of Berengarius Berengarius first publike enemy of this Sacrament Malmesburienses an English Chronicler Malmesbut lib. 3. in Guilielmo 1. p. 114. of his tyme writeth that when he came to visit S. Fulbert B of Charters lying on his death bed the holy Bishop commanded him to be put forth protesting that he did see a huge diuil standing by him and corrupting many to follow him by his flattering hand and alluring breath 2. Luther him selfe confesseth l. de Luther Sainctes repetit de Euchar c. 10. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 5. Surius in comment 1534. Genebrard in chron Erasm cont epist non sobriam Lutheri Carolstadius Zuinglius Lindan ep dissuasor p. 114. Occolampadius Brent in Recognit Iezlerus lib. de diuturn belli eucharist Missa Angul to 7 fol 228. to haue disputed visibly with the diuil and bene perswaded by him to abrogate Masse And of this his conference with the diuil besides others Erasmus a ioly confesser in Fox his calender is a most sufficient witnes To Carolstadius a great frend at the first of Luther appeared a diuil as he was preaching as testifieth Erasmus Alberus Zwinglius an eger enimy of the real presence testifieth of him selfe l. de subsid Euchar That about the Eucharist he was instructed of a spirit which saith he I know not whether it was black or white And Luther l. cit writeth that he thinketh Occolampadius others to haue bene choked by the diuil And the Lutherans cal the Zinglians diuilish heretiks possessed and obsessed of diuils and their opinions diabolical 3. Finally Caluin epist ad Bucer confesseth Caluin that he had a familier to which he Genium imputeth his vaine of cursing Thus we see the very Fathers of Protestantisme to haue bene haunted and instructed of diuils Who therefore can doubt but their doctrin is the doctrin of diuils and they such as hauing departed from the Catholique faith wherein they were christend and bred did harken to the spirits of errors and teach the doctrin which they had learnd of the diuil appearinge in visible forme Now let vs see how Bel like a good scholer defendeth his black maisters and oppugneth the Catholique doctrin 4. He begineth his second Article as he Bel pag. 19. did the first with a syllogisme with dissimulation and vntruth Aquinas saith he 31. vntruth Bellarm the Councel of Trent and the rest of the Conc. Trid. sess 13 can 1. Aquinas 3. p. 76. art 1. Bellarm. l 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Romish brood hold constantly as an article of their Christian faith that the true organical and natural body of Christ which is localy in hauen is also truly and really vnder the forme af bred and wine in the sacrifice of the masse but this saitâ— he is impossible as which implyâ—th flat contradiction ergo c. I accept Bels confession of the Catholiques constancy in their faith which is Catholiques constant in their faith a vertue far from him selfe who hath twise altered lis religion 5. Bels dissimulation is euident for he 3. dissimulation could not be ignorant that Luther and his Lutherish brood hold the real presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist no les then Catholiques though otherwise then they doe For Luther accurseth them Luther in praefat lib. Sueuarum In postrema confes fidei de caena Domini Et thesti 15. 27. and accounteth them blasphemers and damned foreuer and in plaine teatmes defineth them to be heretiques and out of Gods church who denie the body and bloud of Christ to be receaued with carnal mouth in the venerable Eucharist This was Luthers sentence iudgemeÌ„t vpoÌ„ them that deny the real presence Ioan. Lauatherus Ioan. Ieclerus which his brood defend with tooth and nayle as is euident by their endlesse and mortal warres against the Zuinglians and Caluinists whereof two Protestants haue written two bookes 6. Bells want of fidelitie appeareth in this proposition whereof he maketh no doubt For albeit al Catholiques beleue as a point of their faith that Christs true and natural body and the very selfe same which in heauen is organical is in the B Sacrament yet nether the Councel of Trent S. Conc. Trid. sess 13. can 1. S. Thom. 3. p. q. 76. art 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Thomas nor Bellarmin in the places quoted by Bel affirme as a point and much lesse as an Article of their faith that it is there organical For organization being an accident of the body depending of quantity they hold no otherwise his organization then they do his quantity to be in the Sacrament The Councel onely defineth whole Christ that is euery substantial part of him to be in the Eucharist without any mention of his quaÌ„tity or other accidents as appeareth by the words of the Canon If any shal deny the body and blood together with the soul Diuinity of our Lord Iesus Christ and consequently whole Christ to be in the Eucharist c. be he accursed And in the same sense sayd S. Thom 3 p q. 76 ar 1. that according to the Catholique faith whole Christ is in the Sacrament And though art 4. he teach that Christs quantity is also in the Sacrament yet affirmeth he it not as a point of faith In like sorte Bellarm in the place which Bel citeth teacheth and truly that Christs quantity is in the Sacrament but not with Bels addition as a point of faith And though l 3. de Euchar c. 5. he cal it the common sentence of the Schooles and Church yet condemneth he not the contrary as heretical but onely as false and erroneous And as for Durand accom Gabriel Durand 4. d. 10. q. 2. Occam 4. q. 4. tract de Eucharist c. 29. maior q. 2. Gabr. art 2. concl 2. lect 43. in Can. Maior and Satus also as Sainctes reporteth whome Bel can not deny to be of the Romish brood as he scornefully speaketh they thought that Christs body had not his quaÌ„tity in the Sacrament and consequently must needs thinke that it was not there organical And to disproue Bel Iuel in his apologie writeth that some Papists affirme Christs quantity to be in the Eucharist others deny it For some being perswaded in Philosophy that quantity essentially requireth aptitudinal commensuration to place so that if it be put in a place it must needs be coextended to the place thinking that they cold sufficiently verifie Christs words by teaching the substance of his body to be in the Sacrament denied his quantity to be there saying that God supplieth the effest therof so far forth as is necessary for the soule to informe the body as in al Deuines opinion he supplieth the effect of coextension to place which also is a natural disposition required to life and information of a body or matter But other Deuines of greater learning and grauity iudging it an inconuenient thing to graunt Christs
a thousand tymes aday in the daily Sacrifice of their Masse But better might we say that Bels tale of the Papists conteyneth a thousand vntruthes For Papists as Caluin confesseth l. 4. instit c. 18. Caluin paragr 5. professe That they nether vvil nor can kil Christ But say with Bellarmin That it Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. vltimo is sacriledge to say that Christ dieth at Masse Yet wil Bel wring the contrary out of Bellarm as water out of a flint First because he pag. 22. Bellar. sup c. 2. graunteth That a Sacrifice implyeth intrinsecally the consumption of the thing sacrificed But this is answered out of Bellarmin teaching that Sup. cap. vltimo Christ hath two kinds of being to wit naturally and Sacramentally And the consumption of his Sacramental being in the August lib. 13. de ciu c. 3. Masse is no killing because it is not by real separating his soule body but onely by consuming the Sacramental formes in which he was Sacramentally Bel p. 22. Sup. cap. 13. S. August l. 2. q. euangel q. 3. S. Ambros in psal 38. in 1. Luc. S. Chrisost hom 24. in 1. loc hom 17. ad Hebr. Luc. 2. v. 22. 1. Reg. 1. v. 25. Leuit. c. 2. Bellar. l. 1. dâ— Missa c. 12. 7. Againe Bellarmin saith Bel telleth vs that Christs body and blood are offered truly and properly in the Masse True and the like saith S. Austin S. Ambros S. Chrisostome and others But doth Bel think euery thing offered to God to be killed then was Christ killed when he was offered in the temple Samuel when he was offered by his mother and bread wine and frakincense offered in the law were killed Thirdly he proueth it out of Bellarmin writing that flesh and blood are not fit for meat vnles the beast as Bel translateth dye or be slayne Here Bel cold not imagin that Bellarmin spake of Christ as in deed he doth not vnles he think he called Christ a beast But because flesh and blood of beasts are not fit for our meat before the beasts be killed he proueth by parity that Christs flesh and blood were not fit to be proposed in manner of meat before he was sacrifyced And therupon gathereth that he did Sacrifice him selfe at his last supper in an vnbloody manner and after the order of Melchisedech before he gaue his flesh and blood as meat drinke to his Apostles Which reason he tooke out of S. Gregory Nissen whose words shal be S. Gregor Nissen homil 1. de Resurrectione Sup. cap. vlt. alledged herafter And of Christs body Bellarm professeth That it taketh no hurt nor leeseth his natural being when the Eucharist is eaten 8. His fourth proofe is out of Bellarm Bellarm l. 1. de Missa c. vltimo when he saith That a true and real Sacrifice requireth true and real killing quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificij which Bel translateth Bel pag. 22. False translation vntruth 35. thus Seing the essence of a Sacrifice consisteth in killing which saith he is the constant doctrin which S. Paule inculcateth to the hebrews 9 v. 17. 25 26. 27. 28. But this proofe relyeth onely vpon Bels false translating the word Quando Seing which he should haue translated when And Bellarmins mynd is that the true Sacrifice requireth true killing when the essence therof consisteth in killing as it doth in al bloody Sacrifices But as for the Masse he auoucheth it to be no Loc. iam cit Sacrifice but Sacriledge to say that Priests really kil Christ And most false it is that S. Paul euer thought the essence of sacrifice to consist in killing For beside the vnbloody Sacrifice of Melchisedech he was not ignorant of diuers vnbloody Sacrifices in the old law as of incense for which there was a special aultar and of bread and wine And in the places quoted by Bel he affirmeth that it was necessary for Christ to dye by once dying to redeeme the world which maketh nothing to this purpose 9. These proofs out of Bellarmin he Bel pag. 23. confirmeth by a constant position and general receaued axiom as he saith in the Popish vntruth 35. Church that by vertue of the words of consecration Christs body is put a part from his blood and his blood from his body and he so slain But omitting Bels fond inferring Christ to be killed if his body and blood be put a parte how soeuer because not to put body and blood a parte where they were not before but to separat them where they are vnited is to kil Els God should kil a man if he created a soule and body a part Omitting I say this fond illation a manifest vntruth it is to affirme that to be a constant position and general axiom in the Popish Church which she condemneth as heresic in these words Accursed be he who shal deny that whole Christ is â—onc Trid. sess 13. cau 3. c. 3. contayned vnder ether forme of bread and wine And the contrary is his Maister Luthers doctrin as testifyeth Bellarm l. 1. de Euchar c. 2. 10. But let vs heare what coulor he hath Bel p. 23. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa â— 12. of this so notorious vntruth Bellarm saith he teacheth Ideo in cena seorsum consecratur corpus seorsum sanguis c. which Bel thus Englisheth Therfore is the body consecrated a parte in the supper and the blood asunder that we may vnderstand the presence of the body and blood in the supper to be there after the manner of a body slayne and dead But what is to consecrate a parte to put a parte But Bellarm telleth him that it is a far different thing and that albeit Christs body and blood be seuerally consecrated yet they are not seperated nor one without the other in the Sacrament because as the CouÌ„cel of Trent Conc. Trid. sess 13. c. 3. saith they are so naturally and necessarily vnited in his resurrection as they can be no more disioyned Which vnion because they wanted in the tyme of Christs death if then Masse had bene said they had not onely bene consecrated seuerally but also put a parte But what incoÌ„uenience inferreth Bel S. Thom. 3. p. 476. art 1. hereof None at al. And thus much of his first argument against Masse CHAP. IIII. The rest of Bels arguments against Masse confuted HIS second argument consisteth of Bel pag. 23. 24. many absurdities and grosse impieties which saith he follow of the Masse he reckeneth diuers First that Christ at his last supper was both sitting at table and borne in his own hands But if this be absurd and impious impious and absurd was S. Austin S. Augustin serm 1. in psalm 33. when he said that Christ at his last supper carried him self in his hands secundum literam that is properly and therin did more then any man can doe But what
liuely body to want in the Sacrament his quantity and figure and considering better of the nature of quantity found that no commensuration to place was essential vnto it but onely a natural propriety and therefore separable by Gods power from it as light is from the Sunne taught that Christs hath his quantity in the Sacrament as a natural accident accompaning his body And albeit this be a certaine truth and not onely the common opinion of Schooles but seemeth also to be the common sense of Catholiques yet saith Suarez a learned author Tom 3. in 3. part Suarez disput Si stec 2. It is to hard a censure to condemne the contrary of heresie For saith he I find nether expresse definition nor irrefragable testimony of Scripture against it nor yet any thing which can be conuinced out of reuealed principles and al the reasons made against it are deduced out of Philosophical Principles true and certaine but not altogether euident In like sorte Claudius de Sainctes repetit 4. de Euchar c. 4. testifieth Sainctes that this matter is not clearly defined by the Church or Scripture What shame therfore must it be to Bel to auouch that al Catholiks hold as a point of their faith that Christs body is organical in the Eucharist and declining the principal question about the being of Christs body in the Sacrament which is an vndoubted point of our faith and against which his cheefe argument which as he saith al the Papists in England can not answer taketh no hold to impugne the being of Christs quantity in the Eucharist 7. Neuerthelesse because it is a thinge most true and most agreable to our faith I willingly vndertake the defense therof Let vs see therfore how Bel disproueth it Forsooth because it implyeth contradictiō for a greater body as Christs is to be cōtained in a lesser as in a cake pag 20. Reason the ground of Bels faithe Behould the foundation of Bels faith the best weapon of this stout challenger the strong reason which al English Papists can Scripture Matth 26. v. 26 28. Marc. 14. v. 22. 24. Luc. 22. v. 19. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. 25. not solue We bring Christs expresse words auouching that what he gaue to his Apostle at his last supper was his body giuen and his blood shed for remission of sinnes which vndoubtedly he ment of his true body and blood For he neuer gaue bred nor shed wine for remission of sinnes We obiect also his other words where he calleth his flesh truly meat and his blood drinke as it were preuenting Ioan. 6. v. 55. the figuratiue exposition of Caluinists Besids the words of S. paul testifying that who receaueth vnvvoorthily the B Sacrament is guilty 1. Cor. 11. v. 29. not of bread and wine il receaued but of the body and blood of our Lord. 8. To these testimonies of holy writte Fathers we adioyne the vniforme consent of Fathers who not onely continually cal the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ and not once a bare figure but withal some Damasc l. 4. de fid c. 14. 7. Synod Act. 6. of them affirme that it is no bare figure but the very body and damne the contrary as abhominable and extreme madnes contrary to tradition of Apostles and Fathers and against the Chrysosto hom de Euchat in Eucenijs Cyril catech 3. verity and propriety of Christs vvords Others deny it to be bread albeit our taste so iudge Others say that the nature of bread is changed Nissen orat mag catech c. 37. Cipria serm de Caena Cyril Alex ad Calosyr Chrysosto hom cit Damas sup August lib. 2. cont aducrs legis Prophet c. 9. tom 6. Leo serm 6. de ieiun 7. mensis Aug. serm 1. in psalm 33. tom 8. Hilar. 8. de Trinitat that bread changed in nature not in shevv is by the omnipotency of God made flesh that bread and vvine are turned supernaturally into the verity of Christs proper flesh Others say vve eate Christs flesh and drink his blood vvith our mouthes that vvhat we beleue with faith we receaue vvith mouth Others auouch that Christ at his last supper carried him selfe secundum literā that is truly really in his hands Finally others say that as Christ is the true sonne of God so is it true flesh blood vvhich vve receaue and drinke These kind of speeches and many other of the like sort can neuer be verified vnles the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament be defended 9. Against al these irrefragable testimonies Quod intelligimus debemus rationi quod credimus authoritati Aug. l. de vtil cred c. 11. Heretiques shift to expound scriture figuratiuely Ioan. 10. v. 30. Heretiks be figure slingers 10. 1. v. 14. of Gods word and holy Fathers Bel opposeth humane reason though he expound them figuratiuely because he dare not deny them in bare words which hath bene cuer the shift of heretiques For so the Arrians being vrged with these words I and the Father are one expounded them figuratiuely because they durst not deny them and their reason could not conceaue how two persons should be one nature Likwise the Marcionits vnderstood those words The vvord vvas made flesh figuratiuely because by reason they could not vnderstand how two natures shold be in one person And for the self same cause Bel and Protestants Tantum ritati obstrepit ad ulter sensus quantum corrupt or stilus Tertull lib. de praescript Scripture teacheth more plainly Christs real presence in the Sacrament then it doth his Godhead and humanity S. Augustin lib. 3. de doctrin Christian cap. 10. tom 3. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. parag 20. 23. vnderstand these words This is my body giuen for you my blood shed for you in remission of sinns figuratiuely For these words doe as playnly teach the verity of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist as those other teach the verity of his Godhead or humanity yea more plainly because in these words it is expressed what body and blood is in the Eucharist vz. that which was giuen for vs and shed in remission of sinnes which kind of addition is not in those other words 10. But as S. Austin saith If an opinion of error haue preoccupated the mind vvhatsoeuer is othervvise affirmed in Scripture men vvil vnderstand it figuratiuely Hereupon Caluin said that the reuerence of Gods vvord vvas no sufficient pretence to reiect his reasons And calleth it foolish stubbernes to contend vpon the vvords of Scripture and them catchers of sillables foolish superstitious vvho stick fast to Christ vvords What is this good Reader but to make reason the rule of faith and not to captiuare our vnderstanding to Gods word but to captiuate it to our reason and make it speake properly or figuratiuely according as reason Magdeburg in praefat centur ad reginam Elizabeth can comprehend it Truly therfore wrote the Magdeburgian Protestants of
Aug. lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 26. to 7. Apoc. 22. v. 8. c. 19. v 10. S. August q. 61. in Gen. â—â— 4. Genes 29. v. 24. sinneth therin greeuously but the people worshiping erroniously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did S. Ihon when he worshiped an Angel as God thinking as saith S. Austin it had bene God him self or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verely it had bene his wife Rachel But to say that there is no consecration when the Priest omitteth any word at al or miscalleth any words so as the sense be not altered thereby is not Catholique doctrin but Bels vsual false dealing 9. His last contradiction is that vvhen pag. 34. many Priests are made together in Rome they al pronounce the vvords of consecration This is true but what then Papists saith he can not tel hovv many Gods or hovv many times God is made in a peece of bread O accusator fratrum Where didest thou heare of many Gods amongest Papists Where of making of God we say after S. Hierom and S. S. Hieron eâ—ist ad Helâ—odor S. Pontian epist 1. Decretali Pontian that Priests conficiuni Corpus Christi make Christs body but dreame not of making God These be the slanders malitiously obiected to Catholikes against thine owne knowledge and Conscience But where is the contradiction Forsooth because Inocentius hâ—ldeth that al such Priests do consecrate Durand thinketh that he only who first pronounceth the words and Caietan is of an other opinion I graunt these contradict one an other But what is this to the Massâ— are these contradictions in it You promised to shew vs Bel deceaueth his Reader contradictions in â—he Masse and twise you haue told vs of durand Caietans contradictions as often of other matters which had no shew of Contradiction Besides that the matter in which these three Authors contradict one an other is no point of faith For with Catholiques it is no more matter of faith whether al the said Priests or one only consecrate then it is with Protestants whither al or one should christen a child if many at once should dippe him into the font pronounce the words of Baptisme So the letter be wel sealed it skilleth not whither one or many be thought to make the print when many together put their hands to the seale 10. But if Bel when he looked vpon the Masse booke had looked on his communion booke and with the like eyes and affection Gilby admonition to England and Scotland fol. 70. he should haue found other stuffe in it then he did in the Masse For besyde that it is made out of our breuiary and Missal wherupon Gilby called King Edward the sixt his booke an English mattins patched forth of the Popes Portesse more then a thousand Ministers whome the vniuersity of Oxford acknowledged to be Ansvver to the PetitioÌ„ their brethren and fellow laborers in the Lords haruest in their petition exhibited Exhibited in April 1603. to his Maiesty say that they groan vnder a burden of humaine rites and ceremonies finde enormities in their Church discipline A thousand ministers censure of the communion booke and in their Churches seruice want of vniformity of doctrin Popish opinions and honor prescribed to the name of Iesus with diuers abuses which they are able say they to shew not to be agreable to Scripture Thus Syr haue your owne ministers deminished the credit of your communion booke And Reynolds an excellent ornament saith Ansvver to 8. reasons Confer p. 63. 86. pag. 25. pag. 59. Buckley in the conference at Hampton court 1. proued the communion booke to contradict twise the Byble the Bishops were faine to amend it 2. he argued it to contradict the 25. Article of their faith 3. to conteyne manifest errors directly repugnant to Scripture 4. he requested it to be pag. 23. fitted to more encrease of piety 5. professeth that vrging men to subscribe vnto it pag. 58. is a great impeachment to a learned ministery wherof he giueth diuers reasons as the repugnancy therin to Scripture the corruption of Scripture the interrogatories and ceremonies in baptisme and certayne D. Râ—inolds censure of the communion booke words in matrimony Thus syr the excellent ornament of your Church hath adorned your communion booke and this black verdict hath he giuen therof 11. And if I should but reckon the contradictions Protestants contradictioÌ„s about their communion in Protestants doctrin about the Eucharist I shold neuer make an end only I wil requite Bel with some few 1. how Christs body saith Willet shold be verily 1. VVillet Tetrostyl col 2. part 3. p. 82. present and yet not really Can there be verum and not res or ens vere and not realiter 2. how there can be a real presence 2. Perkins Reform Cath. p. 185. 189. of Christ in the Sacrament as saith Perkins and yet Christ no otherwise present then a thing to it name 3 How God giueth Christ 3. Perkins sup in this Sacrament saith the same Minister as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man and yet he is giuen by only faith 4. 4. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. paragr 10. How as Caluin teacheth the Eucharist is no empty signe but hath the verity of the thing vnited to it and yet Christ is only in heauen 5. How there is saith Caluin 5. Caluin sup parag 19. 15. a true and substantial communication of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist and yet Christ no more there then he was 6. Sainctes de Euchar. repetit 6. c. 1. p. 208. Mich. Fabrit ep de Beza in the Sacraments of the Iews which were before his body was any substance 6. How Christs body is truely really and substancially in the Eucharist as Beza wrote in his confession exhibited to the Count Palatine and vttered publikly in the disputation at Surius An. 1556. Poysi and yet withal as far from the Eucharist as heauen from earth Surely such fellows as these haue yea no in their religion 2. Cor. 1. v. 17. 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. or els walking in craftines adulterat as the Apostle speaketh Gods worde For if their words be vnderstood as they signify purport they include manifest contradiction and thus much of the second Article VVherfore be myndful Apotal Bel from wheÌ„ce thou are fallen and do penance Apoc. 2. THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE POPES DISPENSATIONS CHAP. I. BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 36. the two former with vntruthes and dissimulatioÌ„s His vntruths appeare in that he chargeth S. Antonin and Austin of Ancona Antonin 3. part tit 22. c. 5. parag 8. vntruth 42. vntruth 43. with teaching the Pope to haue equal powre with God Because S. Antonin writeth That seeing the Pope is Christs vicar none can lawfully withdraw him self from his
such as deny the real presence VVith philosophical reasons they so make voyd the testament of God that the body and blood of Christ concerning the presence and communication therof according to Christs owne most clere most euidēt most povverful words they wholie remoue with maruelous perplexity of words doe coulorably deceiue 11. But to come to Bels reason How proueth he it to be cōtradiction for a greater S. Aug. l. 14. cont Faust c. 9. S. Ambros l. de initiatis c. 9. tom 4. Ioan. 6. v. 52. Omnes haereticorum Gentiliū quaestiones eaedem sunt quia non Scripturarum auctoritatem sed humanae rationis sensum sequūtur Hieron in Oseae 7. S. Chrisost hom 60. ad populum 83. in Matth. S. Ephren lib. de natura Dei minime scrutanda Chrisosto sup body to be conteyned in ales Surely not at al but as Pithagoras autos epha or as Faustus the Manichist who as S. Austin writeth sayd it and avvay Should not he want al reason who for such a reason proposed without al proofe should forsake Christs expresse words and plaine testimonies of holy Fathers Breefly I might answere with S. Ambrose VVhat seekest thou the course of nature in Christs body seing he vvas against natures order borne of a virgin and admonish Bel of the faithles Capharnaits asking Hovv can he giue his flesh to be eaten For to what other end tendeth Bels reason then to aske How can God giue vs his flesh Let him harken to S. Chrisostome S. Ephrem and others aduising him not to be curious but faithful not to trust to humain sense and reason which is oftētymes deceaued but to Christs word He hath said writeth S. Chrisostome This is my body let vs haue no doubt albeit it seeme absurd to our sense and reason which he sayth let his vvord in al matters but espetially in the Sacraments ouercome our sense and reason vvhich is oftentymes deceiued as Bels is here 12. For albeit it be contradiction for a Hovv it is contradiction for a greater body to be in a les and hovv not greater body occupying a place proportionate to it greatnes to be contayned in a les for so it should be both contayned and not conteyned in the les yet no contradiction at al it is for a greater body retayning it greatnes to be so coarcted by Gods omnipotency as it fil a place far les then is naturaly due or proportionate to it greatnes For in this case it followeth not that it shold both be contayned not contayned in the lesser body as in the former case but contayned onely And thus we say hath Christ disposed of his body in the sacramēt And that God cā thus dispose of bodies we Proofs that God can put a greater body in a lesser S. Beda in Lucam S. August de haeres c 82. tom 6. Ambr. ep 81. Leo ser 1. 2. de natiu Nissen ser de occursu Domini Damasc l. 4. de fid c. 14. doe not onely barely affirme as Bel doth the contrary but can proue by many waies 13. First because Christs body in his natiuity opened not his virgin mothers womb Ergo then it occupied not a roome naturally proportionat to the greatnes The consequence is euident The Antecedent I proue because it is a point of the Catholique faith as testify S. Bede and S. Austin and appeareth by vniuersal consent of al Fathers as S. Ambrose S. Leo S. Nissen S. Damascen and others and professed in our Creed that Christ was borne of a virgin which vndoubtedly Ideo clausa quia virgo Ambr. de instit virg c. 7. August sup l. 1. cont Iul. c. 2. to 7. Iouinian sayd Christs body shold be a phantasme if our lady had remayned a virgin in her trauail Aug. cont Iul. cit Hieron in Ezechiel 44. Ambros lib. de instit virginis c. 7. Aug. serm 18. de tempore is ment of a perfect virgin as wel in body as mind And the contrary was the heresie of Iouinian who as S. Austin writeth affirmed that our Ladies virginity was lost pariendo by child bearing which he could not otherwise vnderstand then by the Childs opening her womb because virginity can not be otherwaies lost pariendo by child bearing and sure it is she lost not virginity by conceauing 14. Moreouer holy Fathers proue this truth out of that prophecy of Ezechiel 44. v. 2. of a gate shut and not opened by vvhich the Lord alone should passe vnderstanding by this shut and vnopened gate the virginal womb of our B Ladie And Albeit some Fathers vse the word of opening the womb in their speech of our Ladies child birth yet they meane not properly but vse the name of the effect for the natural cause therof For because children naturally do open their mothers wombs both Scripture and Fathers do sometymes cal child bearing opening the womb and barennes shutting the womb Of Scripture this is euident out of Gen 20 29 30. 1. reg 1. of Fathers it is manifest by S. Hierome who though he S. Hierom. dial 2. cont Pelagian say Christ opened the gate of the virgins womb yet he addeth that it continually remayned shut wherby he explicateth how before he took the opening vz. of Child bearing without any proper opening for otherwise the womb could not remayne stil shut 15. Neuertheles Protestants because it maketh for the Catholique Doctrin of the B Sacrament deny the Antecedent and Willet proueth their denyal because as S. VVillet cont 13. p. 453. S. Luc. 2. v. 23. Luke saith Christ vvas presented in the temple according to the lavv Euery male opening the matrice shal be holy to the Lord. But by the like reason he might proue that Christ was conceiued by mans seed because S. Luke in the same chapter writeth that our Lady was purifyed according to Moises law which was as we read leu 12. of a vvoman which hauing receaued seed had borne a male child The answere to both places is the same Because naturally women conceiue by receauing seed children are borne by opening their wombs therfore the law vsed these termes But as the one law affirmed not that no woman could conceiue without receauing seed so nether the other that no child could be borne without opening his mothers womb And as willets heresy made him to open our Ladies wōb so his cōscience made him to shut it againe For why should he teach that it was shut after her deliuery if he did not thinke the opening did preiudice her virginity The like proofe might be drawne out of Christs entring to his Apostles See S. Hilarie lib. cont Constant prope finē the dores being shut saith S. Luke and of his issuing out of the sepulchar before the Angel had remoued the stone 16. Secondly God can by his omnipotency bring a Camel through a needles eye as wel as a rich man into heauen but he can bring a rich man to
de cur pro mort c. 16. He S. Augustin com 4. doubteth whether Martyrs be at once in different places which argueth that he thought they could be And S. Chrisostom S. Chrisost com 4. hom 17. in epist ad hebr In many places is offered not many Christs but the same Christ euery vvhere here and there vvhole one body not many bodyes And thus much of Bels first member of this article against the real presence Now let vs proceed to the second against the Masse CHAP. III. The Masse proued Bels argument against it answered and his manifold vntruthes therin disproued S. Ignatius epist ad Smyrnen writeth S. Ignatius apud Theodorerum dialog 3. of old heretiks That they admit not oblation and Eucharist because they confesse not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which suffered for our sins And therfore no maruel if Bel hauing in the former member impugned the real presence do in this inueigh against the oblatioÌ„ or sacrifice of the Masse where according to Christs owne action and institution his body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine are offered vnto almighty God That Christ at his last Christ offered sacrifice at his last supper supper made an oblation to God is proued many waies 2. First because he did then giue his body vnto some for his Apostles But to no other then to God Ergo to him he then offered his body The proposition I proue because he sayd not this is my body which is giuen to you but for you and al the Greek and English Bibles haue in the present tense which is giuen which is shed Therfore then did he giue his body and shed his blood to some person for his Apostles though soone after he gaue and shed them after an other manner on the Crosse Secondly because in S. Luke it is sayd of the Cup that is was powered out for remission Luc. 22. v. 19. 20. of sins but at the passion there was no Cup powred out Ergo at supper the Cup was powred out for remission of sins The proposition is out of the Greeke text wher the word powred out agreeth with the Cup and with none els touto to poterion en to aimati mou to ecchunomenon The assumption is playne for ther was no Cup at the passion Thirdly at the same tyme when Christs body was broken it was giuen and his blood shed for remission of sins 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. But it was in no sort broken on the Crosse as appeareth by S. Ihon. 19. v. 36. and in some sorte broken at the supper because it was really vnder the forme of bread which was broken therfore then his body was giuen for remission of sins 3. Many things more might haue bene said in defence of Masse which are largely and learnedly handled by Bellarm. in his 2. booke de Missa to 2. and somthing shal be added hereafter as breuity wil permit and occasion shal serue Onely here because the Denial of Masse proper doctrin of deuils Luther l. de Missa angul to 7. fol. 228. Sainctes repetit 1. de Eucharist c. 10. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 5. Surius comment 1534. 1517. Genebrard in chron See Erasmus cont epist noÌ„ sobriam Lutheri Reader may perceiue from what spirit the hatred of Masse proceedeth I aduertise him that Luther writeth of him self that he had said Masse 15. yeares togither thinking it had bene a holy thing vntil on a time Sathan appearing visibly vnto him and disputing with him against Masse perswaded him to detest it From this spirit proceeded first the hatred of Masse and this confession God wold Luther shold him self make and publish in print that al Christians who had any care of their souls shold detest such doctrin which the cheefe precher therof professeth he learnt of the diuel highly reuereÌ„ce that which the diuel so much hateth 4. On the other syd S. Iames his Masse S. Iames Masse is yet extant and Iewel in his sermon at Pauls Crosse 1560. confessed that the Masse Rastal in confutat p. 156. had Châ—ists institution Which is breefly to confesse that Masse was instituted by Christ and the Apostles and that our Masse is good which in substance is al one with that of S. Iames. Likwise the Masses of S. Basil and S. Chrisostome are yet extant and S. Basil and S. Chrisost Masse S Ambros Masse S. Ambros l. 5. epist 33. at this day vsed of the Grecians as the Masse of S. Ambros is vsed in Milan where he was Bishop and of him self he writeth thus I abode in my function and began to say Masse S. Austins vse and reuerence of Masse appeareth by his words serm 91. de temp In S. Augustin tom 10. the lesson vvhich shal be read to vs at Masse c. and by his complaint ser 251 of some that compelled the Priest to shorten the Masse and by his testimony of a miracle wrought by offering the Sacrifice of Christs body l. 22. de ciuit c 8 which Sacrifice saith he con 1. in psal 33. 17. de ciuit c. 5 li de fid ad Pet is frequented in al the world 5. S. Gregories deuotion to Masse him S. Gregory selfe testifyeth in these words we euery day say Masse in veneration of Martyrs l. 7. epist 29. Councels Indict 1 And to omit the Councels of Ephesus Agatha Mileuit others which Tom. 1. Conciliorum S. Beda lib. 1. histor 23. 25. 26. approue Masse it may suffice for Englishmen that certaine it is that S. Austin who first coÌ„uerted our English nation to Christs faith both said Masse and wrought miracles in confirmation of that faith seruice of God which he preached And in honor of Masse haue our Ancestors named diuers England nameth the feasts of the yeear of Masse principal feasts of the year as Christ-masse Candle-masse Michael-masse Martin-masse builded Churches erected aultars founded Monasteries and endued Bishopricks and benefices and liued and dyed in vse and honor of Masse And not onely they but al the Christian world as Grecians Armenians Protestants coÌ„fesse that al Christians vse Masse Chytreus orat de statu Ecclesiae in Graetia Clauin l. 4. c. 18. parag 1. 11. Lindan ep dissuasoria p. 108. Ethiopians Moronits Syrians Russets others as testifyeth Chytreus a Protestant And Caluin confesseth that the whole world beleued Masse to be a propitiatory Sacrifice that in this the Fathers are against him And who is so careles of his saluation as to forsake the Fathers together with the whole world and follow one lewd Minister condemned of buggery as the authentical processe yet extant in Noioun doth record 6. Now then let vs heare Bels or rather Bel p. 22. the diuels arguments against Masse The Apostle saith he telleth vs that Christ rising from vntruthe 34. the dead dieth no more The Papists tel vs that Christ dieth euery day nay
absurdity is it more then for a body to be in twoe places for that being once done one may carry him self as wel as an other As the soule because it is in al parts of the body as it is in the legges carrieth it selfe as it is in the body The second absurdity is that Christ at his last supper was both liuing and dead But this followeth not for he was a liue in the Sacrament though there he shewed no acts of life and as long as he is a liue according to his natural being he is neuer dead in the sacrament because his sacramental being is a memorial of his natural being representing and depending of it 2. The third absurdity is that Christ was both visible and inuisible Nether doth this follow For though he were inuisible in the Sacrament yet it is not true to say absolutely he was inuisible because he was there visible in his proper forme But that he was visible in his proper forme and inuisible in Math. 29. Mar. 16. Luc. 20. Ioan. 20. 21. the sacrament is no more absurd then that after his resurrection he was visible to the Apostles and inuisible to the Iewes visible to S. Paul and not to his Companions Act. 9. v. 7. Willet saith that S. Paul did see VVillet Cōtrou 4. q. 3. p. 11◠no man But we wil rather beleue Ananias saying that Christ appeared to him in the way Act. 9. v. 17. The fourth absurdity is that Christ was at his supper long and short broad and narrow light and heauy But rather these follow for what length bredth or weight Christ had in his proper forme the same he had in the sacrament albeit it had not there the like effects of filling roome or weighing as nether he had when he was Math. 14. Marc. 6. Ioan. 6. borne and walked vpon the Sea 3. The fift is that Christ was a sacrifice for our sins before he dyed for vs. This which Bel condemneth of impiety we haue before proued it out of Scripture to be certayne verity for such the holy Fathers auouch it let Bel heare one or twoe for al. S. Gregory Nissen orat 1. de Resurrect Christ offereth S. Gregor Nissen him self an oblation and hoste for vs being both the Priest and the lamb of God VVhen was this when he gaue his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk to his disciples For it is manifest to euery one that man can not eate of a sheepe vnles slaughtering goe before eating Seing therfore he gaue his disciples his body to be eaten he euidently shewed that the sacrifizing was already perfect and absolute S. Chrisostome also hom de S. Chrysostom proditione Iudae tom 3. saith On that table was celebrated both Paschaes of the figure and of the verity Againe Iudas was present and partaked of that sacrifice And the Fathers are so playne for this matter as Kemnitius confesseth Kemnitius they vsually say that Christs body and blood was at this supper a sacrifice an oblation an hoste and victime and he could not escape their authorities but by casting of a figure 4. The Sixt and last absurdity or impietie which Bel inferreth is that al Christs sacrifice at his supper was imperfect or at his passion needles But nether this followeth For Christs sacrifice at his supper was a most perfect vnbloodly sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech and yet his sacrifice on the crosse was needful as the peculier price which God exacted at his handes for the redemption of the world that Hebr. 2. v. 15. as the apostle saith by death he might destroy him who had the Empier of death For albeit not only Christs whole body and blood in the Eucharist but euen the least drop of his blood had been a sufficient sacrifice to redeeme the whole world neuertheles God partly to shew his great hatred towards sinne wherof Christ bore the punishment partly to manifest his infinite loue towards man kinde for whose saluation he would not spare the life of his only sonne partly for many other causes exacted of Christ the superaboundant price and ransome of his bloody sacrifice on the crosse But let vs heare how Bel disproueth this 5. He citeth fowre places out of S. Paule Heb 9. and 10. to proue that one oblation of the crosse was sufficient to take away al sinns in the world and that by it once made we are made holy and after it once donne Christ sitteth at the right hand of God But what is this to the purpose For we affirme not Christ to haue offered sacrifice at his last supper because his sacrifice on the Crosse was not sufficient or we not made holy by it but because the scripture and fathers teach so and Christ therby executed the function of his priesthood accordinge to the order of Melchisedech and applyed vnto his apostles the vertue of his bloody sacrifice as he applyeth it vnto vs by the dayly sacrifice of the Masse and did not make perfect and consummate his bloody sacrifice as Bel falsly chardgeth vs to thinke As Bellarmin whom onely I cite because Bel accounteth his testimony most sufficient sheweth at lardge lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. Wher also he answereth Bels arguments But he should do wel to obiect the aforesaid wordes of S. Paul against Caluin blaspheminge lib. 1. instit 16. num 8. 10. That nothinge had been done for vs if Christ Caluin 2. instit c. 16. paragr 10. had only suffered corporal death but we needed a greater and more excellent price For this is plainly to say that the oblation of Christs body once was not sufficient nor that Christ perfected al by one oblation which is expresly against S. Paule Hebr. 10. v. 10. Hebr. 12. 14. And thus much for Bels second argument against the Masse 6. The third is this The Eucharist is a testament Bel p. 24. ergo either no sacrifice at al or of no valew before the testators death because S. Paule Hebr. 9. Hebr. v. 17. denieth a testament to be of force before the testators death Answer The Antecedent we grant with S. Luke 22. v. 20. though Bel him selfe deny it soone after The consequence we deny for as the blood of calues wher with the old testament was confirmed was both the peoples sacrifice to God and his testament to them as appeareth Heb. 9. 20. and Exod. 24. v. 8. so Christs blood at his supper was both his sacrifice to his father and his testament to his apostles And as a sacrifice it tooke effecte immediatly because a sacrifice is an absolute gifte made to God dependinge of no condition to come as the sacrifice of Abel and Noe Gen. 4. 8. pleased god immediatly But as a testament it was not of force til as S. Paule saith it Hebr. 9. v. 17. was confirmed by death because a testament is a deed of gift not absolute but vpō condition that
the body of Christ but improperly wherefore it is said after it manner but not in the truth of the thinge but in the thing signified that this may be the sense it is called Christs body that is to say it signifieth his body These saith Bel are golden wordes as God would by pens of Papists deliuered 13. I accept his confession First then S. Cratian de consecrat d. 2. can Hoc est Austin and S. Prosper are Papists for as Gratian out of whom the decree is takeÌ„ testifieth the words of the Decree were first deliuered by S. Austins pen and after recorded S. Austin and S. Prosper Papists Sacrificing of flesh by Priests haÌ„ds allovved by Bel. 2 False translat by S. Prosper Secondly I hope Bel hereafter wil allowe of sacrificinge or offering flesh by the hands of the priests because these are part of the golden wordes of that decree For this so gentle confession I wil dissemble with a litle fault of Bels translatinge quod visible quod palpabale mortale in cruce positum est Thus which is visible palpable mortal nayled on the crosse When he shoud haue said which being visible palpable mortal was nailed on the crosse Now let vs heare what he gathereth out of the aforesaid words to the confusion as he saith of Papists but he should haue said to his owne 14. 1. That the blessed bread of the Eucharist is pag. 27. called the Body of Christ What is here against Papists who willingly so cal it but rather against Protestants who seldom or neuer cal it so 2. That it is also called the passion and 37. vntruth death of Christ This is an vntruth for not bread of the Eucharist but the sacrificing of flesh with Priests hands is so called 3. That it is not Christs body truely This is most true for the bread or rather the forme therof in the Eucharist is not Christs body truely properly 4. That it is Christs body as the Sacrament of Baptisme is fayth This is nothing against vs who confesse bread or rather the forme therof called bread because it so seemeth to sense to be but a Sacrament of Christs body 15. 5. That it is not Christs body in truth but in signification This S. Austin saith not but onely that the oblation of the flesh of Christ by the priest is his death and passion not truly but in a mistery signifyinge his death which maketh nothing against vs or to this purpose The glosse in deede saith that the Sacrament is not Christs body in truth but in signification and the same say al Chatholiques namely Bellarmin Bellarm. l. 1. de Eucha c. 14. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is not Christs body but contayneth Christs body for a Sacrament is asensible signe and this sensible signe of bread and wine is that which the glosse sayd is not in truth Christs body but is improperly so called which is so far from being the vpshot of the controuersy or not admitting any solution as Bel fondly boasteth as in mans sight that Bel pag. 27. hath eyes it requireth no solution For who wil thinke that one denieth Christs body to be truely in the Sacrament because he denieth the Sacrament which is the sensible signes of bread and wine to be truly his body So Bel may gather that a body containeth not a soule nor a place a body because the continents are not the thing conteyned But saith Bel if Christs body were in the SacrameÌ„t really it should be there in rei veritate truely As if the glosse had denyed that Christ is in the Sacrament in rei veritate Suerly this sheweth that Bel neuer ment to deale in rei veritate And thus much of the 2. member of this Article Now let vs go to the third CHAP. V. Berengarius his Recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered POPISH decrees saith Bel tel vs a long Bel pag. 28. tale of one Berengarius some tyme Deacon of a church in Gaunt No maruail if this tale seeme long to Bel which recounteth the foyle of his heresie against the real presence Berengar condemned of 113. Bishops Lanfranc de Sacram. Eucharist in Berengarius the first brocher therof in a general councel at Rome vnder Pope Nicholas the second aboute the year of Christ 1060. wher he recanted publikly and as him selfe saith willingly denouncinge al such to deserue eternal curse who denyed Christs body and blood to be really in the Eucharist Bel maketh him Deacon of Gaunt wheras Bel lacketh latin he was Archdeacon of Angiers in France not being able to distinguish Andeauum from Gandauum Angiers from Gaunt and because he abiured his heresie Bel termeth him a silly Deacon though his brother Buckly cal him an excellent and holy man In deed Bucleis ansvver to 8. reasons p. 62. he found more mercy at Gods hands then I read of any Arch-hereticke and dyed a penitent Catholike For dying on twelf day said as Malmesbur an English author Malmesbur l. 3. histor Angl. in Gabriel 1. p. 114. at that tyme writeth In this day of his apparition my lord Iesus wil appeare to some to glory as I hope for my repentance or to punishment as I feare for others seduced The like repentance I pray God send to Bel ere he dye that as he hath imytated Berengarius in heresie and in abiuration also of it at Rome if I be not deceaued he may likewise imitate him in repentance and penance 2. But because Berengarius in his recantation which was afterward put amongst Distinct 2. â—it the Decrees professed that Christ in the Eucharist sensualiter manibus sacerdotum tangitur frangitur dentibus fidelium atteritur is sensibly touched with hands of Priests broken and chewed with the teeth of the faithful Bel exclaymeth mightely calling his recantation but yet without al proofe cruel barbarous villanous blasphemous and horrible impietie Gladly he would haue the reader beleeue that Catholiques professe Christs body to be in it selfe broken and torne in peeces one member from an other though him selfe soone after not only alleadge Bellarmin to the contrary but confesse also that by the Popes p. 29. doctrin Christs body can not be broken or torne truely and in deed and cite the Glosse vpon the said decree saying that it were a worse pag. 30. heresie to thinke we made parts of Christ then to deny him to be in the sacrament And this is euident by the Masse it selfe where we say Christ nether broken nor deuided is receaued Missa de corpore Christi whole and no cuttinge is of the thing the breach is onely in the signe 3. Neuertheles Christs body is said to be toucht broken and chewed in the Eucharist because the signe of bread in which it really is is so vsed As God is said to haue bene crucified because the humanitie in which he was was so handled and Christ touched when his garment was
touched And these kind of speaches we learnd of the holy Fathers For S. Chrisostom speakinge S. Chrysost hom 24. in 1. Cor. to 4. Hom. 83. in Math. to 3. of the sacrament saith expresly that Christs body is broken In other place we see feel eate and haue Christ within vs. Agayne Christ gaue him selfe to vs to touch to eate and Hom. 46. in Ier. to 3. 61. ad populum to 5. Tertul. l. de Idolatria fasten our teeth marke Bel on his flesh Tertullian inueighinge against vnworthy receauers saith Corpus Christi lacessunt They vex Christs body S. Ciprian of the same affirmeth They vse violence to Christâ— body and S. Ciprian serm de lapsis blood and with their mouthes do offend him And they learnt these speeches of Christ him selfe saying This is my body which is broken 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. in the greeck Wil Bel now condemne Christ and these holy fathers of wickednes villany blasphemy and horrible impietie Surely they vse the very wordes of touching breaking and fasteninge or chewing with teeth Nay Bel pag. 30. wil he condemne both English and many forrayne Protestants whose constant doctrine Bel admitteth Christs body to be consumed saith he is that Christs body is broken torne consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good reader for Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany wickednes blasphemy and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and â—dde consuming too is good doctrine 4. But Bel wil say that he addeth that al Bel pag. 29. these are to be vnderstood significantly and sacramentally True And the same adde wee For as him selfe citeth out of Bellarmin lib. 2. de Concil c. 8. It is and al wayes Bellarm. was certayne that Christs body being now vncorruptible can be nether broken nor torne but in a signe or sacrament But the difference is in the vnderstanding For we say Christs body is Catholiques and Protestants agreement and difference about the breaking of Christs body broken in a signe which really and truely contayneth it and Protestants say it is broken in a signe from which Christ is as far as heauen is from earth and to expresse this difference and to exclude the sense which Berengarius vsed and the Protestants haue learnt of him the Pope and Councel made him to professe That he beleeued this to be in rei veritate in the verity of the thing Not as if Christs body weare in it selfe so handled for therof there was neuer doubt but that it was not handled so in a bare signe but in such a signe as in rei veritate truely contayneth Christs body As the woman Luc. 8. did in rei veritate truely touch Christ when she touched his garment in S. Luke which he truely was as appeareth by his words ib. v. 46. Some body hath touched me But the Crucifiers when they parted the S. Ihon. 19. v. 23. same garments did not touch him in rei veritate truely because then he was not truely in them And hereby appeareth how the contrariety which Bel noteth betwixt the pag. 29. Councel and Bellarmine is none at al and how protestants can not verifie the breakinge of Christs body so wel as Catholiques can and least of al can as Bel imagineth verify Christs wordes of his body giuen blood shed for remission of sinns because neuer was any bare figure giuen or shed for remission of sinnes 5 But a singuler note saith Bel and pag. 30. worthy to be marked is gathered out of the glosse vpon the foresaid decree when it aduiseth vs That vnles we vnderstand Berengarius words soundly we may fal into worse heresie Marke these words saith Bel for thâ—y teach vs playnly that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon Popish decrees euen then when they pretend to reforme the Church and condemne heresies But better may we saye marke this note for it discouereth Bels malice and folly teacheth vs plainly that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon heretikes euen when they promise to auouch no vntruth of any man as Bel did a litle before For pag. 22. what aduiseth the glosse against the relying vpon Popes decrees and not onely against misunderstanding them May we not in like manner say of the scripture that vnles we soundly vnderstand those wordes â—hon 6. except you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood you shal haue no life in you but grosly as the Capharnaits did of eating it sodde or rosted or cut in peeces as testify Ciprian de caena Domini S. Augustin tract 27. in Ioh. S. Ciprian and S. Austin we shal fal into greater heresie then that of Berengarius was What now Syr Thomas may we therfore infer that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon scripture 6. Finally Bel concludeth this third Bel pag. 30. 31. S. Augustin tract 59. in Ioan. member of his article with an argument drawne out of S. Austins words Illi manducabant panem Dominum illi panem Domini contra Dominum They the Apostles eat the bread our lord he Iudas eat the bread of our lord against our lord Out of which wordes Bel frameth an argument so inuincible in his conceypt as he promiseth to subscribe and neuer more to write against any parte of Papists doctrine if it be answered Marke therfore I pray thee gentle reader his argument and my answer and iudge whether he be not bound to turne his coate the third tyme if he wil performe his promise The argument he proposeth out of forme but it may be reduced to this Iudas receaued but Panem Domini the bread of our lord and not Panem Dominum the bread our lord therfore in the Eucharist is not Dominus our Lord. The Antecedent saith he is playnly auouched by S. Austin the consequence is cleere because if in the Eucharist weare our lord doubtles Iudas in receauing of it should haue receaued our lord Before I answer this argument I must aduertise the reader of three things first â—ow slenderly this fellow is grounded in his faith who promiseth to subscribe to the contrary if one onely argument grounded vpon one saying of one father can be solued Euident it is that he hath neyther playne scripture nor conuincent reason nor the testimony of other fathers for his religion who for answering of one fathers word wil forsake it Albeit this be les maruelous in Bel because hauing already twise altered his religion he wil find les difficulty to change the third tyme. 2. I note the extreame blindnes of this fellow who biddeth vs note and marke seriously that S. Austin Bel noteth a point quite against him self telleth vs that the bread vvhich the Apostles eate vvas our lord I would Bel had marked this him selfe for it is the very vpshot to vse his owne tearme of this controuersy and vnaswerable by any
Protestant For if as Bel noteth out of S. Austin the bread which the Apostles eate was our lord how can protestants deny it and say it was bare bread Or if as S. Aust speaketh they eate bread our lord how can Bel say they eate not our lord but bare bread Can one â—ate flesh mutton if the flesh he eate be no mutton 7. Thirdly I note his notorious abusing S. Austins authority For first in Englishing Bels abusing of S. Austins vvords his words he addeth to them though in a parenthesis these words Not our lord but afterward he saith S. Austin telleth vs that vvhich Iudas receaued vvas but the bread of vntruth 38. our lord then as imboldened to lye auoucheth that S. Austin affirmeth most constantly vntruth 39. that Iudas receaued barely Panem Domini bread of our lord and lastly as cocke sure not to be tript in lying professeth that S. Austin playnly auoucheth that Iudas receaued not Panem vntruth 40 Dominum bread our lord Wheras S. Austin saith no one of al these but onely that the Apostles receaued bread our lord and Iudas bread of our lord without but or barely or denyal of the other Marke therfore good Bels steps of vntrue dealing reader his steps First his vntruth is cogged into S. Austins words with a parenthesis then is it put with a but afterward with barely and lastly playnly auouched These steps might Bel haue found in his ladder of lying better then he deuised the like before in the Popes ladder to his supremacy But here may the reader take a taste of the vntrue dealing of heretiques For who would not haue sworne but that Bel would haue dealt truely in an argument wherof he counteth so much as if it be solued he wil recant the third tyme. But now to come to his argument 8. I answer directly by denying the Antecedent for S. Austin said not that Iudas eate but or barely Panem Domini bread of our lord and much les said he eate not Panem Dominum but onely said that the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum bread our lord he Panem Domini bread of our lord Wherfore the doubt can be onely why he altered his speech calling that bread our lord which the Apostles eate and that bread of our lord which Iudas eate The reason wherof can not be because he thought the Apostles and Iudas receaued a bread of different substance â—or Epist 162. he expresly S. Austin saith Iudas eate our price to 2. S. Chrysost tom 3. writeth that Iudas receaued pretium nostrum our price which in substance is Panis Dominus bread our lord and S. Chrysost hom de prodit Iudae affirmeth that Christ offered to Iudas the blood which he had sold and Theodoret. in 1. cap. 2. Cor. that he gaue to Iudas his precious body and blood The reason therfore is that which S. Aust Buccella Dominica ven enum fuit Iudae See S. Austin l 2. cont lit Petil. c. 47. tom 7. S. Augustin tom 6. Cortuptio carni hoc nomen imponit Aug. l. 2. cont aduers legis Et prophet c. 6. t0 6. him selfe insinuateth in the words immediatly following illi vitam ille paenam they eate life he punishment vz because the bread had a different effect and operation in Iudas then it had in the Apostles For as him selfe proueth lib. 11. cont Faust cap. 7. one thing of different effects or operations may haue different names What maruaile then if he called that which the Apostles receaued bread our lord because it was both in substance and operation food and life to them and that which Iudas receaued bread of our lord because though in substance it was the same yet through his malice in operation it was poyson and death vnto him And here by the way wold I propound one choise to Bel whether he A choise for Bel wil beleeue the Eucharist to be Panem Dominum with Catholiques or bate Panem Domini with Protestants If the first he may eate Panem Dominum with the Apostles if the second he may eate Panem Domini but it shal be with Iudas 9. But suppose S. Austin had said as he hath not that Iudas did not eat bread our Lord Bel could not therof infer that the Eucharist is not truly our Lord seing he auoucheth that the Apostles who vndoubtedly receaued the Eucharist did eat bread our Lord but at most that what Iudas receaued was not the Eucharist which diuers think and it is a far different question S. Hilar. can 30. in Math. and maketh nothing to this purpose But nether could Bel infer this because S Austin S. August epist 162 to 2. tract 26. 62. in Ioan. tom 9. other where affirmeth Iudas to haue receaued the Sacrament and our price which in substance is bread our Lord and because it is vsual to him to deny the name to a thing if it want the accustomed quality or operation So lib. 11. cont Faust c. 7. he saith S. Augustin tom 6. In resurrection there shal be no flesh and serm 5. de verb. Apost c. 12. There shal be not the same body because it shal not be mortal Which kind of speech he vseth other where and proueth it out of 1. Cor. 15. and 2. cor 5. The most therfore that Bel can infer and he may wel do it is that the bread which Iudas eate was not in operation our Lord and life to him but iudgment and death which I willingly graunt but it maketh nothing for his purpose Let now euery indiffereÌ„t Reader iudge whether this argument out of S. Austin be not sufficiently answered and Bel if he wil be as good as his word bound to recant yet once againe And thus much of this member CHAP. VI. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered and true Contradiction in his Communion shewed THE fourth member Bel maketh of â—â—l pag. 32. the apparent contradictions which are as he saith in the Masse The first is that Catholiques say that Christs body is the same in the Masse which was on the crosse yet confesse it to be a figure therof This he proueth to be a contradiction because Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchar. c. â— a figure must needs be inferior to the thing figured as Bellarm professeth and S. Paul testifieth Answer First I deny al figures S. Paul Hebr. 10. to be inferrior to things figured some be both figures verity as God the Sonne figure of the substance of his Father Heb. VVhat figures be inferior to thâ— things figured vvhat not 1. v. 3. and yet true God And Seth an image of Adam Gen. 5. v. 3. and yet true man And such figures are equal to the things figured and such a figure of Christ is the Eucharist Others be bare figures as images are of men and the Sacraments and Sacrifices of the ould law were wherof S. Paul and Bellarmin spake and the Apostles Heb.
10. v. 1. calleth shadowes of goods to come And these I graunt to be inferior to the things figured But this maketh nothing against vs. 2. Secondly I deny that to be superior Bel ignorant in logick and inferior is contradiction for as euery logician knoweth it is relatiue opposition which may agree to the same thing in different respect As the same soule as it is in the head is locally superior to it selfe as it is in the foote a man as he is learned is inferior in valew to him selfe as he is vertuous And a token as it is from a friend more worth theÌ„ it is of it selfe And hereby appeareth the error of Protestants inferring the Eucharist not to be Christ because it is a figure or remembrance One thing may figure or represent it selfe of him For wel may one thing represent it selfe As a King in a triumphant shew may represent how he behaued him selfe in Battel And Christs body and blood as they are vnder the formes of bread and wyne which are a sunder represent them selues as they were a sunder in their proper formes on the crosse 3. Thirdly I returne Bels argumeÌ„t vpon him selfe Figures must needs be inferior to things figured Ergo the Eucharist is some nobler substance then bread The Antecedent is his owne the Consequence I proue because the Paschal lambe was a figure of the Eucharist as S. Chrisostom S. Cyprian S. S. Ghrysost hom de prodit Iudae tom 3. S. Cyprian l. de vnit eccles S. Hieron in 26. Math. S. August l. 2. cont literas Petilian c. 37 to 7. S. Leo serm 7. de Passione S. Gregot hom 22. in Euang. pag. 32. Chap. 1. parag 12. 13. Chap. 5. parag 2. p. 33. Hiero. S. Austin S Leo S. Gregory others affirme and may be gathered out of S. Paul saying Heb. 10. v. 1 That the law had a shadow of goods to come and by Christs instituting the Eucharist immediatly after the eating of the Pascal lamb Whereby saith S. Chrisostome in one table both Paschals of the figure and verity was celebrated 4. His second and third contradiction is of a greater body being conteyned in a lesse and of Christs body broken and not broken which haue bene answered before His fourth is that if Christs body be made present in the Eucharist by vertue of these words this is my body ether the body is there before the last words be pronounced or no if before then the last is superfluous if not then ether al the body is made by the last word and so the three first stand for cyphers or parte of his body by one word and parte by an other and so Christs body is torne in Bel ignoraÌ„t in logick peeces O worthy challenger ignorant of the principles of logicke What shew of contradiction is there here though we should grant any one of the three points inferred But this good fellow is more skilful in making contradictions then in knowing what contradiction is 5. Briefly I answer that nether Christs whole body nor any parte therof is in the Eucharist before the pronounciation of the last word yet are not the former words superfluous For the last worketh the traÌ„smutation not by his owne vertue alone but with the vertue of them also or rather God worketh al when the last word is pronounced For as S. Chrisostom saith It is not man S. Chrysost homil de prodit Iudae tom 3. that by the consecration of our Lords table maketh the things proposed the body and blood of Christ but that Christ who was crucifyed for vs. The words are vttered by the Priests mouth and consecrated by the povver of God And the like answer must Bel make for diuers matters 6. For in baptisme one may aske whether a child be christened before the name of the holy Ghost be pronounced and then it is superfluous and may be left out or parte by the name of the father parte by the name of the sonne and parte by the name of the holy Ghost and then is the child christened by peece meale or onely by the name of the holy Ghost and then the other twoe names are cyphers And the like argument may be propounded in diuers other matters but I wil propound it in a matter more intelligible and perhaps more proportionate to Bels capacity out of his owne name Thomas When one calleth him by that name ether he is al called by Tom and then As is superfluous or parte by Tom and parte by As and then is he called by peece meale or al by As then is Tom but a cypher and As is al Bel and so by conuersion al Bel is an As Let Bel study to solue this argument and I doubt not but he wil finde the solution of his owne 7. The fifte contradiction which this pag. 34. contradictious fellow findeth in the Masse is that Durand Caietan and foure Catholiques more before the Councel of Trent did otherwise explicate the manner of Christs real presence in the Eucharist then was truth and since the Church hath defined and explicated in the said Councel Is not this a goodly coÌ„tradiction in the Masse did Bel find al these mens opinions there Bellarm. l. 3. de Euchar. â— 11. 18. or rather gathered them out of Bellarmin as he hath done almost al his arguments Or what maketh it against Masse that three or foure Catholiques did in a difficult matter before it was defyned and explicated by the Church dissent from the rest Let Bel if he can shew this diuersity now since the Councel As for Protestants Sainctes aboue Lindan Catalogo sacramentor Sainctes de Euchar. Repetit 1. cap. vlt. 1577. ex Bellarm lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 8. S. August l. 16. de ciuit c. 6. tom 5. 20. yeares agoe gathered aboue 80. different opinions of theirs about these foure words This is my body And an other since hath collected twoe hundred This far exceedeth the coÌ„fusion of tonges at Babel for there was but 72 tongues but here be 80. yea 200. to expresse foure words There one man kept one tongue but here they alter speaking sometymes Lutherish sometyme Zwinglianish and otherwhyle Caluinish and yet seing such horrible confusion wil not giue ouer building of their Babilonian tower of heresy 8. The sixt contradiction is that when pag. 34. the Priest proposeth the B. Sacrament to the people they must adore it albeit saith vntruth 4â— Bel if the Priest haue no intention to consecrate or omit or miscal any word of consecration it remayneth but bread and the worshipers commit idolatry A ioly contradiction no doubt do we think Bel wanted not his wits when he proposed such matter for contradictions Catholiques thinke in deed that when the Priest wanteth both actual and virtual intention or omitteth any essential word that there is no consecration and the Priest Si conscientia propterea laeâ—i noÌ„ potuit quia nesciuit c
parag 4. c. 6. par 3. 4. 7. 8. art 7. c. 1. parag 2. c. 9. parag 22. c. 12. parag 3. Bel a foolish phisitian art 7. c. 7. parag 17. Bels godly sense an vngodly shift art 5. c. 3. parag 2. Bels godly keeping Gods commaundements an vngodly breaking of them art 8. c. 1. parag 1. Bel keepeth Gods commaundements or knoweth him not art 8. c. 1. parag 9. Bels ignorance in history art 1. c. 9. par 2. Bels ignorance in latin art 5. c. 4. parag 10. art 7. c. 9. par 19. art 2. c. 4 parag 13. Bels ignorance in logik art 2. c. 6 par 2. 4. Bels ignorance in preaching a. 7. c. 7. par 10. Bel impugneth errors histories opinions in steed of Traditions a. 7. c. 10. par 7. 10. Bel impugneth an opinion of Protestants and Canonists as a point of Popery art 3. c. 1. parag 2. Bel impugneth his owne slanders as a point of Popery art 1. c. 1. parag 5. Bel impugneth a school point as a point of Popery a. 2. c. 1. parag 6. a. 5. c. 2. parag 4. Bels ladder of lying art 2. c. 5. parag 7. Bel maketh Srripture like a neck verse art 7. c. 7. parag 1. Bels malice and folly in reprehending the Rhemists art 5. c. 4. parag 3. Bel noteth S. Austin what is quite against him self art 2. c. 5. parag 6. Bel ouerthroweth at once what he inteÌ„ded to proue in al the Article a. 4. c. 3. parag 8. Bel preferreth reason in matter of faith before authority art 2. c. 1. parag 9. Bels question like to that of the Capharnaits art 2. c. 1. parag 11. Bel recanting art 5. c. 6. parag 8. Bel seemeth a Libertin art 8. c. 1. parag 10. Bels shifts to auoid authority a. 8. c. 2. par 2. Bels vain boast art 5. c. 4. parag 9. Bels vain protestation art 7. c. 12. parag 4. Bel cursed by the law or keeperh it art 8. c. 3. parag 2. Bels vntruths whereof diuers are slaunderous a. 1. c. 1. parag 1. c. 7. par 4. c. 9. parag 28. 33. a. 2. c. 4. par 14. c. 6. par 8. a. 3. c. 1. par 1. 10. 13. a. 4. c. 1. parag 9. c. 2. par 1. 4. 5. 6. a. 5. c. 5. par 7. 9. 10. c. 6. par 1. 2. 4. 5. 9. a. 6. c. 2. par 9. a. 7. c. 3. par 7. c. 4. parag 6. 8. c. 5. par 1. 4. 5. 8. c. 7. par 4. 18. 19. c. 9. parag 22. c. 10. parag 6. 11. c. 12. parag 1. 2. 3. c. 13. par 8. c. 14. par 1. 4. a. 8. c. 2. par 2. Bel wil not haue vs heare Scripture read in Churches art 7. c. 7. parag 16. Bel wil examin Scripturs art 7. c. 9. par 12. Bel wresteth Scripture art 8. c. 1. parag 6. Berengarius dyed a Catholik a. 2. c. 5. par 1. Berhaeans example explicated what they examined art 7. c. 11. parag 4. S. Bernards meaning about possibility of louing God art 8. c. 4. parag 3. 4. S. Bernards meaning about merit art 5. c. 5. parag 9. Byble alone canonical Scripture but not alone Canonical art 7. c. 11. parag 3. Byble conserued and beleeued to be Gods word by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. Bilson attributing to Kings participation of Gods name power honor homagâ— art 1. c. 7. parag 7. Bishops oath to the Pope made with consent of al Catholik Princes a. 7. c. 14. par 2. Bishops oath to the Pope lawful and antient art 7. c. 14. parag 2. Bishops sweare no rebellion a. 7. c. 14. par 3. Britanny conuerted first to Popery art 7. c. 10. parag 2. C. CAtholiques and Protestants true difference in whome the supremacy is art 1. c. 2. parag 3. Catholiks neuer attributed to the Pope power proper to God art 1. chap. 7. parag 5. Catholiks faith of the Eucharist grownded vpon Scripture and Fathers art 2. c. 1. parag 7. 8. Catholique Church like a prudent nurse art 7. c. 7. parag 17. Catholiques and Protestants opinion about deposition of Princes compared art 1. c. 3. parag 8. Catholiques falsly charged where Protestants might better art 7. c. 1. par 4. Catholiques falsly charged about disobedience to euil Kings art 1. c. 9. parag 34. Catholiques how they think the commandements possible art 8. c. 1. parag 2. Catholiques haue Tradition euen from S. Peter art 7. c. 9. parag 10. Catholiques vse Scripture in vulgare tong art 7. c. 8. parag 4. Caluin attributeth deuine power to Magistrats art 1. c. 7. parag 3. Caluin confesseth S. Austin to thinke inuoluntary concupiscence no true sinne art 4. c. 1. parag 18. Caluin accounteth the sacrifice of the crosse insufficient art 2. c. 4. parag 5. Caluin father of the new Arrians art 7. c. 1. parag 5. Caluins smale account of Gods word when it is against him art 2. c. 1. parag 10. Caluinists become Arrians and Mahumetans art 7. c. 1. parag 5. Ceremonial law perfectly prescribed to the Iewes art 7 c. 2 parag 5 6. Charles made Emperor without consent of Eastern Emperors art 1. chap. 9. paragr 19. Choise propounded to Protestants about Emperors made by Popes art 1. c. 6. parag 3 an other about Traditions art 7. c. 9. parag 3. about Luther art 7. c. 9. parag 16. Christs body to be organical in the sacrament no point of faith a. 2. c 1. parag 6. Christs body in his nariuity in a litle roome art 2. c. 1. parag 12. Christs body in onâ— place naturally in many sacramentally art 2. c. 2. parag 6. Christs body broken in a signe art 2. c. 5. parag 3. Christs body broken in a signe which really conteineth it art 2 c. 5. parag 4. Christs blood is a testament a 2. c. 3 par 7. Christs blood how powred out or shed at his supper art 2. c. 4. parag 8. Christ carâ—yed him self literally or really in his owne hands art 2. c. 4 parag 1. Christ nether killed nor dyeth at Masse art 2. c. 3. parag 6. Christ offered sacrifice at his last supper art 2. c. 2. parag 2. Christs sacrifice at his last supper not imperfect nor at his passion needles art 2. c. 4. parag 4. Christ sacramental being a representation of his natural being a. 2. c. 4. parag 1. ChristiaÌ„s bound to obey as wel the present as the primatiue Church a. 7. c. 13. par 2. S. Chrisostom about Traditions explicated art 7. c. 4. parag 11. S. Chrisostom about reading Scripture explicated and opposit therein to Protestants art 7. c. 7. parag 8. S. Chrisostom how he meaÌ„t that Christ bid vs not immitate his fast a. 7. c. 10. par 6. S. Chrisostom giueth not people liberty to expound Scriptures contrary to their Pastors a. 7. c. 7. parag 8. Churches authority not mere humaine art 7. c. 9. parag 21. Churches authority concurreth to deuine saith art 7. c. 9. parag 20. Churches authority both first brought and continued S. Austin in beleefe of the Ghospel art