Ministers you cypher 1. Tim. 6.12 Fight the good fight of fayth lay hold on eterâ—all life whereunto thou art called Ibid. lin 3. to proue â—he Scripture to be sufficient for spirituall men you â—ypher 1. Cor. 2.15 But he that is spirituall iudgeth all â—hinges and is iudged of none which proueth the conâ—rary if it proue any thing to wit that the spirituâ—ll Man is not iudged and ruled by Scripture but raâ—her the Scripture is iudged and ruled by him Pag. â—0 lin 21. to proue that we wrong you in saying â—ou derogate from the Church you cite Matth. 18. â—7 He that heareth not the Church let him be as a Heathen publican Ibid. to the same purpose you cypher Heb. â—â— 17 Obey your Prelates and submit your selfe vnto them â—ag 169. lin 22. to proue that no Church euer priâ—â—d the oblation meritts of Christs passion more â—â—ghly and religiously then you do you cypher Heb. â— 14 With one oblation he did consummate for euer the â—â—nctifyed and Ephes. 5.2 He gaue himselfe a sacrifice 〈◊〉 vs to a sweet smelling sauour Iohn 1.29 Behold the â—ambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world â—ct 4.12 There is not Saluation in any other Name Pag. â—1 lin 1. to proue we wrong you by saying you aâ—â—int that (m) The words of Iohn White way pag. 126. EVERY particuler MAN examine â—â—dge of the Church her teaching you cite 1. Cor. â— 19 Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all teachers â—re all workers of miracles If one would study to apâ—â—y Scriptures impertineÌ„tly I am persuaded he could â—â—rdly deuise greater impertinencyes then these â—hich are so riâ—e in euery page of your booke so that it was intolerable folly for your Poet and Paynter to represent this your Voluminous cyphering of Scripture with a crowne vpon it bidding men to Behâ—â—â— grace and wisdome in your looke and Truthes Triumphâ—â—â— your booke For if this kind of cyphering of Scripture be Wisdome what I pray you is the last Extreme anâ— Non-plus of (*) I wonder you would not be warned to be more wise by the Booke of Quaeres or Prurit-anus For you cite the Scripturs as impertinently in good earnest as he did in iest to shew your Ministeriall Folly Folly You cite cypher Scriptures that make agaynst you §. 8. HEREVNTO I adde that the texts you cypheâ— many tymes make agaynst you Pag. 548. lin 19. to proue that reward is giuen vnto workes of Graâ—â— and bounty aswell as of Desert you cypher Rom. 4 4. which sayth to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt Could any text be deuise more directly agaynst the purpose you cite it For by this place ioyned with a sentence of yours I conclude vnanswerably our Catholike doctrine of Merit The reward which is giuen to him that worketh in regard of the Goodnes and Righteousnes of his worke is giuen not of grace but of debt But Eternâ—â— life is tearmed a Crowne of glory because it is bestowed 〈◊〉 them which exercise Righteousnes and in regard of thâ— righteousnes the true inherent dignity sanctity and purity of their workes Ergo Eternall life is a reward oâ— good workes giuen to Gods children of debt not 〈◊〉 meere grace and bounty The Maior is S. Paules by you cyphered in this place the Minor your ownâ— in so many words pag. 174. in fine and 1â—9 so thâ—â— the text of Scripture by you cited proueth inuinciâ—bly the doctrine of Merit against which you cite iâ— Pag. 558. lin 4. to proue that liuing Saints haue no communion with Saints defunct by partaking the â—â—perabundant satisfaction you cyte Rom. 12. v. 4. We haue many members in one body and euery member hath â—ot the same office This text proueth the contrary to â—hat you intend to wit that Satisfactions are communicable betwixt Saints for from this text I arâ—ue thus If Saints liuing Saints deceased be memâ—ers of the same body hauing different offices then â—here must be betwixt them coÌ„munion in all things which superabound in some members and are neeâ—ed of other for this we see to be that fellowship which by the institution of nature the members of â—he same body ought to enioy the one with the oâ—her But the Myrrh of mortifications and satisfactions superabound in many most rare innocent and penitent Saints in heauen and is no lesse needed of diuers other Saints vpon the earth that haue done many sinnes and cannot do such great pennance Therfore the Myrrh of superabounding Pennance and Satisfaction ought to flow downe from deceased Saints in heauen vnto their fellow-members the needy Saints that liue on earth The Iesuite (n) See the Reply pag. 523. sayth that the first Precept Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart c. bindeth not man to loue God in this life with Beatificall loue nor to be alwayes in actuall imployment of his loue on him but only to loue sincerely and inwardly to the keeping of all commandements without any mortall offence which breaketh friendship with God desiring though not inioying the happynes of beatificall loue This he sayth is the meaning of S. Bernard and S. Augustine when they say the perfection of the next life is contayned in this precept to wit in voto not in re This doctrine you impugne pag. 525. lin 26. saying That the Saints of God hauing obserued other commandements brake the first commandement and did vndergo corporall payne after the breach thereof How proue you this marry you cypher Heb. 11.31 They were stoned they were sawen a sunder they were slayne with the sword Doth this text proue the Saints transgressed the first Commandment That they were corporally afflicted for their not louing God with all their hart Doth it not rather shew the contrary that they loued God perfectly and were temporally tormented because they so loued him with al their hart that they would rather vndergo most cruell and barbarous deaths then offend him or abandon the truth of his word which is as our Sauiour saith the highest degree of Charity Pag. 10. lin 20. You deny the Church to be infallible in her Traditions and Definitions yet say you we acknowledge her lawfull authority for expounding Scripture and maintayning vnity in right fayth In proofe hereof you cite Matth. 18.17 Who so heareth not the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican You could not haue inuented a text that doth more inuincibly shew the coÌ„trary of what you intend Let vs make this text of Scripture the Maior and your Protestant doctrine the Minor and put your Argument in forme then will you see how handsomely you proue that you acknowledge all the lawfull authority of the Church The Scripture saith The Church is of so great absolute infallible authority that whosoeuer doth not heare her is to be held as an Heathen and a Publican Protestants say the Church is so subiect to
Infidells as more absurd to humane imagination then any other Mystery of Christian Religion The second Consideration This consideration is drawne from the quality of the difficultyes obiected agaynst this mystery which be such as a Christian in honour should neglect them (l) Vnto this argument shewing God cā couer the face of the whole world with thinner thinner parts taken out of a flyes wing euery Puny in our Vniuersities saith the Minister pag. 448. can distinguish betweē mathematicall and potentiall diuision of a body physicall and actuall Aristotle him selfe teaching vs that there is minima Caro though there be not minimum corpus Answere By this reply you shew your selfe to be not so much as a Puny in Philosophy For not knowing what you say you grant vnto your Aduersary as much as he would proue because you vnderstād not the Philosophicall tearmes you vse He did not say that the winge of the fly is physically or actually diuided into so many thinne parts as would couer the world but only that it is diuisible into so many thinne parts but you do not deny but there is so much potential or possible diuisiō in the flyes winge And if the diuision of a flyes winge into so many thinne parts as will couer the world be potentiall and possible I hope you will not deny but God can make the same actuall except you will say that there is in the quantity of a flyes winge more potentiality to be deuided then in God power to deuide so denying him to be Omnipotent Secondly your coming forth with Aristotles minima caro sed non minimum corpus doth more more bewray your Ignorance For the Philosophicall disputation de termino paruitatis is de minimo naturali whether a thinge homogeneous that is whereof euery particle is of the same kind with the whole as water fire flesh can be so little as it cannot be lesser or thinner by the course of nature wherein many learned Deuines hold the Negatiue part that no flesh is so little but it may be lesse by the course of nature But in respect of the Diuine power no Christian Philosopher doth hold there is minima caro flesh so litle and thine that God can not make the same lesser and thinner without end and so with a flyes winge couer the world And whereas you iestingly require you may haue respite not to belieue Transubstantiation vntill this vast worlds Capcase be made of a flyes winge you may haue your desire so you cā be contēt the meane tyme to vndergoe the punishment they must endure who will vndertake to comprehend the Omnipotency of God within the CAPCASE of their idle brayne For if it be the part of a prudent intelligent man not to permit imagination to preuayle agaynst his reason what a disgrace is it for a Christian that his fayth should be conquered by these kind of difficultyes For that the seeming absurdityes of this mystery be not in respect of naturall reason but meerly of imagination may hence appeare that some naturall truthes be in a manner as difficill and incredible which wil be seene if we compare the foure aboue mentioned difficulties with the difficulties some truthes euident in nature haue First we cannot imagine that the whole body of Christ can be contayned in the cōpasse of a small hoast But it is not more incredible that in a thing of small quantity for example in the winge of a fly there should be so many parts as vnfolded and layd togeather would couer the whole face of the world both of heauen and earth And yet it is demonstrable in Philosophy that euen in the wing of a fly there are so many parts as broad long as the wing though still thynner and thinner that Almighty God separating and vnfolding thē may therewith couer the whole world For certayne it is that some finite number of such parts so separated each of thē as long and as broad as a flyes winge would couer the face of the whole world Certayne also it it that the winge of a fly is stil diuisible into more more such parts that no finite number of them is assignable but God may still separate from that winge a greater nūber without end Therefore it is certayne that in the wing of a fly there is so much quantity as is sufficient to couer the face of the whole world both of heauen earth if God would but separate and vnfold the same Is not this secret of Philosophy as incredible to carnall imagination as the being of Christs body within a small hoast We that cānot comprehend thinges we see with eyes and feele with hands certaynly we shall haue much adoe at the day of Iudgement to iustify our not belieuing any part of Gods word by reason of the seeming absurdityes therof Secondly we cannot imagine the body of Christ to be really combined vnto the consecrated formes and not to be polluted by such indignityes as may happen vnto the formes yet we haue seene or may see thinges able to make this not to seeme incredible For holy men often by prayer so purify their soules and by contemplation bring their spirits to such an independency of their senses that neyther bitter meats offend their tast nor loathsome sents their smell nor shrill cryes their hearing yea burnings torturings are not perceaued their spirit being eloyned through diuine vnpolluted affection from the cōtagion of the body vnto the substance wherof it still remaynes most really vnited This being so cānot the glorious body of Christ graced with most diuine ornaments flowing from the excessiue blisse of the soule and and thereby made spirituall impassible vnsearchable be really present vnto the formes of consecrated Bread and yet immune free and wholy independent of any contagion or corruption that may happen to the formes specially the body of Christ not being so strictly and substantially tyed vnto the formes as the spirit to the body it informeth but is present vnto them as an Angell assistāt is to the body wherein he worketh what dishonor can it be to attribute vnto Christs most venerable body this spirituall manner of Angelicall presence yea rather a participation of the diuine immensity For as God by his incomprehensible immēsity existes euery where no lesse pure in the sinke then in the sunne no lesse sweet in the dungehill then in a garden of odoriferous floures So the body of Christ by supernatural participation of his diuine presence is really vpon earth in things visible inuisible in thinges hurtfull impassible in thinges noysome inuiolable in things impure immaculable to his friends that receaue him with loue most sweet and comfortable and ouerflowing in graces but to the vnworthy receauer present in a manner dead senseles as if he were not there at all And as he that receiues into his armes a body wherin the spirit absorpt in contemplation neyther feeling nor felt lyeth inclosed may be sayd
a body from occupying a place or from extruding another body frō the place where it is (p) Read S. Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 24. serm 160. who by these examples proueth that a body may penetrate with another where he saith Shew me the weightines of flesh in the body that walked vpon the waues and I will shew the true massines and solidity of flesh in the body that came in the doores being shut and was borne into the world without vndoing his mothers integrity in his byrth For to occupy a place or to extrude thence another body is but an effect consequent flowing from the nature of a quantitiue substance as to weigh to be seene to shine to burne be the naturall and necessary effects of heauy coloured bright fiery things Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence §. 2. THIS I proue That belonges to the substance of this Mystery which being denyed and taken away the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true taken in the literal sense in which sense they are to be taken as hath been shewed But without granting Transubstātiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sense Ergo transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this mystery of the Reall presence The minor is proued because the speach This is my body doth signify that the thing the Priest holds in his hands is truly really and substantially the body of Christ. For in the proposition This is my body the verbe Est signifyes a coniunction betweene This in the Priests hands the body of Christ and being a Verbe substantiue in his proper signification signifyes a substantiall Identity betweene This in the Priests hands and the body of Christ. But This in the Priests hands being before consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the body of Christ cannot by consecration be made substantially the body of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change And what other substantiall chāge can make bread to become truly the body of Christ besides substantial conuersion of the same into his body (q) The Minister flyes vnto the figuratiue sense choosing rather to deny the truth of Gods word according to the letter thē admit Transubstantiation Against which he hath three arguments scattered in his Reply which I wil here ioyne togither and answere The first is pa. 434. the consecrated bread is tearmed very bread 1. Cor. 10.16 11.26.28 Answere This is a very vntruth For it is still in those places tearmed bread cum addito with such an addition as signifies that it is not properly bread but our Sauiours body 1. Cor. 10.16 The bread we breake that is Sacrifice vnto God is the communication of the body of our Lord. And 1. Cor. 11.26 as often as you eate THIS bread 27. Whosoeuer shall eate THIS bread vnworthily 28. So let him eate of THAT bread to wit wherof he had said before that Christ by the verity of his word doth make it his body Now he that eateth bread turned into Christs body or made his body doth not truly eate bread As the Maister of the Marriage-feast in Cana who tasted water made wine Iohn 2.9 did not tast water truly For as water made wine is not water euen so bread consecrated and made our Lords body is not bread The second is pag. 447. which he setteth out magnificently in a distinct letter and ech proposition in a seuerall line The substance is this If the words of our Sauiour This is my body chāge the substance of bread into his body then also they change the quantity accidents For our Sauiour tooke the whole bread into his handes and sayd this is my body as wel vpon the accidents as vpon the substance of bread But they proue not the conuersion of accidents For Popish Trāsubstantiatiō is only a conuersion of substance not of accidents Therefore they proue not the conuersion of the substance Answere The wordes of our Sauiour this is my body change not euery thing into his body ouer which they be spoken by way of breathing for then they should chāge the ayre into his body but only that ouer which they are so spoken by way of signification that their signification can not be true in the litteral sense except that be hi◠body Now the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the litterall sense except the substance of bread be changed into his body as the Minister doth confesse pag. 397. lin 17. But they may be true according to the letter the substāce being chāged though the accidēts remayne For if the Sacrament outwardly cloathed with the formes and accidents of bread be inwardly in nature and substance Christs body then is it truly and substantially his body and may be sayd to be his body taking the word to be in the proper sense for substantiue being euen as Iacob cloathed with the garments of Esau was truly and substantially Iacob and not Esau though in outward shew and shape he seemed Esau. Therfore the litterall truth of Christs words this is my body inforceth vs to say that the substance of bread is chāged into his body but not that the quātity of bread is so changed And thus the magnificence of your argument is marred proued to be but an empty shew The third argument is pag. 422.423 In all miraculous substantiall conuersions a new substance is produced but the body of Christ doth preexist so cannot be produced Answer The maior is false as appeareth by millions of miraculous cōuersions which partly haue beene partly shall be For in the resuscitation of the dead when carcasses are conuerted into men no new thing is produced but old things and substances which formerly had been are reproduced It is true the power of nature being limited according to time place cannot reproduce but onely produce at one time and in one place But the power of God being infinite eternall immense and independent of time and place can reproduce things that preexist according to different times and places as often and in as many places as he is pleased Hence he can and doth reproduce vpon earth the body of our Sauiour preexisting in heauen as the Fathers auerre S. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacra c. 4. When consecration is done the body of Christ is MADE of bread And S. Cyprian serm de coena Vsque hodie Diuinissimum Sanctissimum corpus CREAT S. Gauden homil tract 2. in Exod. Quia potest promisit de pane corpus suum EFFICIT S. Hierom. ep ad Heliod Sacerdotes corpus Christi proprio ore CONFICIVNT But some may obiect that as a man shewing a Leather-purse full of gold may truly say this is gold or a paper wrapped vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the body of Christ being vnder cōsecrated bread we may truly say this is the body of Christ
Scripture that demonstrate by reasō how this is possible but only that we bring places that expresly say that This is possible vnto God For as you say pag. 438. In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body there is not a sillable concerning accidēts without a subiect or of a bodyes being in two places at once or concerning any miracle wrought by Gods omnipotency I answere that likewise in this text of Scripture (s) Ioan. 1 1◠The Word was made flesh there is not a sillable that a perfect substantiall nature can exist without proper personality or that two complete natures can subsist togeather in the same Hypostasis nor of any miracle done by the diuine omnipotency yet because this text of Scripture about the mistery of the incarnation cānot be true in the literall sense except those hard incomprehensible things be graunted to be possible by diuine omnipotency we must togeather with the mistery implicitly belieue that God can separate proper subsistance from complete substantiall natures that two natures infinitly distant in perfection can subsist in the same Hypostasis though the Scripture doth not expressely so affirme In like manner though the words of Christ This is my body do not expressely say that his body may be in many places at once nor that accidents can exist without a subiect by diuine omnipotency yet because this his word whereon we grounde our fayth concerning this mistery cannot as your selfe graunt be true in the proper and literall sense except Transubstantiation and the Presence of his body in many places at once be belieued hence we must togeather with the reall presence and litterall sense of Gods word implicitely belieue these miracles to be done Wherfore in saying you will neuer belieue them except their possibility be first demonstrated vnto you through ignorāce of Theology you professe Infidelity For to resolue not to belieue seeming implicācies inuolued in the misteries of faith except they be eyther seuerally expressed as possible in Gods word or els demonstrable by reason is the right way to belieue iust nothing there being no mistery of faith which doth not imply some difficultyes the possibility of which is neyther expresly auerred in scripture nor can be demonstrated by reason A fourth Example of your Ignorance in Theology §. 4. I Adde another Example about the Blessed Eucharist wherein you discouer grosse Ignorance not only against Theology but euen common sense And this Example may serue as a patterne how insufficiently and impertinently you answere the Iesuites argument The Iesuit pag. 406. argueth in this sort Christ doth affirme that the Sacrament is truly really substantially not the figure and effect of his body but his very body but how can consecrated bread be termed truly really and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Thus you answere pag. 406. To the effecting hereof locall corporall presence is not necessary A Father and his Sonne may be absent by distance of place one from the other yet the Sonne is TRVLY AND REALLY VNITED with his Father so as his Fathers nature is in him and he hath right in his Fathers person and state A mans goods may be at Constantinople and yet he liuing in England is a true possessour and owner of them and he may communicate and vse them and distance of place hindreth not his right and propriety Now although there be a difference betweene things temporall and spirituall yet thus farre there is agreement that euen as we possesse temporall things being locally absent so likewise we may receyue and partake Christs body and bloud by the power of Fayth and donation of the Holy Ghost according to a celestiall and spirituall manner Thus you Now behold how many wayes yow discouer grosse Ignorance in this answere First were all that you say true yet is it impertinent and ineptly brought in answere of the Iesuits argument For the question is not whether men may receiue by the vertue of Fayth and donation of the holy Ghost sanctity and grace through the merits of Christs body and bloud that are absent for this al acknowledge to happen in Baptisme and to be possible in the Eucharist if Christ had so ordained The question is about the truth of Gods word whether consecrated bread may be truly and really called the body of Christ being as you say a thing not only indiuidually distinct but also locally distant from his body A man being in London may possesse iuridically an Horse that is in the Countrey is it therfore true to say that this man in London is truly really the Horse in the Countrey A Merchant in London may haue great treasures of money in Constantinople and a right to lay them vp in his Coffers at London may one therfore shewing his empty coffers at London say truly this is a treasure of money In like manner suppose which is false that a man hath iuridicall authority ouer Christs body absent and existing in heauen to dispose therof at his pleasure may he therfore be sayd to be truly and really Christs body May one therefore shewing the Sacrament being in your Tenet an empty thing in respect of containing Christs bodily substance say truly therof This is really Christs body and corporall substance who will maintaine such absurdities that is sober Wherefore your discourse that a man may truly posesse a thing absent serues nothing to satisfy the Iesuites question how can consecrated bread be truly verily really the body of Christ if he be not so much as present in place with it Secondly what more absurd then what you affirme that a man may not only in right possesse but really and truly vse his things that be absent Can a man in London vse and ride on his horse that is at Yorke Or a Merchant in Bristow feed on his grapes that are growing in his vineyard in Spayne If they cannot and it is ridiculous to say they can how can a man existing on earth receaue truly and really Christ distant from him as farre as the highest heauen Receaue him I say not in a signe only according to gracious Effects but euen according to his body and corporall substance with their mouth of flesh For Christ did not say This is a figure of my body or this is soule-feeding grace giuen by the merit of my body and bloud but This is my body euen to your corporall mouth wherewith I bid you to take and eate it Thirdly who cā forbeare laughing to heare you so soberly affirme that the Son that is absent from his Father as far as Constantinople is from London is not only morally by Loue and Affection but TRVLY and REALLY VNITED with his Father For Vnion is the way vnto Vnity so that whensoeuer two indiuiduall things are truly really vnited by this vnion is made a third indiuiduall thing distinct frō ech of them a part from all other
velit illuÌ„ subire maluÌ„ Poenae Temporalis non potest pro eiusmodi offensa fieri iusta prorsus aequalis compensatio à nobis Nam illa offensa habet ex parte Diuinae Maiestatis quandam infinitatem Gregor de Valent. Tom. 4. in D. Tho. disput 7. q. 14. punct 1. col 1756. that no compensant or equall satisfaction is made in this respect the offence hauing a kind of infinity from the infinite maiesty of the person offended But if we regard the greatnes of the penalty reserued a man may remoue the same by satisfaction compensant yea superaboundant This may be made euident by examples Let vs suppose the remainder of Temporall affliction reserued be equall vnto the paine of forty dayes fast in bread water in one whole yeare why may not a iust man fast in this manner forty dayes in a yeare so offer vnto God satisfaction iust equall Also why may he not fast fifty dayes in a yeare with onely bread and water so offer satisfaction superaboundant Superaboundant I say not in respect of the Maiesty of God offended but in respect of the temporall reserued punishment So that granting as you do a temporall remainder of chastisement after the remission of sinne to be remoued or mitigated by penitentiall workes if you be in your right iudgment and ponder the matter you cannot deny as you do that compensant and superaboundant satisfaction may be made for the same Thirdly this your doctrine doth euidently inforce Temporall and Purgatory paines in the next life This I proue Vnto sinnes of equall offence and heynousmes against God remitted by the same measure of faith and contrition the same punishment is due in iustice after the remission of the guilt For God being iust doth neuer punish sinne remitted with more or longer affliction then it deserues Goâ— forbid sayth (u) Iob. 34.10.11 Iob that there should be impiety in God or iniquity in the Almighty For he will repay vnto man his owne worke and render vnto euery one according to their wayes nor in punishing the remitted sinnes of his seruants is he an acceptour of persons Hence vnto euery sinne as great as Dauids remitted vpon no greater contrition then had Dauid as great temporall punishment is in iustice due shall be inflicted as was inflicted vpon Dauid for his remitted sinne This being euident I assume But we see innumerable penitent men who haue committed greater sinnes then Dauid and yet haue not had greater nor so great measure of faith nor of sorrow and contrition for their sinnes as had Dauid that dye presently afteâ— their repentance without enduring eyther by Diuine infliction or by voluntary assumption such grieuous temporall afflictions as Dauid did Therfore innumerable penitent Saints depart this life being obnoxious vnto as great or greater punishment after the remission of their sinns as Dauid did endure after the remissioÌ„ of his This supposed what shall become of these men They cannot go to hell the guilt of sin of eternall damnation being gratiously remitted vnto them They (x) Non introibit in eaÌ„ aliquid coinquinatum Apoc. 21.27 cannot go presently to heauen for no stained thing that is no person vnto whome punishment is due in iustice can enter into that seate of pure Reward Ioy Felicity· Wherfore seing you say that vnto sinne remitted a certaine measure of temporall paine is due to be remoued or mitigated by workes of mortification it is forcible that you also admit temporall Purgatory-paines in the next life for them that dy before this debt of temporall chastisement be satisfyed in this world Your Ignorance about the holy Crosse and the Water of Iordan §. 6. CONCERNING the Holynes and Honour of our Sauiours Crosse you shew want of iudgement in Theology That the liuelesse insensible Crosse say you pag. 235. whereupon Christ suffered was sanctifyed by his Passion must be belieued when Diuine Ordinance is produced to make the same manifest And agayne pag. 236. Those thinges which at the instant tyme of Christs Passion had a residence in his body and were ioyned thereunto per contactum physicum as instruments of his passion were not thereby made most highly Venerable because there is no Diuine Authority or any other sufficient reason to prooue this assertion In these words you shew great Ignorance of Christian Theology yet such as is common to those of the Puritan stampe A Malignant Generation (a) See the Appeale vnto Caesar which our Doctour warrants as contayning nothing but Catholike English doctrine pag. 281. The Crosse is as much vilifyed by furious Puritans in these dayes as euer it was by Pagans in the dayes of the Fathers agaynst the Crosse of our Redeemer Wherefore I should not account to deny Sanctity vnto the Crosse notable in you did you not presently in the very same page attribute Holynes and Sanctification vnto the ground wheron Moyses stood vnto the water of Iordan Thus you write Whiles God appeared to Moyses in the Bramble ush the ground wheron Moyses stood is called holy Exod. 3.6 But this Holynes being only relatiue transitory and denominatiue and not inherent and durable the former vision and apparition being finished the ground wheron Moyses stood returned to his old condition The like may be sayd of the water of Iordan considered when Christ was Baptized with it and agayne considered when his baptisme was finished and out of the vse Thus you Now I pray you what reason can you assigne why the Land whereon Moyses stood was Sanctifyed and made Relatiuely Holy during the tyme of the Diuine apparition not the Crosse at the least for the instant tyme of our Lords Passion theron You wil say that no Scripture doth warrant the tearming of the Crosse Holy wheras the land wheron Moyses stood is called Holy Exod. 3.6 But what want of vnderstanding is this not to see how the Scripture tearming the ground wheron Moyses stood Holy coÌ„manding him to put off his shooes out of reuerence vnto it because confining on the Bush wherein God appeared or rather an Angell bearing his person What blindnes I say is it not to see that this very Text doth à fortiori more strongly forcibly warrant the tearming the Crosse holy and venerable â—he doing reuereÌ„ce vnto it at the least whiles Christ â—anged thereon As the law commanding the Iewes â—o be gratefull vnto God for his deliuering them out â—f the Land of seruitude by killing the First-begotteÌ„â—f Aegypt doth à fortiori charge Christians to be â—hankefull for their redemption from sinne by the â—eath of Gods only Sonne Euen so the Scripture â—alling the land wheron Moyses stood holy and veneâ—able in regard of a Diuine apparition nigh vnto â—he same doth à fortiori charge men to respect the Crosse as Holy and Venerable which God euen in â—erson corporally substantially vnited vnto man â—id touch with his sacred body imbrue with his â—retious
sinne euery way What is hence consequent That except you recall your Censure you must censure the Fathers as Gracelesse Dānable lyars Franticke fooles so great is your passion and so small your iudgment in rayling at the Iesuit Secondly you are to be pittyed in regard your passion is so extreme as you cannot ioyne togeather the parts of your discourse in any sensible manner You say that the Iesuit holding the Blessed Virgin was immaculate and pure from actuall sinne is like to Acesius the Nouatian who thought himselfe pure and innocent and denyed possibility of saluation vnto men that sinned after baptisme so leauing no ladder to Climbe vp to heauen but only that of Innocency What can be more inept then to lay this censure on the Iesuite in that respect If the Iesuite hold the Blessed Virgin to haue been euer free from actuall sinne doth it follow that he must also so esteeme of himselfe as did the Nouatian May he not iudge her to be an Immaculate Virgin and yet himselfe a sinfull man crauing pardon of his sinnes by her prayers And if he should be so fond also as to thinke himselfe vnspotted pure from sinne doth it follow that he must needes with Acesius exclude from saluation all penitent sinners allow no ladder vnto heauen but only that of purity taking away the other of pennance Surely you cannot but see this your Inuectiue to be not only wrongfull but also witlesse The same distemper of passion causeth you not to marke the want of coherence betwixt your Textuall assertions and Marginall proofes In your text you say The Iesuit by saying the Blessed Virgin was pure from sinne hath lost his witts by the feauer of pride In proofe hereof you cite in your margent this sentēce of S. Cyprian Quisquis se inculpatum dixerit aut superbus aut stultus est who so doth say that himselfe is without sinne is eyther proud or a foole Do you not yet perceaue the wonderfull impertinency of this proofe Let the same be put into forme then you will perchance presently feele it Whosoeuer sayth that himselfe is without sin is a proud foole The Iesuit sayth that the mother of God was without sinne Ergo The Iesuit is a proud foole Verily the Iesuit is not so great a foole as he who doth not perceaue the folly of this arguing which is iust as good as this Who so thinketh himselfe the holyest learnedst Deuine of this age is a very foole But Francis White thinketh Iohn Caluin the holyest and learnedst Deuine of this age Ergo Francis White is a very foole Suppose you were thus conceyted of Caluin and some Catholike Deuine should thus come vpon you for the same would not his folly seeme prodigious vnto all learned men Other falsifications I might yet further discouer as pag. 5. lin 8. where to shew that the Church shall not be alwayes visible Aug. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. you bring the Donatists obiection The Scriptures fortell a large reuolt from heauenly truth 2. Thessal 2.2 these words from heauēly truth are added to the Text for the Text only sayth first there shall come the defection or reuolt which most Expositours vnderstand from the Roman Empire And pag. 519. citing 1. Iohn 5.18 He that is begotten of God SINNETH NOT for the Diuine generation keepeth him and the wicked One toucheth him not you omit sinneth not that the Scripture might not seeme to auouch what you so bitterly rayle agaynst that the Saints of God by speciall grace may liue without sinne Likewise to reproue the Iesuites doctrine that Saints though they sinne venially yet doe not sinne agaynst the Diuine Law For this Law doth exact thinges of men no further then they are necessary vnto eternall life but Veniall sinne destroyeth or opposeth nothing that is necessary to eternall life Agaynst this doctrine you argue pag. 522. lin 20. If iust men haue any sinne they performe not all the Diuine law requireth for euery sinne is a transgression of the Diuine law 1. Iohn 3.4 Heere to the Text of your English Bible you adde Diuine the Text being Euery sin is a transgression of the Law or of a Law And this sentence is true for though Veniall sinns be not against the Diuine speciall law because they are not against Charity and Saluation yet they are against the law of reason which bindeth mē as much as may be not to be forgetfull inconsiderate euen in small matters And though some sentences of Scripture recōmend these small thinges vnto vs it is only to put vs in mind of what we are bound vnto by the law of reason not to lay new diuine obligations vpon vs Many such other tricks of your falshood I omit to discouer for breuityes sake Ignorance Fraud and Falshood in alleadging Fathers and all manner of Authours SECT V. IN this subiect I might be large you being copious in your quotations whereof scarce one is to be found which being examined to the originall is not eyther impertinent or wrested agaynst the Authours mind or falsifyed by mis-translation in the very text Which to discouer fully and particulerly were an hugh worke and hardly worth the labour and no wayes necessary For euen as to the end that one may know the Sea to be salt it is not needfull that he drinke vp the whole mayne two or three tasts taken heere and there may sufficiently resolue him of this truth so foure or fiue examples in euery kind may more then abundantly serue to make this your want of conscience knowne vnto your vnwary Credents that they may see whome they trust in a busines that doth so highly import These your falsifications are of two kinds some crafty and subtill some grosse and impudent Crafty falsification is when to draw Authours to your purpose in your translation of their text you eyther adde to it or detract frō it some words or particles thereby changing the sense or else cite their words truly but contrary to their meaning Grosse falsification is when you lay doctrines to the charge of Authours which they reiect euen in the places by you cyted Both these kinds of falshood S. Paul doth signify to be practised by Heretikes Ephes. 4 8. where he sayth That Christ hath left Pastours and Doctours to his Church to the end that we be not carryed away with the blasts of euery doctrine by the wylinesse of men to circumuent weakelings in errour What be the blasts of hereticall doctrine but their violent and audacious falsifyings of Scriptures and Fathers What their wylinesse to circumuent in errour but crafty corruption by stealing away or cogging in words in their producing of the monuments of Chistian Antiquity The Greeke word vsed by S. Paul is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies properly cogging of the dyce or helping the dyce craftily to cast what chāce they please Euen so Heretikes by helping the yee by cogging wordes in out of the Text make
can cleerly demonstrate the conâ—â—ary And if they desire to know then they know the particulars â—or what our Minister sayth pag. 319. lin 20. That a father in Lonâ—â—n may be solicitous about his sonnes safety that is at Constantinople and yet not â—â—ow the particulars is friuolous for this London Father is not blessed 〈◊〉 he may be desirous to know particulars and not know them and so be â—erplexed for want of his knowledge The Saints in heauen are blessed â—nd so desire not to know any thing but they know it Therfore seing â—ccording to the instinct and inclination of solicitous Charity they cannot â—ut desire the knowledge of their friends affaires they must if they are â—erfectly blessed be satisfied in this their charitable desire to know such things as may concerne their honour done vpon earth the state of their freinds â—ouers liuing in danger to succour them by their intercessions of whose saluation they be still sollicitous though secure of their own as S. Cyprian writes Wherefore our doctrine that Saints see our prayers being deliuered so constantly by the Ancient Fathers so conformable vnto the principles of Christian beliefe about the blessednes of Saints so consonaÌ„t vnto expresse passages of Scripture we may iustly expect that vnto Protestants it would not be displeasing did they looke on it with vnpartiall eyes Specially they hauing no Text of Scripture that may make so much as a shew of direct opposition agaynst it The place continually obiected out of the Prophet Esay 63.16 Abraham knew vs not (f) This place is impertinent also in regard that Abraham and Iacob were not theÌ„ Blessed nor saw God from which Blessed vision the knowlege of things done in this world floweth as a sequell in the triumphant Saints It is vnderstood by S. Hierome in c. 63. Isa. de scientia approbationis that Abraham Iacob did not know that is esteeme and approoue the proceeding of their children the Iewes Israel was ignorant of vs thou O Lord art our Father thou our Redeemer hath this sense Abraham and Iacob when they liued vpon earth and carnally begot children did not know particularly their posterities and so could not beare them such particular affection whereas God can doth distinctly see and know their necessityes aforehand yea before men are borne and prouides agaynst them deliuering his children out of theÌ„ And therfore he is the only Father the only Redeemer Abraham and Iacob not deseruing the name of Father in comparison with God Makes this against the Saints hearing our prayers (g) I desire the Reader to note on the one side how Protestants boast of Scriptures on the other how vnable they are to bring one probable text agaynst Inuocation of Saints Whereas contrarywise the places for the Catholicke doctrine that Saints 〈◊〉 our prayers are so cleere as ProtestaÌ„ts fly to their types and tropes leauing the literall sense without warrant from the sayd Scripture and so by casting a figure euade froÌ„ Gods cleere word Wherfore the cause they appeale vnto Scriptur is not because they thinke the Scripture is cleere for them not much cleerer for vs But because by Scripture they cannot be so cleerly confounded as by Tradition For about Scripture Heretiks euer wrangle pretending that by deductions and inferences they prooue their doctrine being destitute of formall Scripture wherof ignoraÌ„t people caÌ„not iudge For what know they when deductions are good But when they were vrged by Tradition to shew the Pedegree of their Professours they were as dumbe as ours now are that the Fathers said vnto them Confingant tale aliquod let theÌ„ if they can feigne and deuise a pedegree of professours agreeing in the same forme of Faith wherof the first was an Apostle and the last a Protestant The worship in Spirit and Truth with outward prostration of the body due vnto Saints §. 3. THE third cause of their dislike is that we giue the honour of the Creatour vnto the Creature honoring Saints with Religious worship in spirit truth euen to the prostrating of our bodyes before them whereby we giue them honour due to God only and bring in many Gods as the Heathens did To this Obiection made long agoe by Faustus the Manichee S. Augustine lib. 20. cont Faust. c. 22. answereth in these words The Christian people doth celebrate with Religious solemnity the memoryes of Martyrs to the end to stirre vp themselues to their imitatioÌ„ that they may be assisted with their prayers and associated vnto their merits c. But with the worship tearmed in Greeke Latria and which the Latine language cannot expresse in one word being a certayne subiection seruitude due properly to the Deity only we do not honour any but only God nor thinke that this honour ought to be giuen but only to him These words of S. Augustine shew that worship of Saints to be on the one side more then Ciuil and on the other side lesse then diuine more then ciuill as proceeding out of acknowledgement of the excellency Saints haue superiour vnto all naturall by which they be partakers of diuine perfection in that high degree as no substance can by nature participate thereof and therefore S. Augustine with good reason tearmes it religious (h) The Minister pag. 312. contrary to his custome proposeth this argument truly To euery kind of excelleÌ„cy there is a worship due proportionall to that excellency but the blessed Saints and Angells haue a speciall kind of excellency which is supernatural superhumane more then ciuill Therefore speciall honour proportionall to the excellency and superior vnto humane and ciuill is due vnto them To this argument he answereth That in Saints there is dignity of grace and glory and honour is due in respect of the same but not religious worship Thus he what is this but to trifle talke in the ayre who doubts M. White but there is the dignity of grace and glory in Saints and honour due vnto it Speake plainly and mutter not betwixt the teeth Is the honour due to Saints proportionall to their excellency that is more then ciuill Is it superhumane supernaturall as their excellency is Is it superiour vnto that kind of honour which is due vnto ciuill magistrates and other human honourable personages in regard of meere naturall perfectioÌ„ If you grant that worship superhumane and more then ciuill is due vnto Saints you grant as much as we desire to proue The tearme of Religious worship is ambiguous Sometimes religious worship is taken for that which is an elicitiue formall act of Religion of diuine worship due vnto the increated excellency of the Creatour In this sense the worship of Saints is not religious At other tymes it is taken for worship which is an imperatiue act of Religion that is worship done to Saints out of inward Religion and deuotion towards God whose seruants and friends they are In this sense the worship of Saints is Religious
captious For the merits intercessions of Saints be no dishonour to the only merit mediatioÌ„ of Christ yea they all flow from it Hence the merit of Christ is euer supposed inuolued in all meanes and helpes of saluation nor is it necessary euery where to name it Inuocation of Saints not an iniury but an honor to Christ the only Mediatour §. 5. ANOTHER shew of piety is pretended against prayer vnto Saints that it seemes to ouerthrow the mediatourship of Christ which Saint Paul (*) 1. Tim. 2.3 commends as only vnus mediator Dei hominum Christus Iesus But in shewing the vanity of this shadow I shall not need to be long seeing this respect would also make vs neglect not vse the mediation of liuing Saints out of feare of disanulling the only mediatourship of Christ. It is no more against the honour of the only mediatourship of Christ to pray vnto Saints deceased then vnto Saints liuing yea the praying vnto these kind of Saints may seeme more dishonourable because we ioyne with him men imprisoned in mortality militant in dangers and not wanting some blemishes and defects Wheras the other Saints are glorious pure from any the least imaginable spot setled in the consummation of ineffable blisse But the Scripture Rom. 15.30 Iob. 42.8 allowes yea commandes prayer vnto liuing Saints consequently praying vnto them is not iniurious vnto the only mediatour Christ. Therfore the praying vnto Saints deceased that are in glory with God is not iniurious vnto the only mediatourship of Christ (c) The Minister is here pag. 335. vexed for this argument of praying vnto liuing Saints and crauing their intercession coÌ„uinceth stoppeth our Aduersaries mouthes wheÌ„ they vrge that praying vnto glorious Saints destroieth the onely mediatour-ship of Christ. Why should praying vnto glorious Saints to seeke their mediatioÌ„ be iniurious vnto the onely mediatour-ship of Christ rather then the mediation of liuing Saints His answere is large but all is reduced to six euasions First he saith that we may request the prayers of liuing Saints but not inuocate them this is ridiculous For what is it to inuocate but to cal vpon but to implore but to request specially with submission and acknowledging of superhumane dignity in the person prayed vnto Do not Protestants themselues translate Inuocate to call vpoÌ„ Rom. 10.14 when the holy Sunamite with humble obeysance prostrate on the ground requested Elizaeus for the resuscitatioÌ„ of her Sonne did she not inuocate him Secondly he saith That the liuing Saints be present with the liuing What is this to the purpose be not many mediatours present more then one onely aswell as many mediatours absent If the onely mediatour may haue many subordinate mediatours present without preiudice vnto the onelynes and singularity of his mediatour-ship why not many subordinate mediatours absent Nor is it true that glorious Saints be not present vnto vs seing they see as hath been proued all things done in the world that belong to their state in which respect the holy Fathers of better credit then any Minister say Vniuersi sancti vbique sunt omnibus prosunt S. Maximus de Martyr Tauricis Hieron aduersus Vigilant Basil. de Sanct. virgin c. 8. Angeli vbique praesentes sunt quae hic geruntur inspiciunt Saints and Angells are euery where present because from heaueÌ„ they behold what is euery where done Fourthly he saith That Papists make Saints mediatours that see the secrets of harts This is also seely For where doth the Scripture say that Christ is the onely mediatour that knowes the secretts of hartes but that besides him there may be other mediatours so they see not the hart If Christ the onely mediatour may haue the company of many subordinate mediators that be clothed with misery and ignorance why not the coÌ„pany of many glorious mediators that see God and in God our harts How many liuing Saints did by the gift of prophesy see the secret thoughts of men yet did pray and intercede for men that craued their patronage Did they therby ouerthrow the only mediatour-ship of Christ God forbid Fiftly he saith that as it is an iniury to the supreme Magistrate for any of his subiects to coÌ„stitute a Maister of Requests without his authority so likewise it is an iniury to Christ for vs wormes of the earth without warrant from Gods word to constitute Saints and Angels mediatours of our prayers Answer The Minister is very simple iâ— he caÌ„not discerne the difference betwixt a maister of Requests and a mediatour to the King by way of fauour The Maister of Requests is an office of authority made by the kings authority without whose special order he cannot be appointed But the office of mediator that is of a freind for vs with the king is an office of grace and fauour and made by the kings grace fauour bestowed on a man without any further authority Hence if the king make one his familiar Freind or Fauourite we may if we can make him our freind and mediatour vnto the king without further warrant or authority Yea sometimes Kings are not willing that their Fauourites should haue so many suitors which yet they cannot hinder if they will haue Fauourites the right of being mediatours for others to the King being inuolued in the grace of Princely fauours Now to say that men seeking grace of the king by his Fauorite do constitute without his order a Maister of Requests is ridiculous Yea rather it were folly presumption clownishnes for a poore beggar vnknowne in the Court to intrude his suites into the Kings audience without the mediation of some that are familiar about him Wherfore seing God hath made Saints his especiall freinds and heauenly fauourites and able to helpe vs what further warrant is needfull besides our owne necessityes to seeke their intercession Sixtly the Minister saith That liuing Saints are ioint-suitors with vs who likewise pray for their owne needes and so are not meere mediatours But Saints deceased be not ioint-suitors but meere mediatours because they pray and intercede for vs and not for themselues Answer First the Saints in heauen do pray for themselues to wit for the glorious resuscitation of their bodyes and that God will reueng their deathes vpon their persecutours Apoc. 5. Secondly though Saints do not deprecate for their owne sinnes and needes this doth not shew that they are meere mediatours and suitors of higher kind then liuing Saints but onely that they are growne vnto greater perfection in the same kind of grace and vnto the consummation therof vnto which we are not yet arriued Euen as a growne man doth not need so many things as doth the Child and yet is he a creature of the same nature and â—ind as the Child I adde that to make Saints mediatours subordinate vnto dependent of Christ is to increase his glory For first if only Christ Iesus is worthy to haue immediate accesse vnto God and
Sauiour vnder the Sacramentall signes and that the words of our Sauiour This is my body be true in their proper and litteral sense This was the reason that the Answerer omitted to proue largely this Catholicke Doctrine Now the Minister finding himselfe vnable vpon this supposition of his Maiesty to answere the Iesuits argumēts for Transubstantiation yea Pag. 397. affirmeth that vnlesse Transubstantiation be granted the wordes of our Sauiour cannot be true in their proper and litterall sense Hence he denyes the presence of the body of Christ Substantially within the sacred signe laboureth to proue that the words of the Supper are figuratiuely and not properly to be vnderstood He grants a Reall and True Presence of Christs body in words but so obscurely as no man is able to vnderstand his meaning Wherfore to cleere this matter wherein Ministers desire to be darke that men may not see the grosse infidelity of their hart agaynst Gods expresse word I shall shew 3. things First what Zuinglians and Caluinists hold in this point Secondly how the Doctrine both of Zuinglius Caluin is against Gods word Thirdly that their reasons not to admit of the literall truth of Christs word be vaine and idle The Zuinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament §. 1. A Three-fold presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is confessed on all sides The first Figuratiue or in a Sacramentall signe bread signifying his body and wine his bloud The second Imaginatiue or by the pious apprehension of the faithfull receauer who for more deuotions sake doth or may imagine as if he saw the body of our Lord in the Eucharist truly really and bleedingly present vnder the signes of bread and wine The third Effectuall or according to the Spirituall effects of grace purchased by the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour and giuen by vertue of this Sacrament vnto the soule to nourish the ghostly life therof As all proceed thus farre so Zuinglians will proceed no further They grant the body and bloud of Christ to be present in the Sacrament figuratiuely in a signe imaginatiuely by fayth effectually by grace but deny them to be present according to their corporall substance or further then in the outward signe to the mouth and in the inward effect to the soule So that they grant the Sacramentall signe to be bare and empty in respect of contayning the body of Christ though full and effectuall in respect of affoarding soule-nourishing grace Caluinists seeme in their words to maintaine a more reall presence For though they maintayne the substance of the body of Christ in respect of place to be in heauen only and not in the Sacrament yet they teach that the same body without being present vpon earth is giuen vs on earth not only by the apprehension of fayth Non solùm dum fide amplectimur Iesum Christum pro nobis crucifixum à mortuis excitatum Not only in the inward spirituall effects of soule-nourishing grace purchased by the death of his body Non solùm dum bonis eius omnibus quae nobis acquisiuit corpore suo efficaciter communicamus but realiter really truly Dum habitat in nobis dum vnum fit nobiscum dum eius membra sumus de carne eius dum in vnam vt ita loquar cum ipso substantiam coalescimus Caluin in cap. 11.1 ad Cor. Hence we may discouer the Caluinian iugling and playing fast loose about this Mystery when they so often say that the body of Christ is really present but Spiritually for the word Spirituall may be vsed in this Mystery for two ends First to expresse the substance of the thing present to signify the reall Presence not of the corporall substance of our Lords body but only of the spiritual effect therof to wit of soule-feeding grace This sense is false as shall be proued and the very same which Caluin doth condemne in the Zwinglians as execrable blasphemy opusculo de Coena Domini Secondly to expresse the manner of the Presence and to signify that the corporall substance of our Lord is present truly yet in a spirituall that is secret inuisible indiuisible manner this doctrine is true and herein not differing from the Catholike In like manner their Phrase of Presence by Fayth is equiuocall and may haue a threefold sense First Presence by Fayth may signify Presence by pious imagination of Fayth the Receauer conceauing the body of our Lord as if he saw the same corporally and bleedingly present If by Presence by fayth Caluinists meane no more then this then they doe not differ from the Zwinglians nor do they put any more reall presence then imaginatiue that is presence of things according to pious representation and apprehension though not really in truth Secondly Presence by Fayth may signify that Fayth doth dispose and prepare the soule and that then vnto the soule prepared by Fayth our Sauiour is vnited really and truly not according to the corporall substance of his body but only according to the spirituall effect of his grace This sense is also Zuinglian and condemned by Caluin as hath been shewed Thirdly Presence by Fayth may signify presence according to the iudgment of Fayth or a presence which only Fayth can find out feele behold This sense is true and Catholike and doth suppose the body of Christ to be present absolutely and independently of Fayth For were not the body of Christ afore hand present Fayth should not be true that iudgeth his body to be present Whether our Minister be Zuinglian or Caluinist in this point God only knowes he speakes obscurely of purpose He neuer sayth as Caluin doth li. 4. Institut c. 17. n. 7. That by substantiall communication the body and blood of Christ are vnder the signes of the supper deliuered vnto the fayth full yet he sayth and often repeates that the body of Christ is truly really effectually communicated These words sauour more of the Caluinian then of the Zuinglian phrase Notwithstanding his adding effectually after truly and really may draw the speach to be Zuinglian in sense to wit that the body of Christ is giuen truly really effectually that is really accordinge to the truth and reality of the Spirituall effect not really according to the truth and reality of the corporall substance The Zuinglian and Caluinian Presence confuted §. 2. THE Zuinglian doctrine that the body of Christ is present only in an effectuall signe of grace not in substance is against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For he did not say this is the signe or figure of my body nor this is the benefit or effect of my body but this is my body and consequently it is his body in substance and essence if the substantiall Verbe Est do signify substance and essence Hence Luther Epist. ad Argent sayth that the words are nimis clara toto cleer and much more cleere then he could haue wished Caluin also in cap.
11.1 ad Cor. I heare saith he what the words of the supper import For Christ doth giue vs not only the benefit of his death and resurrection but also the very body wherin he died and arose againe from death Yea libro de Coena inter eius opuscula pag. 133. he saith that Negare veram corporis sanguinis substantiam to deny the true substance of the body and blood of Christ to be giuen in the supper is execrabilis blasphemia auditu indigna an execrable blasphemy against which we ought to stoppe our eares The Caluinian Doctrine that Christs body being only in heauen is Spiritually present not only by fayth not only according to the effects of his grace but also in his bodily substance yet only vnto the faythfull receauer not vnto the Sacramentall signe is both against Gods word and implicatory in reason First it is no lesse then the Zuinglian against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For our Sauiour by saying Take eate this is my body drinke yee all of this for this is my blood Matth. 26. doth auerre the Sacrament to be his body and blood in respect of that taking and eating vnto which by these words he doth inuite and exhorte But by this speach he doth inuite and exhorte vnto Sacramentall and corporall taking and eating This appeareth by the immediat practise of the Apostles who vpon these words of our Lord tooke the Sacrament with their corporall mouth This also our aduersaryes cannot deny seing they vrge by vertue of these wordes corporall receauing in both kinds Therfore the words of our Sauiour auerre the reall presence of his body in substance in respect of corporall taking and eating with the mouth of flesh which Doctrin Caluinists stiffely deny only holding the substantiall communication of Christs body in respect of spirituall receauing by the facultyes of the soule Secondly their Reall Presence is a fiction to no purpose For there is no reason to put the Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament but only in respect of verifying the word of our Sauiour This is my body in a true and reall sense so making the thinge Christ had in his hand and which was demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly really his body But Caluinists put not a Presence which maketh the thinge Christ had in hand and demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly and really his body but only by figure This I proue That which is the body of Christ in figure and shew and not in substance is not truly really Christ his body Euen as what is a man in shew and figure not in essence and substance is not truly and really a man But Caluinists say that This or the thinge which Christ hath in his hands was Christs body in shew figure and not in substance Ergo they put not a Reall presence which makes that which Christ had in his hand did demonstrate by the particle This to be truly his body It is therefore a fiction deuised to satisfy the Caluinian fancy not the Christian fayth or the rigurous truth of Gods word Thirdly by this Doctrine they bind themselues and others to belieue an high and incomprehensible Mystery without any necessity or compulsion from Gods word For what can be more vnintelligible then that there should be true and reall vnion according to substance betwixt two distinct indiuiduall substances that be distant the one from the other as farre as heauen is from earth Hence Caluin saith libro de Coena that this is sublime arduum quod neque quidem cogitatione complecti possimus in Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. arcanum mirificum Spiritus sancti opus quod intelligentiae nostrae modulo metiri nefas sit But the word of God doth not inforce this Caluinian Mystery nor is there sufficient ground to affirme it This is proued because the mystery of their Reall Presence either hath no ground in Scripture or is grounded on these words of the Institution Take eate this is my body But Caluinists on these words cannot ground the incomprehensible mystery of their reall presence For they vnderstand these words of our Sauiour in a Figuratiue sense and say that they are not true properly and literally Now a mystery of Fayth cannot be grounded vpon the Figuratiue sense of a place of Scripture yea vpon meere Figuratiue construction of Scripture to obtrude vnto others an article of necessary beliefe is impudency as saith S. Augustine Epist. 68. Non nisi impudentiss mè nititur quis aliquid in Allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura Therfore the Caluinian Reall Presence is a mystery incomprehensible grounded on meere figuratiue construction of Gods word not backed by any literall text and consequently it is belieued without necessity or any Diuine and supernaturall warrant Hence I Inferre two things first that the belieuers of the Caluinian Reall Presence are vnwise For what greater folly then for men to deny their wits and breake their heads to belieue an hard and difficill matter in belieuing wherof ther is no merit of fayth In belieuing the Caluinian Reall Presence there is no merit of Fayth For the merit of Fayth is to captiuate our Vnderstanding vnto mysteryes cleerly deliuered by the word of God not vnto mans figuratiue expositions therof yea no figuratiue exposition aboue reason is to be belieued except it be proued by some literall text or be deliuered by the full Tradition as Gods word vnwritten Secondly I inferre that Caluinists beare more reuerence vnto Iohn Caluin then vnto Iesus Christ for Caluins mystery is belieued by Caluinists being confessedly a Doctrine most hard difficill incomprehensible and yet not the literall sense of Gods word but Caluins figuratiue comment ther-vpon On the other side Transubstantiation being acknowledged by them to be the litterall and proper sense of the word of Christ Iesus so that without Transubstantiation his word this is my body cannot be literally true as our Minister doth confesse pag. 397. yet because it is hard difficill incomprehensible Caluinists cannot be brought to belieue it What is this but to be more ready to belieue Caluin then Christ Specially seing the mystery of Christs literall sense is not so hard and vn-intelligible as Caluins figuratiue construction For one may more easily conceaue a body to be in two places at once which the litteral sense of Christs word doth inforce then a body to be truly and substantially giuen where truly and substantially it is not which is the article of fayth by Caluins figuratiue construction obtruded The Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs Word vayne and idle §. 3. THE Minister to prooue that the words of the institution are to be figuratiuely vnderstood bringeth seauen Arguments pag. 391. one pag. 401. and three other pag. 418. but the first and third of these three are the same with the second
of bread in the very same place therwith This manner of presence is cleerly consequent vpon the precedent and that graunted this cannot be denyed For the reason vpō which Christians hold the body of Christ to be really and truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper plaine sense verify the word of Christ who sayd of bread This is my body Wherefore we must eyther put no Reall Presence at all or else put such a Reall Presence as is able to verify the foresayd speach in proper and rigorous sense But if the body of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated bread contained vnder the formes therof it cannot be said to be verily and really the body of Christ. For though we should suppose the body of Christ to leaue heauen to be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed Presence would no wayes further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my body except his body be veyled couered with the sensible accidents of bread so that it be demōstrated by them pointing vnto them one may truly say This is the body of Christ. For why should consecrated bread be tearmed truly and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with (*) The Ministers folly who doth in this place affirme that thinges distant may be truly really vnited is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 5. it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is veiled with the semblances of bread As Saint Cyrill of Hierusalem in his booke highly commended by D. Whitaker (l) Whitakerus de sacrae Scriptura q. 6. c. 11. Cyrill Cathec 4. sayth Vnder the forme of bread is giuen thee his body Yea Mayster (m) Caluin in ep ad Cor. c. 11. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 32. Caluin sayth In the supper CHRIST IESVS to wit his Body and Bloud is truly giuen vnder the signes of bread wine Whence it is also consequent that the whole body of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated hoast be the same neuer so little For in this mystery the body of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidences so that consecrated bread may be tearmed truly really and substantially the body of Christ not a parcell or part therof only But were not the body of Christ wholy and entyrely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truly properly be tearmed the body of Christ but a sole part and parcell therof Agayne we haue no reason to belieue that the body of CHRIST is truly and really in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truly and really (n) Augustin cont aduersus Legis Prophet c. 9. Fidele corde ore suscipimus Cyprian de lapsis Tertullian lib. de resur Caro corpore Christi vescitur Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Nissen orat Cathec Chrysost homil 83. in 1. ad Cor. Leo serm 6. de ieiunio 7. mensis eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if it be eaten only mentally by fayth we haue no ground to thinke that it is present more then mentally by fayth this presence being ordayned vnto the māducation thereof for else why did Christ institute this Sacrament vnder the elemēts of bread wine But if Christ be not present wholy and totally vnder the forme of bread he cannot be truly and really eaten why then is his body brought from heauen to be there really present Or how can the body of Christ being coextended in place according to the naturall dimensions therof enter into the mouth of the worthy receauer yea in at the mouth of the (o) When some Fathers seeme to say that the wicked eate not Christs body they meane they do not eate it fruitfully or thriue in soule by the eating therof As we commonly say of mē that thriue not by eating that they do not eate their meat as Beda super Exod. Infidelis carne Christi non vescitur S. Cyrill Hilary Chrysostome Origen and others quoted by the Minister p. 407. speake not of meere corporal eating but of eating by Fayth and thus Infidells and wicked persons do not eate the body of Christ. S. Augustin in Ioan. tract 27. saying that the wicked receaue not rem Sacramenti the thing of the Sacramēt by the thing of the Sacramēt meaneth grace not the body of Christ. And tract 59. saying that Iudas did eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord non panem Dominum not bread that was the Lord he meaneth that Iudas in his owne persuasion and fayth did not eate the bread that was the Lord yet he did eate the bread that was the Lord according to truth in the fayth of the Church Iudas sayth he Ep. 162. tooke that which the FAITHFVLL know to be the price of their Redemption wicked and vnworthy receauer as Fathers teach Wherefore seing we must of necessity graunt as I haue proued that some part of the body of Christ is vnder consecrated bread penetrating the same occupying the same place with it why shold we doubt to belieue the whole body of Christ to be wholy and totally in euery consecrated hoast For if we can belieue that two bodyes be in the same place at once we may as easily belieue the same of twenty And if we graunt that one part of Christs body doth penetrate that is doth occupy the same roome with the quantity of bread why should we not thinke that the rest of his parts may also do the like Our Sauiour sayth Matth. 19. That it is more easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then for a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of heauen adding though these things be impossible vnto men yet all is possible vnto God If then God can put a whole Camell into the eye of a needle is not he able to put the whole body of Christ within the bignes of a consecrated hoast The body of Christ which being mortall passible could penetrate the body of his mother come out of her wombe through the same still remayning entyre as we professe in the Creed to belieue Natum de Maria Virgine why may not the same body being now glorious immortall and as the Apostle speakes spirituall penetrate the quantity of bread and inclose it selfe wholy and entierly within the small compasse therof Christ that made heauy things not to weigh as the body of Peter walking on the water Matth. 14.16 coloured thinges not to be seene as his owne person which he so oft made inuisible to the Iewes bright thinges not to shine as his body after his Resurrection more bright then the Sunne did not shine in so many apparitions to his disciples finally a flaming furnace not to burne the bodyes of the three children cast into the midst thereof why may not he keep
mysterijs initiantur cap. â— Moyses his word changed the waters of Aegypt into bloud agayne turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine consecration where the very words of our Sauiour worke The word of Elias had power to bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the elements Againe (i) Ambros. lib. 4. de Sâ—cram cap. 4. Thou seest how working efficacious is the word of Christ. If therfore such vertue is in his word that therby things that are not receaue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remayne in the general latitude of being according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance VIII Fourthly the effect of this transmutatioÌ„ taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs body the absence of the substance of bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to belieue what we seeme to see with our eyes IX Theophilact (k) Theophilact c. 4. 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation although to vs it seeme bread because we are weake and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not bread Saint Cyrill (l) Cyrill Hieros Catech. mystagog 4. Come not therfore as vnto simple bread and wine for it is the body and bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrary yet let fayth confirme thee Iudge not of the thing by tast but indubitably with full fayth belieue that thou art made partaker of the body bloud of Christ. And againe Know this with full certitude belieue that the bread seene is not bread though it so seeme to the tast but the body of Christ that wine seene is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the bloud of Christ. X. Finally that the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancy which they taught of Christs body in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For reseruation to haue been the custome of the primitiue Church Protestants grant That (m) Habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor Caluin Instit. l. 9. c. 17. sect 39. the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not sayth (n) Fulke agaynst Heskins Saunders p. 77. M. Fulke so great a questioÌ„ as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnitius (o) Chemnit in exam Con. Trid. p. 2. p. 102. granteth that in this point on our side stands Antiquitas consuetudinis latè patentis diu propagatae And whereas he addeth haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet he accuseth the Primitiue Church opposeth no lesse agaynst them then vs. And I am sure your Maiesty knowes that the primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnesse S. Iustine (p) Iustin. Apol. 2. fine vnto the sicke as (q) Dionys. Alexand ep ad Fab. apud Euseb. l. 6. cap. 36. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innocent Dionysius Alexandrinus writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifyeth Tertullian (r) Tertul. l. 2. ad vxorem Gregor Nazian orat de Gorgon That many tymes they did weare the same about them for protection as (s) Ambros. orat in obitâ—â— fratris Satyri Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently for their Viaticum as (t) SimeoÌ„ Metaphrast vitae S. Stephani Papae Martyris cap. 17. Vsuard in martyrolog Guitmund de corp sanguine l. 2. Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to be bruized with stones to death then disclose it vnto the Persecutours whome when they had crowned thy searching curiously for the Sacrament in his clothes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands Saint (u) Cyprian serm de Lapsis Cyprian records diuers miracles done in the confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the SacrameÌ„t namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out tanta est Domini potentia sayth Saint Cyprian taÌ„ta maiestas And so fully were they perswaded in this opinion that Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyrill (x) Cyrill Alex. ep ad Calosyr dareth say Insaniunt qui dicunt benedictionem à sanctificatione cessare siquae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem Non enim mutabitur Sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est They be mad with hereticall folly who say that the blessed Sanctification of the Sacrament ceaseth if the same be reserued vntill the next day For thereby the sacred body of Christ is not changed but the grace of benediction viuification is perpetuall in it Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuation of our Sauiour in the SacrameÌ„t but that they belieued bread to be changed into his body remayning demonstrable by the formes accidences thereof so long as they remayned entyre and were not changed into the accidences of some other substances XI A Refutation of the Ministers Shifts to elude the former Testimonies of the Fathers according to the reference of the precedent Numbers I. NO words of Scripture or Christian Antiquity can be so cleere euident which Hereticall obstinacy will not wrest against the truth yea racke till they rent them in peeces by violent interpretations as saith S. Ambrose Ep. 17. In which kind be the Ministers Replyes vnto these expresse pregnant testimonies of the Fathers for Transubstantiation as wil appeare by the confutation which heere ensueth II. Transelementing The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TranselemeÌ„tation saith the Minister pag. 421. proueth not Transubstantiation For in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed the quantity and accidents remayne in Transelementation the matter remayneth the essentiall accidentall formes are altered Answere The falshood and inanity of this Shift is conuinced by these foure arguments which shew Transelementation to import the same as Transubstantiation The First is drawne from the notion of the word Elements Transelementation For Transelementation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord signifyes that there is a change betwixt them according to their elemeÌ„ts Elements import the primordiall simples the original principles the substantiall parts of which
vnderstand the naturall qualityes that flow form the nature and essence of bread and wine (a) By substance also they vnderstand not the inward substance but outward corpulency massines of bread and wine for ordinarily and in common speach the naturall accidents and proprietyes of a thing are tearmed the nature of a thing Thus we say to be heauy and fall downeward is the nature of the stone to be hoat and to burne the nature of the fire which are but naturall qualityes of stone and fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speach S. Theodoret Bishop of Ancyra (b) Hom. de natiuit Saluatoris in corr Epiph. p. 3. c. 9. to explicate agaynst Nestorius and Eutiches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the water that Moyses conuerted into bloud sayth That the water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be water which in rigour of speach taking the nature of water for the inward substance thereof as cōdistinct from the naturall qualityes is not true But because water chāged into bloud remaynes according to some naturall qualityes and propertyes which it hath common with bread as moisture liquidnes the like he the better to fit accomodate the similitude sayth The water remayned according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualityes therof For these Fathers (c) These Fathers vnderstood not the inward Nature of bread and wine to remaine nor the inward substāce because they say that the mysticall signes passe by the working of the holy Ghost into another substane yet remaine in the propriety of their nature So saith Gelasius which cannot be vnderstood otherwise then that according to their outward nature and substance they remaine though in their inward nature and substance they be changed and passed into the substance of Christs body and blood bring those similitudes to declare the mystery of the Incarnatiō against the Heresy of Eutiches who denyed the naturall qualityes propertyes of the two Natures of God and Man to remayne distinct in the person of Christ. This errour they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualityes of bread remaine together with the body of Christ in the same Sacrament which naturall qualityes of bread they tearme the nature of bread as in some sense they may be tearmed to the end that the phrase of two distinct natures remaining might be common to the mysteries of the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper Yet the Fathers know well that the phrase did not agree to both mysteryes equally in the same sense And this obscure vttering of his mind is the lesse to be wōdered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainly as fearing that some Infidells or Gatechumens were present to whom the mistery of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet sayth he apertè dicere est enim verisimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the wordes of Saint Augustine (d) August serm ad Infant apud Bedam in cap. 10. Quod videtur panis est quod etiam oculi renūtiant quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is that consecrated bread is bread in outward appearance and the naturall accidences of bread truly remayne as the eye doth witnesse but in wardly and according to the substance it is not bread but the body of Christ as fayth requireth we belieue And it is to be noted that these wordes are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alleadged by Venerable Bede a follower of Saint Augustines doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood thē who sets downe his mind in these words (e) Beda de mysterio missae apud Thom. Waldens Tom. 2. c. 8. 2. The forme of bread is seene but the substance of bread is not there nor any other bread but only that bread which came downe from heauen (*) The Minister pag. 435. to make a shew of many Fathers addeth vnto Theodoret and Gelasius the testimony of Bertram S. Chrysostome in epist. ad Caesarium Monachum S. Irenaeus S. Damascen Answere The booke of Bertram is of no credit being set forth with many Protestant additions as themselues confesse and you may see proued in a Treatise tearmed The Plea for the Reall Presence agaynst Syr Hūfrey Lynd his Bertrā The Epistle ad Caesariū Monachum is not S. Chrysostomes S. Irenaeus his testimony hath been already shewed to be impertinently alleadged S. Damascen is by you grossely abused as being brought quite contrary to his mind For when he sayth l. 4. de fide c. 14. As a fiery coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not only bread but bread vnited to the Diuinity he meaneth by the bread of the holy Cōmunion not bread remayning bread but bread changed into Christ his flesh To say that bread remayning bread in substance is vnited personally vnto the Deity is impious S. Damascen in that place doth most cleerly shew that he speaketh of bread changed into flesh For thus he writeth Christ did conioyne his diuinity with bread and wine that so by thinges that are common and to which we are vsed we may attayne to thinges diuine and aboue nature for verily the body borne of the Virgin is a body vnited vnto the Deity not that his body assumpted into heauen doth agayne descend in the Eucharist from heauen but that bread it selfe and wine are conuerted into the flesh and bloud of God And a little after A coale is not only wood but wood ioyned to fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not simple bread but bread vnited vnto the Deity But the body vnited to the Deity is not any single nature but the nature of flesh and the nature of the Deity be conioyned together in it Thus he most cleerly shewing not that the bread of the holy Communion remaining bread in nature is vnited to the Deity to make togither with it a personall compound of two natures it were blasphemy so to thinke but that bread chāged into Christs flesh is vnited to the Deity because the flesh into which it is changed is not meere and only flesh but also flesh vnited with the Deity How intolerably is S. Damascen falsifyed by you Being truly and fully cited how fully doth he teach Transubstantiation But such is your Religion you must make a shew of the Fathers to be on your side though you know in conscience they make agaynst you you must patch togither some of their mangled sentences to make a gay fooles-coate for your seely Credents least they seeme naked The seeming repugnances this mistery hath with sense should incline Christians the sooner to belieue it §. 4. THE former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfy were
this mystery not accompanyed with many seeming absurdityes repugnances agaynst sense particularly these foure First that a body as big as our Sauiours remayning stil truly corpulent in it selfe should be contayned within the cōpasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly that a body so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignityes and obscenityes that may befall vnto them Thirdly that the body may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly that the substance of bread being cōuerted into Christs body the sole accidēts remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse then if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans body These difficultyes so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Trāsubstantiation as impossible yea as (f) Field of the Church lib. 3. absurd ridiculous barbarous Others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to belieue it as a matter of Fayth To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this proposition that these seeming absurdityes should not auert but rather incline a true Christian mind to belieue this mystery In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiesty these three Considerations (g) The Minister here sayth that this longe tract about Gods omnipotency is impertinent because Protestants deny not Gods omnipotency But this Cauill is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 3. where it is shewed that to deny the litteral sense of Gods word about the mysteryes of our fayth to be possible vnto God is Infidelity Now Protestants grant the holy Eucharist to be a chiefe mystery of fayth Transubstantiation to be the literall sense of Gods word about the same wherefore this tract about the Diuine omnipotēcy is pertinently brought agaynst them The first Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two thinges most certayne First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidells the rest of Christian mysteryes as the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection of the body did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mystery of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens Infidells being fully acquainted with the whole mystery the one shold be scandalized the other mocke therat Hence it was accounted such an heynous offence that Christians should discouer vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficultyes thereof in their presence The Councell (g) Concil Alexand. apud Athanas. Apolog. 2. of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arrians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publike and as it were vpon a scaffold to treate of the mysteryes before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after It (h) Epist. Iulij apud Athanas Apol. 2. is not lawfull to publish the mysteryes before them that are not initiated for feare Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosityes be scandalized And agayne Before Catechumens which is more before Iewes Pagans blaspheming Christianity they handled a question about the body and bloud of our Sauiour And to the same purpose Saint Ambrose (i) Ambros. de myster initian c. 1. saith To declare the Mysteryes vnto them that be Catechumens is no tradition but prodition seing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Infidells that will scoffe at them This supposed I inferre that the seeming absurdities of the Catholike reall presence should encourage a true Christian mind to belieue it For a true Christian desires to belieue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall Presence that was belieued by the primitiue Church But this was a reall Presence accompanyed with many seeming grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfy Infidells therein or to keep them from blaspheming but by concealing the mystery from them and consequently they held the Catholicke not the Protestant doctrine in this point The Protestāts (k) The Minister pag. 442. lin 12. saith that Protestāts hold the elements of bread wine to remaine to be instruments of our coniunction by grace vnto God and that this is a mystery incomprehensible Answere First Protestants do not hold the elements of bread and wine to be proper instrumēts infusing grace into mans soule but that men are iustifyed by their faith onely that this Sacrament is a meere signe and seale therof Secōdly though Sacramental influence of grace into the soule be a thinge supernaturall yet no mystery of extraordinary difficulty to be belieued nor absurd vnto sense For this is no more thē that vpon our eating and drinking of bread and wine in remēbrance of Christs body broken of his blood shed on the Crosse God infuse soule-nourishing grace into the worthy receauer Now what difficulty to belieue this or what seeming absurdity therin This is no greater mystery then that vpon the washing of the body with the element of water God inwardly wash the soule with grace Wherfore seing Protestāts cā find in their Eucharist no mystery more hard seemingly absurd thē in Baptisme doubtlesse it is not the mystery of the Primitiue Church concealed frō Infidells in regard of the seeming absurdity and immanity therof vnto carnall imaginatiō whereas Baptisme was not conceaued to be of that seeming absurdity nor concealed doctrine that makes Christs body present spiritually by fayth vnto the deuout receauer that communicating thinkes sweetly of Christs passion and death contaynes no mystery to be cōcealed in respect of the seeming absurdityes yea the Fathers did not feare to declare to Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his passion as appeares by the treatises of Saint Augustine vpon S. Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue Presence alleadge many sentēces to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by fayth and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs body in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the teeth but denyes not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not only by fayth but by reall sumption though to conceale the mystery from Catechumens he speaks not so cleerly thereof Wherfore as the Palm-tree the heauier the weight is that is layd vpon it the more it riseth vpward as it were ioying in difficultyes So a true Catholike Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstātiation many seeming absurdityes that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to belieue it imbracing these difficultyes as manyfest signes that this doctrine was belieued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side the Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnes thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from
there may be great merit and excellent Fayth if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in belieuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this vnpossible case yet what can be layd to our charge which we may not defend and iustify by all the rules of equity and reason If we be accused that we tooke bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent heerin For seing the body is not made guilty but by a guilty mind euen our body may plead not guilty seing our mind our thoughts our deuotiō were totally referred vnto Christ whom we truly apprehend by faith as veyled with the accidents of bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread-worshippers with saying Quae vouit mens est pani nil vouimus illâ Neyther did we belieue that the bread was changed into Christs body vpō slight reasons or mooued by the fancyes of our own head but contrary to our fancyes out of reuerence to the (q) The Minister here contradicting himselfe sayth that Trāsubstantiation is not inuolued in the litterall sense of Gods word And further that the same was neuer defined in Generall Councells For as the Ariās would allow no Councell to be lawfull which condemned Arius so with these mē no Councell is lawfull vpon which Iohn Caluin will not bestow his Blessing Otherwise why should not the Lateran Councell vnder Innocent the third and the second Councell of Nice celebrated aboue eight hūdred years agoe where the substātiue reall presence is defined and the figuratiue condemned be lawful general in which both the Latin and Grecian Church did concurre to define expresse wordes of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most ancient Fathers defined by many Generall Councels deliuered by full consent of our Ancestours so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning Finally confirmed with the most credible cōstant report of innumerable (r) The Minister sayth that these Miracles be but the lyes of Fryars which he proues by a iest that was rife in the mouth of Wickliffifts Est Frater Ergo mendax Answer The miracles done in proofe of the Corporall and substantiall permanent presence of Christs body in the Eucharist are related by most auncient Fathers and writers of which many whole Townes Cittyes and Countreyes haue been eye witnesses as it were madnes to questiō thē These may be read in Ioannes Garetius who hath gathered them together as also in Iudocus Coccius The Prouerbe He is Fryar Ergo a lyar is true of such Fryars as Martin Luther Bucer Peter Martyr Fryar Barnes and the like founders and pillars of the fifth Gospell And if the matter be looked into without passiō this inference Est Minister Ergo mēdax will seeme more iustifiable euen in Caluins iudgement who sayth that most of them that shew most zeale are ful of falshod fraud lying Hierom Zanchius a famous Protestāt in the Preface of his booke contra Arianum Anonymū saith of Ministers That euen they who are tearmed Pillars of the Ghospell are for the most part impudēt lying companions that out-face the truth euery way thereupon exclayming O Tempora O Mores most euidēt miracles Can a Christian belieue any point of religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of Iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prōpt credulity of Transubstātiation that is of Gods word takē in the playne proper sense Is it any iniury to his verity that they deny their senses correct their imaginatiōs reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgments rather then not to belieue what to them seemeth his word Is it iniury to his power to be perswaded that he can doe things incomprehēsible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once make a body occupy no place yet remayne a quantitatiue substance in it selfe Is it iniury to his charity to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faythfull man entring really into their bodyes to signify efficaciously his inward cōiunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it any iniury to his wisdome to belieue that to satisfy on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hād on the other side the ardency of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauē he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of Fayth yet to affoard full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuall personall presence and most intime coniunction with them On the other side it imports them that thinke Transubstantiation impossible or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once to consider if they erre easy it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstanding measure the power of God how dangerous inexcusable their errour will prooue when they shal be called to giue vnto their omnipotent maker a finall account particularly of this doctrine so much derogating from him Let them thinke how they will answere if God lay to their charge the neglect of that most prudent reasonable aduise which S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in Mat. giues Let vs belieue God sayth he let vs not resist his word though the same seeme absurd vnto our cogitation sense for his speach doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceaue vs but our senses be deceaued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the interrogatory which S. Cyrill l. 12. in Ioan. makes vnto such vnbelieuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God why didest thou not accuse the imbecillity of mans wit rather then the omnipotency of God Or how disputing proposing so many Arguments agaynst Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it neuer called they to mynd the saying (s) August lib. 12. de Ciuit c. 11. of Saint Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis Diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas THE SEAVENTH POINT Communion (*) Note that the holy Eucharist is both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament A Sacrifice as offered vnto God for thansgiuing and remission of sinnes A Sacrament as receaued by mē for the foode sanctification of their soules It is a Sacrifice because a liuely and expresse representation of Christs bloudy Sacrifice on the Crosse. It is a Sacramēt because representing exhibiting Christ Iesus as the full and all-sufficient
foode of the soule HeÌ„ce the Eucharist as a Sacrifice 〈…〉 entyre in the 〈◊〉 oblatioÌ„ vnder the forme of bread without oblation in the forme of wine because the oblation in the forme of bread without wine doth not expressely distinctly represent Christs Sacriâ—â—ce on the Crosse by the effusion of his bloud But the Eucharist as a SacrameÌ„t is entyre in one only kind to wit vnder the forme of bread because the forme of bread only doth represent contayne and exhibite the true body of our Lord which is a full â—nd all-sufficient food to nourish the soule vnto eternall life as sayth our Sauiour He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Ioan. 6.59 By this the Ministers Cauilling pag. 460. 461. and throughout this whole Controuersy is answered for he only proues at the most that the Eucharist as a Sacrifice is not entyre in one kind vnder one kind the abetting of it by Concomitancie YOVR most Excellent Maiesty in the proposition of this Controuersy shews your deep insight into Theologicall difficultyes perceauing the mayne ground whereon the Catholike opinion of the lawfulnes of coÌ„munion vnder one kind standeth to wit Concomitancy which being graunted Communion vnder one kind is iustified The doctrine of Concomitancy proued §. 1. THE doctrine of Concomitancy is that vnder the forme of bread not only the body of Christ but also his pretious bloud and blessed soule are truly and really conteyned the body directly and by vertue of the wordes of consecration the bloud and the soule consequently For being conteined within the body of Christ they must needs concomitate that is follow the body in what place soeuer the same be (t) The Minister pag. 460. sayth The bloud of Christ cannot properly he sayd to be in his body by Concomitancy for then it were accideÌ„tally therein but as a part in the whole Answere We do not say bloud is accidentally in the body of Christ or by concomitaÌ„cy but that it is by concomitancy in the same place with the body As the soule is not by concomitancy in the body of a liuing man but as a part in the whole yet as Philosophy teacheth Mouetur per accidens cum corpore it is moued and remoued accidentally and by concomitancy with the body You must then distinguish To be in the body froÌ„ To be in the same place with the body The soule is in the body by direct substaÌ„tiall vnion therwith but in the place of the body the soule is not directly but by concomitancy in regard of her coniunction with the body which is directly in place In this maner the soule and bloud of Christs be directly and substantially in his body yet only by concomitancy in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread where the body only is directly by vertue of the words In this sense also the Deity is in the SacrameÌ„t by Concomitancy For the Deity is not expressely signifyed to be in the Sacrament by vertue of the words which only affirme Christ his body to be present yet is the Deity present vnto and vnited with the body present by the vertue of the word HeÌ„ce the Deity is present by CoÌ„comitancy so that though otherwise it were not present yet should it be heere present by Concomitancy because inseparably ioyned with a thing that is present Neyther can any that acknowledgeth the Reall presence deny this Concomitancy without falling into many absurdities as I proue by three Arguments First he that acknowledgeth the Reall presence of Christs sacred Body vnder the forme of bread and denyes Concomitancy doth in his beliefe separate the bloud soule of Christ from his body But to separate eyther Christs Diuinity from his Humanity or soule froÌ„ his body or his bloud from his flesh is vnlawfull For such a belieuer doth dissolue and destroy Christ Iesus and so is one of the number of them that Saint Iohn condemneth Omnis spiritus qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo hic est Antichristus (u) 1. Ioan. 4.3 And this Argument hath greatest force in their opinion who shall think that Christ leaues heauen for the tyme comes downe really according to his body and bloud for how can the body of Christ come downe from heauen without bloud and soule vnles he come down dead And so Christ should be not only mystically figuratiuely but truly really massacred in the Sacrament and the Eucharist be a bloudy sacrifice and not incruent as the Fathers tearme it Secondly the Priest in the person of Christ who is glorious in heauen or rather Christ being glorious in heauen by the mouth of the Priest sayth This is my body but a body deuoyd of bloud without soule and consequently dead and senselesse is not the body of Christ as he is now glorious in heauen which hath bloud in the veines and is informed and glorifyed by a most excellent soule Therfore Christ glorious in heauen cannot say truly that a body voyd of bloud sense and soule is his body but soule life and bloud must needes follow and concomitate his body wheresoeuer it be Thirdly if vnder the forme of bread were only the body of Christ and his soule and bloud were not by Concomitancy there the Communicants should receaue the body of Christ but not truly Christ as our Aduersaryes graunt Caluin specially saying (x) Caluin l. 4. Instit. c. 7. n. 35. Quis sanus sobrius Christi Corpus Christum esse sibi persuade at And againe (y) Ibidem n. 74. Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi aut sanguinem Deum hominem appellari But (z) Ambros. l. de ijs qui iâ—it In illo Sacramento Christus est Fathers affirme most coÌ„stantly that not only the body of Christ but also Christ (a) Hilarius l. 8. de Trinit Nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus himselfe is in the Sacrament That we take in the Dominicall refection the Word made flesh That (b) Cyrill Alexand. l. 4. in Ioan. c. 15. Per hanc benedictioneÌ„ mysterij ipsum filium Dei suscipimus by the consecration of the mysteryes we receaue the very Son of God That (c) Cyrill Hieros Catech. 5. mystag vnder the forme of bread we lodge within vs the soueraygne King that (d) Chrysost. homil 83. in cap. 26. Matth. hom 24. in 1. ad Cor. we see Christ feele Christ eate Christ non regium puerum sed ipsum vnigenitum Dei Filium An hundred other places might be brought where the Fathers call the consecrated bread Christ consequently they did not thinke there was the meere body without bloud and soule seing as Caluin doth confesse It is an absurd manner of speach to tearme Christ the meere body of Christ And such a forme of speach was neuer heard of hitherto in the world Ergo Concomitancy that is Christs reall entyre body soule flesh bloud to be vnder the forme