the nature of the Fire which yet are but naturall qualities and properties of Stone and Fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speech S. Theodote Bishop of Ancyra to explicate against Nestorius and Eutyches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the Water that Moses conuerted into Bloud saith That the Water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be Water which in rigor of speech taking the nature of Water for the substance thereof as condistinct from the naturall qualities is not true But because Water changed into Bloud remaines according to some naturall qualities and properties which it hath common with Bloud as Moisture Liquidnesse and the like he the better to sit and accommodate the similitude saith The Water remained according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualities thereof For these Fathers bring those similitudes to declare the Mysterie of the Incarnation against the Heresie of Eutyches who denied the naturall qualities and properties of the two Natures of God and man to remaine distinct in the Person of Christ which Error they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualities of Bread remaine together with the Bodie of Christ in the same Sacrament Which naturall qualities of Bread they tearme the nature of Bread as in some sense they may be tearmed to the end that the phrase of two distinct Natures remaining might seem common to the Mysteries of both the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper though the Fathers knew well that the phrase did not agree to both Mysteries equally in the same sense Which obscure vttering his mind is the lesse to be wondered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainely as fearing that some Infidels or Catechumes were present to whom the Mysterie of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet saith hee aperte dicere est enim veresimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the words of S. Augustine Quod videtur in Altari panis est quod etiam occuli renunciant Quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is That consecrated Bread is Bread in outward apparance and the naturall Accidences of Bread truly remaine as the eye doth witnesse but inwardly and according to the substance it is not Bread but the Bodie of Christ as Faith requireth we beleeue And it is to be noted that these words are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alledged by venerable Bede a follower of S. Augustines Doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood them who sets downe his mind in these words The forme of Bread is seene but the substance of Bread is not there nor any other Bread but onely that Bread which came downe from Heauen ANSVVER Demonstration hath largely beene made by our part that
Luc. 22.18.1 Cor. 10.16 11.26.27.28 Secondly the same affirmeth not that the substance of Bread and Wine is abolished Thirdly naturall reason sheweth that accidents must haue a subiect of inhaerencie and that bare formes and shadowes of things cannot nourish without corporall substance Fourthly the sences of Tast and Feeling discerne apparantly a corporietie in the elements receiued In this case there is no reason to imagine that our sences are deluded or that God almightie by miracle worketh in a contrarie manner to the course of nature and to that which he hath otherwise reuealed in his word It is not sufficient for Romists to affirme That God vseth a miraculous course in these things and to palliate absurdities repugnant to sence reason and scripture vnder pretext of Gods omnipotencie but they must prooue by diuine Reuelation that he will doe this for God effecteth not all things by his omnipotencie which men may imagine to be possible In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my Bodie This cuppe is the new Testament in my Bloud c. there is not a sillable concerning accidents without a subiect or concerning any miracle wrought in the Sacrament by omnipotencie neither is there any such doctrine elsewhere reuealed And if Christs words be expounded figuratiuely according to S. Augustine Tertullian Theoderit Origen Bertram c. they make nothing for corporall presence by indistance of place and if they be vnderstood literally they prooue not Transubstantiation for Bread may be called the bodie of Christ by an inusitate forme of speaking which according to the Tenet of some learned Diuines is no trope or figure And if neither of these expositions content our Aduersaries they might haue beleeued the words of the holy Text as they sound literally and a reall presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud wrought by the power of the holy Ghost without defining and determining the expresse manner how For if they beleeue that accidents subsist without a substance and nourish and are tasted and felt and passe into the stomach and yet are not able to expresse the distinct manner how and if they beleeue a substantiall presence of Christs indiuiduall humane bodie in many hosts and yet are vnable to declare the maner how Why might they not haue suspended other questions concerning the distinct manner of presence and maintained onely a true and mysticall presence the distinct manner whereof is incomprehensible in this life and not haue disturbed the peace of the Church by defining as an article of Faith such a doctrine as hath no foundation in diuine Reuelation to make it appeare certaine and infallible IESVITS 1. Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two things most certaine First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidels the rest of Christian mysteries as the Trinitie the Incarnation the Resurrection of the bodie did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mysteries of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the Primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens and Infidels being fully acquainted with the whole mysterie the one should be scandalized and the other mocke thereat Hence it was accounted such a haynous offence that Christians should discouer this secret vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficulties thereof in their presence The Councell of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publique and as it were vpon a scaffold to treat of the mysteries before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after Jt is not lawfull to publish the Mysteries before them that are not initiated for feare least Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosities be scandalized And againe Before Catechumens and which is more before Iewes and Pagans blaspheming Christianitie they handled a question about the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour S. Ambrose saith To declare the mysteries vnto them that be Catechumens is not Tradition but Prodition seeing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Jnfidels that will scoffe at them This supposed I infer that the seeming absur dities of the Catholique reall presence should incourage a true Christian mind to beleeue it for a true Christian desires to beleeue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall presence that was beleeued by the Primitiue Church But this was a reall presence accompanied with many so seemingly grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfie Infidels therein or to keepe them from blaspheming but by concealing the mysterie from them and consequently they held the Catholique not the Protestant Doctrine in this point The Protestant Doctrine that makes Christs bodie present spiritually by Faith vnto the deuout Receiuer that communicating thinks sweetly of Christs passion and death containes no mysterie to be concealed in respect of the seeming absurdities ANSWER In the daies of the Fathers Heathens Iewes and Heretickes might enter into the Church and heare the publicke Sermons and preaching as appeareth by the fourth councell of Carthage and Infidels might read the bookes and tractates of the Fathers But the Fathers in their sermons to the people and also in their written bookes deliuered the Doctrine of the holy mysteries as appeareth by Ireneus Iustin Martyr S. Cyprian Gregorie Nissen Cyrill of Hierusalem S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Ambrose c. Neither is it apparant that the said Fathers taught any other secret Doctrine touching the holy mysteries than such as they preached in their Homilies and penned in their Bookes and therefore these Homilies and Bookes being publique it appeareth not that the Primitiue Church was more carefull to conceale the Doctrine of the Eucharist than of Baptisme or of the Trinitie The Obiections out of Athanasius and S. Ambrose shew that it was held vnlawfull in those ages to treat or dispute of the holy Eucharist intempestiuè that is before Heathens which were not at all instructed in the first Principles of Religion or to treat of this Doctrine in prophane places or auditories But what is this to Transubstantiation For it was held vnlawfull in the Primitiue Church in maner aforesaid that is in an vndue time order place to treat or dispute of the mysteries of Baptisme or of other profound mysteries belonging to Christian faith Also if it were granted that some antient Fathers beleeuing a reall Presence did therefore conceale the doctrine of the holy Eucharist Ratione scandali because of offence of Infidels arising vpon many difficulties and seeming contradictions to sence and common reason it followeth not from hence that those Fathers beleeued Popish Transubstantiation for many difficulties and repugnances to sence and common reason are found in Consubstantiation as well as in Transubstantiation and sundrie places of the Fathers may with more
at the day of Judgement to iustifie our not beleeuing any part of Gods word by reason of the seeming absurditie thereof ANSWER You are not able to demonstrate that God will haue vs beleeue that the whole Organicall body of Christ hauing the stature quantitie and magnitude of a perfect mans body is contayned in the compasse of a small Hoast or in a crum of Bread for that Christ Iesus hath a true and perfect body differing in kind from a Spirit from an Angell and from an immateriall substance diuine reuelation teacheth but that the same indiuiduall and corporeall substance partaketh the spirituall manner of Angelicall existence and the diuine immensitie simplicitie and omnipresence as Bellarmine affirmeth is not reueiled vnto vs by the holy Ghost neither can the same be inferred ex Reuelatis from any plaine and euident truth which God hath reuealed Neither is it reuealed that the Abstracted formes and accidents of Bread and Wine subsist or are tasted and felt or nourish the body and are afterwards corrupted according to the manner of corporeall food hauing no substantiall or materiall nature in them Therefore this large tract wherein the Obiectour laboureth to prooue a possibilitie of the former by diuine miracle and omnipotencie is vnworthy our examination for we make no question of Gods omnipotent power in effecting whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth as hath beene formerly answered Pag. 181. Yet the Fathers and Schoolemen very well teach vs That such things as implie a contradiction and falsitie are not the obiect of diuine power and they teach vs further that there is a twofold power in God Ordinata Absoluta one according to the order which himselfe hath fixed by his word and will the other according to the infinitenesse of his essence and which exceedeth his will Now according to the power of God measured and regulate by his word and will all things are impossible which God will not haue to be And thus we say that it is impossible that the whole body of Christ can be in one crumme of Bread or substantially present in many places at one instant and accidents cannot subsist or be tasted felt and nourish and be conuerted into the substance of mans body without a materiall subiect of inherencie to sustaine and giue force vnto them But on the contrarie we dispute not what God is able to effect by his absolute power neither is this question of any vse in the matter now in hand for the naturall kind of the things themselues created by God and the Doctrine of holy Scriprure teach vs what is the reuealed will of God but that hee changeth this Ordinance which himselfe hath fixed no Diuine Testimonie or Reuelation affirmeth or teacheth The sole pretext which Papals haue to palliate the absurdities pursuing Transubstantiation at the heeles are the words of Institution But there is nothing coactiue in the said words to prooue this Romish Article by the confession of the best learned Papists as I haue formerly prooued pag. 414. And besides many other Reasons This Argument out of our Sauiours words is most strong against Transubstantiation If nothing bee found in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie which prooueth the conuersion of the substance of bread into Christs bodie more than which is likewise found to change the quantitie and accidents then Popish Transubstantiation being onely a conuersion of substance and not of quantitie and accidents cannot be concluded out of our Sauiours words But nothing is found in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie c. proouing any more the conuersion of substance than of quantitie and accidents for our Sauiour tooke the whole bread both according to the substance and also according to the quantitie and accidents thereof into his hands and blessed and consecrated the same intirely with the like thankesgiuing and pronuntiation of words and performed all things to the one as well as to the other Therefore if our Sauiours words prooue Transubstantiation of the substance of Bread and Wine they must likewise prooue conuersion of the quantitie and accidents into Christs bodie and blood But by the confession of Papals they doe not the latter for the quantitie and accidents are not conuerted into Christs bodie and blood and consequently they doe not the former Now this being apparent the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation hath no foundation in our Sauiours words This is my bodie c. I supersede therefore to examine the Obiectors particular Arguments among which one is learnedly borrowed from the flies wing which according to Romish Phylosophie may be thinned extended and inlarged to make a case such perhaps as Base Viols haue to put the whole world into Euery punie in our Vniuersities can distinguish betweene Mathematicall or Potentiall diuision of a bodie and Physicall or Actuall Aristotle himselfe teaching vs that there is Minima caro though there be not Corpus minimum But this fictious Cosmotecture and case may well bee paraled to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and they are twinnes the one as credible and infallible in Theologie as the other in Philosophie But if our Aduersarie would be pleased to respite vs from beleeuing Transubstantiation as an Article of our Creed vntill his vast words cap-case made of a flies wing bee finished hee shall finde vs more flexible and prone to credite his Romish Doctrine in this and other Articles IESVIT Secondly Wee cannot imagine the bodie of Christ to bee really combined vnto the consecrated formes and not to bee polluted by such indignities as may happen vnto the formes yet wee haue seene or may see things able to make this not to seeme incredible for holy men often by Prayer so purifie their soules and by contemplation bring their spirits to such an independencie of their sences that neither bitter meates offend their tastes nor loathsome sents their smell nor shrill cries their hearing yea burnings and torturings are not perceiued their spirit being eloyned through Diuine vnpolluted affection from the contagion of the bodie vnto the substance whereof it still remaines most really vnited This being so cannot the glorious bodie of Christ graced with most Diuine Ornaments flowing from the excessiue blisse of the soule made spirituall impassible and insearchable bee really present vnto the formes of consecrated bread and yet free immune and wholly independent of any contagion or corruption that may happen to those formes especially the bodie of Christ not being so strictly and substantially tied vnto the formes as the spirit is to the bodie it informeth but is present vnto them as an Angell assistant is to the bodie wherein he worketh What dishonour can it bee to attribute to Christs most venerable bodie this spirituall manner of Angelicall presence yea rather a participation of the Diuine Immensitie for as God by his incomprehensible Immensitie exists euery where no lesse pure in the sincke than in the Sunne no lesse sweete in the dunghill than in a Garden of odoriferous
kernell of an Apple a great tree may bee made and nourished by the force and vigour proceeding from the same did not we see by daily experience the same to be true that ashes may be made of glasse that stones in the stomacke of a Doue yron in the belly of an Ostridge be turned into flesh that of a rotten barke of a tree falling into the water should be bred and produced a perfect bird to me seemes more incredible than that God should make the accidents of Bread separated from their substance to nourish mans body for the dead barke of a tree may seeme to haue no more efficacie of it selfe to produce a liuing creature specially so perfect a bird as Barnacles than haue the accidents of Bread to feede and breede the flesh of a liuing man Yea many Philosophers teach and in my iudgement conuince that in substantiall generations where no cause coequall in perfection to the effect produced is present God by his Omnipotencie doth supplie deficiencie of naturall causes Why then should any man so much mislike our Doctrine that in this Mysterie where the substance of Bread wants God by the secret operation of his power supplies the defect thereof seeing by the opinion of many learned Philosophers his prouidence by the like secret speciall working doth ordinarily daily and hourely supply the manifold defects of substantiall secondarie Agents Neither is the manner how God can doe this difsicile to explicate For he may inable the quantitie of Bread to receiue and sustaine the working of mans nutritiue power and when in that quantitie there is the last accidentall disposition to the forme of flesh he can secretly produce againe Materiam primam that was of the Bread and combine the same with the prepared quantitie and the substantiall forme of Flesh What reason is there why God may not doe this yea doe it sooner than we speake it Wherefore the seeming absurdities of this mysterie being as J haue shewed meerely imaginarie and not like those against the Trinitie and the Incarnation wherein not so much imagination as reason findes difficultie it is the part not onely of sincere Christian faith but also of a cleere excellent wit to conceiue them and not to permit wandring vnruly fancie destitute of reason to controll our beleefe about the literall sence of Christs words so many waies by the grauest testimonies of Antiquitie recommended vnto vs. ANSVVER That Accidents may subsist and haue their naturall force and operation without a subiect of support or inhaerencie implies a contradiction for it is of the being and definition of Accidents to be in another or to be in their subiect And none of the Examples taken from a Kernell Ashes Iron in the belly of an Ostridge the barke of a tree c. are ad idem for these are not Accidents without a substance but reall bodies hauing by nature a proportion and propension to produce their owne effects either as seminall causes or true materials conuerted by heate fire and art or things putrescent formed and animated by the heate of the Sunne and other secret and naturall causes That an Akorne should become an Oake is wonderfull as the workes of God are yet it is as naturall as that a Lyon begets a Lyon nay as that the Sunne or fire shineth That of ashes is made glasse what is it but that a transparent bodie is made of a bodie not transparent so Yee of Snow c. And concerning Stones Iron c. I doe not thinke that these feed or nourish Doues Hawkes Struthiocameles c. but onely coole or cleanse them and this I count not impossible in nature that vegetatiue heate should in short time dissolue stones The Barnacles are generatio ex putri as are Mice Frogs and Serpents but what is this to accidents nourishing without matter and substance Now for all the former wee know the truth and certaintie by naturall reason and by experience of our sences but there is no naturall or supernaturall rule or Law no manifest demonstration either to sence or reason no reuelation of Faith that the abstracted formes of bread and wine subsist without a subiect and haue power to nourish and may bee tasted and felt and also putrifie but Romists presumptuously forme these Chimera's and Idols in the forge of their owne deceiued brest and they deserue to bee fed onely with accidents like Birds that pecked at the painted grapes which thinke to feed any intelligent Reader with such improper and extrauagant accidents IESVITS 3. Consideration Thirdly to make Christians incline to 〈◊〉 this Mysterie so difficile to carnall imagination this Consideration may be very potent to wit that in beleeuing the same on the one side there may be great merit and excellent faith if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in beleeuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this an vnpossible case yet what can be laid to our charge which wee may not defend and iustifie by all the rules of equitie and reason if we be accused that we tooke Bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent herein For seeing the body is not made guiltie but by a guiltie mind euen our body may pleade not guilty seeing our mind our thoughts or deuotion were fully and totally referred vnto Christ whom we truely apprehend by faith as vailed with the Accidents of Bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread Worshippers with saying Quae nouit mens est pani nil vouimus illa Neither did we beleeue that the Bread was changed into Christs body vpon sleight reasons or mooued by the fancies of our owne head but contrary to our fancies out of Reuerence to the expresse words of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most antient Fathers defined by many generall Councells deliuered by full consent of our Ancestors so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning finally confirmed with the most credible and constant report of innumerable most euident miracles Can a Christian beleeue any points of Religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour Why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prompt Credulitie of Transubstantiation that is of Gods Word taken in the plaine proper sense Js it an 〈◊〉 to his veritie that they denie their senses correct their imaginations reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgements rather than not to beleeue what to them seemeth his Word Js it an iniury to his power to be persuaded he can doe things incomprehensible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once Make a body occupy no place and yet remaine a quantitatiue substance
in it selfe Js it iniury to his charitie to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them and to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faithfull man entering really into their bodies to signifie efficatiously his inward coniunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it an iniury to his Wisedome to beleeue that to satisfie on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hand on the other side the Ardencie of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauen he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of faith yet to afford full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuing personall presence and most intime coniunction with them On the other side it imports them that thinke Transubstantiation impossible or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once to consider if they erre easie it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstandings measure the power of God how dangerous and vnexcusable their errour will prooue when they shall be called to giue vnto their omnipotent Maker a finall account particularly of this Doctrine so much derogating from him Let them thinke how they will answer if God lay to their charge the neglect of the most prudent and reasonable aduise which S. Chrys. giues Let vs beleeue God saith he let vs not reiect his Word though the same seeme secret and absurd vnto our cogitation and sense for his speech doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceiue vs but our senses be deceiued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the Intergatory which S. Cyril makes vnto such misbeleeuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God Why didst thou not accuse the imbecility of mans wit rather than the omnipotencie of God Or how disputing or proposing so many arguments against Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it they neuer called to mind the saying of S. Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas ANSWER This third and last consideration is a meere declamation grounded vpon a vaine supposition for it presumeth as granted the opinion of Transubstantiation to be most probable and reasonable as being declared by many antient Fathers defined by generall Councells c. But this supposition is a begging of the question for not so much as one antient Father or generall Councell did euer declare or define the same as it will plainely appeare to all iudicious Persons which shall compare and apply the sentences of Fathers and antient Councells to the Popish definition of Transubstantiation And the said Doctrine is not grounded vpon our Sauiours words and the miracles which Romists venditate to authorise the same are eyther Fryars fables or reports misapplyed and wrested to a contrary end And that there should be merit or at leastwise lesse perill in adhering to this doctrine rather than to any other may bee proclaimed ouer and ouer againe by Romists but it deserueth credit when they demonstrate That an opinion which is not grounded vpon diuine Reuelation and which containeth so many difficulties as cannot be solued and the beleefe whereof is vnnecessarie can be imbraced with safetie and expectation of reward To the words following in the Iesuit That he might also bee continually with his Church secretly it is answered That excluding Transubstantiation Christ Iesus is continually with his Church secretly by his grace spirit and mysticall vnion and he dwelleth in the hearts of iustified persons by faith Epkes 3. v. 17. S. Chrysostome S. Cyril and S. Augustine in the places obiected affirme that we are not to beleeue our dull and carnall sence when it suggesteth vnto vs that which is repugnant to faith and when it acknowledgeth no other force and operation in the holy Sacraments but that which is sensible and naturall But embracing this doctrine of the holy Fathers we cannot from thence extract the fancie of Transubstantiation Learned Papists themselues acknowledge the intricacies and difficulties of this Article many of them affirme that secluding the authoritie of the Romish Church there is nothing in diuine Reuelation compelling to beleeue it The doctrine is not Catholike or Antient The Propugners of it vntill the late Trident Councell disagree in that which is maine and substantiall in it and for auoiding one figure they make many Therefore it standeth not with Christian Wisedome to imbrace or maintaine this doctrine and Romists are more confident than prudent in imposing the same as an Article of the Creed censuring the Noncredents as hainous Heretikes My finall conclusion about this Article is That doctrine which is not expresly taught or formally deduced from holy Soripture which no antient Councell or Church for the first 600 yeares plainely taught and vnto which many aduerse passages are extant in the monuments of antiquitie also which is repugnant to sence and common reason and hath no apparent vtilitie ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith But such is the doctrine of Romish Transubstantiation Therefore it ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith and the Roman Church should either cancell this part of their new Creed or be lesse censorious in obtruding of it THE SEVENTH POINT COMMVNION VNDER ONE KIND AND THE ABBETTING OF IT BY CONCOMITANCIE IESVIT YOur most Excellent Maiestie in the Proposition of this Controuersie shewes your deepe insight into Theologicall difficulties perceiuing a maine ground whereon the Catholicke opinion of the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde standeth to wit Concomitancie which being granted Communion vnder one kind is iustified ANSVVER IF his Sacred MAIESTIE should yeeld you Concomitancie yet vpon that ground Communion in one kinde could not be iustified Neuerthelesse we denie both 〈◊〉 and Communion vnder one kinde IESVIT § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancie prooued THe Doctrine of Concomitancie is that vnder the forme of bread not onely the bodie of Christ but also his precious blood and blessed soule are truely and really contained the bodie directly and by vertue of the words of Consecration the blood and the soule consequently for being contained within the bodie of Christ they must needs Concomitate that is follow the bodie in what place soeuer the same bee neither can any that acknowledges the reall Presence denie this Concomitancie without falling into many absurdities as I prooue by three Arguments ANSWER THe bodie of Christ is considered two wayes First According to the nature of a perfect liuing bodie secondly As it is represented and exhibited in the Sacrament If we consider it the first way the blood of Christ cannot properly be said to be
as it was instituted and if this then it may be vsed in wine onely without bread or in broth or in flesh for we haue no direction or rule for the manner of greater authoritie than the institution Lastly diuine institution doth not only signifie an action of God whereby he giueth being vnto things with reference to their end in which manner the Iesuit sinisterly defineth it but it signifieth also a decree rule precept and information concerning the vse and practise of that which God hath ordained Now our Sauiour when he ordained the holy Eucharist in regard of the being and entitie thereof he withall conioyned the vse of the same as a necessarie condition to make it operatiue and effectuall to his people For euen as in Baptisme although the Word and Element constitute the Sacrament in regard of the definition yet the same is no Baptisme to vs vntill the Word Water be applied to the subiect by ablution so likewise in the holy Eucharist the words and elements make the definition but the vse and application according to the manner taught by Christ giues it a Sacramentall vertue and operation in respect of vs IESVIT §. 3. Communion vnder one kind not against the substance of the Sacrament A Sacrament of the new Testament being a visible efficatious signe of inuisible grace foure things are necessarie to concurre to the substantiall constitution thereof which I will set downe in order and together shew that they are all found in the Eucharist giuen vnder one kind First there is required some element that is a visible and sensible thing or action without which no Sacrament can subsist tearmed by Diuines Materia Sacramenti This substantiall part is not wanting in the Sacrament giuen in one kind in which kind there is consecrated bread visible and sensible in the accidents thereof and manducation also an action visible and appar an t to sence ANSVVER THis quadripartite argument at least in the three formost branches is meerly sophistical indeed against common sence as if one should question whether a man without legs or armes were a perfect entire man according to the first creation of mankind the perpetual succeeding law of nature not erring The Iesuit should answere thus This is a sufficient and perfect man for the other members which he hath as head brest backe c. are not of the substance of humane nature In my replie I need adde no more but smile And yet to answere his particulars First in euerie Sacrament there is required not onely a sensible action but also a visible and materiall signe and therefore to speake by the way some of the seuen which Romists number in their List or Kalender are no Sacraments But in the holy Eucharist there is a double visible element and materiall visible signe to wit Bread and Wine Math. 26.26 27. Luc. 22. 19 20. 1. Cor. 11.23.25 and these outward elements being two in number and diuided the one from the other were distinctly and seuerally distributed by our Sauiour and were receiued by the communicants apart the one of them after the other and although they make but one Sacrament in regard of the definition as similarie and dissimilarie parts make but one bodie yet there is a diuersitie and pluralitie both in their matter and forme and a reason why they must be two and not one indiuiduall signe IESVIT The second thing required to the substance of the Sacrament is Verbum the Word that is a forme of speech shewing the diuine and supernaturall purpose vnto which the element is consecrated Neither is that part wanting in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind which is consecrated by the words of Christ This is my bodie and the Theologicall Principle taken out of S. Augustine verified Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum ANSWER As the outward elements are two in number so likewise a double act of blessing and consecration must passe vpon them for otherwise that part which wanteth benediction is not a sacramentall signe but a common creature and if any signe be omitted then the Sacrament wanteth integritie of parts IESVIT The third thing is signification euerie Sacrament signifying some diuine effect of grace which God worketh by the application thereof and the sensible signe euen by nature hath as S. Augustine noteth some proportion and analagie to signifie that diuine effect which to produce it is assumed by Gods omnipotencie as an Instrument This sacred signification which the holy Eucharist hath is of three kinds and all three are found in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind First this Sacrament is a signe of spirituall food for the nourishment and refection of the soule which signification is manifestly found in Communion vnder one kind for the Eucharist doth signifie this effect of spirituall nutrition because it is a signe of Christ the Bread of Life the food of Angels the fountaine of grace but by the sole forme of bread Christ is signified as present according to his most sacred bodie and consequently as most sufficient to feed and refresh the Soule Another signification of this Sacrament is vnion and coniunction betweene the Faithfull as being members of the same Bodie whereof Christ is Head and fellow members one with another as S. Paul declares which coniunction the Sacrament in the forme of Bread doth signifie For Bread being a compound of many graines of Wheat massed together in one Loafe and also made of Flower and Water mingled one with another signifies the perfect vnion both of the Church with Christ and of the Faithfull that are in the Church one with another as S. Paul testifies Vnum corpus sumus quotquot de vno Pane participamus where he makes no mention of Wine the Sacrament in the forme of Bread being alone able to shew and worke this signification This Sacrament doth also signifie the Passion and Death of our Sauiour which Death and Passion is shewed and represented by Communion vnder one kind For receiuing the Sacrament in the forme of Wine onely wee haue a sufficient ground to remember the Bloud of Christ that was in his Passion shed and seperated from his Bodie Likewise by participating of the consecrated Bread wee may liuely conceiue the Bodie of Christ as it was depriued of the most precious Bloud by the effusion thereof on the Crosse whereupon Christ as S. Paul testifies did after the consecration of each kind particularly recommend the memorie of his Passion as knowing that in each of them alone was a sufficient Monument and memoriall thereof ANSWER Significations may be found in Types and figures being no Sacraments as in a Vine and Branches a naturall Humane Bodie a materiall House or Temple a Lambe led before the shearer and the like but yet because they are otherwise in the Sacrament both in regard of a more perfect and liuely representation and also because a
speciall Promise of Diuine assistance and grace is annexed to the Sacramentall signes vsed and receiued according to Christs Institution which belongeth not to other signes and figures therefore it is inconsequent to say one Element receiued alone signifies as much in substance as both Ergo the vse of one Element is as profitable and effectuall as the vse and reception of both But if the obiection be reduced to forme the defect will be more apparent If there is the same signification of one single Element which there is of both then there is the same benefit obtained by receiuing one which is obtained by receiuing both But there is the same signification of one single Element which there is of both to wit spirituall Food vnion of the Faithfull and Christs passion Ergo There is the same benefit obtayned by receiuing in one kind as in both I answer First denying the consequence of the Maior Proposition For although there were the same signification in one Element which is of both yet there is not equall benefit reaped by receiuing one as is reaped by receiuing both because the promise of Grace is annexed to the receiuing both and not to the receiuing of one without the other for when a promise is made vpon condition of a duty to be performed the promise is not fulfilled but vpon obseruing the condition Now Christ hauing instituted the Sacrament as a seale of his Couenant and appointed the same to be receiued in both kinds as his Institution shewes the Church cannot expect that Christ should fulfill his promise in giuing his flesh and blood by the Sacrament vnlesse the Church obserue his ordinance and doe that which he appointed Also obedience is better than Sacrifice 1. Sam. 15. 22. but when we administer and receiue in both kinds we obey Christ saying Drinke ye all of this and we disobey when we doe otherwise Therefore although there were the same signification of one Element which is of both yet the same benefit is not reaped by receiuing one which is obtained by receiuing both Secondly to the assumption I answer that there is a more perfect and liuely representation of spirituall feeding and refection and of coniunction of the faithfull and of Christs death and Sacrifice vpon the crosse by both the signes than by one and pouring out of the wine doth in a cleerer manner represent and signifie the effusion of Christs bloud and also the separation of his body and soule and there is a more perfect similitude of nourishment in Bread and Wine together than in Bread alone Eccles. 4. 9. so likewise two Elements represent more than one and nourish more than one and vnite more than one Otherwise if the representation of one Element were equall to the representation of both to what purpose should our Sauiour institute a Sacrament in two kinds which according to Papists who will seeme wiser than God is as sufficient in one kind as in both IESVIT The fourth thing required to the substance of a Sacrament is Causalitie to wit to worke in the soule the Spirituall effects it signifies This Causalitie cannot be wanting to the Sacrament vnder one kind wherein is contayned the fountaine of Spirituall life For the cause why the Sacrament in both kinds giueth grace and refresheth the soule is That Christ is assistant vnto them bound by his promise at the presence of sensible signes to worke the proportionable spirituall effects in disposed soules But Christ is in the Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread and he is able through infinite power and bound by inuiolable promise to worke the effect of grace preseruing vnto life eternall the worthy participant of this Sacrament vnder the forms of Bread Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum Not any doubt then may be made but the Sacrament in one kind is full entire compleate in substance and by participation thereof prepared consciences doe receiue the benefite of celestiall fauour that conserueth the life of the soule with daily increase in perfection ANSVVER The summe of this obiection is There is the same power of causing Grace in one signe receiued alone as in both because Christ the Fountaine of Grace is receiued in one signe alone Ioh. 6. 51. Therefore the receiuing of one signe alone is as sufficient and profitable as the sumption of both The Antecedent of this Argument is denyed And the Scripture Ioh. 6. 51. saith not Whosoeuer eateth Sacramentall Bread without Wine shall liue for euer but if any eat this Bread which came downe from Heauen to wit Christ Iesus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you Ioh. 6.53 Now let the Romist chuse which Exposition hee pleaseth If our Sauiour in these last words speaketh of Sacramentall and Spirituall eating ioyntly then Communion in both kinds is necessarie to life eternall and if he speake of Spirituall eating only by Faith then this Scripture prooueth not the necessitie of receiuing eyther Bread or Wine and much lesse prooueth it that there is the power of causing Grace in receiuing Bread alone IESVIT §. 4. Communion vnder one kind not against Christ his Precept ALthough Communion vnder both kinds pertaine not to the substance of the Sacrament yet if Christ did specially command the same we are bound to that obseruance and should by Communion vnder one kind sinne not against his Sacrament and Institution but against a speciall Diuine Precept ANSWER WHen Christ instituted the Sacrament he prouided and prescribed two materiall Elements and not one onely or none and he sanctified and distributed both and with his Institution and Practise he conioyned a Precept Doe this in remembrance of me Drinke ye all of this Saint Paul likewise saith Let a man prooue himselfe and so let him eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup and the practise of the holy Apostles in their dayes and of the successours of the Apostles and Saint Pauls owne practise appeareth 1. Cor. 10.16 cap. 11.26 and he describeth Communicating by taking the Cup as a most noble part saying Yee cannot drinke the cup of the Lord and the cup of deuils 1. Cor. 10.21 Iustin Martir who borders vpon the Apostles saith That Christians in his age distributed the sanctified Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to euery one present and he addeth further that the Apostles taught That Iesus commanded them to doe thus Saint Chrysostome saith That whereas in the old Law there was a difference betweene Priests and Laicks in communicating of Victimes in the New Testament it is otherwise for one Bodie and one Cup is ministred to all This practise continued as a Law more than a thousand yeeres after Christ. And Haimo who liued in the yeere 850. saith That in his dayes all the people receiued out of the
ought to know them and thud God himselfe forgiuing sinnes knoweth them Psal. 69.6 But they which forgiue sinnes declaratiuely and by publishing Gods iudiciall Act like as a Cryer pronounceth the sentence of a Iudge and by applying the Word and Sacraments to penitent persons vpon the holy and worthie receiuing whereof the holy Ghost himselfe conferreth the grace of Remission may performe that which belongeth to their office without distinct knowledge of all the particular sinnes whereof the penitent person hath repented himselfe in the sight of God as appeareth in Baptisme and generall Confession ioyned with Contrition And when a Priest applyeth the word of Absolution hee knoweth not whether the person confessing his sinnes performeth the same truely and with contrition of heart or not Iohn Medina Cardinall Caietan and Iansenius acknowledge the weakenesse of this Argument to prooue Auricular Confession And Vasques saith That a man can hardly find among those which maintaine Auricular Confession out of the place of Ioh. 20. 23. which doe effectually conclude the same from thence Ioh. Medina treating of Auricular Confession saith The Romane Catholike Doctors haue laboured till they sweat againe to find proofe for this veritie He might well haue said They laboured to as good purpose as the man who sought to finde Nodum in Scirpo or A Needle in a Bottle of Hay Mich. Palacius saith Diuines are perplexed in finding places of Scripture or other conuincing arguments to prooue Auricular Confession to be of Diuine Institution and it is worthie admiration what contention is about this matter and how badly Authors agree concerning the same Our Aduersaries labour tooth and nayle to prooue from the former Text in S. Iohn That Priests exercise a Iudiciall Power when they absolue sinners But if this were graunted they gaine nothing for this Iudiciall power is exercised according to the word of Christ And if that word absolue contrite and penitent persons vpon internall Confession to God himselfe and vpon their generall Confession before men without secret Confession then it followeth not That because a Priest exerciseth a Iudiciall power when hee absolueth Ergo Penitents must confesse all their knowne sinnes A penitent person may haue mortall sinnes which he remembreth not Psal. 19.13 and when vpon profession of his repentance he is absolued those sinnes are pardoned Psal. 103.3 and the Priest in giuing Absolution exerciseth a Iudiciall Act according to the Popish Tenet and yet those finnes are not disclosed or manifested vnto him Secondly The present Romish Doctrine concerning the absolute necessitie of Auricular Confession is not Catholique The Greeke Church both of antient and later times reiected the same as appeared by Nectarius S. Chrysostome and by the testimonie of learned Papists which affirme the same concerning that Church The Glosse vpon Gratian saith Auricular Confession is not necessarie among the Grecians Greg. Val. Lib. 2. d. Miss cap. 4. saith That Panormitan and Gerson maintained that secret Confession was not necessarie Andreas Vega Very many learned Catholikes haue doubted of this necessitie of Confession by Diuine Law Maldenat sum q. 18. ar 4. There be also among Catholikes which thinke there is no Diuine Precept touching Auricular Confession to wit all the Interpreters of the Decrees and also Scotus B. Rhenanus and Petrus Oxomensis denyed the said Confession to be of Diuine Institution And Gratian himselfe hauing disputed the Question pro con concludeth in this manner I leaue it to the Readers choyse which opinion to follow because each opinion to wit the one holding Confession to be of Diuine Institution and the other Ecclesiasticall hath fautors both wise and religious Now if Auricular Confession is not certainely and infallibly of Diuine Institution then it is impossible for the same conioyned with Absolution to be a Sacrament because Sacraments of the New Testament were immediately instituted by Christ and haue their institution matter forme visible signes and promises expressely and manifestly deliuered and appointed in the Scripture of the New Testament From hence I argue If that which Romists tearme Sacramentall Penance haue no word of Institution no visible and corporeall Element no expresse forme or word of Consecration neither any Sacramentall effect appropriated vnto it by Christ and his Apostles then the same is no Sacrament of the New Testament But all and euerie of these Conditions are wanting in Popish Penance Ergo The same is no Sacrament of the New Testament If Penitencie be not affirmed by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church to be a Sacrament properly taken then that the same is such in our dayes is not Catholique Doctrine But learned Pontificians haue narrowly searched euerie Sentence of Antiquitie concerning Penitencie and cannot yet produce one place where the same is plainely and expressely affirmed to be one of the Sacraments of the New Testament properly taken to wit such as is Baptisme and the holy Eucharist Therefore the present Doctrine of Romists concerning Penitencie That the same is a Sacrament is neither grounded vpon the Scripture nor the perpetuall Tradition of the Church And our Romish Aduersarie is the eight time guided by a lying Spirit when he accuseth vs of fundamentall Error because wee denie Popish Penance to be a Sacrament IESVIT NInthly Their denying the Catholique Church expressely set downe in the Creed which of all the other Articles is with greatest danger denyed For the standing out against this makes men Heretikes and without erring against this no man is guiltie of Heresie whatsoeuer Doctor Field to the contrarie saith That an errant against a fundamentall point is an Heretike though hee erre without pertinacie whereof he brings not any syllable of proofe And yet his Doctrine is against the whole consent of Diuines and expressely against S. Augustine who saith That a man holding with Photinus whose errors were most fundamentall against the Trinitie and the Godhead of Christ thinking hee holds Catholique Doctrine is not yet an Heretike till warned that hee holds against the Catholique Church hee chuseth to perseuere in his error ANSWER WEe beleeue stedfastly the Article of the Apostles Creed concerning the Catholique Church and denie onely the false sense which Romists impose and the absurd inferences which they draw from this Article And whereas the Iesuit affirmeth That this Article is with greatest danger denyed because the standing out against it makes men Heretikes c. Both the Proposition it selfe thus rawly and confusedly deliuered and the Confirmation are false The Article of the Catholique Church is not the most fundamentall and prime Article of the Creed for many other Articles are about a more principall and excellent Obiect to wit immediately concerning God the Creator and Christ Iesus the Sauiour and Redeemer and God the Holy Ghost c. whereas the Obiect of the Article in question is concerning the Creature The
still sollicitous though secure of their owne as S. Cyprian writes ANSVVER The blessed Saints in Heauen can desire that only which is according to the will of God Math. 6. 10. But that it pleaseth God they shall desire to know and vnderstand all the particular actions and occurrents of people on earth or that they shall desire to know the honour which is done to them in the inferiour world must be beleeued as a matter of Faith when the Papals prooue it by diuine Reuelation And although according to S. Cyprian blessed Saints are sollicitous of the Saluation of the Chucrh militant yet it followeth not Ergo they heare the petitions of the liuing for a father dwelling in London which hath his sonne at Constantinople is sollicitous of his sonnes safetie and yet he vnderstandeth not all the particulars about him IESVIT Wherefore our Doctrine that Saints see our prayers being deliuered so constantly by the antient Fathers so conformable to the principles of Christian beleefe about the blessednesse of Saints so consonant vnto expresse passages of Scripture we may easily expect that vnto Protestants it would not be displeasing did they looke on it with vnpartiall eyes specially they hauing no Text of Scripture that may make so much shew of direct opposition against it ANSWER Your insinuations are coniecturall and at the best seemingly plausible but your disputation is weake wherefore we admire your confidence in a case so groundlesse and intreat you either to argue more soundly or else to be lesse vaineglorious in your conclusions IESVIT The place continually obiected out of the Prophet Esay Abraham knew vs not Israell was ignorant of vs thou O Lord art our Father thou our Redeemer hath this sence that Abraham and Iacob when they did liue vpon earth and carnally beget children did not know particularly their posterities and so could not beare them such particular affection whereas God can and doth distinctly see and know their necessities and prouides against them deliuering his children out of them And therefore he is the onely Father the onely Redeemer Abraham and Iacob not deseruing the name of Father in comparison with God What makes this against the Saints hearing our prayers ANSVVER We receiued our exposition of this place of Esay cap. 63.16 out of S. Augustine and I marueile why the Iesuit reiecteth the same and chuseth a worse because his owne party confesseth that Abraham and the Patriarkes liuing in the darke lake of Limbus did not heare the prayers of their posteritie nor behold and vnderstand the affaires of their children liuing vpon earth IESVIT §. 3. The worship of Spirit and Truth with outward prostration of the bodie due vnto Saints THe third cause of their dislike is That we giue the honor of the Creator vnto the creature honoring Saints with religious worship with worship of Spirit and Truth euen to the prostrating of our bodies before them whereby we giue them honor due to God only and bring in many Gods as the Heathens do To this Obiection made long ago by Faustus the Manichee S. Austine answereth in these words The Christian people doth celebrate with religious solemnitie the memories of Martyrs to the end to stirre vp themselues to their imitation and that they may be assisted with their prayers and associated vnto their merits c. but with the worship tearmed in Greeke Latria and which the Latine language cannot expresse in one word being a certaine subiection and seruitude due properly to the Deitie only wee do not honour any but onely God nor thinke that this honour ought to be giuen but only to him These words of S. Augustine shew the worship of Saints to be on the one side more than ciuile and on the other side lesse than diuine more than ciuile as proceeding out of acknowledgement of the excellencie Saints haue superior vnto all naturall by which they be partakers of diuine perfection in that high degree as no substance can by natureparticipate therof and therfore S. Austine with good reason tearmes it religious Lesse than diuine as proceeding from persuasion of excellency though superhumane yet infinitely inferiour vnto the increate and immence excellencie of God yea depending essentially thereof So that honor is giuen them dependently of God as being superexcellent participants of his perfection and his singular friends ANSVVER Our Argument is All religious worship is due to God onely Papists yeeld to Saints some religious worship Ergo Papists yeeld to Saints some worship due to God onely The Iesuit pretendeth to answere by distinction out of St. Augustine saying That religious worship is either simply Diuine and founded vpon infinite and increate excellencie called Latria or else superhumane founded vpon Grace and Glorie which is an excellencie finite and created Papists yeeld the latter kinde of religious worship to blessed Saints and Angels but not the former To this Answere Protestants replie saying That there are no other kindes of worship than there be Tables of the Morall Law But there are onely two Tables of the Morall Law the former whereof teacheth Diuine Worship and the second humane ciuile or of speciall obseruance And if there be a mixt worship partly Diuine and partly humane so much thereof as is Diuine is proper to God and may not be imparted to any Creature Esay 42.8 But against this they obiect That to euery kinde and degree of excellencie there is a worship due proportionall to that excellencie But blessed Saints and Angels haue a speciall kinde and degree of excellencie superiour to theirs which liue vpon earth Therefore a speciall honour proportioned to their excellencie and superiour to humane is due vnto them It is answered That granting in blessed Saints and Angels an excellencie of Grace and Glorie and Honour due in respect of the same this prooueth not that they are to bee adored with religious worship for then holy persons vpon earth may bee worshipped with religious worship But the vertue of Religion according to the Tenet of the Schoole respecteth immedately increated excellencie and Latria and Religion are all one and if Saints and Angels may be worshipped with religious worship they may bee serued with the worship of Latria And if they answer that worship of Saints is a materiall action of religion this answer is confuted by the schoolemen themselues who also affirme that the worship of Saints c. is an act of Dulia and not of Religion or Latria The place obiected out of S. Augustin c. Faust. Manich. li. 20. c. 2 1 is made to speake that by the Aduersarie which the holy father intendeth not for he tearmeth not the honour exhibited by the true Church to the persons of Martyrs religious but he saith onely Populus Christianus memorias martyrum religiosa solemnitate concelebrat Christian people celebrate the memorials of Martyrs with religious solemnitie And then expounding himselfe in the progresse of the chapter
for imitation Romists also haue yet a farther slight in their Checkstone trickes of beades forsooth to blesse and sanctifie them by the touch of Relickes or by the Popes benediction that such trash may be sold the dearer by their pettie Chapmen THE SIXT POINT THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSVBSTANTIATION IESVIT YOur Excellent Maiestie submitting your Iudgement vnto Gods expresse word doth firmely beleeue the body of Christ to be truely present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar which Doctrine doth naturally and necessarily infer whatsoeuer the Church of Rome holds as matter of Faith concerning the manner of his presence ANSVVER HIs Sacred Maiestie a true defendour of the antient Catholicke and Apostolicke Faith to his immortall praise submitteth his iudgement in this and in all other articles to the expresse word of God reuealed from Heauen by the holy Ghost and externally preached and penned by the Prophets and Apostles And concerning the sacred Eucharist he firmely beleeueth that in the holy vse thereof the verie Bodie and Bloud of Christ are truely really and effectually presented and communicated to all faithfull and worthie Receiuers But that the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation to wit that after consecration the substance of bread and wine is abolished and the shapes accidents and quantitie thereof onely remaine or that the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are inclosed substantially and corporally vnder the accidentall formes before participation or that dogs and swine truely eat the flesh and drinke the bloud of the sonne of man he cannot beleeue vntill demonstration be made that this Faith is taught by Gods expresse word and was antiently beleeued by the true Catholique Church IESVIT To declare this and together answer an obiection much vrged by some Protestants That they beleeue the bodie of Christ to be in the Sacrament but say they are not bound to beleeue the manner that not being expressed in Scripture ANSWER When the substance of a point is reuealed and the distinct and particular manner concealed it is sufficient to beleeue the former without searching into the latter And not only some Protestants but the Fathers also and some learned Pontificians deliuer thus much concerning the sacred Eucharist Bandinus and the master of the Sentences say Touching the manner of conuersion in the Sacrament some affirme one way and some another c. We say with S. Augustine This mysterie is safely beleeued but not with safetie searched into Cyrill of Alexandria We ought firmely to beleeue the holy mysterie but let vs neuer in matters thus sublime so much as imagine to vtter the manner how And againe The manner how this is done can neither be conceiued by the mind nor expressed by the tongue Theophilact When we heare these words of Christ vnlesse yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. Wee ought firmely to beleeue the same and not enquire after what manner And with these agreeth Caluin sup Ephes. 5.32 IESVIT We must note that men are bound firmely to beleeue the manner of a mysterie reuealed when the same belongs to the substance thereof so that reiecting the manner we reiect the beleefe of the substance of the mysterie This is euident and may be declared by the example of the mysterie of the Incarnation the substance whereof is That in Christ Iesus the nature of God and the nature of man are so vnited that God is truely man and man is verily God The manner of this mysterie is ineffable and incomprehensible yet we are bound to beleeue three things concerning it which if we denie we deny the mysterie in substance howsoeuer we may retaine the same in words First that this vnion is not onely metaphoricall by affection as two persons that are great friends may truely be said to be all one but also true and reall Secondly this reall vnion of Natures is substantiall and not accidentall so that thereby the nature of man is not only accidentally perfected by receiuing excellent participations of the diuine nature power wisdome and maiestie but also substantially the verie fulnesse of the Godhead dwelling corporally and substantially in him Thirdly this substantiall vnion is not according to the Natures so that the nature of God and the nature of man become one and the same nature as Eutiches taught but hypostaticall whereby God and man became one and the same person These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation though high and subtile and imcomprehensible to reason Christians may and must beleeue because they belong to the substance of the mysterie and are declared by the Church in generall Councells though the vulgar be not bound explicitly to know them ANSWER When the distinct and speciall manner is reuealed and belongeth to the forme and being of an Article we are obliged to inquire and firmely to beleeue the same according to the instance giuen about the personall vnion But when the same is not distinctly and plainely reuealed nor of the substance of the mysterie it is more safe according to the holy Scripture and Fathers to be ignorant of that which is abstruse and hidden than to be curious beyond our modell Exod. 19. 17. Pro. 25.27 Act. 1.7 Rom. 12.3 1. Cor. 4.6 Col. 2.18 Touching things inscrutable S. Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is better to be soberly ignorant than naughtily intelligent S. Hierom Melius est aliquid nescire securè quam cum periculo discere it is better to be ignorant of some things with safetie 〈◊〉 to seeke to learne them with perill S. Augustine Melior est fidelis ignorantia quam temeraria scientia and Iustine Martyr It is the part of euerie prudent and pious man in matters diuine sometimes to giue the wall to that which exceedeth his modell S. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The verie Cherubims vaile their faces when it is come thus farre Saluianus in like manner saith Sacriligae temeritatis quoddam genus est si plus scire cupias quam sinaris It is sacrilegious temeritie to couet to know that which thou art not permitted But the questions of Theologie which are de modo concerning the distinct manner in many cases want sufficient grounds in diuine Reuelation to vnfold them and therefore in things of this nature humble scilence is more safe than temerarious definition IESVIT Jn this sort we say That the manner how our Sauiours bodie is in the Sacrament of his last supper must be beleeued and may not be denied as farre as it concernes the verie life being and substance of the mysterie reuealed which mysterie in substance is That the Bodie of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest Minister thereof demonstrating what seemeth bread may truely say thereof in the person of Christ This is my Bodie This supposed as the substance of the Mysterie I inferre that two Catholicke Doctrines concerning the manner of this Mysterie
none of the antient Fathers maintained Romish Transubstantiation and I haue not obserued one expresse Testimonie produced by Romists wherein the Primatiue Fathers nay where Damascene or Theophilact affirme That the whole materiall substance and forme essentiall of bread and wine being destroyed the bare accidents and quantitie of bread and wine remaine or that the abstracted figures and qualities of those creatures are receiued into the mouth and stomacke and are tasted felt and conferre nourishment without any earthly matter conioyned to them But on the contrarie many Fathers affirme That after consecration bread and wine remaine Theoderet saith That they lose not their proper nature but remaine after they are sanctified in their former essence figure and kinde Gelasius saith Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Bertram saith Secundam creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante consecrationem hoc postea consistunt According to the substance of creatures they persist the same before and after consecration Ireneus teacheth That bread which is from the earth receiuing diuine calling or sanctification is not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two seuerall things or matters one earthly and the other coelestiall Saint Chrysostome Before Sanctification wee call it bread onely but when diuine Grace hath sanctified it it is deliuered from the name of bread and is counted worthie of the Appellation of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it still Damascene saith As a fierie coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not onely bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but bread vnited to the Diuinitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is apparent that when fire is vnited to a coale that the materiall substance of wood remaineth at least in part The Aduersarie in answere to Theoderit and Gelasius pretendeth that these Fathers by the words Substance Nature and Kind vnderstand onely the naturall qualities and accidents which flow from the Nature and Essence of Bread and Wine and he yeeldeth a reason saying That in ordinarie speech the naturall properties and qualities of things are tearmed the nature of the thing c. But this Answere is insufficient because it might perhaps salue the Obiection grounded vpon the word Nature but the Fathers affirme also that the Sacramentall signes remaine in their essence substance and kinde and they adde farther that they may bee sensibly tasted and felt and haue force of nourishing the bodie and that they are compounded of many cornes and of many grapes which make one substantiall bodie of bread and wine Now these things cannot truely bee said of the naked shapes and accidents of bread and wine suspended and diuided from their materiall substance Besides the Fathers deliuer the foresaid Doctrine to prooue the veritie and distinction of the two substantiall natures in Christ by making a comparison betweene the holy Eucharist and the two natures in Christs Person but if the substance of bread and wine cease and are changed into the very bodie and blood of Christ then the former comparison would rather confirme the false beleefe of the Hereticke than maintaine the Orthodoxall Faith of Christs humanitie remaining euen after his Ascension for the Hereticke might inferre vpon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation two errours about the humane nature of Christ. First That as in the Eucharist there is onely the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance euen so in Christ there was the shape and forme of flesh but not the verie nature Secondly Euen as in the Eucharist the essentiall forme and materiall substance of bread and wine are swallowed vp and conuerted into the bodie and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs Ascension the humane nature is absorpt and conuerted into the Deitie IESVIT § 4. The seeming repugnancies this Mysterie hath with sence should incline Christians the sooner to beleeue it THe former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfie were this Mysterie easie and not accompanied with many seeming absurdities and repugnances against sense 〈◊〉 these foure First That a bodie as big as our Sauiours remayning still truely corpulent in it selfe should be contained within the compasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly That a bodie so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignities and obscenities that may befall vnto them Thirdly That the same bodie may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly That the substance of bread being conuerted into Christs bodie the sole accidents remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse than if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans bodie These difficulties so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Transubstantiation as impossible yea as absurd ridiculous barbarous others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to beleeue it as a 〈◊〉 of Faith To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this Proposition That these seeming absurdities should not auert but rather incline a true Christian minde to beleeue this Mysterie In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiestie these three Considerations ANSVVER WEe measure not supernaturall Doctrine by humane sence or reason neither can any seeming repugnances of reputed Philosophie to Diuine Reuelation hinder our Faith where the holy Ghost commaunds vs to beleeue as appeareth in the articles of the sacred Trinitie Incarnation Resurrection c. Est quidem de communibus sensibus sapere in Dei rebus sed in testimonium veri non in adiutorium falsi quod sit secundum diuinam non contrà diuinam dispositionem saith Tertullian We must haue vnderstanding in the things of God out of common sence but this must serue to testifie truth and not to patronise errour according to diuine disposition Reuelation not against it So farre as sence and reason are not repugnant to diuine veritie but subseruient we may giue credit to them and euerie good Christian saith S. Augustine Vbicunque inuenerit veritatem Domini sui intelligat esse Wheresoeuer he findeth veritie taught either by nature or grace must vnderstand that it is his masters The question betweene the Romists and vs is not Whether if Transubstantiatiō be reuealed by God we may notwithstanding therefore refuse to beleeue it because the matter is difficill to be conceiued or because it hath manie seeming repugnances to sence for if they be able to demonstrate the first we must renounce the latter But the question is Whether Transubstantiation hauing no certaine and manifest ground in diuine Reuelation and many repugnances to common sence and reason and besides being expressely repugnant to the letter of the Scripture we are to beleeue the same First the holy Scripture calleth consecrated Wine the fruit of the Vine and consecrated Bread by the name of verie Bread
probabilitie be alleadged in fauour of reall Presence by Consubstantiation than for Transubstantiation Lastly The mysticall vnion betweene Christ and his members is ineffable and the manner incomprehensible and the Protestant Doctrine teaching a reall donation of the bodie and blood of Christ and a mysticall coniunction by the operation of the holy Ghost with the soules of faithfull Receiuers and that dead and corruptible creatures can be a meanes and instrument heereof is a great mysterie of godlinesse incredible to prophane persons and therefore the Primitiue Church which beleeued this Doctrine might iustly require that this Mysterie should not be manifested before Infidels and other infirme Christians vntill they were first instructed in the rudiments of Christianitie IESVIT Yea the Fathers did not feare to declare vnto Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his Passion as appeareth by the Treatises of Saint Augustine vpon Saint Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue presence alleadge many Sentences to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by Faith and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs bodie in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the tooth but denies not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not onely by Faith but by reall sumption though to conceale the Mysterie from Catechumens he speakes not so clearely thereof Wherefore as the Palme tree the heauier the waight is that is laid vpon it the more it riseth vpwards as it were ioying in difficulties so a true Catholicke Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming absurdities that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to beleeue it imbracing these difficulties as manifest signes that this doctrine was beleeued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by Faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnesse thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from Jnfidells as more absurd to humane Imagination than any other mystery of Christian Religion ANSWER You obiect that the Fathers declared to Catechumens that is to Nouices in Christianitie a commemoratiue presence in the holy Eucharist but not a corporall presence by Transubstantiation and from hence you would inferre that the Fathers held two kinds of Presences of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist the one soly spirituall by intellectuall apprehension the other corporall by reall sumption of Christs body into the mouth and stomacke of the receiuer and you pretend that S. Augustine was of this iudgement But you must remember that you are not now to deale with Aduersaries which will credite your bare words and proofes you haue none Therefore I answer First that the Fathers taught no other kind of Presence to them which were baptised and receiued the holy Eucharist than to Catechumens or vnbaptised Christians although they instructed the one sort more fully than the other Secondly S. Augustine teacheth not that Christs body is receiued inuisibly insensibly and according to the nature of a spirit by the mouth and stomacke of each Communicant but he teacheth onely two kinds of manducation in the Sacrament one both corporall and spirituall wherein the body of man receiueth the externall elements of Bread and Wine and the soule receiueth the true body and bloud of Christ by faith the other corporeall onely wherein the receiuer partaketh the outward signe and not the thing signified Panem Domini non panem Dominum the visible Sacrament of Christs body but not his very body and he affirmeth not vpon the sixt chapter of S. Iohn That a malicious sinner continuing such receiueth the very body and blood of Christ. Thirdly Protestants beleeue not onely a commemoratiue but also an exhibitiue presence of the thing signified together with the outward signe according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. and this Presence is mysticall and such as may seeme incredible to vnbelceuers because of sundry difficulties repugnant to common sence to wit That Christs flesh by the vnspeakeable power of the holy Ghost should be after a sort incorporated into the soule and that corruptible and dead creatures should be eleuated and made effectuall instruments to apply and communicate Iesus Christ and the vertue of his death to faithfull Communicants IESVITS 2. Consideration This consideration is drawne from the qualitie of the difficulties obiected against this Mysterie which be such as a Christian in honour should neglect them For if it be the part of a prudent and intelligent man not to permit Imagination to preuaile against his Reason What a disgrace is it for a Christian that his faith should be conquered by these kind of difficulties For that the seeming absurdities of this misterie be not in respect of naturall Reason but meerely of Jmagination may hence appeare that some naturall truths be in a manner as difficile and incredible which will be seene if we compare the foure aboue mentioned difficulties with the difficulties some truths euident in nature haue ANSWER When difficulties obiected arise from experience of sence and principles of nature and there is no expresse or manifest word of God sufficient to mooue vs to beleeue the contrarie it is the part of each intelligent and prudent man rather to credite that which is apparent to sence and common reason than to beleeue Paradoxes vpon no true ground and reason IESVIT First we cannot imagine that the whole body of Christ can be contained in the compasse of a small Hoast But it is not more incredible that in a thing of small quantititie for example the wing of a Flye there should be so many parts as vnfolded and laid together would couer the whole face of the world both of heauen and earth And yet it is demonstrable in Philosophy That euen in the wing of a Flye there are so many parts as broad and long as the wing though still thinner and thinner that Almightie God separating and vnfolding them may therewith couer the whole world For certaine it is that some finite number of such parts so separated each of them as long and as broad as a Flyes wing would couer the face of the whole world certaine also it is That the wing of the Flye is still diuisible into more and more such parts so that no finite number is assignable but God may still separate from that wing a greater number without any end therefore it is certaine that in the wing of a Flye there is so much quantity as is sufficient to couer the face of the whole world both of heauen and earth if God would but separate and vnfold the same Is not this Secret of Philosophy as incredible to carnall Imagination as the being of Christs body within a small Hoast Wee that cannot comprehend things we see with eyes and feele with hands certainely we shall haue much adoe
spirituall manducation alone without Sacramentall If the former illation of Romists were good it will follow likewise from thence that receiuing of Bread in the Eucharist is not of the substance of Christs Institution for whole and intire Christ according to bodie and soule and infinite person is in the blood alone if the Popish Doctrine of Concomitancie be true and if this be granted as of necessitie it must then Romists may mangle and transforme the holy Sacrament at their pleasure Secondly The end and fruit of the Sacrament is either common to the holy Eucharist with other meanes of Grace or else proper to it onely To eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of God by recognition of Christs Passion and by Faith in the same may be an effect of the Gospell preached Ioh. 6. 54. But to eate the same flesh and blood communicated more distinctly and effectually by visible seales of the couenant of the new Testament is an end and fruit peculiar and proper to the holy Eucharist 1. Cor. 10. 16. A man may haue the same inheritance bestowed on him by the word and writing of the Donor yet when the same is confirmed by the seale of the Donor the donation is of greater validitie and if by Law or custome two seales should be appointed the apposition of one is not of equall force and validitie to the apposition of both so likewise because the Sonne of God made choyce of two outward signes namely Bread and Wine to represent and apply his Passion and Oblation and withall commanded the common vse and reception of both saying Drinke ye all of this and also annexed a speciall promise and blessing to both these outward signes ioyntly vsed therefore the vse sumption of one of these without the other cannot haue so great force to apply the effect fruit of the Sacrament as the vse reception of both And as in concauses or partiall causes the action of the one cannot produce the effect without the other and as when two keyes are prouided to open a locke the same is not opened by one of them onely so likewise Christ Iesus hauing instituted and sanctified two signes for the more proportionable and effectuall application of his Bodie and Blood it is grosse presumption in man to mutilate and cut off a part of that bodie which the wisedome of Christ hath framed in due and beautifull proportion and to diuide that which God hath ioyned together and without warrant from Gods reuealed word to attribute a totall effect to a partiall meanes and cause IESVIT Hence it is apparent that without any iust cause some Protestants inueigh against the Councell of Constance as professing to contradict the Precept of Christ because it decreed That the Sacrament may bee lawfully giuen vnder one kind Non obstante quod Christus in vtraque specie illud instituerit Apostolis administrauerit Notwithstanding Christs Institution and Administration thereof in both kinds to his Disciples This their bitternesse proceeds from zeale without knowledge not distinguishing the Jnstitution of God from his Precept which are very distinct for the Precept of both kinds if Christ gaue any doth bind whether both kinds be necessarie for the maintenance of mans soule in grace or no but the Jnstitution in both kinds doth not binde further than the thing instituted to wit Communion vnder both kinds is necessarie for the maintaining of spirituall life for which one kind being sufficient as I haue shewed Christs Institution of both kinds doth not inforce the vse of both If God should haue commanded the vse both of meate and drinke euery man should be bound not onely to eate but also to drinke though he had no necessitie thereof but now seeing God hath not giuen such a Precept a man that can liue by meate without euer drinking is not bound to drinke non obstante that God did institute both eating and drinking for the preseruation of life in euerie man ANSWER The Councell of Constance is iustly censured for presuming to alter and disanull the ordinance of Christ for if it be flagitious amongst men to alter and contradict the lawfull Will of a Testator Galat. 3.15 shall it not be much more vnlawfall to alter the Testament of the Sonne of God who disposed to the common people his Bloud as well as his Bodie saying Drinke ye all of this Math. 26 27. and except yee eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the man c. Ioh. 6.53 And the words of the said Synod are most presumptious for this they pronounce Although Christ after supper instituted and administred to his Disciples vnder both kindes c. And although in the Primitiue Chruch this Sacrament was receiued of Beleeuers in both kinds yet notwithstanding the contrarie custome for Laicks to receiue in one kind is with good reason brought in and they are Heretickes which hold this sacrilegious or vnlawfull But what are these men in comparison of Christ and his Apostles and of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church If men may thus twit Christ and his Apostles what shall become of all religion The sole and totall rule to guide the Church in the matter of the holy Eucharist is Christs Institution and practise recorded by the Euangelists and testified by the Apostles and the Primitiue Church in their doctrine and practise followed this rule as some of our learned Aduersaries ingeniously confesse If therefore Christ Iesus and his Apostles and after these the Primitiue Church administred the Communion to lay people in both kinds as this Synod confesseth and on the contraie nothing is extant in holy Writ or in the monuments of the Fathers to testifie that Christ and his Apostles retracted or altered this first practise What audacious sacriledge was it in the Prelates of Constance vpon their owne priuate and childish reasons to cancell Christs last Will and Testament and to violate the sacred precept and ordinance of the Sonne of God But our Aduersarie laboureth by a distinction of Institution and Precept to plaister the vlcerous Doctrine of the 〈◊〉 of Constance saying or implying That although Christ did institute the holy Eucharist in two kinds yet he gaue no precept for the vse of it in two kinds But this plaister of sig-leaues healeth not the wound for there is both an institution and a precept for both kinds and more expressely for the cup than for the bread for Christ said expressely and literally Drinke yee all of this whereas he said not so literally and expressely eat yee all of this Besides his institution is a vertuall and interpretatiue precept as appeareth by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.23 And Christ did institute the Eucharist in two kinds that people might receiue and vfe it in two kinds Also if the manner of the institution prooueth not the manner of the vse then the Eucharist may be vsed in another manner I meane in things substantiall than
present and the Doctrine was personally pronounced to them alone Also Math. 18.9 15.22 the like is found concerning other doctrines and precepts and yet these doctrines and precepts are common to all Christians The Romists if they were not partiall could distinguish betweene personall precepts deliuered to the Apostles onely as they were by office Pastors of the Church and betweene common precepts deliuered vnto them as Christians and as they represented the whole body of the Church But the Obiectour addeth That we are not able to demonstrate that this Precept Drinke yee all of this was common I answere First if that which Christ said to the Apostles S. Paul spake to the whole multitude of Beleeuers then Christs words vttered to the Apostles were common But the first is true 1. Cor. 11. 28. And S. Hierome inferreth vpon the same Oportet Coenam dominicam esse communem quià ille omnibus Discipulis suis qui aderant equalitèr tradidit Sacramenta The Lords Supper ought to be common because Christ deliuered the Sacraments of his Bodie and Bloud equally to all the Disciples that were present Secondly If Communion in both kinds hath not foundation in Christs words vttered to the Apostles then Communion in one kind wanteth foundation in Christs words and institution and if it haue not foundation in Christs words then it wanteth all foundation for S. Paul grounds his whole Doctrine touching the holy Eucharist vpon our Sauiours words and institution 1. Cor. 11.23 Thirdly If the reason why the Apostles receiued the Cup was because they were Priests then all Priests being present at the communion ought to receiue in both kinds although they administer not but this is repugnant to the practise of the Romane Church Fourthly It is not certaine that the Apostles were Priests when Christ ordained and administred the Eucharist for that they were not Priests Math. 18. is affirmed by our Aduersaries and that they were made Priests Luke 22. by the words Hoc facite as Bellarmine Suares Henriques Hosius Canisius c. say can neuer be prooued for what force is there in Hoc facite to conclude Priestly Ordination and if Hoc facite prooueth Priesthood then Lay men are made Priests when the words Doe this in remembrance of mee are spoken to them in part or respectiuely Hitherto we haue found nothing in our Aduersaries but Sophistrie of words and Theomachie against Diuine Institution and Apostolicall Tradition But to hold correspondence with the rest the Iesuit addeth IESVIT Secondly These words Accipite manducate bibite Take eate drinke were certainely spoken vnto the same persons and they runne so together in rancke that no man can with probabilitie make the one outrunne the other But the command Accipite which signifies Take with your hands for it is a Precept distinct from Manducate which is take with your mouth was giuen to the Apostles onely not vnto all the faithfull else wee must say That all Communicants were bound to take the consecrated Bread and Cup with their hands who euer heard of such a Precept in the Christian Church ANSWER This Argument truely propounded is All persons commanded to eate were commanded to take None but the Apostles were commanded to take for if Lay men were commanded to take they must alwayes receiue the Eucharist in their hands Ergo None but the Apostles were commanded to eate This Obiection fighteth against Lay mens receiuing in one kinde which vntill 〈◊〉 we supposed Papists had permitted but it seemeth that they will haue the whole vse of the Sacrament depend vpon the Popes deuotion and pleasure But touching the Argument I denie the Assumption for Lay men were commanded to take that is to receiue at least into their mouthes and then to manducate that is to chew or swallow and to let the Element receiued passe into their stomack To take with the hand is agreeable to Christs manner of Administration and it was vsed in the Primitiue Church but the same is not of absolute necessitie for some Communicants may want hands or the naturall vse thereof but to receiue into the mouth and then to manducate or drinke is commanded The Iesuit imagineth that all taking is by the hand and thus he prooueth himselfe to be neither good Grammarian nor Diuine Virgill saith Illos porticibus rex accipiebat in amplis where accipio is to entertaine S. Paul saith Per quem accepimus gratiam Rom. 1. 5. By whom we haue receiued grace and Apostleship ca. 8.15 Ye haue receiued 〈◊〉 the spirit of Adoption The Angell said Ioseph thou sonne of Dauid feare not to take Mary thy wife Math. 1. 20. His Bishopricke let another man take Act. 1.20 IESVIT The third reason is because there was a peculiar and personall cause Why Christ should giue that particular Councellor Admonition for the imperatiue word doth not euer signifie a precept but often an aduise or a permission as your Maiestie well knowes to his Apostles at that time to wit because he would haue them all not onely drinke of his bloud but also would haue them drinke of the same Cup without filling and consecrating the same anew this is more manifest in the Protestants opinion who thinke the Chalice whereof Christ said in S. Mathew Bibite ex hoc omnes to be the same whereof he said in S. Luke Accipite diuidite inter vos non enim bibam amplius de hoc genimine vitis For this being supposed the words Drinke ye all of this imports the same as Diuide this Cup amongst you But Diuide this Cup amongst you was a personall precept giuen to all the Apostles importing that euery one should drinke but a part of that Cup and that also in such measure as the Cup without new filling and consecration might suffice for all to drinke therof What All men in the world Or all Christians that should succeede them to the Worlds end Christ neuer intended that one Cup for all nor is it indeed diuided or parted with vs but the Apostles dranke it vp amongst them Wherefore referring my saying to your Maiesties learned censure I conclude that to me it seemes cleere that the precept or rather direction Drinke ye all of this was but personall confined vnto the number of all there then present ANSWER The Precept Drinke ye all of this saith the Iesuit was personall and concerned the Apostles onely because our Sauiour commanded them All to drinke of the same Cup without filling and consecrating it anew But if Drinke ye all of this had imported a generall duty then Christ could not haue stinted them to one single Cup. This obiection is grounded vpon a false Principle which is all Precepts are Personall in regard of their substance wherein any circumstance is Personall Nothing can be more absurd and false than this Position for in the Decalogue it selfe some things were Personall as appeareth by the Preface Exod. 20.2 Likewise in many generall or common
Preepts of the old and new Testament some personall circumstances may be noted and yet the substance of the Commandement is generall 1. Cro. 28.9 Pro. 30.1.3 Math. 18.2.3 Ioh. 13.13 14. Also we may consider a twofold vnitie of the Cup Specifical and Indiuiduall to drinke of the same indiuiduall Cup euen as to eate of the same indiuiduall loase is an accidentall circumstance But to drinke and receiue the common kind to wit the fruit of the Wine this is the substance of the Commandement If we parallell the Obiection the defect is manifestly ridiculous It is not of the substance of Christs Commandement That lay People shall receiue consecrated Bread at the Communion because the Bread which Christ gaue his Disciples was of one Indiuiduall loafe but the bread of one indiuiduall loafe will not suffice all men in the world therefore the Precept of receiuing consecrated Bread was Personall and concerned the Apostles only Now if a man should vse this Argument which in substance is the same with the Iesuits he had in my opinion more cause to blush for shame than to glory before the Presence of a most iudicious and learned King as this vaine Boaster doth IESVIT Another text of Scripture some vrge to prooue That Communion vnder one kind is commanded to wit the famous place out of the sixt chapter of S. Iohn Except ye eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Where our Sauiour vnder the penaltie of loosing eternall life commands not onely eating but also drinking Perchance your Maiestie doth not stand much vpon this as not beleeuing that chapter of S. Iohn to concerne the Sacramentall sumption of our Sauiours Flesh as also some learned Catholikes hold Not withstanding though we grant that Chapter to concerne the eating and drinking in the Sacrament as most of the Fathers teach yet this obiection may be easily satisfied by the former Principles for as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance and the manner The substance being to receiue the body of Christ the manner in both kinds by formall eating and drinking so the same distinction is to be made in our Sauiours Precept about this Sacrament For howsoeuer his words may sound of the manner of receiuing in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance to wit that we really receiue his body and bloud which may be done vnder one kind This is made cleere by the Precept by our Sauiour giuen about another Sacrament to wit Baptisme where though his words seeme to define the manner yet his mind was but to determine the substance He saith to his Apostles Baptise all nations in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost To baptise signifies the same that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not to wet or sprinkle with water but to put and plunge into the Water by immersion bathing them in water in which respect Baptisme is tearmed by the Apostle the Lauer or Bath of the renouation of the holy Ghost And yet because the Church teacheth Baptisme by 〈◊〉 or sprinkling to be sufficient and substantiall Baptisme no lesse than Baptisme by immersion Christians must and doe so interpret the words of Christ Baptize that is plunge into the water all Nations to command onely cleansing and washing in substance not the manner thereof by immersion as his words may seeme to import and the Primitiue Church did the first sixe hundred yeares practise Jn this like sort the words Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke of his bloud you shall not haue life in you be preceptiue no further than they signifie reall receiuing of his body and bloud not the manner of both kinds as may appeare by the intention of the Commaundement For as Christ gaue this Precept of Eating and Drinking onely to the end that wee might haue life in vs so likewise he meant to command the same no further than it was necessary to this end But eating formally the body of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and vertually and implicitly his bloud as contayned within his Sacred body suffiseth that we may haue life in vs as he promiseth in the same place He that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer What necessitie then is there to vnderstand this Precept of formall receiuing in both kinds But further I adde the coniunctiue particle and signifies disjunctiuely the same that vel or as Argentum aurum non est mihi and particularly of this Sacrament He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation the sence is disjunctiue eateth or drinketh vnworthily In this sort the words of Christ Except you eate and drinke is to be vnderstood disjunctiuely Except you eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Which disjunctiue sence to be the sence intended in this place may be prooued because else Christ should be contrary to himselfe for seeing in the ver 59. of this Chapter He promiseth life eternall to eating onely Qui manducat panem viuit in aeternum If in the foure and fiftie verse of the same Chapter he require vnto himselfe life euerlasting eating and drinking both he should in the space of a few lines speake contraries And because this is impossible wee interprete the place disiunctiuely vnlesse you eate or drinke c. ANSWER Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that the Text of Saint Iohn cap. 6. is to be expounded of the holy Eucharist and not onely of spirituall receiuing but also of Sacramentall eating and drinking the Bodie and Blood of Christ And hee saith that although some Catholickes to wit Gabriel Biel Cusanus Caietan Ruard Tapper Hesselius and 〈◊〉 expound this Chapter of spirituall Receiuing yet other Pontificians hold as himselfe doth with Bellarmine also agree Suares Vasques Gregorie Valence Salmeron Barradius c. From this Exposition it followeth That Communicants when they partake the holy Eucharist ought to receiue in both kindes for our Sauiour saith Iohn 6.54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. 55. My flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed 56. Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him 53. Except ye eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of man c. Our Aduersarie after some staggering about the place Ioh. 6. condescendeth at last to Bellarmines Tenet and admitting that Saint Iohn treateth of Sacramentall Receiuing answeres the former places by a distinction of substance and manner saying That howsoeuer Christs words may sound of the manner of Receiuing in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance and he prooueth this by the example of Baptisme wherein although according to the letter dipping and plunging
into the water is required yet according to the Intention sprinckling is sufficient But heere I demand of the Romist Whether any thing touching the manner of receiuing the Eucharist is deliuered in Christs words or not And if nothing then our Sauiour treateth not either of Spirituall or Sacramentall eating or drinking for both these belong to the manner and if hee speake about the manner then the Blood of Christ must be Sacramentally receiued as well as his Bodie but it is not receiued Sacramentally vnder bread alone because to receiue Sacramentally is to receiue vnder the proper and indiuiduall signe representing the Blood receiued which is Wine And implicite and vertuall receiuing of Christs Blood is spirituall drinking and this is performed out of the Sacrament and not onely in the same The last euasion is That in the words of Christ Et is taken for Aut that is vnlesse you eate the flesh or drinke the blood of the Sonne of man ye haue no life c. This poore Cauill borrowed from Claudius de Saincts is against the letter of the Text and if it be admitted then it will follow That it is not necessarie to drinke the blood of the Sonne of man implicitely and vertually and the reason why Christ nameth bread alone vers 51. is in opposition to Manna for the Sonne of God descended from heauen by incarnation and propounded himselfe incarnate as an obiect of Faith and because he was the spirituall Life and food of mans soule by donation of his Word and Grace and heerein excelled Manna which was onely corporall bread But in the sacred Eucharist Christ is represented as hauing perfected mans saluation and this representation is made by two sensible signes wherein his suffering of death by separation of bodie and soule and of bodie and blood is visibly proposed and whosoeuer receiueth him Sacramentally as he was sacrificed on the Crosse must receiue him by both the signes because in both and not in one alone there is a representation of his Passion and of the effusion of his blood As for the Iesuites instance in the manner of Baptising whether by plunging or by sprinckling the same is not to purpose For in our Question the Dispute is about taking away one of the Elements and materiall parts of a Sacrament in Baptisme onely a circumstance in the manner of applying and vsing the Element was altered by the Church But from alteration of a thing accidentall or of circumstance to inferre a libertie to defalcate a substantiall part is sophisticall IESVIT §. 5. Communion vnder one kinde not against the Practise of the Primitiue CHVRCH CErtaine it is that the Primitiue Church did very often and frequently vse Communion vnder both kindes so that Lay men had by prescription a right to receiue in both kindes yea they were bound thereunto by the Obligation of custome not by Diuine Precept ANSWER THe Primitiue Church in all her publicke Assemblies and congregations administred the holy Eucharist to the people in both kinds perpetually and not frequently onely or often as the Iesait minseth And Iustin Martir saith That the Apostles prescribed this as commanded by Christ and Saint Cyprian hath these words Lex esum sanguinis prohibet Euangelium precipit vt bibatur Whereas the old Law forbade the eating of blood the Gospell commandeth to drinke the blood and in his 63 Epistle Many Bishops c. depart not from that which our Master Christ commanded and performed Praecepit iussit but others of ignorance and simplicitie In Calice Dominico sanctificando 〈◊〉 ministrando In consecrating and ministring the Cup to the people doe not that which Christ our Lord and God performed and taught Petrus de Occhagauia saith that the words Et plebi ministrando Deliuering it to the people are not St. Cyprians But this man went by heare-say as appeareth both by the elder later Edition of Cyprian And that this was the constant Doctrine of this Father is manifest by other places cited in the Margen Therefore it is palpably vntrue which the Iesuit venteth They were bound thereunto by Obligation of Custome and not by Diuine Precept IESVIT Also because the Manichees being impiously per suaded that wine was the gall of the prince of darknesse did superstitiously abstaine from the Chalice The Church in detestation of this errour commaunded for a time Communion vnder both kinds Vpon which ocasion Gelasius Pope made the decree recorded by Gratian aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur And why because such Abstinents 〈◊〉 qua superstitione docentur astringi that is were superstitious not abstaining out of any deuotion but out of impious persuasion of the impuritie of Gods creature Wherefore the crime with which some Protestants charge vs That our receiuing vnder the sole forme of Bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as Doctor Morton confesseth reiect as injurious saying That it was not the Manichees 〈◊〉 from wine but the reason of their for 〈◊〉 that was iudged hereticall This custome was the cause that Cyprian saieth That the Law 〈◊〉 the eating of bloud but the 〈◊〉 commaunds the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to 〈◊〉 the Bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his 〈◊〉 did 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds Whence grew the custome of the Primitiue Church to receiue in both kinds and by custome there grew further an Oligation to drinke of the 〈◊〉 there were some iust cause of 〈◊〉 as in the sicke and in some that by nature loathed wine ANSVVER One errour begets another It was formerly said that Communion in both kinds was vsed by the Fathers as a matter of custome onely and not because of precept now it is added that this was done only because of the errour of the Manichees I answere First before euer the Manichees appeared in any number Communion in both kinds was in practise as appeareth by the Apostles and by Ignatius Dionysius Iustin Martyr Ireneus Tertullian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Saint Cyprian Secondly although Pope 〈◊〉 in his Sermon speaketh of the Manichees yet Vasques the Iesuit saith That he commanded not the vse of the Cup because of them but required that these Heretickes which feigned themselues Catholickes and came to the holy Communion receiuing the Bread and taking the Cup into their hands pretending that they drunke the Wine and yet did not should carefully be obserued Thirdly touching the place of Pope Gelasius the same Author saith That whereas some of his part applie the same to the Manichees yet this exposition agreeth not with the last branch of the Canon for therein Gelasius teacheth that the mysterie of the Eucharist is of that nature in regard of it selfe that without grieuous sacriledge it cannot be diuided and seuered
〈◊〉 sinne after Baptisme are renewed by the vertue of Repentance Luc. 22. 62. But it is erroneous that there are two distinct kinds of Repentance one before and the other after Baptisme the one a Vertue onely the other both a Sacrament and a Vertue For where there is the same definition there is also the same thing in kind But Repentance before and after Baptisme hath the same definition and integrall parts to wit Contrition for sinnes committed Confession to God and if need require Confession to men according to the qualitie of the fault Amendment of Life and humble Supplication by Prayer of Faith for reconciliation with God and for remission of sinnes Matth. 3.6 Luc. 3.10 Act. 3. 19. cap. 8.22 cap. 26.20 Also the Grace and promise of Remission is made to Repentance before and after Baptisme Act. 3. 19. 5.31 8.22 Apoc. 2. 5. 16. And if Repentance before Baptisme is no Sacrament What causeth it to be such after Baptisme For no visible Element or signe is added neyther is any promise of a different kind from the former annexed And although the Apostles 1. Cor. 5.3 2. Cor. 2 3. c. cap. 7.8 and also the Primitiue Church vrged a stricter manner and degree of Humiliation vpon notorious Delinquents after Baptisme than before yet this Discipline changed not the kind or substance of Repentance but encreased onely the quantitie and measure thereof IESVIT Fourthly the Romane Church holds That God by Penance forgiuing the eternall punishment doth in lieu thereof manie times appoint a Taske of temporall paine to be endured by the Penitent This reserued penaltie is greater or lesser according to the multitude and grieuousnesse of the sinnes committed and is that for which Penitents may and must satisfie And why may not the Penall Workes performed by the children of God beautified by so manyafore-named excellent Graces be sufficient to deserue of God the remission of this temporall Mulct and cancell the Debt of enduring transitorie paine I could bring Testimonies of the most antient Fathers in great number for the necessitie we haue of suffering these voluntarie afflictions for sinnes and of the efficacitie thereof to expiate sinne with the verie name of Satisfaction there being scarce anie antient Father that hath not taught both the thing and the word ANSWER When God pardons a sinner he doth it not by way of Exchange or Parcelling but remitteth all punishment of Malediction or pure Reuenge For that which is so forgiuen as that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred and which is cast behind Gods backe and throwne into the bottome of the Sea and which can no where be found and is blotted out of the Debt-Booke of the Almightie is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment But the holy Scripture and the Primitiue Fathers teach such a remission of sinnes on Gods part to the Penitent Ezech. 18.22 Esa. 38. 17. ca. 43. 25. 44. 22. Mich. 7.19 Ier. 50.20 Heb. 8. 12. 10. 17. Col. 2. 14. Matth. 18.32 S. Augustine If God hath couered sinnes hee will not obserue hee will not thinke vpon them to punish them hee will not take knowledge but rather pardon Gregorie the Great Ignoscendo impunita relinquit By pardoning he leaueth them vnpunished Cassiodorus Remittere est debitum relaxare non causae alicuius interuentu sed pietatis intuitu To remit is to release the Debt not by entercourse of any cause on mans part but by aspect of Pietie Neuerthelesse after great and enormious offences committed by his people God doth chastise them with the Rod of Correction Psal. 89. 33. 1. Cor. 11. 31 32. And this Correction is a paine of Castigation Lament Ierem. 3.39 but not a punishment of Malediction Galath 3. 13. a worke of Gods Mercie rather than of his Iustice. The difference betweene Pontificians and vs in this Doctrine is That we beleeue a remainder of Temporall affliction after remission of the guilt of sinne in this life onely and that for chastisement erudition and probation They maintaine a remainder of temporall punishment after sinne remitted not onely in this present life but after the same in Purgatorie Further we beleeue That the affliction or paine of Chastisement inflicted vpon penitent sinners may by prayer of Faith exercise of Vertue Humiliation and Mortification be eyther remooued or else mitigated and conuerted to the encrease of grace and glorie in those which with patience and holinesse endure the same in this life But wee denie eyther that any paine followeth iust persons after their decease or that in this life they can by Prayer Mortification or any good workes merit release of any Temporall Mulct or satisfie the Diuine Iustice for the least fault or guilt of any sinne on their owne behalfe much lesse for others And whereas the Iesuit affirmeth That he can produce Testimonies of the antient Fathers in great number both for our necessitie of suffering voluntarie afflictions and also for the efficacitie thereof to expiate sinne and to satisfie I answer First That the Fathers and holy Scriptures require workes of Humiliation and Mortification not as meritorious but onely as meanes and causes impetrant or deprecant to appease Gods wrath for sinne Secondly The Fathers vnderstand not the word Satisfaction strictly and in rigor for satisfaction of condignitie as Romists doe but improperly and largely to wit for satisfaction of deprecation congruitie or impetration And according to their acceptation and vse the word Satisfaction comprehendeth Contrition and Confession and not Sacramentall Satisfaction onely Also they require Satisfaction as a remedie against the guilt of Mortall sinne and not onely as a Purgatiue of Veniall sinne or as a remedie against Temporall paine onely But to the end the Reader may euidently perceiue the Popish fraud in peruerting the Sentences of the Fathers concerning Satisfaction I will in this place distinctly compare their Doctrine with the present Romish Tenet First It is consessed That many Fathers vse the word Satisfaction and require penitent Persons to performe the same to God and men Secondly Within the name of Satisfaction they include and comprehend contrition to God confession and amendment of life Thirdly they require satisfaction for the fault and eternall guilt of sinne and not onely for remoouall of temporall punishment Fourthly the word Satisfaction is taken in two notions First strictly for a iust and equall compensation of the iniurie committed against God which Schoolemen tearme Satisfaction of condignitie Secondly for an interpretatiue compensation as Durand tearmeth it grounded vpon Diuine fauour and acceptation and not vpon the compleat dignity of the action The Schoolemen tearme this latter satisfaction of 〈◊〉 and Impetration because God in his fauourable indulgence 〈◊〉 more on mans part as necessarie to
remission of sinnes and because he is intreated by the same to release the punishment deserued The first kind of satisfaction was made by Christ alone both for fault and guilt of sinne The latter according to the speaking of sundry Fathers is performed by penitent Persons by their contrition 〈◊〉 confession and other penitentiall actions Fiftly repentance may be exercised priuately onely before God or els openly and before men The antient Church obserued a seuere discipline and imposed vpon notorious and enormious sinners open penance causing them to make satisfaction to the Church and to testifie their vnfeigned repentance to God by externall signes and by actions of humiliation and mortification Also in the dayes of the Fathers sinners which had voluntarily confessed their offences to the Pastours of the Church were by them inioyned to a strict manner of humiliation and exercise of workes of charitie and mortification And the fathers stiled these Penitentiall actions by the name of Satisfaction partly in respect of men offended partly in the regard of Offenders themselues who because they did that which was inioyned them by their spirituall guides to appease the indignation of God were said to make satisfaction But the Fathers did not hereby exalt Poenitentiall deedes to a sufficiency or equalitie of satisfying Gods iustice for this effect is proper onely to the actions aud passions of the Sonne of God but they tearmed that satisfaction which they iudged meet or necessary for sinners to performe that they might preuent Diuine indignation and whereby they might repaire the spirituall detriment which they had incurred by falling into sinne Sixtly and lastly Marsilius ab Inguen a famous Schoolman obserueth 〈◊〉 That Satisfaction sometimes importeth all the actions 〈◊〉 or imperate which a sinner must performe on his part that God may be pacified and thus it containeth Contrition Confession c. Sometimes it noteth onely those Acts which follow Contrationand Confession and are either voluntarily assumed or imposed by a Confessour The Fathers vsed the word Satisfaction in the first notion and they knew no Sacramentall Satisfaction but onely of Discipline or priuate humiliation Now the Romists in their course of Doctrine haue miserably 〈◊〉 all this First That which the Fathers speake of the fault and guilt of sinne they wrest to the temporall paine of mortall sinne remayning after the remission of the euerlasting guilt Secondly That which the Fathers stiled Satisfaction improperly and by way of deprecation they make Satisfaction of Condignitie yea in rigour of Iustice and for veniall sinnes more effectuall than Christs satisfaction Thirdly That which in the ancient Church was a worke of discipline or Christian mortification they make Sacramentall Fourthly Whereas the Fathers placed Satisfaction in all 〈◊〉 actions inward and outward and especially in such actions as were commanded by God as necessarie to obtaine remission of sinnes The Romists restraine the same to externall actions succeeding Contrition and Confession and principally to electious and voluntarie actions Fiftly The Fathers gaue not absolution to 〈◊〉 vntill such time as they had accomplished the penitentiall actions inioyned Romists set the Cart before the Horse and absolue before satisfaction is made which is as one saith To set Easter before Lent IESVIT But J suppose they are to your Maiestie well knowne and therefore in the proposed difficultie supposing the satisfaction for sinne to be possible you mooue this doubt Whether the penitents can so fully satisfie for themselues as their satisfactions may superabound and bee referred vnto the treasure of the Church to satisfie this doubt three Propositions are to be prooued ANSWER It is well knowne to his gracious Maiestie that you peruert the meaning of the Fathers and from the word Satisfaction vsed by them in one Notion you argue to another that is from Satisfaction impetrant which is an action or fruit of the vertue of Repentance you conclude your Romish Sacramentall Satisfaction of Condignitie IESVIT The first That Good workes of Saints that are poenall and afflictiue doe not onely merit heauen but also satisfie for sinne this is prooued giuing of Almes for the loue of Christ is meritorious witnesse our Sauiour himselfe who to the iust in reward of their Almes will giue The Kingdome prepared from the beginning of the world ANSVVER First You argue out of Saint Matthew 25. 34. from reward of Workes to merit of Workes But you must obserue that there is a reward of meere bountie as well as of desert 〈◊〉 127.2 Ezech. 29.18 Gen. 30.18 Also 〈◊〉 reason and cause why the kingdome of Heauen is bestowed is not meritorious but some causes are dispositiue 〈◊〉 or impetrant IESVIT And it is also satisfactorie for sinne witnes Daniel who gaue this councell vnto the Babylonian King Redeeme thy sinnes with Almes-deeds and thine iniquities with mercies vnto the poore ANSWER The place of Daniell 4.24 according to the vulgar Translation speaketh of redeeming sinnes in regard of the fault and eternall guilt and not onely of temporall punishment Also of redeeming sinnes in this life and not of redeming them in Purgatorie Besides if Nabuchadonosor were an vniust person Esa. 14.15 then according to your owne position he could not make satisfaction for sinne Lastly the punishment threatned and foretold in that Scripture is such as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth belongeth not to the Court of Penance and Papall Indulgences And if Popes Pardons and Romish Satisfactions could deliuer sinners from frenzie and losse of outward goods and temporall dominion the mad-men in Bedlam and decayed merchants and other afflicted persons throughout the Christian world would become suitors to his Holinesse to insert these and other such like temporall calamities into the Patent of his Indulgences and Iubilees Also the place of Daniell is vnderstood litterally of breaking of sinnes by almes-deeds as if one preaching to an extortioner should say Breake off thy sinfull courses by imitating Zacheus c. Now what merit is there in this or what immediate satisfaction to God for this is rather satisfaction to man in regard of ciuill iniurie Lastly there is no ground either in Scripture or in Tradition for this Romish doctrine to wit the temporall paine of personall sinne remaining after this life may be remooued or expiated by humane satisfactions for whatsoeuer is spoken in holy Scripture or by antient Fathers concerning redeeming sinnes by Satisfaction belongs to the fault and eternall paine of sinne as well as to the temporall punishment and the satisfaction must be performed by the delinquent person himselfe in this present life Also the redemption or satisfaction possible to be performed by man is by way of deprecation onely and not by iust compensation And if there were a Purgatorie because the paines thereof would be proportioned and stinted by the diuine Will and Decree it could not rest in the
the Church of God and to make themselues the better capable of that extraordinarie glorie and blisse which was prepared as a Crowne for such as transcend others in vertue Secondly If they had superaboundant Satisfactions that is If they endured Afflictions and Tryalls more than were necessarie to satisfie for the Temporarie paine of their personall sinnes these superabundant Passions should not want a sufficient fruit and effect 2. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Tim. 4. 8. And the want of the proper fruit of Satisfaction beeing recompenced with a large encrease and surplusage in another kinde can be no dishonour to God or losse to them For euen as it is in Prayer although the most proper fruit and effect thereof is to obtayne the thing requested of God and yet if God denie the particular request 2. Cor. 12. a iust mans Prayer considered as it is Prayer wanteth not the fruit if God otherwise bestow that which is equiualent to the thing requested So likewise if a man could super-abound in satisfying for his owne sinne his Satisfaction were not fruitlesse if God make requitall by any other kind of benefit equall or transcending the proper fruit and effect thereof IESVIT The second is the glorie of Christ whose merits were so powerfull as to purchase to the Church of God such excellent and admirable Saints so pure of life so perfect in Penance as their satisfactions might suffice to pay the debt of temporall paine due vnto others ANSWER If one should affirme It is more for the glory of Christ to haue his merits so potent as to purchase to himselfe a People and Inheritance which in this life is perfectly innocent and iust needing no remission of sinnes than to purchase a people carrying alwayes about with them the remainders of sinne he should not honour Christ but prooue himselfe a lyer 1. Ioh. 1. 8 10. So likewise to affirme That it is a greater honour to Christ to haue his merits aduanced so farre as that by the vertue thereof men are made satisfiers of Diuine Iustice together with Christ carries a shew of honouring Christ but it is in truth a sacrilegious errour And Papists may as well affirme that it is for Christs greater glorie to make men subordinate Iustifiers Redeemers or whatsoeuer else their vertiginous fancie shall suggest IESVIT The third reason is To make men loue the Church and societie of Saints whereby they come to bee partakers of the aboundancie of her treasures to pay their grieuous debts This is that comfortable Article which the Apostles put downe in the Creed to be knowne of euery one The Communion of Saints This is that which made King Dauid exult saying I am partaker with all them that feare thee and keepe thy Commandements And in this respect the Apostle exhorteth vs Gratias agamus Deo Patri qui dignos nos fecit in partem sortis Sanctorum in lumine This is that which the same Apostle writes to the Corinthians exhorting them to be liber all towards Titus and Luke For the present let your abundance in temporall goods supply their want that 〈◊〉 their abundance in pious workes may bee a suppliment vnto your want This hope to supply in this kinde the spirituall needs of Christians by the abundance of his sufferings made Saint Paul so much reioyce in them I ioy saith hee in my sufferings for you and I make full the things that want of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for his Bodie which is the Church And againe Cupio impendi super impendi pro vobis Out of which words Origen gathers that Saint Paul as a kinde of Victime or Sacrifice did expiate the sinnes of others not satisfying for the iniurie against God nor for the eternall punishment due but for one outward and transitorie effect of sinne to wit the debt of temporall paine In this sence also Saint Augustine interpreteth the former words of the Apostle Of suffering in his bodie the things wanting of the sufferings of Christ Patitur Christus in membris suis id est in nobis ipsis ad Communem hanc quasi Rempublicam Nam quisque pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus ANSWER The true loue of the Church and of the Saints is grounded vpon veritie and not vpon Romish Fables 2. Epist. Iohn vers 1. And Communion of Saints in the Apostles Creed in respect of the liuing is Copartnership in Faith in Veritie in the bond of Loue in pious and charitable Offices and Actions and in the manifold graces of Christ and towards the defunct it is Communion of Loue Imitation Hope and expectation of the same Glory But neither Scripture nor Fathers teach That the liuing Saints haue Communion with the Saints defunct by partaking their superabundant Satisfactions Eph. 4. 15 c. 1. Ioh. 1.3 Rom. 12.4 The saying of Dauid Psal. 119.63 I am partaker with all them that feare thee and keepe thy Commandements prooueth That this holy man made righteous Persons his Friends and Associates and that he shunned the fellowship of the wicked Psal. 101.6 But of Communion of Satisfactions he speaketh not a word Also what a miserable inference is this Dauid was partaker of all them which feared God and kept his Commandements Ergo He was Partaker of their Satisfactions and those to God-ward Is there no other bond or Act of Fellowship but this onely Haue all they which feare God and keepe his Commandements according to the state of this life superabundant Satisfactions Yea How appeareth it that Dauid had need of other mens Satisfactorie deedes For he was a man after Gods owne heart full of Grace and abounding in works of mortification Psal. 6.6 102.9 Psal. 35. 13 yea of that ranke to wit a great Prophet which our Aduersary himselfe saith Receiue not but Communicate superabundant Satisfactions to others wanting them S. Pauls text Col. 1.12 speaketh of Partnership of heauenly inheritance and not of Satisfactions The next place 2. Cor. 8. 14. is expounded by Pontificians themselues of Almesdeedes in this life and the sence according to Cardinall Caietan is You Corinthians abound with temporall goods the Saints of Hierusalem are in want the matter will bee reduced to an equalitie if your plentie supply their indigencie But if with Hugo Carensis and Lyra the latter part of the words should be expounded of Spiritualls it belongeth to such spirituall gifts as are communicable from one member of the Church Militant in this life to another as instruction exhortation speciall prayer c. and not to Satisfactions to be made to God by one for another much lesse of applying such satisfactions of the deceased to the liuing or to others deceased The places Col. 1. 24. 2. Cor. 12. 15. are forced by Romists to speake to purpose which the Apostle intended not S. Paul saith Col. 1. 24. Ireioyce in my sufferings for you and fill vp or accomplish 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things which are behind or wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the afflictions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ in my flesh 〈◊〉 his body which is the Church The first part of these words prooueth that S. Paul suffered for the Collossians But because he might suffer for the confirmation of their faith or as an example of patience or by way of persecution because he preached the Gospell to them and other Churches it cannot be concluded that hee suffered to make satisfaction for their sinnes Secondly The next words conclude not Satisfaction for Christs Afflictions and Passions are of two kinds Some Personall and in his owne flesh Some By Sympathie and compassion in his members The first are satisfactorie the second are exemplarie purgatiue probatiue or for the edifying of the Church S. Paul supplyed not or perfected not the first Esa. 63.3 for then Christs sufferings vpon the Crosse were imperfect but both S. Paul and all other iust persons which patiently beare affliction and indure the Crosse supply and accomplish that which is yet wanting in Christ as he is considered in a mysticall vnion to his Church Christ saith to Saul Act. 9.4 Saul Saul Why persecutest thou me and v. 5. I am Iesus whom thou persecutest S. Augustine and S. Gregorie say That Christ and the Church are one mysticall Body Therefore when the members suffer the head suffers and the afflictions of the members are the afflictions of Christ 2. Cor. 1. 5. 1. Cor. 12. 12. It is also remarkeable that not onely the Fathers but the maior part of Popish Doctors expound this Scripture in such sort that it serueth not at all to maintaine Papall Indulgences And Estius a moderne Pontifician saith That whereas 〈◊〉 of his part straine the Text of S. Paul to prooue Satisfactions and Indulgences himselfe is of mind that the said Doctrine cannot effectually be prooued by this place The other place 2. Cor. 12. 15. I wil verie gladly spend and be spent for you or as the Rhemists translate I most gladly will bestow and will my selfe moreouer be bestowed for your soules affoordeth no argument for Satisfactions and Pardons Caietan Estius Iustinian and other Popish expositors themselues deliuer the sence of this Text in manner following S. Paul manifesteth his paternall affection to the Corinthians saying I am readie not only as a Father to bestow all that I haue vpon you so farre am I from seeking any thing of yours but also to spend my life for you Now by what Art or Engine can Papists extort Pardons or Satisfactions out of this Text doth it follow that if Saint Paul be readie to spend himselfe life and state for the good of his flocke therefore there is a rich stocke and treasure of superabundant Passions and Satisfactions laid vp by S. Paul to bee spent by the Corinthians at their need Surely our Aduersarie intended rather to deride the world than to giue men satisfaction when he presented vs with such inconsequent stuffe But the Iesuit secondeth his former inference by a testimonie of Origen I answer Origen in the place obiected speaketh of purging sinne it selfe by the passions of Martyres and not of the temporall mulct or paine of sinne onely But the bloud of Martyres purgeth not sinne it selfe by way of condigne Satisfaction our Aduersaries being witnesses but at the vttermost by way of Deprecation now Deprecation and Satisfaction properly taken are of diuers natures The place of S. Augustine is strained against his meaning for this Father speaketh of all the members of Christ which suffer for their Masters cause But in our Aduersaries Tenet all that suffer for Christ haue not superabundant Satisfactions but onely some And this Father is so farre from maintaining workes of Supererogation as that he saith Pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus pro posse virium nostrarum quasi canonem passionum inferimus c. According to our small measure we pay that which we are obliged vnto and according to our power we cast in as it were the stint of our passions but they which pay a stint and render that whereunto of right they are obliged haue not superaboundant Passions or workes of Supererogation IESVIT This was the practise of the Primitiue Church which at the petition of constant confessours in prison did release the penalties that sinners were inioined to performe to satisfie non onely the discipline of the Church but also the wrath of God after the remission of sinne still continuing vnto the infliction of temporall paine as appeareth by the testimonie of S. Cyprian And that this relaxation of temporall paine was done by applying the abundant satisfaction of holy Confessours and designed Martyres vnto the poenitents that receiued indulgence at their intercessions appeares by Tertullian For hee falling from the Church into the errours of Montanus whereof one was That for Christians sinning after Baptisme there was no remission of sinne refutes the Catholique custome of remitting penalties vnto sinners for the merits of Martyres speaking thus Let it suffice the Martirs that they haue cancelled and satisfied their owne sinnes Jt is ingratitude or pride for one prodigally to cast abroad vpon others that which as a great benefit was bestowed vpon him And speaking vnto the Martir saith Jf thou bee a sinner how can the oyle of thy lampe suffice both for thee and mee By which haereticall impugnation appeares that the Catholicke Doctrine then was that men might satisfie one for another and that the abundant satisfactions of some that suffered exceedingly as Martirs were applied for the Redemption of some others more remisse and negligent not from eternall but onely temporall punishment ANSWER You are an vnfaithfull Relatour of the practise of the Primitiue Church which was as followeth After foule and enormous knowne offences committed by Christians and especially after denying the Faith or Sacrificing to Idols offendours were put to a grieuous and long Penance It fell out sometimes that there was iust reason why the rigour of Penance should be mittigated either in respect of the kinde of duresse imposed or in regard of the length and continuance Which fauour the Bishops and Pastours of each Church not the Romane onely had authoritie by the Canons to grant as they saw iust cause This mitigation and relaxation of Penance was called by the name of Pardon and Indulgence and in the same there was no buying or selling no reference to Purgatorie Secondly Whereas you pretend that Popes Pardons were in vse in the Primitiue Church many of your owne part controll your impudencie to wit Durand Antonine Maior Roffensis Angelus de Clauasio Cassander And 〈◊〉 denyes That the Church hath any Treasurie 〈◊〉 of the merits of Christ and of the Saints The 〈◊〉 is maintained by Angelus de Clauasio
in his bodie by Concomitancie for then it were accidentally therein but as a part in the whole for as the bones sinews and veynes are integrall parts of anaturall humane bodie so likewise is the blood and naturall parts are in the whole by substantiall vnion not by Concomitancie for then they were in the bodie or belonging thereunto as an adiunct to his subiect If we consider the bodie of Christ taken for the more solid parts thereof as it is represented and exhibited in the Sacrament to wit as it was fixed to the crosse and diuided from the blood then according to this Sacramentall representation and exhibition the same alone neither containeth nor representeth the blood The sacred Eucharist is one intire Sacrament totum compositum hauing two externall Elements to wit Bread and Wine and these two signes or elements represent the materiall Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse which consisted at the time of the Oblation thereof of a bodie fixed on a tree and the same dying by effusion of blood Luk. 22.21 And in the holy Eucharist Christ is as it were crucified before our eyes and his bodie and blood by representation are diuided and God Almightie vseth these mysticall creatures as instruments to communicate vnto euery worthie Receiuer the Sacrifice of Christ his Sonne 1. Cor. 10.16 But as the Sacrifice vpon the Crosse was not performed in one of these Indiuiduals apart or by it selfe but ioyntly in them both and without effusion of blood there is no remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 So likewise in the holy Eucharist the bodie of Christ is represented as it was diuided from the blood and againe the blood as seuered from the bodie and God concurreth with both the Elements deliuered and receiued with the one as it were by inception and with the other by consummation and Communicants partake not the whole Sacrifice of Christ vntill they haue receiued both the materiall parts of the Sacrament Here then is no Popish Concomitancie either of the blood to the bodie when it is receiued apart or of the bodie to the blood when that is receiued alone but the Sacrament reacheth the bodie blood as they were diuided and they are then conioyned to make one Sacrifice when they are both deliuered and receiued The whole cannot be in one part neither doth one part Concomitate another but is substantially vnited to another and in a Sacrifice or Sacrament compounded of diuisible parts he which giueth or receiueth one materiall part doth not therein or thereby distribute or receiue the whole Neither againe is the Deitie vnited to the bodie or blood of Christ by Concomitancie but by personall vnion Thus then I argue Whatsoeuer is receiued in the Sacrament by vs was before offered to God vpon the Crosse. But the bodie of Christ hauing bloud in it by concomitance or the deitie in it by concomitancie or the bloud of Christ hauing in it the bodie or 〈◊〉 by concomitancie was not offered to God vpon the Crosse for before the effusion of the bloud the same was in the bodie as a part not by concomitancie After the full effusion the bloud was diuided from the bodie and the 〈◊〉 was with the bodie by personall vnion and not by concomitancie Ergo At this day the bodie and deitie of Christ are not in the bloud of Christ by concomitancie c. IESVIT First hee that acknowledgeth the reall presence of Christs sacred bodie vnder the forme of bread and denies concomitancie doth in his beleefe seperate the bloud and soule of Christ from his bodie but to seperate either Christs diuinitie from his humanitie or soule from his bodie or his bloud from his flesh is vnlawfull for such a beleeuer doth dissolue and destroy Christ Jesus and so is one of the number of them that S. Iohn condemneth Omnis Spiritus qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo hic est Antichristus ANSVVER The summe of this obiection is Whosoeuer dissolueth Christ Iesus is an Antichrist Euerie one who admitteth reall presence and yet denyeth concomitancie dissolueth Christ Iesus for he seperateth the bloud and soule of Christ from his bodie and his diuinitie from his humanitie Ergo Whosoeuer in the reall presence denyeth concomitancie is an Antichrist Our answer is Whosoeuer dissolueth Christ Iesus according to S. Iohns meaning 1. Ioh. 4.3 by denying his deitie humanitie or personall vnion is Antichrist But the denying of Popish concomitancie inferreth none of these For although we affirme that in the holy Eucharist the bodie and bloud of Christ are represented distinctly and as they were diuided at his passion yet this dissolueth not Iesus but signifieth the seperation of his bodie and bloud formerly made vpon the Crosse And we beleeue that the holy Ghost according to the distinct signification of the sacramentall elements reacheth in a spirituall manner the bodie and bloud of Christ crucified to all faithfull communicants and addeth a seuerall effect and vertue of spirituall refection to each distinct part receiued according to the signification and this is confessed by Vasques Ruard Tapper Alexander Halles IESVIT And this argument hath greatest force in their opinion who shall thinke that Christ leaues heauen for the time to come downe really according to his Bodie and Bloud for how can the bodic of Christ come downe from heauen without bloud and soule vnlesse he come downe dead and so Christ should be not only mystically and figuratiuely but truely and really massacred in the Sacrament and the Eucharist be a bloudie Sacrifice and not incruent as the Fathers tearme it ANSWER None of our part thinke that Christ leaueth heauen to come downe really according to his bodie and bloud Act. 3.21 Donec seculum finiatur 〈◊〉 est Dominus Augustine in Ioh. tract 7. vntill the world be finished the Lord continues aboue And the Fathers tearme the holy Eucharist an vnbloudie sacrifice not because Christ is properly and in his substance offred therein but because his bloudie sacrifice vpon the crosse is by this vnbloudie commemoration represented called to remembrance and applyed Read the sentences of Fathers placed in the margen Read also Peter Lombard and the Enchiridion of Colen IESVIT Secondly The Priest in the person of Christ who is glorious in heauen or rather Christ being glorious in heauen by the mouth of the Priest saith This is my bodie but a bodie deuoid of bloud without soule and consequently dead and sencelesse is not the bodie of Christ as he is now glorious in heauen which hath bloud in the veines and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soule Therefore Christ glorious in heauen cannot say truely that a bodie void of bloud sence and soule is his bodie but soule life and bloud must needs follow and concomitate his bodie wheresoeuer it be ANSVVER First The new Testament acknowledgeth no proper sacrificing Priests but Christ Iesus onely