her Corruptions were part of the Catholike Faith of Christ. So the whole passage is a meer begging of the Question and then threatning upon it without all ground of Reason or Charity In the mean time let A. C. look to himself that in his false security he run not into the danger and loss of his own salvation while he would seem to take such care of ours But though this Argument prevails with the weak yet it is much stronger in the cunning than the true force of it For all Arguments are very moving that lay their ground upon the Adversaries Confession especially if it be confessed and avouched to be true But if you would speak truly and say Many Protestants indeed confess there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church but yet they say withal that the Errours of that Church are so many and some so great as weaken the Foundation that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the Truth manifested the heart of this Argument were utterly broken Besides the force of this Argument lies upon two things one directly Expressed the other but as upon the By. Num. 3 That which is expressed is We and our Adversaries consent that there is salvation to some in the Roman Church What would you have us as malicious at least as rash as your selves are to us and deny you so much as possibility of Salvation If we should we might make you in some things strain for a Proof But we have not so learned Christ as either to return evil for evil in this heady course or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the Foundation Christ And therefore seek not to help our Cause by denying this comfort to silly Christians as you most fiercely do where you can come to work upon them And this was an old trick of the Donatists For in the Point of Baptism whether that Sacrament was true in the Catholike Church or in the part of Donatus they exhorted all to be baptized among them Why Because both parts granted that Baptism was true among the Donatists which that peevish Sect most unjustly denied the sound part as S. Augustine delivers it I would ask now Had not the Orthodox true Baptism among them because the Donatists denied it injuriously Or should the Orthodox against Truth have denied Baptism among the Donatists either to cry quittance with them or that their Argument might not be the stronger because both parts granted But Mark this how far you run from all common Principles of Christian Peace as well as Christian Truth while you deny salvation most unjustly to us from which you are farther off your selves Besides if this were or could be made a concluding Argument I pray why do not you believe with us in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England That in the most Blessed Sacrament the Worthy receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ truly and really and of all the Benefits of his Passion Your Roman Catholikes add a manner of this his Prefence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner of this Presence Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then even for this Consent it is safer Communicating with the Church of England than with the Roman or Lutheran Because all agree in this Truth not in any other Opinion Nay Suarez himself and he a very Learned Adversary what say you to this A. C doth Truth force this from him Confesses plainly That to Believe Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Salvation And yet he knew well the Church had determined it And Bellarmine after an intricate tedious and almost inexplicable Discourse about an Aductive Conversion A thing which neither Divinity nor Philosophy ever heard of till then is at last forced to come to this Whatsoever is concerning the manner and forms of speech illud tenendum eâ—t this is to be held that the Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and the Blood of Christ is substantial but after a secret and ineffable manner and not like in all things to any natural Conversion whatsoever Now if he had left out Conversion and affirmed only Christs real Presence there after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner no man could have spoke better And therefore if you will force the Argument always to make that the safest way of Salvation which differing Parties agree on why do you not yield to the force of the same Argument in the Belief of the Sacrament one of the most immediate means of Salvation where not onely the most but all agree And your own greatest Clarks cannot tell what to say to the Contrary Num. 4 I speak here for the force of the Argument which certainly in it self is nothing though by A. C. made of great account For he says 'T is a Confession of Adversaries extorted by Truth Just as Petilian the Donatist brag'd in the case of Baptism But in truth 't is nothing For the Syllogism which it frames is this In Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on But Papists and Protestants which are the differing Parties agree in this that there is salvation possible to be found in the Roman Church Therefore 't is safest for a man to be and continue in the Roman Church To the Minor Proposition then I observe this only that though many Learned Protestants grant this all do not And then that Proposition is not Universally true nor able to sustain the Conclusion For they do not in this all agree nay I doubt not but there are some Protestants which can and do as stifly and as churlishly deny them Salvation as they do us And A. C. should do well to consider whether they do it not upon as good reason at least But for the Major Proposition Namely That in Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the Adversary confesses or the Differing Parties agree on I say that is no Metaphysical Principle but a bare Contingent Proposition and being indefinitely taken may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applied but being taken universally is false and not able to lead in the Conclusion Now that this Proposition In point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on or which the Adversary confesses hath no strength in it self but is sometimes true and sometimes false as the Matter is about which it is conversant is most evident First by Reason Because Consent of disagreeing Parties is neither Rule nor Proof of Truth For Herod and
Pilate disagreeing Parties enough yet agreed against Truth it self But Truth rather is or should be the Rule to frame if not to force Agreement And secondly by the two Instances before given For in the Instance between the Orthodox Church then and the Donatists this Proposition is most false For it was a Point of Faith so of Salvation that they were upon Namely the right use and administration of the Sacrament of Baptism And yet had it been safest to take up that way which the differing Parts agreed on or which the adverse Part Confessed men must needs have gone with the Donatists against the Church And this must fall out as oft as any Heretick will cunningly take that way against the Church which the Donatists did if this Principle shall go for currant But in the second Instance concerning the Eucharist a matter of Faith and so of Salvation too the same Proposition is most true And the Reason is because here the matter is true Namely The true and real participation of the Body and Blood of Christ in that Blessed Sacrament But in the former the matter was false Namely That Rebaptization was necessary after Baptism formally given by the Church So this Proposition In Point of Faith and Salvation it is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree in or which the Adversary confesses is you see both true and false as men have cunning to apply it and as the matter is about which it is Conversant And is therefore no Proposition able or fit to settle a Conclusion in any sober mans minde till the Matter contained under it be well scanned and examined And yet as much use as you would make of this Proposition to amaze the weak your selves dare not stand to it no not where the matter is undeniably true as shall appear in divers Particulars beside this of the Eucharist Num. 5 But before I add any other particular Instances I must tell you what A. C. says to the two former For he tells us These two are nothing like the present case Nothing That is strange indeed Why in the first of those Cases concerning the Donatists your Proposition is false And so far from being safest that it was no way safe for a man to take that way of Belief and so of Salvation which both parts agreed on And is this nothing Nay is not this full and home to the present case For the present case is this and no more That it is safest taking that way of Belief which the differing Parties agree on or which the Adversary Confesses And in the second of those Cases concerning the Eucharist your Proposition indeed is true not by the Truth which it hath seen in it self Metaphysically and in Abstract but onely in regard of the matter to which it is applied yet there you desert your own Proposition where it is true And is this nothing Nay is not this also full and home to the present case since it appears your Proposition is such as your selves dare not bide by either when it is true or when it is false For in the Case of Baptism administred by the Donatist the Proposition is false and you dare not bide by it for Truths sake And in the case of the Eucharist the Proposition is true and yet you dare not bide by it for the Church of Romes sake So that Church with you cannot erre and yet will not suffer you to maintain Truth which not to do is some degree of Errour and that no small one Num. 6 Well A. C. goes on and gives his Reasons why these two Instances are nothing like the present Case For in these Cases saith he there are annexed other Reasons of certainly known peril of damnable Schism and Heresie which we should inâ—ur by consenting to the Donatists denial of true Baptism among Catholikes and to the Protestants denial or doubting of the true substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist But in this Case of Resolving to live and die in the Catholike Romà ne Church there is confessedly no such peril of any damnable Heresie or Schism or any other sin Here I have many Particulars to observe upon A. C. and you shall have them as briefly as I can set them down And first I take A. C. at his word that in the case of the Donatist should it be followed there would be known peril of damnable Schism and Heresie by denying true Baptism to be in the Orthodox Church For by this you may see what a sound Proposition this is That where two Parties are dissenting it is safest believing that in which both Parties agree or which the Adversary confesses for here you may see by the case of the Donatist is confessed it may lead a man that will universally lean to it into known and damnable Schism and Heresie An excellent Guide I promise you this is it not Nor secondly are these though A. C. calls them so annexed Reasons For he calls them so but to blaunch the matter as if they fell upon the Proposition ab extra accidentally and from without Whereas they are not annexed or pinned on but flow naturally out of the Proposition it self For the Proposition would seem to be Metaphysical and is appliable indifferently to any Common Belief of dissenting Parties be the point in difference what it will Therefore if there be any thing Heretical Schismatical or any way evil in the Point this Proposition being neither Universally nor necessarily true must needs cast him that relies upon it upon all these Rocks of Heresie Schism or what ever else follows the matter of the Proposition Thirdly A. C. doth extremely ill to joyn these Cases of the Donatists for Baptism and the Protestant for the Eucharist together as he doth For this Proposition in the first concerning the Donatists leads a man as is confessed by himself into known and damnable Schism and Heresie but by A. C's good leave the later concerning the Protestants and the Eucharist nothing so For I hope A. C. dare not say That to believe the true substantial Presence of Christ is either known or damnable Schism or Heresie Now as many and as Learned Protestants believe and maintain this as do believe possibility of Salvation as before is limited in the Romane Church Therefore they in that not guilty of either known or damnable Schism or Heresie though the Donâ—tists were of both Fourthly whereas he imposes upon the Protestants The denyal or doubting of the true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist he is a great deal more bold than true in that also For understand them right and they certainly neither deny nor doubt it For as for the Lutheranes as they are commonly called their very Opinion of Consubstantiation makes it known to the world that they neither deny nor doubt of his true and Real presence there And they are Protestants And for the
Calvinists if they might be rightly understood they also maintain a most true and Real presence though they cannot permit their Judgement to be Transubstantiated And they are Protestants too And this is so known a Truth that ‖ Bellarmine confesses it For he saith Protestants do often grant that the true and real Body of Christ is in the Eucharist But he addes That they never say so far as he hath read That it is there Truely and Really unless they speak of the Supper which shall be in Heaven Well first if they grant that the true and Real Body of Christ is in that Blessed Sacrament as Bellarmine confesses they do and 't is most true then A. C. is false who charges all the Protestants with denyal or doubtfulness in this Point And secondly Bellarmine himself also shews here his Ignorance or his Malice Ignorance if he knew it not Malice if he would not know it For the Calvinists at least they which follow Calvin himself do not onely believe that the true and real Body of Christ is received in the Eucharist but that it is there and that we partake of it verè realitèr which are Calvins own words and yet Bellarmine boldly affirms that to his reading no one Protestant did ever affirm it And I for my part cannot believe but Bellarmine had read Calvin and very carefully he doth so frequently and so mainly Oppose him Nor can that Place by any Art be shifted or by any Violence wrested from Calvin's true meaning of the Presence of Christ in and at the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist to any Supper in Heaven whatsoever But most manifest it is that Quod legerim for ought I have read will not serve Bellarmine to excuse him For he himself but in the very Chapter going before quotes four Places out of Calvin in which he says expresly That we receive in the Sacrament the Body and the Bloud of Christ Verè truly So Calvin says it four times and Bellarmine quotes the places and yet he says in the very next Chapter That never any Protestant said so to his Reading And for the Church of England nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist unless A. C. can make a Body no Body and Bloud no Bloud as perhaps he can by Transubstantiation as well as Bread no Bread and Wine no Wine And the Church of England is Protestant too So Protestants of all sorts maintain a true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and then where 's any known or damnable Heresie here As for the Learned of those zealous men that died in this Cause in Q. Maries days they denied not the Real presence simply taken but as their Opposites forced Transubstantiation upon them as if that and the Real presence had been all one Whereas all the Ancient Christians ever believed the one and none but Modern and Superstitious Christians believe the other if they do believe it for I for my part doubt they do not And as for the Unlearned in those times and all times their zeal they holding the Foundation may eat out their Ignorances and leave them safe Now that the Learned Protestants in Queen Mary's days did not deny nay did maintain the Real presence will manifestly appear For when the Commissioners obtruded to Jo. Frith the Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament and that without all figure or similitude Jo. Frith acknowledges That the inward man doth as verily receive Christ's Body as the outward man receives the Sacrament with his Mouth And he addes That neither side ought to make it a necessary Article of Faith but leave it indifferent Nay Archbishop Cranmer comes more plainly and more home to it than Frith For if you understand saith he by this word really Reipsa that is in very deed and effectually so Christ by the grace and efficacie of his Passion is indeed and truly present c. But if by this word Really you understand Corporalitèr Corporally in his natural and Organical Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine 't is contrary to the Holy Word of God And so likewise Bishop Ridley Nay Bishop Ridley addes yet farther and speaks so fully to this Point as I think no man can adde to his Expression And 't is well if some Protestants except not against it Both you and I faith he agree in this That in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Bloud of Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into heaven which sits on the right hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead Onely we differ in modo in the way and manner of being We confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament and dissent in the Manner of Being there I confess Christs natural Body to be in the Sacrament by Spirit and Grace c. You make a grosser kinde of Being inclosing a natural Body under the shape and form of Bread and Wine So far and more Bishop Ridley And Archbishop Cranmer confesses That he was indeed of another Opinion and inclining to that of Zuinglius till Bishop Ridley convinced his Judgement setled him in this Point And for Calvin he comes no whit short of these against the Calumny of the Romanists on that behalf Now after all this with what face can A. C. say as he doth That Protestants deny or doubt of the true and Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament I cannot well tell or am unwilling to utter Fifthly whereas 't is added by A. C. That in this present case there is no peril of any damnable Heresie Schisme or any other Sin in resolving to live and die in the Roman Church That 's not so neither For he that lives in the Roman Church with such a Resolution is presumed to believe as that Church believes And he that doth so I will not say is as guilty but guilty 〈…〉 is more or less of the Schism which that Church first caused by her Corruptions and now continues by them and her power together And of all her Damnable Opinions too in point of Misbelief though perhaps A. C. will not have them called Heresies unless they have been condemned in some General Councel And of all other sins also which the Doctrine and Misbelief of that Church leads him into And mark it I pray For 't is one thing to live in a Schismatical Church and not Communicate with it in the Schism or in any false Worship that attends it For so Elias lived among the Ten Tribes and was not Schismatical 3 Reg. 17. And after him Elizaeus 4 Reg. 3. But then neither of them either countenanced the Schism or worshipped the Calves in Dan or in Bethel And so also beside these Prophets did those Thousands live in
secure way in regard of Roman Corruptions And A. C. cannot plead for himself that he either knew not this or that he overlook'd it for himself disputes against it as strongly as he can What modesty or Truth call you this For he that confesses a possibility of Salvation doth not thereby confess no peril of Damnation in the same way Yea but if some Protestants should say there is peril of Damnation to live and die in the Roman Faith their saying is nothing in comparison of the number or worth of those that say there is none So A. C. again And beside they which say it are contradicted by their own more Learned Brethren Here A. C. speaks very confusedly But whether he speak of Protestants or Romanists or mixes both the matter is not great For as for the Number and Worth of men they are no necessary Concluders for Truth Not Number for who would be judged by the Many The time was when the Arrians were too many for the Orthodox Not Worth simply for that once misled is of all other the greatest misleader And yet God forbid that to Worth weaker men should not yield in difficult and Perplexed Questions yet so as that when Matters Fundamental in the Faith come in Question they finally rest upon an higher and clearer certainty than can be found in either Number or Weight of men Besides if you mean your own Party you have not yet proved your Party more worthy for Life of Learning than the Protestants Prove that first and then it will be time to tell you how worthy many of your Popes have been for either Life or Learning As for the rest you may blush to say it For all Protestants unanimously agree in this That there is great peril of Damnation for any man to live and die in the Roman perswasion And you are not able to produce any one Protestant that ever said the contrary And therefore that is a most notorious slander where you say that they which affirm this peril of Damnation are contradicted by their own more Learned Brethren Num. 7 And thus having cleared the way against the Exceptions of A. C. to the two former Instances I will now proceed as I promised to make this farther appear that A. C. and his Fellows dare not stand to that ground which is here laid down Namely That in Point of Faith and Salvation it is safest for a man to take that way which the Adversary Confesses to be true or whereon the differing Parties agree And that if they do stand to it they must be forced to maintain the Church of England in many things against the Church of Rome And first I Instance in the Article of our Saviour Christs Descent into Hell I hope the Church of Rome believes this Article and withal that Hell is the place of the Damned so doth the Church of England In this then these dissenting Churches agree Therefore according to the former Rule yea and here in Truth too 't is safest for a man to believe this Article of the Creed as both agree That is that Christ descended in Soul into the Place of the Damned but this the Romanists will not endure at any hand For the School agree in it That the Soul of Christ in the time of his death went really no farther than in Limbum Patrum which is not the place of the Damned but a Region or Quarter in the upper part of Hell as they call it built up there by the Romanist without Licence of either Scripture or the Primitive Church And a man would wonder how those Builders with untempered Mortar found light enough in that dark Place to build as they have done Secondly I 'll instance in the Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds That Christ Instituted it so is confessed by both Churches and the Ancient Churches received it so is agreed by both Churches Therefore according to the former Rule and here in Truth too 't is safest for a man to receive this Sacrament in both kinds And yet here this Ground of A. C. must not stand for good no not at Rome but to receive in one kinde is enough for the Laity And the poor Bohemians must have a Dispensation that it may be lawful for them to receive the Sacrament as Christ commanded them And this must not be granted to them neither unless they will ackdowledge most opposite to Truth that they are not bound by Divine Law to receive it in both kinds And here their Building with untempered Mortar appears most manifestly For they have no shew to maintain this but the fiction of Thomas of Aquin That he which receives the Body of Christ receives also his Blood per ‖ concomitantiam by concomitancy because the Blood goes always with the Body of which Term Thomas was the first Author I can yet finde First then if this be true I hope Christ knew it And then why did he so unusefully institute it in both kinds Next if this be true Concomitancy accompanies the Priest as well as the People and then why may not he receive it in one kinde also Thirdly this is apparently not true For the Eucharist is a Sacrament Sanguinis effusi of Blood shed and poured out And Blood poured out and so severed from the Body goes not along with the Body per concomitantiam And yet Christ must rather erre or proceed I know not how in the Institution of the Sacrament in both kindes rather than the Holy unerring Church of Rome may do amiss in the Determination for it and the Administration of it in one kinde Nor will the Distinction That Christ instituted this as a Sacrifice to which both kinds were necessary serve the turn For suppose that true yet he instituted it as a Sacrament also or else that Sacrament had no Institution from Christ which I presume A. C. dares not affirm And that Institution which the Sacrament had from Christ was in both kindes And since here 's mention happen'd of Sacrifice my Third Instance shall be in the Sacrifice which is offer'd up to God in that Great and High Mystery of our Redemption by the death of Christ. For as Christ offer'd up himself once for all a full and all-sufficient Sacrifice for the sin of the whole world So did He Institute and Command a Memory of this Sacrifice in a Sacrament even till his coming again For at and in the Eucharist we offer up to God three Sacrifices One by the Priest onely that 's the Commemorative Sacrifice of Christs Death represented in Bread broken and Wine poured out Another by the Priest and the People joyntly and that is the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving for all the Benefits and Graces we receive by the precious death of Christ. The Third by every particular man for himself onely and that is the Sacrifice of every mans Body and Soul to serve
again in the second Prayer or Thanksgiving after Consecration thus We give thee thanks for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us which have duly received these holy Mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Bloud of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ c. †Jo. Fox Martyrolog Tom. 2. London 1597. p. 943. ‖ Fox Ibid. * Cranmer apud Fox ibid. p. 1301. †I say Corporalitèr corporally for so Bellarmine hath it expresly Quod autem Corporalitèr propriè sâ—â—â—atur Sanguis Caro c. probâ—â—i potest omnibus Argumentis c. Bell. L. 1. de Eucharistic 12. § Sed tota And I must be bold to tell you more than That this is the Doctrine of the Ch. of Rome For I must tell you too that Bellarm. here contradicts himself For he that tells us here that it can be proved by many Arguments that we receive the Flesh and the Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist corporalitèr said as expresly before had he remembred it that though Christ be in this Blessed Sacrament verè realiter yet faith he non dicemus corporaliter i. e. co modo quo sâ—d naturâ existunt Corpora c. Bell. L. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. § Tertia Regula So Bell. here is in a notorious contradiction Or else it will follow plainly out of him that Christ in the Sacrament is existent one way received another which is a gross absurdity And that corporaliter was the Doctrine of the Ch. of Rome meant by Transubstantiation is farther plain in the book called The Institution of a Christian man set forth by the Bishops in Convocation in H. 8's time an 1534. c. Of the Sacrament of the Altar The words are Under the form figure of Bread Wine the very body and bloud of Christ is corporally really c. exhibited and received c. And Aquiâ—as expresseâ—â—â— thus Quia tamen substantia Corporis Christi realiter non dividitur à sua quantitate dimensiva ab aliis accidentibus indâ— est quòd ex vi realis Concomitantiae est in Sacramento totâ— quantitas dimensiva Corporiâ— Christi omnia accidentia ejus Tho. p. 3. q. 76. Ar. 4. c. * Apud Fox ibid. p. 1598. †Apud Fox ibid. 1703. ‖ Tantùm de modo quaestiö est c. Et â—acessat calumâ—ia auferri Christum à Coenâ suâ c. Calv. L. 4. Inst. c. 17. § 31. Veritatem Dei in quâ acquiescere tutò licet sine controversia amplectar Pronunciat ille Carnem suam esse Animae meae cibum Sanguinem esse potum Talibus alimentis animam Illi meam pascendam oâ—â—â—â—o In S. Coena jubet me sub Symbolis Panis Vini Corpus Sanguinem suum sumere manducare biâ—ere Nihil dubito quin Ipse Verè porrigat ego recipiam Calv. ibid. § 32. Punct 5. A. C. p. 66. 3 Reg. 17. 4 Reg. 3. 3 Reg. 19. 18. 3 Reg. 13. 11. * Petilianus dixit Venite ad Ecclesiam populi aufugite Traditores ita Orthodoxos tum appellavit si cum iisdem perire non vultis Num ut facilè cognoâ—catis quòd ipsi sunt rei de fide nostra optimè judicant Ego illorum infectos baptizo Illi meos quod absit recipiunt baptizatos quae omâ—ino non â—acerent si in Baptismo nostro culpas aliquas agnovissent Videte ergo quod damus quam sanctum sit quod destruere metuit Sacrilegus Inimicus S. August respondet Sic approbamus in Haereticis Baptismum nox Haereticorum sed Christi sicut in Fornicasoribus Idololatris Veneficis c. approbamus Baptismum non eorm sed Christi Omnes enim isti inter quos Haeretici sunt sicut dicit Apostolus Regnum Dei non possidebunt c. â— August â— 2. cont Lit. Petiliani c. 108. * Galat. 5. 19 20 21. †Non ergo vestrum est quod destruert metuimus sed Christi quod in sacrilegis per se sanctum est S. August Ibid. A. C. p. 64 65. A. C. p. 66. * For though Prateolus will make Donatus and from him the Donatists to be gullty of an impious Heresie I doubt he means Arrianism though he name it not in making the Son of God less than the Father and the Holy Ghost less than the Son L 4. de Haeres Haer. 14. yet these things are most manifest out of S. Aug. concerning them who lived with them both in time and place and understood them and their Tenets far better than Prateolus could And first S. Aug. tells us concerning them Aryiani Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti diversas substantias esse dicunt Donatistae autem unam Trinitatis substantiam confitentur So they are no Arrians Secondly Si aliqui eorum minorem Filium esse dixerunt quà m Pater est ejusdâ—m tamen substantiae non â—â—gârunt But this is but si aliqâ—â— if any so 't was doubtful this too though Patreolus delivers it positively Thirdly Plurimi verâ— in iis â—oe se dicunt omnino credere de Patre Filiâ— Spiritâ— Sancto quod Catholica credit Ecclesia Nec â—â—sa cum illis vertitur Questio sed de sola Communione iâ—â—oeliciter litigant c. De sola Only about the Union with the Church Therefore they erred not in Fundamental Points of Faith And Lastly All that can farther be said against them is That some of them to win the Goths to them when they were powerful said Hoc se Credere quod illi Credunt Now the Goths for the most were Arrians But then faith S. Aug. they were but nâ—â—nulli some of them And of this some it was no more Certain than sicut andivimus as we have heard S. Aug. knew it not And then if it were true of some yet Majorum sâ—orum Authoritate convincuntur Quia nec Donatus ipse sic credidisse asseritur de cujus parte se esse gloriantur S. Aug. Epist. 50. Where Prateolus is again deceived for he says expresly that Donatus affirmed the Son to be less then the Father Impius ille asserebat c. But then indeed and which perchance deceived Patreolus beside Donatus the founder of this Heresie there was another Donatus who succeeded Majorinus at Carthâ—ge and he was guilty of the Heresie which Prateolus mentions Et extant scripta ejus ubi appareâ— aâ— S. Aug. confesses L 1. de Haeres Haer. 69. But then S. Aug. adds there also nec facilè in iis quisquam that scarce any of the Donatists did so much as know that this Donatus held that Opinion much less did they believe it themselves S. Aug. Ibid. †§. 21. N. 1 c. Punct 6. A. C. p. 66. * §. 35. N. 1 2. A. C. p. 66. * Iâ—gemuit totus Orbis Arrianum se esse miratus est S. Hâ—er advers Luciferian post medium To. 2. Arrianorum Venenum non â—am portiunculam quandam sed pâ—â—è
expresly ascribes Rule to the Church And that is not onely a Pastoral Power to teach and direct but a Praetorian also to Control and Censure too where Errours or Crimes are against Points Fundamental or of great Consequence Else S. Paul would not have given the Rule for Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. Nor Christ himself have put the man that will not hear and obey the Church into the place and condition of an Ethnick and a Publican as he doth S. Mat. 18. And Solomon's Rule is general and he hath it twice My son forsake not the teaching or instruction of thy Mother Now this is either spoken and meant of a natural Mother And her Authority over her Children is confirmed Ecclus 3. And the fool will be upon him that despiseth her Prov. 15. Or 't is extended also to our Mystical and Spiritual Mother the Church And so the Geneva Note upon the Place expresses it And I cannot but incline to this Opinion Because the Blessings which accompany this Obedience are so many and great as that they are not like to be the fruits of Obedience to a Natural Mother onely as Solomon expresses them all Prov. 6. And in all this here 's no Exception of of the Mothers erring For Mater errans an erring Mother loses neither the right nor the power of a Mother by her errour And I marvel what Son should shew reverence or obedience if no Mother that hath erred might exact it 'T is true the Son is not to follow his Mothers errour or his Mother into errour But 't is true too 't is a grievous crime in a Son to cast off all obedience to his Mother because at some time or in some things she hath fallen into errour And howsoever this Consideration meets with this Inconvenience as well as the rest For suppose as I said in the whole Catholike Militant Church an absolute Infallibility in the Prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation And then though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may erre yet if the Grand-mother the whole Universal Church cannot in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of Disobedience taken from the possibility of the Churches erring are quite taken away Nor is this Mother less to be valued by her Children because in some smaller things Age had filled her face fuller of wrinkles For where 't is said that Christ makes to himself a Church without spot or wrinkle Eph. 5. that is not understood of the Church Militant but of the Church Triumphant And to maintain the contrary is a Branch of the spreading Heresie of Pelagianism Nor is the Church on earth any freer from wrinkles in Doctrine and Discipline than she is from Spots in Life and Conversation Num. 5 The next thing I Consider is Suppose a General Councel take it self to be infallible in all things which are of Faith If it prove not so but that an Errour in the Faith be concluded the same Erring Opinion that makes it think it self Infallible makes the Errour of it seem irrevocable And when Truth which lay hid shall be brought to light the Church who was lulled asleep by the opinion of Infallibility is left open to all mauner of Distractions as it appears at this day And that a Councel may erre besides all other Instances which are not few appears by that Errour of the Councel of Constance And one Instance is enough to overthrow a General be it a Councel Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in both kindes To break Christs Institution is a Damnable Errour and so confessed by Stapleton The Councel is bold and defines peremptorily That to Communicate in both kindes is not necessary with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ. Consider now with me Is this an Errour or not Bellarmine and Stapleton and you too say 't is not because to receive under both kindes is not by Divine Right No No sure For it was not Christs Precept but his Example Why but I had thought Christs Institution of a Sacrament had been more than his Example onely and as binding for the Necessaries of a Sacrament the Matter and Form as a Precept Therefore speak out and deny it to be Christs Institution or else grant with Stapleton It is a damnable Errour to go against it If you can prove that Christs Institution is not as binding to us as a Precept which you shall never be able take the Precept with it Drink ye All of this which though you shift as you can yet you can never make it other than it is A binding Precept But Bellarmine hath yet one better Device than this to save the Councel He saith It is a meer Calumny and that the Councel hath no such thing That the Non obstante hath no reference to Receiving under both kindes but to the time of receiving it after Supper in which the Councel saith the Custome of the Church is to be observed Non obstante notwithstanding Christs Example How foul Bellarmine is in this must appear by the words of the Councel which are these Though Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament and gave it his Disciples after Supper under both kindes of Bread and Wine yet Non obstante notwithstanding this it ought not to be Consecrated after Supper nor received but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kindes yet this Custom that it should be received by Lay-men onely under the kinde of Bread is to be held for a Law which may not be refused And to say this is an unlawful Custom of Receiving under one kinde is erroneous and they which persist in saying so are to be punished and driven out as Hereticks Now where is here any slander of the Councel The words are plain and the Non obstante must necessarily for ought I can yet see be referred to both Clauses in the words following because both Clauses went before it and hath as much force against Receiving under both kindes as against Receiving after Supper Yea and the after-words of the Councel couple both together in this Reference for it follows Et similiter And so likewise that though in the Primitive Church c. And a man by the Definition of this Councel may be an Heretick for standing to Christs Institution in the very matter of the Sacrament And the Churches Law for One kinde may not be refused but Christs Institution under Both kindes may And yet this Councel did not erre No take heed of it Num. 6 But your Opinion is more Unreasonable than this for consider any Body Collective be it more or less Universal whensoever it assembles it self did it ever give more power to the Representing Body of it than binding power upon all particulars and it self And did it ever give this power otherwise than with this Reservation in Nature
can against me so they observe my Limitations which if they do A. C. and his fellows will of all the rest have but little comfort in such a limited Possibility ‖ L. 1. De Bapt. cont Dâ—n c. 3. Graviter peccarent in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus c. eo solo quod certis incerta praeponerent * Propter incertitudinem propriae Justitiae periculum inanis gloriae tutissimum est fiduciam totam in solâ Dei misericordiâ beâ—ignitate reponere Bellar. L. 5. de Justif. c. 7. §. Sit tertia Propositio †And this piece of Cunning to affright the weak was in use in Justin Martyrs time Quosdam scimus c. ad Iracundiam suà m Evangelium pertrabentes c. quibus si potestas ea obtigisset ut nonnullos Gehennae traderent Orbem quoque Universum consumpsissent Just. Martyr Epist. ad Zenam Sereâ—â—m And here 't is ad Iracundiam suam Ecclesiam pertrabentes c. ‖ § 35. Nu. 3. A. C. p. 56. S. Mat. 18. 17. * And this is proved by the Creed In which we profess our Belief of the Catholike not of the Roman Church * This is a free Confession of the Adversaries Argument against themselves and therefore is of force A. C. p. 64. But every Confession of Adversaries or others is to be taken with its Qualities and Conditions If you leave out or change these you wrong the Confession and then 't is of no force And so doth A. C. here And though Bellarm. makes the Confession of the Adversary a note of the true Church L. 4. de 〈◊〉 Eccl. 16. yet in the very beginning where he lays his Ground §. 1. he lays it in a plain fallacy a secundùm quid ad simpliciter †For they are no mean Differences that are between us by Bellarmines own Confession Agendum est non de rebus levibus sed de gravissimis Questionibus qua ad ipsa Fidei fundamenta pertinent c. Bellarm. in praefat Operibus praefix◠§. 3. And therefore the Errours in them and the Corruptions of them cannot be of small Consequence by your own Confession Yes by your own indeed For you A. C. say full as much if not more than Bellarmine Thus We Catholikes hold all points In which Protestants differ from us in Doctrine of Faith to be Fundamental and necessary to be Believed or at least not denied A. C. Relation of the first Conference p. 2â— * Esse vâ—â—â— apud Donatistas Baptismum illi aesserunt nos concedimus c. L. 1. de Bap. cont Donat. c. 3. †Corpus Christi manducatur in Coena c. tantùm Coelesti spirituali ratione Medium autem quo Corpus Christi accipitur manducatur in Coenâ Fides est Eccl. Angl. Art 28. After a spiritual manner by Faith on our behalf and by the working of the Holy Ghost on the behalf of Christ. Fulk in 1 Cor. 11. p. 528. Christus se cum ommibus bonis suis in Coena offert nos cum recipimus fide c. Calv. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 5. Et Hooker L. 5. §. 67. p. 176. And say not you the same with us Spiritualis manducatio quae per Animam fit ad Christi Carnem in Sacramento pertingit Cajet Tom. 2. Opusc. de Euchar. Tract 2. Cap. 5. Sed spiritualiter id est invisibiliter per virtutem Spiritus Sancti Thom. p. 3. q. 75. A. 1 ad â— Spiritualiter manducandus est per Fidem Charitatem Tâ—na in Heb. 13. Difficultate 8. ‖ I would have no man troubled at the words Truly and Really For that blessed Sacrament received as it ought to be doth Truly and Really exhibit and apply the Body and the Blood of Christ to the Receiver So Bishop White in his Defence against T. W. P. Edit London 1617. p. 138. And Calvia in 1 Cor. 10. 3. Verè datur c. And again in 1 Cor. 11. 24. Neque enim Mortis tantùm Resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus sed Corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit Concludo Realitâ—r uâ— vulgò loquuntur hoc est Verè nobis in Coenâ— datur Christi Corpus ut sit Anâ—mis nostris in Cibum Salutarem c. * Hoc totum pendâ—t ex Principiis Metaphysicis Philosophicis ad Fidei Doctrinam non est necessarium Suarez iâ— 3. Thom. Disput. 50. §. 2. A. C. p. 64 65. †Bellar. L. 3. de Eucha c. 18. §. Ex his colligimus * Sed quidquid sit de Modis loquendi illud teuendum est Conversionem Panis Vini in Corpus Sanguinem Christi esse substantialem sed arcanam ineâ—â—abilem nullis natur olibus Conversionibus per omnia similem c. Bellar. in Recognit hujus loci Et Vid. § 38. Num. 3. A. C. p. 64. * Sed quia ita magnum firmamentum vanitatis vestrae in hâc sententiâ esse arbitramini ut ad hoc tibi terminandam putares Epistolam quo quasi recentiùs in Animis Iâ—gentem remaneret brevitèr respondeo c. S. August L. 2. cont Lit. Petil c. 108. And here A. C. ad hoc sibi putavit terminandam Collationem sed frustra ut apparebit Num. 6. †§. 35. N. 3. A. C. p. 65. A. C. p. 65. Punct 1. Punct 2. A. C. p. 65. Punct 3. A. C. p 66. * Caterùm his absurditatibus sublatis quicquid ad Exprimen 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 Sanguinis Domini Communicationem que sub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 symbolis fidelibus exhibetur facere potest libenter recipio Calv. L. 4. Inst. c. 17. § 19 〈…〉 per symbola 〈◊〉 viâ—i Christus verè nobis 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 â—â—s 〈◊〉 substantiâ— ejus facti sumus Ibid. § 11. †§ 35. Num. 3. Punct 4. A. C. p. 66. * Bellarm. L. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. â— Quintâ— dâ—cit Sacramentarii saepè dicunt reale Corpus Christi in Coenà adesse sed realitèr 〈…〉 dicunt quod legerim nis◠〈◊〉 loquuntur de Coenâ quae fit in Coelâ— c. And that he means to brand Protestants under the name of Sacramentarii is plain For he says the Councel of Trent opposed this word realitèr Figmento Calvinistico to the Calvinistical Figment Ibid. A. C. p. 65. †Calv. in 1 Con. 10. 3. verè c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 〈◊〉 24. realiter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. ‖ Bellar. L. 1. 〈◊〉 Eucharistiâ— c. â—â— 5 〈…〉 docet * The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper of the Lord onely after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner And the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten is Faith Eccl. Angl. Art 28. So here 's the manner of Transubstantiation denied but the Body of Christ twice affirmed And in the Prayer before Consecration thus Grant us graciâ—â—â— Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his Bloud c. And