Censuram Hungaricam Quatuor Propositionum Cleri Gallicanâ— p. 16. in Richerius's Vindiciae Doctrinae Majorum Scholae Parisiensis of Hungary that there is nothing so directly contrary to the most plain words of Scripture to the most evident Testimonies of the Fathers and the Practice of the whole Catholick Church for above a thousand years as the Doctrine of the Pope's having sole power in Judging Controversies of Faith so that I hope if I cannot those Authorities may convince our Compiler that he had better let this Testimony alone I will pass the two next Testimonies and tell our Compiler that as to the Council of Constantinople they did not submissively desire as our Compiler b Nub. Test p. 46. Nat. Alex. p. 306. and F. Alexandre do most falsly assert they did the Confirmation of their Decrees from Damasus Bishop of Rome there is nothing in this Epistle of Damasus to ground such a thing on and which is more it is certain that they did desire of the Emperour Theodosius c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prosphoneticus Concilii C. P nd Imper. Theodosio in T. 2. Concil p. 945. Edit Cossart who had convened this Council that H E would confirm their Decrees Thus I have gone through all the Testimonies collected by our Compiler and instead of answering the last to wit the Definition of the Council of Florence in the method I have done those hitherto I will conclude against it that as I have shewn above that there was no ground from Scripture nor Canon of the Vniversal Church that did in the least countenance what the Council of Florence did define concerning the Pope so neither doth any of the instances pickt up by our Compiler confirm or illustrate that Decree and therefore we have reason to say that the Pope's Supremacy had neither countenance nor being during the first five hundred years after our Saviour CHAP. III. Concerning Tradition SECT I. THE business of Tradition is that which our Compiler undertakes next to defend I cannot understand to what purpose He takes so much pains to tell us the Gnosticks Heresie with that of the Marcionites and Valentinians since I hope none of those Heresies are chargeable now upon us no not that worship of Images which was among the Gnosticks and is to be heard of in a Church now in the World We could wish all our Neighbours were as far from any thing bordering on those Heresies we do heartily desire that as they do not believe in Thirty Gods with the Valentinians so they were as far from having thrice thirty Objects of Religions Worship I heartily wish our Compiler had read that second Chapter of Saint Irenaeus his third Book against the Hereticks which he a Nubes Testium p. 48. Nat. Alex. Dissertatio decima sexta adversus Valentinianâ—â— c. in Par. secunda Seculi secundi p. 349. from F. Alexandre quotes to a very false purpose if either He or F. Alexandre himself had read this third Book of Irenaeus had read but this second Chapter nay more but the very Title of it our Compiler would not have talked so sillily about those Hereticks rejecting the received Doctrines and Practices of the Church because they pretended they were not in Scripture nor F. Alexandre b Nat. Alex. Ibidem p. 348. Praenotandum tertio hanc fuisse Veterum Haereticorum indolem ut solas ad Scripturas provocarent have put down such an egregious falshood as to say the Hereticks in defence of their Tenets appealed onely to Scripture when the very Title of this Chapter in Irenaeus tells us that the Hereticks would be ruled neither by Scripture nor Tradition in their Disputes with the Church * Quod neque Scripturis neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici Titulus c. 2. l. 3. Irenael adv Haereses I will set down here the beginning of the Chapter it self because it is so like the prattle of a sort of people now in the World who would be very angry to be called Hereticks When says Irenaeus c Cùm enim ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate quia variè sint dictae quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesci ant Traditionem Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem D. Irenaeus adv Haereses l. 3. c. 2. Edit Fevardent you argue against these Hereticks from the Scriptures themselves they quickly fall to accusing them that They are not right that they are not of Authority a Romanist would have added without our Church's approbation that things are set down variously and that there is no finding the Truth out of them by those who are ignorant of Tradition since It was delivered by Word of mouth not by Writing But to proceed to his new point of Controversie d Nubes Test p. 48. Nat. Alexan. p. 351. our Compiler tells us that the Fathers maintain that the Tradition of the Catholick Church is to be received and that Her Constitutions and Practices are not to be rejected though not found expresly in Scripture How loose a Writer our Compiler is the World hath been sufficiently informed by the Answers to his other pieces in this point He is resolved to act the same person while he so gingerly puts down part of the Debate betwixt us and suppresses the rest of it To state therefore the Controversie about Tradition if there really be any betwixt us He should not have put down that for the account of the Debate herein betwixt us which is agreed to by both sides nor should have omitted that wherein we really disagree and that is about the Scriptures being a certain and perfect Rule of Faith without the help of Tradition which the Council of Trent hath made to be of Equal Authority with the Scripture What our Compiler hath set down is no Controversie betwixt us since we do declare that the Tradition of the Catholick Church is to be received we do own that by This we received the Holy Scriptures and know how to separate the Scriptures from Apocryphal or Supposititious Writings and we profess also that we are willing and ready to receive any Doctrine not written that hath as perpetual unanimous and certain a Tradition as the Doctrines written in Scripture have that we onely wait for their proving that any of those Doctrines they would obtrude upon us have been thus Vniversally delivered so that herein is no Controversie betwixt us and if by Constitutions our Compiler means those about Matters of Discipline and Government and by Practices the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church He knows or least ought to know that it is the Doctrine of our Church that there is no necessity of express Scripture for the Constitutions and Practices which she enjoins in order to the more regular and decent service of God. So that here
timeat Vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum Tertull. advers Hermogen c. 22. He said he adored the Fulness of the Scripture and bids Hermogenes to have a care of the Woe denounced against those that added or took any thing away from Scripture if he could not shew that what he taught was to be found in the Scriptures And the same We can shew of St. Basil who as he does plead Tradition without express Scripture for the Practices and Constitutions of the Church with the rest of the Fathers as our Compiler hath quoted him t Nubes Test p. 55 56. Nat. Alexan. p. 375 376 377. so he is as earnest as any of the Fathers for the Sufficiency and Authority of the Written Word as to Matters of Faith and in his Sermon about True Faith u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Basil Sermo de vera Fide T. 2. p. 251. declares it to be a manifest deviation from Faith and a sign of Pride either to reject any part of the Scriptures or to add to them since Christ had told us that his Sheep would hear his voice and not a Stranger 's Our Compiler is very exact in his next quotation and * Nubes Test p. 57. Nat. Alexan. p. 377. gives us book and page but instead of thanking him we must thank F. Alexandre who help'd him to them but should have remembred himself to have quoted Oration instead of Book the place from Gregory Nyssen however might have been spared since the Tradition he speaks of is that of the Apostles and Evangelists and That we are sure was written in the Scriptures but allowing this Tradition to be an unwritten one it is not about a point of Faith but the Interpretation of it wherein we allow the Tradition of Antiquity to be highly usefull and necessary The first Authority from Epiphanius x Nub. Test p. 58. N. Alex. p. 351. is not against us who do not require express Scripture for every custome but admit of Tradition as Authority sufficient in such a case and in his next all that he contends for is that it was a Tradition of the Church to pray for the dead and y Nub. Test p. 58. N. Alex. p. 378. that the Holy Ghost did teach partly by the written word and partly by Tradition which last part of his words if it be stretched to speak of matter of Faith is more than can be allowed to Epiphanius since the first Fathers teach the direct contrary as I could have shewn from Tertullian and others as well as I did from Irenaeus St. Austin's places z Nub. Test p. 59 60. N. Alex. p. 380 381 382 383. as relating to Ecclesiastical Practices and Constitutions are answered above that from Vincentius Lirinensis relates to the same the last from St. Chrysostome * Nub. Test p. 61. N. Alex. p. 354. speaks of the times of the Apostles themselves whose Preachings as well as Writings were the very same did proceed from the same Holy Spirit and therefore were of equal Authority and for what he adds about the Tradition of the Church that when it is offered to us we should enquire no farther it does certainly refer onely to Practices and Customs of the Church since as to matters of a higher nature to wit those that concern our Faith and Salvation He makes Scripture-Authority absolutely necessary and teaches us not to say any thing of our own heads without the Testimony of the Sacred Inspired Writers for this very reason †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrys Hom. in Ps 95. p. 1042. Tom. 3. Edit Ducaei because if we affirm or say any thing without having the Authority of Scripture for it the understandings of our Auditors waver one while assenting another while doubting one while rejecting our discourse as frivolous another while admitting it but as probable at most but when once we produce the Written Testimony of God's Word we confirm our own discourse and fix and settle the Vnderstanding of the Auditors I hope our Compiler when he hath read this will have another notion concerning the Authority of Tradition We do admit it as to Discipline and Practice with the Primitive Fathers but as to points of Faith and Doctrines of necessity to Salvation we do require with them the Written Testimony of the Word of God or an Vniversal uninterrupted Tradition as clear as that by which we receive the Scriptures themselves CHAP. IV. Concerning Invocation of Saints SECT I. HOW little the Church of Rome is able to produce Vniversal Tradition for those points of Controversie which we at present contend about is what our Compiler's next head comes now to shew That there is no foundation in Scripture no command for nor Practice of Invocation of Saints or paying any Religious Worship to them or their Reliques is what they are forced to grant they must then have recourse to Tradition and shew us from that what they were not able to doe from Scripture it self that the Church of God always practised and taught such a Worship of Saints and Reliques as the Church of Rome doth now teach and practise Our Compiler begins this point with an account of the Heresie of Vigilantius as F. Alexandre calls it this account he hath borrowed out of that Fathers a In Par. 1. Sec. 5. c. 3. p. 50 51 c. account of the Heresie of Vigilantius and every syllable of the Testimonies under this head for above twenty pages together out of the same Friend b Dissertat 5. in Panoplia adv Haereses Sect. 5. in Par. 2. Seculi quinti. He tells us that in the beginning of the fourth Century Vigilantius began to teach his pestilent Doctrines but this is a mistake of our Compiler who hath placed Vigilantius here by the same figure that he puts Damasus and Julius c Append. to Nub. Test p. 191. in the Third Century Victor in the first and Aerius exactly in the middle of the same Century Vigilantius lived in the beginning of the fifth Century when the quarrel betwixt him and St. Hierome began we are not at all concerned in this quarrel any farther than to stand by that Doctrine and those Practices which were most agreeable to the Scriptures the Foundation of Faith. The Differences betwixt us and the Church of Rome in these points are so well known that I need spend no time about shewing wherein they are it is sufficient to advertise that they of that Church teach and practise the putting up prayers to Saints and Angels paying Religious Worship to them prostrating themselves before Reliques and the like every one of which we refuse upon reasons which from Scripture and the purest Antiquity seem invincible to us The Church of Rome will have what she teaches and practises in these things to have been the Constant Practice and Original Tradition of the Whole Church of Christ and this is the thing which lies upon them to
Sincerity that was used in the APPROBATION of that Book of the Bishop of Meaux for which thô he himself had thanks yet it seems others must have Lashes and Curses for holding and asserting the same Doctrines that De Meaux does there As for our Compiler what condition soever he may look upon himself to be in notwithstanding his frequenting the Romish Chappels I must assure him that He is by the drawing up of this Nubes Testium become one of us that is lyes under the Pope's Curse and that he hath laid himself open to the malice of his Enemies of his own Party who now may inform the Pope's Nuncio against him and prove the Charge severely enough against him from this Answer which he hath drawn upon himself Having done with the Compiler before I conclude my Introduction I must not forget to be civil to a late Adversary who was pleased to do me the Honour to lead me in Triumph with the Excellent Dean of C. As he afforded me a place in his Introduction to his TRANSUBSTANTIATION DEFENDED so I was resolved to provide him a room in mine and not to troubâ—â— my book with one that nibbles only at half a Page in the Veteres Vindicati or Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney He is very angry at my Argument about determining the THIS in the Proposition THIS IS MY BODY to mean Bread and takes me to task about my Logick as if I had never lookt into one or had forgot it I suppose my crime is that I did not talk Metaphysically and argue in Mood and Figure and skirmish with my Dilemma's and Sorites'es with Idea's and Predicates with Identicals and Tautologicals which are things very edifying and extreamly instructive to a Common Reader As to my Ignorance therefore in Logick I cannot help it at present but will when I am a little better convinced of my wants therein than our Author hath been able to do it but for miscalling the Sorites an Induction and not putting my Propositions in Mood and Figure I must tell him that I had two pretty good reasons the one was because I would not and the other because I durst not I would not because I believed that Induction was a word better known to the Generality of Readers than Sorites and that a plain rational way was more convictive to a Common Reader than to disturb him with my Majors and Minors with my Ergo's and Predicates if I could fairly avoid them I durst not for fear of the Poet for I could not but remember how very angry the Poet was with a very learned Answerer for arguing too closely how he twitted him with ergoteering and call'd him Grim Logician and I was therefore so affraid lest when he next fell to Hind-and-Panthering and to sorting out his beasts I should have been made a Beast for my pains and have been nicknam'd Isgrim the Logician to distinguish me from his other Isgrim These reasons I hope will be accepted if not assoon as I know it I will think of better And in the mean time look after the Vindication of my Argument to determine the THIS in our Saviours words to mean Bread 〈◊〉 Vindicati p. 57. I was saying above in that page which this Gentleman carps at that if I could prove that the THIS in those words was Bread that Proposition must not be taken in a literal or if he pleases in a proper sense And I did endeavour to clear it thus That which our Saviour took into his hands when he was about the Institution was Bread That which He blessed was the same thing that he had taken into his hands That which he brake was the same thing that he had blessed That which He gave them when he said it was his Body was that which he had broken But that which He broke which he blessed which he took into his hands was BREAD Therefore it was Bread which he gave his Disciples and by THIS is meant This Bread. (a) Veteres Vindicati p. 57. This Induction I said was so fair and so clear that I was sure Mr. Slater could not evade it This my Answerer calls mighty boasting and will needs have it that the Induction is a meer fallacy and Illusion and which is as obliging tells me it proceeded from Ignoratio Elenchi Ignorance of Argument or Proof But how I pray Why after he hath run me down with a Kitchin-boy and forc't me into an Absurdity as he I warrant him good man thought he had He very gravely assures me that it could not be Bread because it was then changed Before we make one step further I must ask him what Church he is of this I know he will be angry at but it is necessary because he either is not of the Church of Rome or doth not understand his own Church I am enquiring what is meant by the Word THIS at the beginning of the Proposition THIS IS MY BODY and collected that it was Bread because that was the Subject of our Saviour's Discourse and Actions immediately before But this Gentleman answers me that it could not be bread because it was then changed that is to reconcile him and his Church together the Bread was changed and it was not changed It was not changed saith the Church of Rome since the change ensues the pronouncing the whole Proposition of THIS IS MY BODY It was changed saith the Answerer to me But whether before or at the pronouncing of THIS he hath not told us I cannot but desire of him who is so civil as to send me to read Logick again that he would condescend so far as look into the Councel of Florence and see by whose words and when the Change of the Bread is made in Consecration Let him look into Turrecremata's Discourse there to convince (b) Concil Floren. Pars 2. Collatio 22. Num. 5 8. p. 1143 1153. in Tom. 13. Concil Edit Cossart 1672. the Orientals that the Change is onely made by the pronouncing of our Lords own words THIS is my Body and then tell me whether he is still of the opinion that by THIS cannot be meant the Bread since it is already changed As this is enough to shew not only the weakness of his answer but the Silliness of his argument from Raw Flesh and Water and Sacramental Bread so what follows will as fully discover his disingenuity After I had spoken of the clearness of my Induction I urged my Argument further Veteres Vindicati p. 57. that if by THIS is not meant the Bread I desired to know what it was exclusive to Bread And further how the Bread could be by the words THIS IS MY BODY converted into the Body of Christ if the Bread was not mentioned here nor meant by the word THIS This part of the Argument our Answerer durst not undertake but very fairly slips it over tho' connected to the Induction and falls to upbraiding me as if I was for being the Great
Text of St. Austin which runs thus nec eo ad adoranda daemonia non servio lapidibus sed tamen in parte Donati sum I wonder why F. Alexandre should be so much afraid of this passage though we do object to his Church as a most grievous crime the giving religious worship to Saints and Angels and their Images yet he cannot but know that we do not lay to their charge the worshiping of Devils which we are very glad our selves that we cannot doe But I begin to suspect strongly that Father Alexandre and our Compiler are very near a-kin that our Compiler hath made the same use of N. Alexandre that Alexandre himself hath done of others that which inclines me very much to this Opinion is that Father Alexandre never tells us that I have observed what Editions of the Fathers he used nor quotes the page where one may find his quoted passage above once in five hundred passages I believe through all his Volumes CHAP. II. Concerning the Pope's Supremacy SECT I. AFter twenty pages spent about matters that do not at all concern our present Controversie we are come to that which must be allowed not onely to be a Controversie but the greatest of any that are now on foot in the World and which hath been and is the cause of all those tyrannical pretensions and uncanonical impositions which do at present divide the Christian World. The Pope's Supremacy is that point which the Members of the Church of Rome especially the Vltramontaines are so carefull to defend and we of the Reformation to oppose Our Compiler being now come to a point of debate doth not forget his art of palliating which was so very serviceable to him in his Misrepresentations and Representations of Popery He cannot but know and therefore ought to have avoided it that this loose talk about Successor of Peter and Centre of Catholick Communion does not reach the Pretensions of the Bishops of Rome nor fully and fairly declare what Power Jurisdiction and Authority in and over the Catholick Church those Bishops challenge as their right To let him see how loosely he manages this debate betwixt us I can with putting in two or three necessary words subscribe to all our Compiler says for the Pope and yet be as far from owning the Pope's Supremacy as the Church of England is or ever was The Fathers teach Nub. Testium p. 22. says our Compiler that Christ built his Church upon Peter so say I too if by Fathers here be meant two or three of them and not the Fathers unanimously as he hath it before or generally That the Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Saint Peter is what I can also grant and that That See is the Centre of the Catholick Communion if I may but put in here what is absolutely necessary while possessed by an Orthodox Bishop and that whosoever separates himself from it I add professing the true Faith and possessed by a Catholick Bishop is guilty of Schism I can I say subscribe though I do not to all this without any Obligation in the least of believing the Pope's Supremacy all that our Compiler puts down here reaching no farther than a Primacy of Order does not at all suppose in the Popes any Jurisdiction or Authority over the Catholick Church Since then our Compiler seems to be afraid of setting down a true account of this Controversie betwixt us by mincing the matter so much about the Pope's power I must borrow of him his last Quotation under this head the Canon of the Council of Florence and set that down as the true account of their Doctrine concerning the Pope's power and then not onely shew our reasons why we dare not submit to it but that all the Testimonies our Compiler hath put down from F. Alexandre except two or three under this head do not prove the Pope's Supremacy as it is stated by their General Council of Florence m Diffinimus Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem Romanum Pontificem in universum orbem tenere Primatum ipsum Pontificem Romanum Successorem esse Beati Petri Principis Apostolorum verum Christi Vicarium totiúsque Ecclesiae Caput omnium Christianorum Patrem ac Doctorem existere ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam à Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse quemadmodum etiam in Gestis Oecumenicorum Conciliorum in Sacris Canonibus continetur Concil Florent Pars 2. Collatio 22. p. 1136. Edit Cossart We define says the Canon that the Holy Apostolick See and Bishop of Rome is invested with the Primacy over the whole World and that the Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Saint Peter Prince of the Apostles and that he is the true Vicar of Christ and Head of the whole Church and the Father and Doctour of all Christians and that the full power of feeding ruling and governing the whole Church was given to him in St. Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ as it is expressed or contained in the Acts of General Councils and in the Holy Canons The Reader will very easily see what a great difference there is betwixt this account of the Pope's Supremacy and that set down by our Compiler and yet this Gentleman would be thought to be an exact Stater of the Controversie betwixt us and to have represented fairly what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is concerning their Popes Power and Jurisdiction I hope I am out of the danger of being made a Misrepresenter while I charge that onely upon them as their Doctrine which hath been defined by one of their General Councils which is the greatest strength and countenance that any Doctrine is capable of among them This then being the true state of their Doctrine concerning their Popes Power or Supremacy and that which I would call naked Popery I am sure I have Commission from the Church of England to declare that she cannot without betraying the Rights of all Bishops and the Interest of the Catholick Church espouse the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy which we of her Communion do believe is altogether without foundation either from Scripture or Primitive Antiquity It will not be consistent with that brevity I have confined my self to in this Answer to go through our several arguments against this usurped Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome I am onely desirous to consider in short whence they have this their extraordinary Power which they do as extraordinarily contend for there are but Three Sources whence they can pretend to derive it either that it is from the Law of God set down in the Scriptures or from the Laws of the Vniversal Church to be seen in her Code or lastly from the favour and authority of secular Princes the first of these is that which they commonly claim and insist upon the second is what this Canon of the Florentine Council doth challenge also in the
Peter concerning Christ which is espoused by the Church of England is true and Catholick that to interpret it of St. Peter's person is to contradict the Stream of Catholick Antiquity and consequently that there is no ground from this Text of St. Matthew for the Supremacy of St. Peter or the Bishops of Rome I suppose it will not be expected here that I should set down all these numerous Authorities which the excellent Launoy hath with so much industry collected to prove that by the Rock in this Text is meant the Faith confessed by St Peter I will onely put down one or two passages of the Fathers omitted by him that the World may see that that excellent Person hath not exhausted the Subject nor produced all the Proofs of those Authours whom He sets down The first shall be Epiphanius omitted by Launoy who brings in our Saviour saying to St. Peter That upon this Rock of unshaken u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. adv Haer. L. 2. T. 1. p. 500. Edit Par. Petav. 1622. Faith I will build my Church St. Chrysostom tells us that our Saviour said upon this Rock not upon Peter for he built his Church not upon the man Peter but upon the Faith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrys Sermo de Pentecoste p. 233. in T. 6. Edit Ducael 1636. which He had confessed As to the latter part of this passage from St. Matthew to wit about the promise made to St. Peter of having the Keyes bestowed upon him I am sure it is very far from doing the Romanists any service since it is abundantly plain that when our Saviour after his Resurrection came to perform the promise he had made here He did bestow the Power of the Keyes equally among the Apostles without preserring one Apostle above another or giving to one a greater share in the Vse of the Keyes than to the rest so that if St. John's Gospel be but as Authentick as St. Matthew's we are fully secured that this Power of the Keyes was equally given in Saint John x S. John 20.21 22 23. and therefore equally promised in St. Matthew to all the Apostles It were very easie to shew from abundance of the Fathers Expressions that there is nothing in this promise peculiar to St. Peter Origen tells us that what was promised here was common to the rest of the Apostles y Quod si dictum hoc tibi dabo claves regni coelorum caeterisque quoque commune est c. Orig. Tr. 1. in Matt. p. 39. Edit Freb. 1530. and Saint Austin informs us somewhere as I have met with it quoted that as St. Peter made the Confession in the name and as the mouth of all the Apostles so He received this promise in the behalf of all as representing them all But if any contend that this promise was performed assoon as spoken and therefore that there was something extraordinary and particular to St. Peter here since he is here invested with those Keyes which the rest of the Apostles had nothing to doe with nor were admitted to any share in them till just before our Saviour his Ascension our Answer is very ready that the rest of the Apostles did certainly here receive the same power of the Keyes that they will have St. Peter invested with because in the next Chapter but one a Matth. 18.17 18. to this our Saviour speaks to all the Apostles as already invested with this power of the Keyes which Assertion of ours the Generality of the Fathers are so far from opposing that the abovenamed b In Ep. ad Vallantium Learned Sorbonist Monsieur Launoy hath with prodigious pains demonstrated that St. Peter did receive the power of the Keyes in the name of the Apostles their Successours and the whole Church and that the Catholick Church is the proximate Subject of all Church-power This he hath evidenced from the concurrent Authority of at least c Launoii Ep. ad Hadrian Vallantium in Par. secunda Epp. seventy Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we find eight Councils three Vniversities one Learned King our Henry the Eighth eleven Popes and two Rituals from above two hundred Testimonies as I think I may safely say it out of these Writings So that if these passages from St. Matthew about the Rock and the Power of the Keyes be not invincibly demonstrated to be directly contrary to the Romish Pretensions and their urging St. Matthew's Expressions for their Popes Supremacy be not hence proved to be extravagantly unreasonable and perfectly groundless I must e'en say that it is utterly impossible for the wisest man in the World to prove any thing even from the best Evidences and that the Decree of their Council of Trent That Scripture be interpreted by the unanimous consent of Fathers is the foolishest order in the World if so many and so great Testimonies be not able to rescue these two passages of St. Matthew from the abusive Interpretations of the Popes Vpholders The other place of Scripture alledged by them to prove the Divine Institution of St. Peter's Supremacy is that of St. John d S. Joh. 21.15 16 17. wherein our Saviour bids St. Peter thrice to feed his Sheep and Lambs From this place they say F. Alexandre among the rest that the chief care of the Church and a sacred Principality in it over all conditions aswell Apostles as others was conferred upon St. Peter by our Saviour but this is much easier said than proved since the natural sense and a fair interpretation of the words extends no farther than a repeated command of feeding Christ's Flock which hath nothing of extraordinary in it since the rest of the Apostles had had the same Injunctions though not in the same terms laid upon them and farther if this place must be forced to settle something upon St. Peter it will make him not the chief but the sole Pastour of the Catholick Church since here just before his Ascension our Saviour gives his Commands and commits the Charge of his whole Flock to St. Peter alone and this is the sense wherein the Council of Florence seems to have taken these words in St. John when in the Canon I set down above it defines that the full or whole power of feeding P. 9. ruling and governing the whole Church was given to the Pope in St. Peter If this be their sense therefore I desire to know of these men what is become of the charge given to the rest of the Apostles of going to teach which is the same with feeding all Nations which includes old and young Sheep and Lambs I would be informed also what there is more either of Authority or Charge in this passage than in that general Commission in St. Matthew e Matth. 28.19 20. and farther I would fain know whether this Commission here about feeding the Sheep and Lambs doth cancell that solemn and general one to all the Apostles in the Chapter next
before that from whence we have this passage about Sheep and Lambs f Joh. 20.21 22 23. Perhaps some may be so impudent to avouch that it doth cancell the other and some mens Opinions I am sure do oblige them to believe it however we must tell such that St. Paul was not of their Opinion for when he had sent for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to Miletus g Acts 20.17 28. He honours them with the Title of Bishops whereas according to these men they were no Bishops but St. Peter's Curates He tells them that the Holy Ghost had made them Pastours of their Flocks which must be a mistake in St. Paul since these Elders could not be the Holy Ghost's Pastours while they were onely St. Peter's Curates and no Pastours at all And St. Peter himself is as far from these mens fancies he would not otherwise have been so forgetfull of himself as to call the Bishops among the dispersed Jews his fellow-Pastours whereas according to these men Those Elders were so far from being Christ's Bishops that they were but his own Curates they were so far from being his Equals as he says they were h 1 Pet. 5.1 2. that they at most were but his Servants sent by him to feed their several flocks but enough of this Both parties of the Romanists as well those that from this place make St. Peter prime Bishop as those that make him sole Bishop of the Catholick Church appeal to the Fathers in defence of their several Interpretations and thither we are very willing to go with them and to be judged by the Fathers what is the true sense and import of these words St. Cyprian in his Tract concerning the Vnity of the Church according to Pamelius's Edition speaking concerning the Apostles says that every of them were Pastours yet the flock but one which was to be fed by all the Apostles with their unanimous and united endeavours i Et Pastores sunt omnes sed grex unus ostenditur qui ab Apostolis omnibus unanimi consensione pascatur D. Cypr. de Vnit Eccl. Edit Pamel and the same thing this excellent Father says in his Epistle to Stephen Bishop of Rome whom He calls his Brother that though they were many Pastours they two among the rest yet that the flock was but one which they were to feed and therefore that it was k Nam etsi Pastores multi sumus unum tamen gregem pascimus oves universas quas Christus sanguine suo ac passione quaesivit colligere fovere debemus Cypr. Ep. 68. Stephano p. 178. Edit Oxon. to be their care to secure and preserve all those Sheep which Christ had purchased by his bloudy Passion In this Epistle one may see the true state of the Catholick Church and of Episcopal Dignity at that time how little they thought then of the Bishop of Rome's being either the Prince of Bishops or the sole Bishop in the Church when St. Cyprian l Cui rei nostrum est consulere subvenire frater charissime qui divinam clementiam cogitantes gubernandae Ecclesiae libram tenentes sic censuram vigoris peccatoribus exhibemus c. Idem Ibidem p. 176 177. tells Stephen Bishop of Rome that it was every Bishop's Province to take care lest any damage should accrew to the flock of Christ through Hereticks and such evil Workers since they the Bishops were in common intrusted not He at Rome alone or above the rest with the Government of the Catholick Church St. Ambrose speaking of our Saviour's bidding Peter to feed his Sheep m Quas oves quem gregem non solum tunc beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes D. Ambrosius de Dignitate Sacerdotali c. 2. p. 386. T. 4. Edit Erasm says that St. Peter did not receive alone those Sheep and that flock but that he did receive them in common with the rest of the Pastours of the Church and the Pastours also with him St. Chrysostom in his Dialogue persuading St. Basil to undertake the Pastoral Charge assures him that n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrys de Sacerdotio c. 1. p. 15. in T. 4. Edit Ducaei thereby he should shew his love towards Christ if he would feed his flock since it was recorded in Scripture if thou lovest me feed my flock St. Austin baffles the Opinions of both parties of the Romanists in a very few but very expressive words o Et cùm ei viz. Petro dicitur ad OMNES dicitur Amos me Pasce oves meas D. August de Agone Christiano c. 30. p. 550. in T. 3. Edit Erasm 1528. When it is said to Peter it is said to all Pastours lovest thou me Feed my Sheep There is nothing more evident in Antiquity than that the Bishops of the Catholick Church looking upon themselves as the Apostles Successours and intrusted by them with that care and charge of the flock of Christ which they themselves had from Christ himself thought themselves obliged by their station in the Church to feed to preserve and to watch over the flock of Christ remembring that as Christ committed to them that great charge so He would require as strict an account of their discharge thereof And the Bishops of Rome were so far in those days from taking too much upon them or pretending to a peculiar or sole charge of the Catholick Church that it is evident from those first times that the term of Brother Collegue and Fellow-Bishop passed mutually from them to others and from others to them witness the Synodical Epistle of the Synod of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus p Apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 7. c. 27. the Epistle of St. Cyril and the Synod at Alexandria to Nestorius q Concil T. 3. p. 395. Edit Cossartii and several of the Epistles in St. Cyprian and the learned Monsieur Launoy hath produced the concurrent Authority of about fourty Popes who in their occasional Letters to other Bishops used the term of Brother or Fellow-Bishop and thereby owned them their Fellow-Pastours in the charge and government of the flock of Christ r J. Launoii Epist ad Formentinum apud Par. 5. Epp. p. 27 c. If notwithstanding all this any inquire to what purpose then was this threefold question and charge to St. Peter though it is answer sufficient to tell them that they have nothing to doe to be so inquisitive yet since they are I do refer them to St. Cyril of Alexandria on this place ſ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B. Cyril Comment in Joann l. 12. p. 1119 1120. Edit Par. 1638. where they will find that this threefold question about his love to Christ was to put him on making satisfaction for his threefold denyal of Christ and that the charge of feeding the Sheep was as it were a
in this affair that so what was decided by them in Synod might have a general reception His next Authorities are much more unfit for the proving such great things as the Florentine Council says of the Pope Nub. Testium p. 34. none but a very short-sighted person would quote the Comparison of St. Peter and Plato which passage is not in St. Hierome as set down by our Authour since no one ever made or believed Plato to be such a Prince over the Philosophers as the Church of Rome says St. Peter was over the Apostles and the whole Church g Nub. Test p. 34 35. Nat. Alex. p. 281 282. The business of the Council of Jerusalem with St. Hierome's leave makes more for the honour of St. James Bishop there than of St. Peter since he concluded the debates and the Canon was drawn up in the very expressions prescribed by him and I must confess that as to the next passage from St. Hierome h Nub. Test p. 35. Nat. Alex. p. 283. about a Head constituted among the Apostles since I find nothing in the Gospels or in the Acts of the Apostles that either our Saviour did appoint or the Apostles elect or constitute Peter Head of the Apostles I cannot believe it though St. Hierome doth affirm it especially since his being made the Apostles Messenger Acts 8.14 is so home an Evidence against it The next Testimony i Nub. Test p. 35. Nat. Alex. Par. 2. Sec. 4. p. 190. proves onely that St. Hierome acted as every good Christian ought in keeping to the Faith and Church of Christ against the Hereticks that he acted as every Presbyter ought when he consulted his own Bishop whether he might use the term Hypostases about the Trinity The two last Testimonies from him do not deserve a word of answer and therefore I will pass to those from St. Austin the two first k Nub. Test p. 37. Nat. Alex. p. 284. passages from whom are directly against our Compiler the rest are too weak for his designs and to very little purpose since as to the first l Nub. Test p. 39. of them several other Câ—urches as well as that at Rome did enjoy the prerogative of having an Apostolical Chair and as to the next m Nub. Test p. 39 40. Nat. Alex. p. 308. it was very expedient the Africans should try all means and use all helps that could be got to suppress a growing Heresie and for the third n Nub. Test p. 40. Nat. Alex. p. 309. it was customary enough for other Bishops to call Bishops to Synods the History of the first ages of St. Cyprian in particular will put this out of doubt the last o Nub. Test p. 40 41. Nat. Alex. p. 309. falls in with the second and therefore I pass it and ought to doe so by those of St. Cyril since they p Nub. Test p. 41. were answered sufficiently above in the Interpretation of the Rock Having spent so much time about the Testimonies hitherto I will make the more haste through the rest there are but one or two lest that can give us much occasion of an Answer that about Nestorius had need to have a Preface to make it look great for the Pope as if Nestorius could not be excommunicated but by his Authority and Cyril did excommunicate him by virtuo onely of the power given him by that Pope q Nub. Test p. 41 42. Nat. Alex. p. 309 310. whereas it is certain from Saint Cyril's own Letter to Coelestine that before then upon Dorotheus his having denounced in the presence of Nestorius an Anathema r Cyril Alex Ep. ad Coelest in T. 3. Concil p. 341. Edit Coss against all that should say the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God not onely the people of Constantinople but almost all the Monasteries with their Abbats had lest off communicating with Nestorius and that St. Cyril himself had already broke off Communion with him but does not publickly denounce Excommunication against Nestorius till he had consulted with Coelestine in the thing Å¿ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΜΕΤΑ ' ΠΑΡΡΗΣΙ'ΑΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Ibid. who upon the hearing of Nestorius his great Errour did send an Answer to Cyril wherein he tells him that They ought to excommunicate Nestorius if he did not recant his Errour and therefore gave Cyril leave to join his Authority to his own and in their names to excommunicate Nestorius t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΕΜΕΙ Σ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΟΦΕΙ'ΛΟΜ ΕΠ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΣΟΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Coelest Ep. Cyrillo What is cited next from the Council of Ephesus signifies nothing at all but what the Pope's Legate said there signifies much less since this is a Controversie that is not to be decided by what this Pope or that Legate said passing therefore what either Coelestine or his Legate say here u Nubes Testium p. 42 43. Nat. Alexan. p. 310 311 312. or Pope Leo's Legate at Chalcedon * Nubes Testium p. 44. Nat. Alexan. p. 312. and the little passage of the Council there as of no strength I am come to that passage from the Emperour Valentinian's Letter which speaks of the Bishop of Rome 's having power to judge of Matters of Faith and the Cause of Priests or Bishops I onely ask our Compiler x Nub. Test p. 44 45. whether he designs from this passage to prove that the Bishop of Rome had such a power of judging Matters of Faith and the Causes of the Clergy alone or in Conjunction with other Bishops if he designs onely the latter no body does oppose a Synod's having power of Judging and examining such things but if he will have the Bishop of Rome alone to have full power over such Matters and Controversies See Nouvelles de la Republ. des Lettres for the Month October 1684. p. 262. I cannot but refer him to his own Master F. Alexandre who was so earnest and so vigorous to have the Proposition censured which is in the Hungarian Censure of the Propositions of the Clergy of France which teaches that it doth belong to the Apostolical See alone by divine immutable z Ad solam Sedem Apostolicam divino immutabili privilegio spectat de Controversiis Fidei judicare privilege to determine in Controversies of Faith against which extravagant Proposition it is said that Father made a Discourse of two hours long which pleased Monsieur Colbert so well that he sent him a present of a hundred Louidores This Doctrine of the sole power of the Pope in Judging Controversies of Faith is so odious to the Clergy of France that they call it the Heresie of the Jesuites and the Sorbonists who wrote the Notes upon the Hungarian Censure of the four Propositions of the Gallican Clergy tell the Clergy a Notae in
never any before CHAP. V. Concerning Prayers for the Dead SECT I. THE next point under debate that our Compiler presents us with is that about Prayers for the Dead Aerius he says condemned Praying for the Dead and that the Fathers practised it and owned it as advantageous to the Souls departed Every word of which we freely grant how then is this a Controversie betwixt us at present under debate They of his Church have been so often told of and shewn the vast difference betwixt the Prayers used in the Primitive Church and those by the present Romish Church that I cannot but wonder that they are not ashamed of still urging the Prayers of the Ancients and making them the grounds of their Belief of a Purgatory We always grant that Antiquity practised Praying for the Dead so that our Compiler's Testimonies borrowed from F. Alexandre's fourty first Dissertation a Nat. Alex. Dissertatio quadragesima prima in Par. secunda Sec. 4. p. 392 c. are mustered up to no purpose since they are brought in here to prove that which no one denies That which is a real Controversie betwixt us if our Compiler durst have spoken out as his Master F. Alexandre doth who urges all the Testimonies b Purgatorium esse in quo expientur animae justorum Preces Ecclesiae ipsis illo in statu prodesse Traditione demonstratur And then he sets down the Authorities which our Compiler borrows p. 392. our Compiler sets down for the Proof of Purgatory it self is whether there is such a place as Purgatory and whether consequently we ought to use Prayers for the Souls in it or can help them out thence by the saying of Masses here and this is that which we demand of them to prove that either the Scriptures taught or the Primitive Church believed that there is a third state or place called Purgatory wherein the souls of those who died in the favour of God were in order to the satisfying the Justice of God for the temporal punishments due to those sins the eternal Punishment whereof God had already remitted before death to endure fiery torments equal to those in Hell till they had fully satisfied God's Justice or their Friends had obtained a release of part of those torments for them and got them released thence into the place and state of justified Souls and we demand farther of them to shew that the Word of God supposing that it did teach and Antiquity believe a Purgatory did injoin or commend the Prayers of the Living for the Souls of their deceased Friends in Purgatory or that it did any where declare that such Prayers would be advantageous to the Souls in Purgatory and could release them thence and we demand of them lastly to shew that Antiquity for the first three hundred nay five hundred years did ever use Prayers for the Release of the Souls of their deceased Friends out of this Purgatory This is the true state of the Controversie betwixt us we deny that the Word of God doth teach any such thing as a Romish Purgatory or that Antiquity believed any such place we deny that either the Scriptures did enjoin or commend or that Antiquity did use Prayers to deliver the Souls of their deceased Friends out of the flames of Purgatory as for the mistaken passage in the Maccabees which is also against their Tenets they know we do not own it for Scripture They of the Compiler's Church do affirm the contrary and therefore why did not he go regularly to work to disprove us why did not he bring us the passages of the Primitive Fathers which shew they believed Purgatory and the Prayers which were used then for the release of those miserable souls out of the fiery torments of Purgatory if there were such a belief of Purgatory and such Prayers used as are now in the Church of Rome during the first three or five hundred years But this is that which they are never able to doe and therefore instead of keeping close to the point under debate and proving either a Purgatory or Prayers used by the Primitive Church for release of Souls in Purgatory they slip the Debate let fall the Question and fall a proving of that which no body denies that the Fathers in the first ages used Oblations and Prayers for the Dead never considering in the mean time that those Prayers and Oblations were used by the Ancients for the very best of men for their Martyrs and Saints for the Virgin Mary herself that they were put up for those whom they believed to be in a state of Light and Joy and Comfort than which what can be farther either from the Doctrine or the Practice of the present Church of Rome We do confess withall that these Prayers were offered up also for pardon of sins but neither will this reach the case of the Church of Rome since these prayers for pardon of sins were generally for those who were in a state of Rest and Comfort and there is not a word in them for deliverance from pains and torments undergon in Purgatory SECT II. Thus in the Testimonies themselves which F. Alexandre and after him his implicit servant the Compiler have heaped up under this head the first of them c Nub. Test p. 85. Nat. Alex. Dissert 41. in Par. 2. Sect. 4. p. 392. from the pretended Dionysius makes the Bishop offer Prayers over the dead for pardon of sins of humane infirmity and that he may be placed in the Region of Light but if our Compiler had read the whole Chapter he from F. Alexandre quotes he might have seen the Services and this Prayer was put for one who was a Holy Servant of God who was by death at an end of all Combats and was already in joy and settled hopes d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys de Eccles Hierarch c. 7. p. 407. Edit Antuerp 1634. waiting for a blessed Resurrection not a word of which is consistent with being in the flames and torments of the fire of Purgatory or could be said of one who was now a purging in them And so the next from Tertullian appears not to be different especially since all are agreed that Martyrs themselves were herein commemorated e Nub. Test p. 85. Nat. Alex. p. 394. and for the Refreshment prayed for in the second quotation it did relate to that state of Sequester wherein Tertullian thought the Souls of the most holy were deteined till the day of Judgment and not at all to any Purgatory The next from St. Cyprian f Nub. Test p. 85 86. Nat. Alex. p. 394 395. relates onely to the same that Dionysius's did The following Testimonies from Arnobius and St. Cyril g Nub. Test p. 86. Nat. Alex. p. 395 396. prove onely what hath been hitherto granted that they then prayed for the dead but say not a word of delivering them from Purgatory But though these Testimonies hitherto promised but little service the next
that should we compare the Writers which wrote for that Doctrine which Berengarius afterwards taught with those that wrote against him all Learned Men will grant that Berengarius had vastly the advantage of his Adversaries since those who wrote for his Doctrine against Paschasius did so far excell in Learning those that did oppose him since the Scotus's the Rhathramn's and the Rabanus's were men of infinite more worth and learning than the Adelman's the Durand's and the Lanfrank's the last of whom tells the formal silly story about two Heresies e Lanfran de Euch. Sacr. in Tom. 6. Biblioth PP p. 203 204. Edit 1624. started about the Flesh of the Son of Man which the Sacramental Bread was to be converted into and makes the Council of Ephesus to have been procured for the suppression of those two Heresies which is such a forged and ridiculous piece of stuff as shews what learned Adversaries Berengarius was like to have when the most learned of them all is guilty of such ignorance It is not worth while to confute either Lanfrank's or any of the other Authour's Arguments against Berengarius set down by our Compiler he knows we do not derive our Doctrine from Berengarius and he might know would he consult our Protestant Writers that we have evidently shewn that Berengarius was no starter of a new Doctrine but that what Berengarius stood up for in the Eleventh Century had always been the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and this some of his own Church are so far satisfied of that One of them who is said to be a person of very great note in France at present did but the other day shew in an historical manner that the Belief of our Church concerning the blessed Eucharist was the Belief of the Catholick Church for a thousand years after Christ and that we ought not to be obliged to believe their Transubstantiation since it wanted what they themselves made necessary for any Catholick Doctrine at the Council of Trent the Tradition to wit of the Church of all Ages Setting then aside their objecting to us Berengarius in the Eleventh Century and our objecting to them Paschasius Radbertus in the Ninth Century whose opinion was so learnedly and so invincibly baffled by the famous Rhathramn assoon as it made any stir in the World let us pass on to that which we both so eagerly contend for in this point the Sentiments and Doctrines of the first six Centuries about the Eucharist I think the Controversie might be sufficiently determined from Scripture it self where the Eucharist is so often noted by Breaking of Bread in the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul does so often call it Bread after Consecration but since our Compiler waves all proofs from Scripture and appeals to the Doctrine and Belief of the Primitive Fathers of the first six hundred years I am very willing to attend his Motions and to join issue with him herein The Question betwixt our Church and theirs may be stated in a very few words it is not whether Christ's Body be really present in the Eucharist which he knows we declare to be our Opinion since we believe that the consecrated Elements do by the appointment of God communicate to every faithfull Receiver the Body and Bloud of Christ but the real debate betwixt us is whether the Bread and Wine upon Consecration are transubstantiated into that very Body and Bloud of Christ which was nailed and poured out upon the Cross or in other words whether after Consecration there is no other Substance there but the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ This they of the Church of Rome affirm and this is what our Compiler must prove to have been the Belief and Doctrine of the first six hundred years if he intends to convince us Our Compiler hath amassed together so great a number of Testimonies upon this point with which he fills up forty pages that should I oblige my self to a particular Examination of every one of his Testimonies it would make a book as large as all I shall gather against his whole Treatise I will therefore to shorten my task but much more to deliver my Reader from a tedious repetition of the same Answers to those Testimonies which speak onely over again what was said before answer those that are of most moment and Authority and refer the rest unto the same classes with them He is very carefull to follow his Guide Natalis Alexandre out of whom he transcribes every syllable of his Testimonies for forty pages together except two small passages out of St. Austin which do not occur as far as I have observed in that long Dissertation yet is so cunning very often to curtail those parts of the Testimonies which he thought I suppose did speak too broad against them SECT II. The Compiler a Nub. Testium p. 109. Nat. Alex in Par. 3. Sec. 11 12. Dissertatio 12. p. 476. and his Guide also begin with St. Ignatius who is quoted bringing in the reason why the Hereticks abstained from Communion because they did not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ I have sufficiently answered this passage in my Preface by turning it upon my late Adversary from the Authority of Irenaeus b eum PANEM in quo gratiae actae sint CORPVS esse DOMINI SVI Iren. adv Haer. l. 4. c. 34. who explains the Eucharistia here by Bread which had been blessed and Origen c Orig. contra Celsum l. 8. who speaks of the Christians having a Bread which was called Eucharistia so that we say that the Eucharist or Blessed Bread is the Flesh of Jesus Christ but that this must be figuratively onely since Bread can no otherwise be the Body of Christ and Bread still at the same time The second Testimony from Ignatius falls in with the first so that I must pass to our Compiler's next d Nubes Test p. 110. Nat. Alex. p. 479. from Justin Martyr the strength of which lyes onely in his saying they were taught that the consecrated food was the Flesh and Bloud of Jesus Christ We have already granted that it is however to corroborate what we said above it is evident to a demonstration that this consecrated Food was still Bread and not transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ because St. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΞἩΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΤΠΕ ΦΟÎΤΑΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apolog. 2. p. 98. Edit Paris 1636. Justin says at the same time and in the same sentence that our bodies are NOVRISHED by that very consecrated Food to affirm which of the Natural Flesh of Christ is impious and detestable St. Jrenaeus f Nubes Testium p. 111. Nat. Alex. p. 485 486 487. must be answered in the same way since when he says that the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup his Bloud he does also tell us g Sic nostra