probabilitie be alleadged in fauour of reall Presence by Consubstantiation than for Transubstantiation Lastly The mysticall vnion betweene Christ and his members is ineffable and the manner incomprehensible and the Protestant Doctrine teaching a reall donation of the bodie and blood of Christ and a mysticall coniunction by the operation of the holy Ghost with the soules of faithfull Receiuers and that dead and corruptible creatures can be a meanes and instrument heereof is a great mysterie of godlinesse incredible to prophane persons and therefore the Primitiue Church which beleeued this Doctrine might iustly require that this Mysterie should not be manifested before Infidels and other infirme Christians vntill they were first instructed in the rudiments of Christianitie IESVIT Yea the Fathers did not feare to declare vnto Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his Passion as appeareth by the Treatises of Saint Augustine vpon Saint Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue presence alleadge many Sentences to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by Faith and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs bodie in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the tooth but denies not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not onely by Faith but by reall sumption though to conceale the Mysterie from Catechumens he speakes not so clearely thereof Wherefore as the Palme tree the heauier the waight is that is laid vpon it the more it riseth vpwards as it were ioying in difficulties so a true Catholicke Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming absurdities that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to beleeue it imbracing these difficulties as manifest signes that this doctrine was beleeued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by Faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnesse thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from Jnfidells as more absurd to humane Imagination than any other mystery of Christian Religion ANSWER You obiect that the Fathers declared to Catechumens that is to Nouices in Christianitie a commemoratiue presence in the holy Eucharist but not a corporall presence by Transubstantiation and from hence you would inferre that the Fathers held two kinds of Presences of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist the one soly spirituall by intellectuall apprehension the other corporall by reall sumption of Christs body into the mouth and stomacke of the receiuer and you pretend that S. Augustine was of this iudgement But you must remember that you are not now to deale with Aduersaries which will credite your bare words and proofes you haue none Therefore I answer First that the Fathers taught no other kind of Presence to them which were baptised and receiued the holy Eucharist than to Catechumens or vnbaptised Christians although they instructed the one sort more fully than the other Secondly S. Augustine teacheth not that Christs body is receiued inuisibly insensibly and according to the nature of a spirit by the mouth and stomacke of each Communicant but he teacheth onely two kinds of manducation in the Sacrament one both corporall and spirituall wherein the body of man receiueth the externall elements of Bread and Wine and the soule receiueth the true body and bloud of Christ by faith the other corporeall onely wherein the receiuer partaketh the outward signe and not the thing signified Panem Domini non panem Dominum the visible Sacrament of Christs body but not his very body and he affirmeth not vpon the sixt chapter of S. Iohn That a malicious sinner continuing such receiueth the very body and blood of Christ. Thirdly Protestants beleeue not onely a commemoratiue but also an exhibitiue presence of the thing signified together with the outward signe according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. and this Presence is mysticall and such as may seeme incredible to vnbelceuers because of sundry difficulties repugnant to common sence to wit That Christs flesh by the vnspeakeable power of the holy Ghost should be after a sort incorporated into the soule and that corruptible and dead creatures should be eleuated and made effectuall instruments to apply and communicate Iesus Christ and the vertue of his death to faithfull Communicants IESVITS 2. Consideration This consideration is drawne from the qualitie of the difficulties obiected against this Mysterie which be such as a Christian in honour should neglect them For if it be the part of a prudent and intelligent man not to permit Imagination to preuaile against his Reason What a disgrace is it for a Christian that his faith should be conquered by these kind of difficulties For that the seeming absurdities of this misterie be not in respect of naturall Reason but meerely of Jmagination may hence appeare that some naturall truths be in a manner as difficile and incredible which will be seene if we compare the foure aboue mentioned difficulties with the difficulties some truths euident in nature haue ANSWER When difficulties obiected arise from experience of sence and principles of nature and there is no expresse or manifest word of God sufficient to mooue vs to beleeue the contrarie it is the part of each intelligent and prudent man rather to credite that which is apparent to sence and common reason than to beleeue Paradoxes vpon no true ground and reason IESVIT First we cannot imagine that the whole body of Christ can be contained in the compasse of a small Hoast But it is not more incredible that in a thing of small quantititie for example the wing of a Flye there should be so many parts as vnfolded and laid together would couer the whole face of the world both of heauen and earth And yet it is demonstrable in Philosophy That euen in the wing of a Flye there are so many parts as broad and long as the wing though still thinner and thinner that Almightie God separating and vnfolding them may therewith couer the whole world For certaine it is that some finite number of such parts so separated each of them as long and as broad as a Flyes wing would couer the face of the whole world certaine also it is That the wing of the Flye is still diuisible into more and more such parts so that no finite number is assignable but God may still separate from that wing a greater number without any end therefore it is certaine that in the wing of a Flye there is so much quantity as is sufficient to couer the face of the whole world both of heauen and earth if God would but separate and vnfold the same Is not this Secret of Philosophy as incredible to carnall Imagination as the being of Christs body within a small Hoast Wee that cannot comprehend things we see with eyes and feele with hands certainely we shall haue much adoe
vnder the elements of Bread and Wine But if Christ be not present wholly and totally vnder the forme of Bread he cannot be truely and really eaten Why then is his bodie brought from heauen to be there really present or how can the bodie of Christ being coextended in place according to the naturall dimensions thereof enter into the mouth of the Receiuer yea in at the mouth of the wicked and vnworthie as Fathers teach ANSWER That bodie which is neither circumscriptiuely nor definitiuely present in the outward signes is not substantially contained in the same The bodie of Christ is neither of these waies present in the outward signes not the first way for in circumscription the continent must be as large or ample as the thing contained not the second way for that which is definitiuely in one place cannot at the same time be substantially in another And yet although the bodie of Christ is not according to his materiall substance wholly and intirely vnder the outward elements notwithstanding the bread may truely be tearmed the bodie of Christ because of a relatiue Pactionall and Sacramentall Vnion and Donation of the things signified together with the signes worthily receiued For God Almightie hath made a Couenant with his Church and faithfull people to nourish their Soules with the liuely food of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ Ioh. 6.32 He hath also appointed a Sacrament in which there shall be made a representation and commemoration of his passion vntill his comming againe 1. Cor. 11.26 and he hath annexed a promise therunto which is that as often as the same is lawfully administred he will communicate to all worthie receiuers the Bodie and Bloud of Christ 1. Cor. 10.16 Now then when the outward Sacrament is administred and receiued as is aforesaid God remembring his Couenant reacheth vnto the soules of his people by the powerfull hand of the Holy Ghost the very bodie of his Sonne crucified and his blood shed and powred out and hereby feedeth and nourisheth them to eternall life The Obiect or thing carnally and bodily receiued is the Elementall Creature The Obiect and thing receiued spiritually and internally is the bodie and blood of Christ crucified vpon the Crosse. The Donour and distributer of this inward gift is the blessed Trinitie the Sonne of God himselfe and by appropriation the Holy Ghost The eating and drinking of it is by Faith Iohn 6. 29. 35.40.47 And thus if it be demanded What kind and manner of Presence we maintaine It is answered First a mentall and intellectuall presence by way of representation Secondly an exhibitiue presence by way of donation and Tradition on Gods part and faithfull reception on mans part whereby wee possesse the thing giuen and are vnited mystically to Christ our Head Now to the effecting hereof locall and corporeall presence is not necessarie A father and his sonne may bee absent by distance of place one from the other yet the sonne is truely and really vnited with his father so as his fathers nature is in him and he hath right in his fathers person and estate A mans goods may be at Constantinople and yet he liuing in England is a true possessour or owner and proprietarie of them and he may communicate and vse them and distance of place hindreth not his right and proprietie Now although there bee a difference betweene things temporall and spirituall yet thus farre there is agreement That euen as wee possesse temporall meanes being locally absent so likewise wee may receiue and partake Christs bodie and blood locally distant by the power of Faith and by the donation of the Holy Ghost according to a celestiall and spirituall manner For in Baptisme we are washed with the blood of Christ and wee put on the Lord Iesus Gal. 3.27 Now that which is absent cannot wash or bee put on in a naturall manner but a spirituall vnion and application is necessarie Euen so in the holy Eucharist wee are nourished with the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour but to the performance hereof locall presence or presence by indistance of place is of no vse but a spirituall vnion and application is sufficient These things premised the Iesuits Argument is answered as followeth First The bodie and bloud of Christ are in such sort truly and really presented in the holy Eucharist as that they are truly and really eaten not bodily but spiritually by Faith Secondly Although they be receiued by Faith onely yet they are truly and really communicated by the powerfull operation of the Holy Ghost Thirdly Christs bodie is not brought locally from Heauen vnto Earth but being crucified vpon the Crosse is symbollically represented vpon Earth by the Sacramentall signes and actions and being locally at this day sitting on Gods right hand in Heauen is also truly and effectually communicated and giuen to worthie Communicants Fourthly The Sacrament is not instituted in vaine although Christs bodie and bloud are not locally present in the outward Elements For if vpon the worthie receiuing of the Sacrament the Holy Ghost truly and effectually communicates vnto vs Christs bodie and bloud to be the food and life of our soules and doth not so effectually and fruitfully communicate the same by any other meanes then there is great vse of this Sacrament and vnspeakable benefit receiued by it although Christs bodie and bloud are not locally contained within the outward signes Fifthly The Fathers teach not that Infidels and wicked persons receiue in at their bodily mouth the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ. First The Fathers cited in the Margine of the Iesuits booke speake not of wicked and vnworthie persons Secondly They affirme expressely That Infidels and wicked persons receiue the bodie of Christ onely Sacramento tenus that is according to the visible signe and not reuera in truth and in deed Panem Domini non Panem Dominum The Bread of the Lord and not the Bread which is the Lord or the Lords Bodie The Author bearing the name of S. Cyprian saith Lambunt Petram Wicked men like AEsops Foxe licke the outside of the Rocke but sucke not out the Honey They receiue saith Bernard Corticem Sacramenti furfur Carnis the outward Barke of the Sacrament and the Branne of Christs flesh Beda Omnis Infidelis non vescitur carne Christi No vnbeleeuer eateth the flesh of Christ. Hilarius Panis qui descendit de Coelo non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet Christi membrum est The Bread which came downe from Heauen is receiued of him onely which hath the Lord and is a member of Christ. Cyril of Alexandria For as much as wicked men doe not liue nor are reformed to immortalitie they eat not that flesh Origen If it were possible for one perseuering a wicked man to eat the Word which became Flesh being liuing Bread it would not haue beene written Whosoeuer eateth this Bread shall liue
no Lye nor his Power any Inconstancie Because therefore Christ hath a true and perfect Bodie both in regard of substance and matter and also in respect of quantitie stature measure posture proportion c. and because euerie true humane bodie by the Ordinance of the Creator who hath formed and constituted the seuerall kinds and natures of things after a speciall manner is determined to one indiuiduall place at one instant and must also haue distinction and diuision of parts with a length latitude and thicknesse proportionall to the quantitie thereof Therefore except God himselfe had expressely reuealed and testified by his Word that the contrarie should be found in the humane bodie of Christ and that the same should haue one manner of corporall being in Heauen and another in the holy Eucharist at one and the same time a Christian cannot be compelled to beleeue this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed vpon the sole Voyce and Authoritie of the Laterane or Trident Councell Some learned Papists confesse ingeniously That secluding the Authoritie of the Church there is no written Word of God sufficient to enforce a Christian to receiue this Doctrine And moderne Pontificians are not able to confirme their present Tenet to wit That Christs humane bodie may be in many vbities or places at one time and that the whole bodie of Christ is circumscriptiuely in Heauen and according to the manner of a Spirit and of the Diuine nature it selfe without extension of parts in euerie crumme of the Sacramentall formes This Doctrine I say Papals are not able to confirme by the vnanimous Testimonie and Tradition of the antient Church Therefore because the same is grounded neither vpon Scripture nor Tradition they begge the question when they alleadge Gods omnipotent power for it must first of all and that vpon infallible Principles appeare That God will haue it thus before his omnipotencie be pleaded that he is able to make it thus But the Iesuites Sophisme whereby hee would intangle vs within the snares of fundamentall Errour when wee denie Christs bodily presence in many places at once proceedeth in this manner No bodie can be truely receiued in many places at once vnlesse the same be corporally present in many places at once The Bodie of Christ is truely receiued in many places at once to wit in euery place where the holy Eucharist is administred Ergo The Bodie of Christ is present in many places at once I answere The Maior Proposition is denyed for there is a twofold manner of true Presence and consequently of Receiuing one Naturall by the hand and mouth of the bodie Another Mysticall and Spirituall by the deliuerie of the holy Ghost and by the apprehension and action of the soule First The holy Ghost truely and verily reacheth and presenteth the Obiect which is Christs Bodie and Blood crucified and offered in Sacrifice for mans Redemption Secondly The reasonable soule being eleuated by a liuely and operatiue Faith apprehendeth and receiueth the former obiect as really verily and truely after a spirituall and supernaturall manner as the bodie receiueth any corporeall or sensible obiect after a naturall manner Iohn 1. 12. Ephes. 3. 17. Fulgentius saith Filium Dei vnicum per fidem recipiunt They receiue the onely Sonne of God by Faith Our Sauiour saith That holy Beleeuers receiue the Flesh and drinke the Blood of Christ Iohn 6. 50 53 54. Credendo by 〈◊〉 v. 35.47 Paschasius hath these words The flesh and blood of Christ c. are truely 〈◊〉 by Faith and vnderstanding It is not lawfull to eate Christ with teeth This Sacrament is truely his flesh and his blood which man eateth and drinketh spiritually 〈◊〉 saith Hold readie the mouth of thy Faith open the iawes of Hope stretchout the bowels of Loue and take the Bread of life which is the nourishment of the inward man Eusebius Emisenus When thou goest vp to the reuerend Altar to bee filled with spirituall meates by Faith behold honour and wonder at the sacred Bodie and Blood of thy God touch it with thy minde take it with the hand of thy heart and chiefly prouide that the inward man swallow the whole Saint Ambrose Comedat te cor meum panis Sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee oh holy Bread oh liuing Bread oh pure Bread come into my heart enter into my soule Saint Augustine There is another Bread which confirmeth the heart because it is the Bread of the heart And in another place Then is the Body and Blood of the Lord life to each man when that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament is in very truth spiritually eaten spiritually drunken Now from the former Testimonies it is manifest that the Bodie and Blood of Christ may truely and really bee eaten and receiued by operatiue Faith in the Sacrament And if it bee further obiected That spirituall eating and drinking of the Bodie and Blood of Christ may bee without the Sacrament I answere That the same is more effectually and perfectly accomplished in the Sacrament than out of the Sacrament because the holy Ghost directly and in speciall when the Sacrament is deliuered exhibiteth the Body and Blood of Christ as a pledge and testimonie of his particular loue towards euery worthie Receiuer and the liuely representation and commemoration of Christs death and Sacrifice by the mysticall signes and actions is an instrument of the Diuine Spirit to apply and communicate Christ crucified and to increase and confirme the Faith Charitie and pietie of Receiuers Lastly It is remarkeable that vntill the thousand yeeres and more after Christs Ascension Orthodoxall Christians beleeued that the Bodie and Blood of Christ were truely and really present and deliuered to worthie Receiuers in and by the holy Eucharist according to St. Pauls Doctrine 1. Cor. 10.16 And that the same must be spiritually receiued by Faith or else they profited nothing But the manner of Presence which some Modernes now obtrude by Consubstantiation or by Transubstantiation was not determined as an Article of Faith And to say nothing of Consubstantiation the defence whereof inuolueth them in many absurdities which vndertake for it it is apparant that Transubstantiation is a bastard plant and vpstart weed neuer planted by the heauenly Father but the same sprang vp in the declining state of the Church and it is perplexed and inuolued with so many absurdities and contradictions to Veritie formerly receiued that our Aduersarie was transported with partiall folly when he presumed to ranke the refusall of this new and prodigious Article among fundamentall Errours IESVIT EIghtly Their denying the Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution the necessarie meanes for remission of finnes committed after Baptisme ANSVVER THe Obiector by Penance vnderstandeth not Repentance as it is a vertue for Protestants beleeue true
prime foundation of Christianitie is Christ himselfe 1. Cor. 3. 11. 1. Pet. 2.6 The Church is the seruant and Spouse of Christ the House of God whereof Christ himselfe is the grand Lord and Builder But wee haue learned in the Gospell That the seruant is not greater than his Lord Ioh. 13. 16. Hereupon S. Augustine Enchyrid cap. 56. Good order requireth that the Church be placed after the Trinitie as an House after the Inhabiter his Temple after God and the Citie after the Founder And if the Aduersarie replie That although it be a lesse Article in regard of the Obiect yet the denyall thereof is of greater consequence because it maketh men guiltie of Heresie c. I answere Granting that the denyall of the whole Article being rightly expounded maketh men Heretickes but I denie that a Christian which beleeueth this Article is no Hereticke if hee beleeue and maintaine any Errour against the plaine Doctrine of the holy Scripture which hee knoweth or which hee is bound Necessitate 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 to know beleeue and maintaine Saint Hierom vpon the Galathians saith Whosocuer to wit in waightie points vnderstandeth the Scriptures otherwise than the sence of the holy Ghost whereby they were written requireth may bee called an Hereticke although hee depart not out of the Church Tertullian saith Whatsoeuer in points Diuine and Sacred is repugnant to Veritie is Heresie Albertus saith Hee is an Hereticke which followeth his owne opinion and not the iudgement of the Scripture Occham Hee is an Hereticke which with a pertinacious minde imbraceth any Errour the contradictorie doctrine whereof is contained in holy Scripture Two things constitute an Hereticke First Errour and false Doctrine as the materiall Secondly Malicious and pertinacious adhearing to the same or defending the same as the formall A man may haue both these without any explicite denying the Article of the Catholicke Church For the Trueth which hee gainesayeth may be plainely deliuered in the holy Scripture and hee may reade the same and haue sufficient meanes to know it in the Scripture and maliciously or inordinately resist the holy Ghost speaking by the Scriptures Act. 7.51 Our Sauiour condemneth some for Heretickes calling them false Prophets Murtherers and Theeues Mat. 7.15 Ioh. 10.5 Not because they opposed the present Church for some of these were principall Rulers of the Iewish Church Mat. 23.1 but because they taught and beleeued contrarie to the Scriptures Mat. 22.29 Saint Augustine d. Bapt. c. Don. li. 4. c. 16. speaketh not altogether as the Iesuit 〈◊〉 him but saith onely That hee would not affirme of such a person who being baptised in the 〈◊〉 Church beleeued as Photinus the hereticke did supposing the same to be Catholicke Faith that he was an hereticke he absolutely affirmeth not that such a person was no Hereticke but that hee would not pronounce him an Hereticke before hee was conuicted And hee speaketh of Heretickes not as they were in foro coeli according to the iudgement of God but in foro Ecclesiae according to Ecclesiasticall Censure Neither doth hee speake of persons sufficiently conuicted by plaine euidence of holy Scripture and maliciously and inordinately resisting the Truth but of simple Errants misled and seduced through ignorance or infirmitie Doctor Field whose learned Treatise of the Church is nibbled at by Papists but yet remaines vnanswered by them is censured by this Obiectour for saying without any Proofe that an Errant against a fundamentall point is an Hereticke though he erre without pertinacie But the Iesuit reporteth amisse when hee saith Doctor Field deliuered this Assertion without Proofe for in the Margine of his Booke he confirmeth the same by the testimonies of Gerson and Occham two famous Doctors of the Roman Church And it is remarkeable that the Iesuit censuring the Doctour himselfe produceth no Argument out of diuine Authoritie to confirme his owne Position but resteth onely vpon the single testimonie of one Father which as I haue alreadie shewed speaketh not to his purpose IESVIT Hence Jinferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold against the Romane Church which I haue prooued to be the true Catholicke Church For he that holds any priuate opinion so stiffely as rather than forsake them he denyes and abandons the Catholike Church a mayne Article of his Creed erreth fundamentally as is cleare But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stifly as thereupon they haue denied and abandoned the Catholicke Church to wit the Romane ANSWER The mayne Proposition of this Section to wit Protestants 〈◊〉 fundamentally according to the second kinde of erring c. is denied and the Assumption of the Syllogisme whereby the Obiectour laboureth to prooue the same is palpably vntrue For Protestants maintaine no priuate opinion either stiffely or remissely whereby they haue denied and abandoned the true Catholicke Church First They maintaine no doctrine as matter of Faith but that which is deliuered in holy Scripture and which consenteth with the Primitiue Church either expresly or virtually But such doctrine is not priuate opinion because the holy Ghost which is the supreame gouernour and directour of the Church and the Prophets and Apostles which were inspired from heauen are the Authours thereof Secondly The Romane Church is not the Catholicke Church but an vnsound part of the generall visible Church as it is prooued by the Learned of our part whereunto the Aduersaries haue as yet made no replie IESVIT Neither doth it import that they retaine the word hauing reiected the sence seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter beleeued makes men Christians Neither is it enough to say that they beleeue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the onely Elect a meere fancie but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by sucsion of Bishops which thus I prooue ANSWER We retaine both the words and the sence of the Article and the Catholicke Church in the Apostles Creed in respect of the militant part thereof is a Church of right beleeuers and especially of iust and holie persons and principally and intentionally and as it comprehendeth both the militant and triumphant the congregation of all the elect for this Church is the mysticall and liuing bodie which Christ saueth Ephes. 5. 23. It is the Church of the first borne which are written in Heauen Heb. 12.23 It is the Church builded vpon the Rocke against which the gates of Hell shall not preuaile either by Haeresie Temptation or mortall Sinne Math. 16. 18. Math. 7.24 And if it be a meere fancie to hold this then Gregorie the Great with many other of the antiēt Fathers were fantasticks for teaching in this manner But the Church of the Creed is not alwaies the Church Hierarchicall for the Church in the
knowledge of the heart Secondly Our Sauiours words Luk. 15.10 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conclusion of a Parable which must not be strained beyond the true scope But according to the exposition of sundrie Fathers and some learned Papists The hundred sheepe Vers. 4. represent the whole Bodie of the Elect consisting of men and Angels The ninetie and nine sheepe not lost were the Angels persisting in their prime integritie The stray sheepe all mankinde sinning in Adam To recouer this lost sheepe the Sonne of God that good Shepheard Iohn 10. 11. was incarnate and by the gracious worke of Redemption he laid the same on his shoulder Now there is great ioy in heauen before the coelestiall Angels for this recouerie and saluation of mankinde But if this exposition be admitted no more can bee inferred but that the Court of heauen and in the same the holy Angels reioyce because of mans Redemption Neither is it consequent the holy Angels reioyce because of the conuersion and reduction of mankind Ergo They know distinctly and perpetually the particular qualitie of euery indiuiduall sinners repentance Lastly If the said words Luke 15. 10. bee vnderstood of sinners in particular this Text yet falleth short to prooue that all the caelestiall Angels perpetually and at the very instant know the particular true repentance of euery sinner indiuidually for the same may bee vnderstood according to this supposition or reflection to wit There is ioy before the Angels of heauen ouer one sinner which repenteth when the repentance of this one sinner is made knowne vnto them but it is not said neither can it bee inferred That coelestiall Angels know constantly and at all times when each indiuiduall person repenteth truely Our Aduersaries therefore cannot ground an infallible Doctrine touching Angelicall science vpon a branch of a Parable which according to themselues admitteth diuers expositions and the consequence whereof is not necessarie but contingent and vpon supposition IESVIT Saint Paul saith We are made a spectacle vnto God and Angels and he adiureth Timothie by God and his Angels which shew that wee liue in the sight of Angels and that they behold what we doe and heare what wee say euen in our hearts ANSWER Saint Pauls words are 1. Corinth 4. 9. Wee are made a spectacle to the world and to Angels and men Angelis laudantibus vituperantibus hominibus laudantibus vituperantibus saith Saint Augustine To good Angels praysing vs to euill Angels dispraysing vs to good men commending vs and to wicked men condemning and deriding vs. The Consequence of this Argument Wee are a spectacle to Angels therefore Angels vnderstand and see our thoughts is childish for as Saint Paul was a spectacle to Angels so hee was a spectacle to good men and bad men and yet the Iesuite will blush to argue hence Ergo Good men and bad men behold the heart Secondly As Saint Paul saith I testifie before God and the Elect Angels so Moses saith I call this day Heauen and Earth witnesses Deuteron 4. 26. 32. 1. And Esay saith Heare oh Heauens and hearken oh Earth Chap. 1. v. 2. Euery creature therefore which God calleth to witnesse or adiureth man by is not a fearcher and beholder of the thoughts and affections of the heart IESVIT But as the same Scripture auerreth The Saints are like vnto the Angels and equall vnto the Angels and in heauen the same is the measure of a man and of an Angell Ergo Knowledge of our Prayers is not to bee denied vnto glorious Saints the fellowes of Angels ANSWER Matth. 22. 30. Our Sauiour saith That in the Resurrection neither shall they marrie nor bee married but are as the Angels of God in heauen Luke 20. 36. They which shall bee counted worthie of that world and the resurrection from the dead neither marrie nor take wiues neither can they die any more for they are equall to Angels and are the children of God seeing they are the sonnes of the Resurrection In these words First The subiect is Iust people at the Resurrection Secondly Concerning these our Sauiour affirmeth That they shall not marrie c. Thirdly They shall bee as Angels and equall to Angels Fourthly Hee expresseth wherein they shall be so to wit first in freedome from secular Actions and Passions secondly in glorious Adoption or reall Possession of all the priuiledges of the sonnes of God Now I admire what Papists can extort from hence for inuocation of Saints for there is no connexion betweene this Antecedent and Consequent to wit Iust men at the resurrection shall liue as Angels remote from all the necessities of a worldly life and they shall be as the Angels of God free from materiall and corporeall passions and equall to the Angels in fruition of blessednesse Ergo the knowledge of our prayers which we make in this life is not to be denied vnto glorious Saints the fellowes of Angels The place of the Reuelations chap. 21.17 is expounded by learned Papists three waies First the beatitude of men and Angels shall be measured with the same modell to wit according to the proportion of their grace charitie Secondly men shall attaine the measure of Angelicall glorie by succeeding into the place of them that fell Thirdly the hundred fortie foure cubits mentioned in that place were meated by a measure containing the length of a man which was the meat-wand or measure which the Angell held in his hand And this latter exposition of the Text is the literall sence according to Alchasar Ribera c. But from none of these expositions doth the Iesuits Argugument conclude not from the first the last as is apparant to all men neither yet from the second for although the blessed Saints attaine the measure of Angelicall glorie and fill vp the place which the declining Angels lost Yet Angels may haue some power and actions in respect of their present ministerie to the Church militant which are diuers and distinct from the power and actions of glorified Saints For if Angels themselues although they are equall in essentiall beatitude yet they differ in power and actions according to the Tenet of the Schole then much more men and Angels although they partake in the same obiectiue blessednesse yet they may haue different actions and accidentall perfections and consequently Angels in regard of their office may be able to know and vnderstand that which blessed Saints do not IESVIT Neither could Saints without knowlege of humane affaires be perfectly blessed blessednesse being a state wherein all iust and reasonable desires of nature are satisfied with vttermost content And who can thinke that Saints full both of glorie and charitie do not earnestly desire to know such things as may concerne their honour done vpon earth and the state of their friends and louers liuing in danger to succour them by their intercessions of whose saluation they be
he deliuers two things First that Christians honour Martyrs with the honour of loue and societie as holy men of God are honoured in this life But Saints in this life are not worshipped with vowes fastings and religious prayer Secondly he distinguisheth betweene the solemnities or festiualls of Martyrs and the persons of Martyrs vpon the festiualls of Martyrs religious seruice was performed to God the Lord of Martyrs but not to the persons of Martyrs S. Augustine affirmeth not this latter The totall honour which the sacred Scripture and after it S. Augustine requires to be yeelded to holy Saints Martyrs and Angels respectiuely may be reduced to foure heads First the honour of loue and desire of societie Secondly recognition and prayses of their vertues and excellencie Thirdly imitation of their vertues and godly examples Fourthly reuerent comportment to Angels when they appeared and were present as Gods messengers But none of these actions are the formall or elicitiue actions of Religion therefore the honour of Saints and Angells according to proprietie of speech is 〈◊〉 religious worship Now then I subsume no religious worship properly taken is due to Saints by the confession of learned Papists Inuocation of Saints is religious worship properly taken Rom. 10.14 Ergo Inuocation is not due to Saints IESVIT Now that men may worship Angells and Saints in this sort with true affection of spirit euen to the prostration of their bodies may be prooued out of holy Scripture supposing what is already shewed that they see our actions for if Saints see our actions wee may as lawfully and as profitably bow kneele and prostrate our bodies vnto them as vnto Saints liuing on earth But it is lawfull to honour liuing Saints with bowing and kneeling and prostration of body as may bee prooued by many examples Abdias an holy man adored Helias prostrate on the ground not for any humane excellencie or respect but because he was a Prophet and a singular Saint of God The children of the Prophets seeing signes of supernaturall and diuine power in Elizeus comming vnto him adored him prostrate on the ground The Shunamite woman her sonne being dead went presently vnto Elize us fell downe at his feet suing not so much with words as with teares and mournefull complaints for the resuscitation of her dead sonne We reade also that holy men haue adored with kneeling and prostration of their bodies holy Angells appearing vnto them as Abraham Lot Balaam Iosua So that this adoration of Saints and Angells with more than humane and naturall respect and with acknowledgement of more than humane and naturall perfections in them is cleerely deduceable from holy Scriptures ANSVVER First your supposall that Saints deceased see and behold all our particular and singular actions is in my praecedent answer refuted Secondly if they did vnderstand our actions it were not nenecessarie for vs to worship them after your manner because neither God himselfe nor the blessed Saints require any such deuotion Thirdly your examples of Abdias and the Shunamite prostrating themselues to Elyas and Elizeus are not ad idem for these Prophets were visibly and sensibly present to those persons and on the contrarie the blessed Saints are absent from those which worship them vpon earth children kneele to their parents and speake to them when they are present but when they are absent such actions cease Fourthly your examples of Abraham Lot Balaam and Iosua conclude not your Angell-worship for it is the common Tenet of the most learned Fathers yea of many Pontificians That the Angell which Abraham and Ioshua worshipped was the second person of the Trinitie And the other Angells Gen. 18. 2. and 19.1 Num. 22.31 were present in place and did visibly and sensibly appeare to Abraham and the rest and vpon that vision they made outward obeysance to them perceiuing they were diuine messengers But did these or any other holy men whose example is commended in holy Scripture make outward obeisance or offer prayers to Angells when they were absent from them in heauen or when they did not behold signes and euidences of their sensible apparition IESVIT Neither haue Protestants reason to stand against so many pregnant examples of Scriptures vpon the one example of the Angell in the Apocalypse refusing to be adored of S. Iohn saying See thou doe it not I am one of thy fellow seruants adore God specially this place being explicated long agoe by the Fathers as not against the custome of Christian Saint-worship for either the Angell so appeared as S. Iohn tooke him to be God and would haue adored him as God whereof the adored was to be warned as S. Augustine expoundeth or rather the Angell forbad that worship not as iniurious vnto God but onely as cumbersome to himselfe which I declare by this example Suppose that one praise a Preacher to his face for an excellent sermon he hath made and the Preacher out of modestie saith Praise not me I am an vnworthy instrument of diuine wisedome praise God the Author of all This his speech doth not import that he thinkes to commend a Preachers sermon to be Idolatrie and giuing away the glorie of God to a creature but onely that modestie makes him wish that men would not praise him but rather turne all the praise and glorie of that sermon vpon God In this sort the Angell seeing the great and glorious friend of Iesus prostrated at his feet requested him to rise vp not condemning that adoration as Idolatrous but refusing it as an action though in regard of the offerer pious and godly yet to him the receiuer cumbersome which hee would not without some vnwillingnesse behold in regard of the dignitie of the person hee saw prostrated before him This is euidently gathered out of the sacred Text seeing S. 〈◊〉 after this prohibition did the second time offer the like honour to the same Angell which he would neuer haue done had he not knowne adoration of Angells by mortall men to be pious and religious on their parts howsoeuer the Angells sometimes for iust respects may in modestie refuse it ANSWER It is said vntruely and without any colour that Protestants stand against many pregnant examples of Scripture c. For the examples which are obiected doe some of them belong to the person of Christ as hath beene formerly shewed and the worship giuen to other Angells and to the holy Prophets was onely reuerence and outward obeisance when they were present in place and person and wee deny not reuerent comportment to holy Prophets and Angels when they are personally and visibly present But did the Church of the Iewes inuocate Elias or Elizeus in their publike seruice or did they offer any oblations to Angels when they were absent or to their Images or to any of the Patriarkes or Prophets or to their Images after these persons were defunct If you could produce pregnant
Augustine and Tertullian and concerning the first he saith that S. Augustine spake not of a bare and emptie figure but of the figure of a thing really present but this answere is deceitfull for the Sacramentall elements are a true and liuely figure and not a bare and emptie signe of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And although the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are not essentially contained and inclosed in the shapes or materiall substance of the elements yet they are really communicated by the holy Ghost at and by the faithfull and worthie receiuing of these diuine mysteries The second place of S. Augustine admitteth not the Iesuits solution for one difference betweene the Manichee and this Father was concerning Moses his words Deut. 12.23 Thou shalt not eat the Bloud for the Bloud is the Soule S. Augustine saith Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum I may expound that commandement by saying it was set downe in a signe for Christ doubted not to affirme This is my bodie when he gaue a signe of his Bodie In these words S. Augustine teacheth that as the Bloud is called the Soule after the manner of a signe so likewise the Bread in the holy Eucharist is called the bodie of Christ because it is a signe of his bodie This similitude prooueth that S. Augustine held our Sauiours words This is my Bodie to be a siguratiue enunciation which is the thing affirmed by vs. Tertullian affirmeth expressely of Bread which he receiued into his hand and distributed to his disciples that it is a figure of Christs Bodie And the Aduersaries 〈◊〉 expounding his words in this manner The figure of my bodie is my bodie is voluntarie or rather sophisticall for the words immediately following are he called bread his Bodie and in other places he maketh bread the subiect of the proposition This is my Bodie But the accidents and shape of bread are not bread neither did our Sauiour when he said This is my Bodie demonstrate the forme only of Bread or command the formes only of Bread and Wine to be corporally receiued for he did demonstrate that which was sacramentally changed but the accidents of Bread and Wine are not changed into Christs Bodie and Bloud by the confession of Papists themselues IESVIT This supposed I inferre that the bodie of Christ is present in the mysticall Supper not onely to the faithfull that receiue the Sacrament nor onely to the place or Church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes of Bread in the verie same place therewith This manner of presence is cleerely consequent vpon the precedent and that granted this cannot be denyed For the reason for which Christians hold the bodie of Christ to be really truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper and plaine sence verifie the word of Christ to say of Bread this is my bodie Wherefore we must either put no real presence at all or els put such a real presence as is able to verifie the foresaid speech in proper and rigorous sence But if the bodie of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated Bread contained vnder the formes thereof it cannot be said to be verily and really the body of Christ. For though we should suppose the Body of Christ to leaue heauen and be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed presence would no waies further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my Bodie except his bodie be vailed and couered with the sensible accidents of Bread so that it be demonstrated by them and pointing vnto them one may truely say This is the Body of Christ. For why should consecrated Bread be tearmed truely and substantially the Bodie of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is vailed with the semblances of Bread as S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in his Booke highly commended by Dr. Whitaker saith Let vs therefore with all certitude receiue the Bodie and Bloud of Christ For vnder the forme of Bread is giuen Thee his Bodie Yea Caluin saith In the supper Christ Jesus to wit his Bodie and Bloud is truely giuen vnder the signes of Bread and Wine ANSVVER Although the mysticall words be not vnderstood properly and rigorously yet we may truely and really though spiritually eat the Flesh and drinke the Bloud of the sonne of man by a liuing Faith Ioh. 6.54 1. Cor. 10.16 The food which entreth into the bodie must be locally present but this food entreth not into the bodie but it is the bread of life which nourisheth the substance of the soule saith S. Ambrose But the Obiector demandeth Why consecrated bread should be tearmed truely substantially the body of Christ if his bodie be not so much as in the same place with it Our answer is because of the Sacramentall vnion betweene the signes and the bodie of Christ represented and spiritually communicated to the worthie receiuor by that signe As a Kings crowne may be called a kingdome because it is a signe thereof and the placing thereof vpon the head may be a meanes of conferring a kingdome So likewise in Sacramentall speeches the outward signe is called by the name of the thing signified because it representeth it and is by diuine institution an effectual instrument to applie and communicate the same 1. Cor. 10.16 And by the same reason Christs Bodie may be said to be in the bread and his Bloud in the Cup not by locall presence or as wine is contained in a vessell which S. Cyrill affirmeth not but vertually and by relation and spirituall donation because when the Minister deliuereth the outward signe and the Communicant receiueth the same The holy Ghost deliuereth and communicates the thing signified to the beleeuing soule IESVIT Whence it is also consequent that the whole bodie of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated Host be the same neuer so little for by this mysterie the bodie of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidents so that consecrated bread may be termed truly really substantially the bodie of Christ not a parcell or part thereof only But were not the bodie of Christ wholly and entirely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truely and properly be tearmed the bodie of Christ but a sole part and 〈◊〉 thereof Againe we haue no reason to beleeue the bodie of Christ is truely and really present in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truely and really eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if he be eaten onely mentally by Faith we haue no ground to thinke that he is present more than mentally by Faith the presence of his bodie being ordained vnto the manducation thereof for else why did he institute this Sacrament
for euer S. Chrysostome This Bread filleth the mind and not the belly this is our Bread and the Bread of Angels Thirdly Whereas some of the Fathers say That the bodie of Christ is receiued into the mouth they vnderstand by the bodie of Christ the Sacrament or outward signe of his bodie as appeareth not onely by their owne Exposition where they call the outward signe a figure of Christs bodie but also because they say the bodie of Christ is visibly eaten and his bloud is visibly drunke Also they affirme That the bodie of Christ is spirituall food and passeth not into the bodie but into the soule IESVIT Wherefore seeing we must of necessitie grant as I haue prooued That some part of the Bodie of Christ is vnder consecrated Bread penetrating the same and occupying the same place with it Why should wee doubt to beleeue the whole Bodie of Christ to be wholly and totally in euery consecrated Hoast ANSVVER The Question is Whether the whole Bodie of Christ is entirely and totally in euerie consecrated Hoast that is Whether the true and substantiall Bodie of Christ which is an humane bodie essentially and in kind differing from a Spirit and hauing magnitude proportion order and distinction of parts is contained vnder euerie small crumme of consecrated Bread The Iesuit propugneth this Paradox in manner following IESVIT For if we can beleeue that two bodies bee in the same place at once we may as easily beleeue the same of twentie And if we grant that one part of Christs body doth penetrate that is occupy the same roome with the quantitie of Bread Why should we not thinke that the rest of his parts may also doe the like Our Sauiour saith That it is as easie for a Cammell to passe through a needles eye as for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen adding Though these things be impossible to men yet all is possible vnto God If then God can put a whole Cammell in the eye of a needle is he not able to put the whole body of Christ within the bignesse of a consecrated Hoast The body being mortall and passible could penetrate the body of his Mother and come out of her wombe through the same still remaining entyre as we professe in the Creede to beleeue Natum de Maria Virgine Why then may not the same body being now glorious immortall and as the Apostle speakes spirituall penetrate the quantitie of the Bread and inclose it selfe wholy and intirely within the small compasse thereof and Christ that made heauie things not to weigh as the body of Peter walking on the water coloured things not to be seene as his owne person which he so oft made inuisible to the Iewes bright things not to shine as his body after his Resurrection more bright than the Sunne did not shine in so many apparitions to his Disciples finally a flaming furnance not to burne the bodies of the three children cast into the midst thereof Why may not hee keepe a body from occupying a place or from extruding another bodie from the place where it is for to occupie a place or to extrude thence another body is but an effect consequent and flowing from the nature of a quantitatiue substance as to weigh to be seene to shine to burne be the naturall and necessarie effects of heauie coloured bright and fierie things ANSVVER We must beleeue whatsoeuer God hath reuealed But God hath reuealed that Christ hath a true body and all proprieties and attributes essentiall to a true body Heb. 2.16 Luc. 24. 39. And therefore the Romish doctrine which conuerteth the indiuiduall and finite body of Christ into a Spirit and fancie and destroyeth the true properties of the same affirming that is not circumscript palpable or situated in one particular place at once is erroneous neither can that be one and the same indiuiduall body betweene which are interposed many bodyes but betweene the one indiuiduall body of Christ in heauen and the same body in the Eucharist many other bodies to wit the seuerall bodies of the Heauens the Ayre the Pixe c. are interposed and the body of Christ in heauen is not ioyned to the sacramentall body by continuation or indiuision But it is obiected a whole Cammell may bee in the eye of a needle Math. 19. 24. 26. The passible body of Christ passed through the Virgins wombe the same being closed and not opened Peters heauie body walked aboue the waters the bodyes of the three young men continued in the fierie ouen vnconsumed or scorched Christs body was diuers times inuisible and once it was resplendent as the Sunne c. Therefore the now glorified body of Christ by the omnipotent power of God may be separate from circumscription length and thicknesse and other effects and properties of indiuiduall humane bodies It is answered the examples mentioned in the Antecedent are set vpon the Racke for our Sauiour affirmeth not that a Cammell continuing in his ordinarie quantitie can passe through the eye of a small needle but he saith onely that this may as easily be fulfilled as a rich man which maketh Mammon his God may enter into the kingdome of heauen Prouerbiall speeches Parables and suppositions are not according to euery passage in them to be strayned or expounded literally Luc. 17.6 Math. 7.3 If it be further said it followeth in the Text All things are possible with God Math. 19. 26. Marc. 10. 27. Luc. 18.27 Our Answere is First these words are referred to the latter part of Christs speech touching the rich mans entrance into heauen and not to the Cammels passing thorow the needles eye Secondly all things agreeable to truth and which God will haue done are possible but that it is agreeable with Truth for a Cammell retaining his quantitie with the whole bodie to passe thorow the eye of a needle or that God will haue this to bee or that it is his will that the bodie of Christ shall bee separated from circumscription and continencie of place deserueth to be credited when the Aduersaries prooue it by Diuine Reuelation or by other demonstration Secondly The Scripture affirmeth not nor yet the Apostles Creed that the blessed Virgin in 〈◊〉 trauell in Puerperio bare Christ in a different manner from other women Luk. 2.23 and what a sophisticall inference is this the Creed hath Borne of the Virgin Marie meaning according to conception generation and clearenesse from the companie of man Ergo the bodie of the blessed Virgin was not opened at the time of Christs birth Also many Fathers and some Schoolemen denie this and therefore from an Antecedent doubtfull and in question a consequent or conclusion of Faith cannot be inferred Thidly The example of Peter Math. 14. 29. and the three yong men Daniel 3. prooue not the question for the miracle might be in the water and in the fire and not
of Bread which was once substantially Bread cannot become substantially the bodie of Christ except it bee substantially conuerted into his bodie or personally assumed by the same bodie And seeing this second manner of vnion betweene Bread and Christs Bodie is impossible and reiected by Protestants as well as by Catholickes Wee may conclude that the mysterie of Christs reall presence cannot be beleeued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation specially seeing our Sauiour did not say here is my Bodie which speech may be verefyed by the presence of his Bodie locally within the Bread but This is my Bodie which imports that not onely his Bodie is truely and substantially present but also that it is the substance contained immediately vnder the accidents of Bread ANSWER First if a substance be either by nature humane Custome or diuine Ordination appointed to containe another substance then demonstrating the externall substance which containes we may signifie the hidden substance contained But according to that Tenet which maintaineth Consubstantiation the substance of bread is by diuine Ordination appointed to containe the substance of Christs bodie therefore demonstrating by words the substance of bread one may signifie the hidden substance which is Christs bodie Secondly Scotus Durand and Paludanus affirme that although the substance of Bread remaine yet because the substance of Christs bodie is also present it might truely and properly be said by our Sauiour This is my Bodie Now if such profound Scholemen haue weighed the Iesuits obiection do find the same light the propugnors of Consubstantiation haue smal reason to regard it Thirdly the former obiection is nothing to vs which maintaine a true mysticall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist and refuse both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation for we beleeue and are able to demonstrate that our Sauiours words are figuratiue in part and yet the true Bodie and Bloud of Christ are really and verely communicated according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. IESVIT Jf any man say that by this Argument it appeares that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the words of the Jnstitution subtilly deduced and so may perchance bee numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answer That the consequence of this Argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The Doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not Metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe by Scripture but by subtile deduction inferred from the mysterie which Scripture and Tradition deliuers Notwithstanding because these subtile deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the foresaid mysterie they cannot be denied without preiudice of Faith In this sort the Doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denied by them that will be perfect beleeuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertaine to the proper sence of Christ his words and substance of the mysterie ANSVVER I know at whom you glance when you say inter scita Scholae but your solution from the Doctrine of Incarnation is not leuell to the scope for illations are of two sorts some are immediate formall necessarie euident and illustrious to wit Christ Iesus is a true and perfect man therefore he hath an humane will some are obscure contingent remote and sophisticall to wit Christ said This is my bodie Ergo the consecrate host is Christs substantiall bodie by Transubstantiation Christ said Do this in remembrance of me Ergo he made his Disciples sacrificing Priests That which is deriued from Scripture the first way is Doctrine of Faith that which is inferred the other way may be loose vncertaine infirme and many times ridiculous and apparantly false Now let me intreate you vntill you prooue your deduction necessarie to ranke your Popish Masse and Transubstantiation among this latter kind of deriuatiue Articles Neither can the swelling vsurpation of Romish Prelates which you stile the Church make euery subtile speculation of Schoolemen and nice figment of humane wisedome an Article of Christian Faith any more than a bragging 〈◊〉 can by outfacing conuert copper into gold for Articles of Faith come downe from heauen by the holy Ghost and are such onely from their forme and originall causes As for your Romane Synode of Pope Nicholas and your Laterane vnder Innocent the third These were your owne Idols the definitions that passed in them were the breath of the Popes nostrils and therefore why are you so fantasticall as to enammell them with the title and authoritie of the Catholicke Church And in one of these conuenticles your Pope hath so rudely and grossely determined the Question of Reall presence that Romists themselues are now ashamed and forced to Glosses and strained Expositions to metamorphise and new mould those vndigested crudities IESVIT §. 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers IT is certaine the Fathers acknowledge a Transmutation of bread into the Bodie of Christ and that they meant Transubstantiation that is not onely a mysticall and significatiue but also a reall and substantiall change appeares by these fiue Circumstances of their Doctrine in this point ANSWER THat we may rightly vnderstand the testimonies of Fathers alleadged in this question wee are in the first place to examine what transubstantiation is according to Papalls The Trident Councell saith It is a conuersion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christs body and bloud wrought by the words of consecration First by the whole substance they vnderstand the whole substantiall matter and forme Secondly they affirme that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed or ceaseth to be Thirdly the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the accidentall shapes of Bread and Wine Fourthly by the force of the words of consecration the substance of Bread and Wine ceasing the body and blood of Christ acquire a new manner of being vnder the externall formes differing from his being in heauen Fiftly the shapes and accidents of Bread and Wine subsist without any materiall subiect of inherencie and affect the senses and nourish in like manner as formerly they did This doctrine of Popish Transubstantiation is new according to the iudgement of many learned Schoolemen and the Primitiue Fathers neuer taught the same for many of them maintaine expresly That the substance of Bread and Wine remaine and none of them affirme either that the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the naked formes and shapes of Bread and Wine or that the Accidents haue no materiall subiect of inherencie or that the body and bloud of Christ acquire a new being in the Sacrament differing from that which they had
formerly vpon the crosse or which they haue not at this present in heauen And transmutation and transubstantiation are different conuersions as appeareth by the examples of Lots wife changed into a pillar of salt Gen. 19. 26. and water changed into wine Ioh. 2.9 for in these transmutations the common materiall substance remaining the formes and accidents were onely changed IESVIT First by the expressenesse of their words for there can be no words more significant and expressiue of a substantiall change betweene Bread and our Sauiours bodie than those the Fathers vse ANSWER Expresse words if they be figuratiue prooue not a substantiall change for the Fathers vse words which according to the letter import a substantiall change when they treat of regeneration and the Sacrament of Baptisme Also treating of the holy Eucharist they affirme that faithfull Communicants are changed into the body and flesh of Christ which our Aduersaries themselues vnderstand not of a substantiall change IESVIT S. Nyssen That the word made flesh is inserted within euery faithfull man by his flesh taking his consistence of Bread and Wine Consecration transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh ANSVVER If the words of this Father be vnderstood of Transubstantiation then the bodies of faithfull receiuers are conuerted into the substance of Christs flesh for he saith Whē the immortal body of Christ is within him which hath receiued it it transmuteth him wholy into his owne nature Also the humane nature of Christ should be conuerted into the diuine nature and Christ should be commixed and contempered with the bodies of beleeuers and bread should be changed into Christs bodie as meat is into mans bodie Also Gregorie Nyssen saith That Christs body is inserted into beleeuers onely Lastly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transelementation prooueth not Transubstantiation for in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed and the quantitie and accidents remaine and in Transelementation the matter remaineth and the essentiall and accidentall formes are altered IESVIT S. Cyril saith That we might not feele horror seeing flesh and blood on the sacred Altars the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmities doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit Bread and Wine conuerting them into the veritie of his owne flesh that the body of life as it were a certaine seed of viuification might be found in vs. ANSVVER This Tract of S. Cyril according to Vasques the Iesuit is not found among his antient workes but cyted out of him by Thomas Aquinas and therefore the authoritie thereof may bee suspected notwithstanding I answer as followeth First S. Cyrill by the words Conuerting them into the veritie of his flesh vnderstandeth not Popish Transubst but mysticall and Sacramentall Conuersion to wit conuersion of signification vse and operation for he speaketh of Bread and Wine not according to a part of their nature to witte their matter and substance but according to their whole nature containing substance accidents and quantitie now if the things offered to God in the holy Eucharist are the whole creatures of Bread and Wine and the same are conuerted into Christs flesh then the accidents and quantitie are conuerted into Christs body as well as the matter and forme which Romists deny Secondly from the word Conuersion Romists cannot prooue Transubstantiation for if the conuersion be onely of vse relation and operation as in the water of Baptisme then it followeth not That because S. Cyrill taught conuersion Ergo hee taught Transubstantiation And if it be a substantiall conuersion then also there cannot be Popish Transubstantiation for in this forme and substance perish and the accidents remaine in the other the common matter remaineth and the forme and accidents perish In all substantiall conuersions naturall or miraculous there is a new thing produced out of that which is conuerted as appeareth in the conuersion of Water into Wine and Lots wife into a Pillar of salt c. But in Popish Transubstantiation the body of Christ is not produced anew for it is praeexistent and receiueth no substantiall change by the confession of 〈◊〉 themselues neither is it substantially vnited vnto the accidents of Bread and Wine for it giueth no subsistance to them and it sustaineth them not but it is vnited accidentally onely by being made present where the substance of the Elements formerly were Now if water should be poured vpon the ground or otherwise consumed and wine be brought from 〈◊〉 as haile and snow are and be placed where water formerly was here is no substantiall conuersion so likewise when the substance of Bread and Wine cease and Christs body and bloud are brought 〈◊〉 the place where these were no substantiall thing is produced but one substance succeedeth in the roome of another by that which they stile vbiation It is in vaine therefore for Romists to obiect the Fathers words speaking of conuersion of bread and wine into Christs bodie and blood because in Popish Transubstantiation there is not conuersion of bread into Christs bodie but onely a locall succession of Christs bodie into the same vbitie where the substance of bread formerly was Thirdly In all substantiall conuersions either a new thing is produced or the old preserued In Transubstantiation no new thing is produced nor any old preserued Ergo Transubstantiation is no conuersion If they answere That some new thing is produced to wit an vnion of Christs bodie with the Sacramentall signes I answere That when a garment and a bodie are vnited here is no substantiall conuersion or when a Diamond and gold Ring are vnited or when the humanitie or Deitie are vnited in the person of Christ. If they say That the bodie of Christ 〈◊〉 is preserued as when nourishment is receiued into the bodie it preserueth the same then I demand Whether Christs bodie is preserued in regard of the being and if they affirme then it is also produced according to the being because the same thing which produced the bodie of Christ doth at this present onely preserue it and no new thing super-added but it is not produced anew Ergo It is not preserued or continued in the being which it formerly had by any new Action If they answere It is preserued according to the Sacramentall being I reply That this Sacramentall being must be either the being of Christs bodie according to matter and forme but then Christs bodie receiueth no such being for it was preexistent Or else it is the vnion and application of Christs bodie to the Sacramentall signes and then I reply That this vnion is onely accidentall and in regard of presentialitie and vbitie and consequently it is no conuersion of bread into Christs bodie but a translation and adduction of Christs bodie from heauen vnto the place of the substance of bread but translation and adduction of one substance into
to be that the change is spirituall and mysticall And speaking of the elements of Bread and Wine he affirmeth expresly that our Sauiour deliuered consecrated Bread and Wine to his Disciples If then according to Gaudentius the consecrated signes which Christ deliuered his Disciples were Bread and Wine they were not abstracted shapes and figures of Bread and Wine for where the matter and essence is abolished and the accidents onely remaine there is not the verie thing but a shadow and image thereof onely IESVIT Thirdly the Instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiation is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose Moses his word changed the water of Egypt into blood and againe turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine Consecration where the verie words of our Sauiour worke The words of Elias had power to bring downe fire from Heauen and shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the Elements Againe thou seest how working and efficatious is the word of Christ. If therefore such vertue is in his Word that thereby things that are not receiue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remaine in the geneall latitude of being and according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance ANSWER Among the six or seuen examples brought by S. Ambrose of changes only two are substantiall and the rest accidentall and the elements are changed when of common and naturall creatures they are made sacred and become chanels and instruments of sauing grace So the Fathers affirme That the word of Christ in Baptisme is most efficacious to alter the property of naturall water and to giue regeneratiue force and vertue to it Also the holie Scripture affirmeth concerning Euangelicall Doctrine That it is the immortall Seed of God the Word of eternall life the Power of God to saluation c. 1. Pet. 1.29 Act. 5.20 14.3 Rom. 1.16 the same conuerteth people to God Act 2.37 and maketh them new creatures 2. Cor. 5.17 1. Cor. 4.15 But yet from hence we cannot inferre that either the water of Baptisme or regenerate persons are changed by Transubstantiation IESVIT Fourthly The effect of this Transmutation taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs bodie and the absence of the substance of Bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to beleeue what we seeme to see with our eyes Theophylact Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable creation although to vs it seeme Bread because we are weake and haue horror to eate raw flesh specially the flesh of man for this reason Bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not Bread S. Cyril Come not therefore as vnto simple Bread and Wine for it is the Bodie and Bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrarie yet let Faith confirme thee iudging not of the thing by tast but indubitably and with full Faith beleeue that thou art made partaker of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And againe know this and with full certitude beleeue That the Bread seene is not Bread though it so seeme to the tast but the Bodie of Christ and that Wine seene is not Wine though tast iudge it to be so but the Bloud of Christ. ANSWER First the Fathers teach and we with them acknowledge that Christs bodie is mystically present to faithfull communicants 1. Cor. 10.16 But corporall presence by indistance of place and absence of the materiall substance of the elements was not taught by the antiēt Church for they teach That the creatures of Bread and Wine are present in the Eucharist and that after they be changed they nourish the bodie but the abstracted shapes of Bread and Wine are not Gods creatures but Popish fancies Againe they teach that such signes and elements are present as haue power to feed and nourish the bodie and to resemble the mysticall vnion betweene Christ and Christian people to wit Bread confected of many cornes of graine Wine of many grapes but mathematicall Bread and wine haue neither power to nourish neither doe they resemble the mysticall Vnion aforesaid for there is in them onely the shadow of graine and Grapes but no substance and Papists may as well say That painted bread and wine haue power of feeding and mysticall representation as these fictions and Mathematicall shadowes Secondly Cyrill sheweth in other passages of that worke what hee intendeth and meaneth namely That the consecrate bread is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common prophane and meere naturall bread which the sight and taste iudge so to be but sanctified eleuated and changed to supernaturall vse and operation Thirdly If Theophylact a late Writer and some one or two besides speake obscurely and improperly in this Argument what is this to the grounding and raysing of an Article of Faith or to the proouing a matter in question by a common and euident consent of Fathers Fourthly The Fathers exhort people to abnegate their sences in Baptisme wherein they maintaine no Transubstantiation and there is good reason why wee should doe this in the holy Eucharist because wee therein eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of man Credendo by beleeuing Iohn 6. 35. and not by sensible or corporall eating IESVIT Finally That the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancie which they taught of Christs bodie in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For Reseruation to haue beene the custome of the Primatiue Church Protestants grant That the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not saith Master Fulke so great a question as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnicius granteth that in this point on our side stands 〈◊〉 consuetudinis late patentis diu propagatae And whereas 〈◊〉 addeth Haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet hee accuseth the Primitiue Church and opposeth no lesse against them than vs and I am sure your Maiestie knowes that the Primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnes S. Iustin and vnto the sicke as Dyonisius Alex. writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifieth Tertullian That many times they did weare the same about them for protection as Satyrus brother to S. Ambr. going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently with them to receiue it for their Viaticum as Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the
none of the antient Fathers maintained Romish Transubstantiation and I haue not obserued one expresse Testimonie produced by Romists wherein the Primatiue Fathers nay where Damascene or Theophilact affirme That the whole materiall substance and forme essentiall of bread and wine being destroyed the bare accidents and quantitie of bread and wine remaine or that the abstracted figures and qualities of those creatures are receiued into the mouth and stomacke and are tasted felt and conferre nourishment without any earthly matter conioyned to them But on the contrarie many Fathers affirme That after consecration bread and wine remaine Theoderet saith That they lose not their proper nature but remaine after they are sanctified in their former essence figure and kinde Gelasius saith Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Bertram saith Secundam creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante consecrationem hoc postea consistunt According to the substance of creatures they persist the same before and after consecration Ireneus teacheth That bread which is from the earth receiuing diuine calling or sanctification is not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two seuerall things or matters one earthly and the other coelestiall Saint Chrysostome Before Sanctification wee call it bread onely but when diuine Grace hath sanctified it it is deliuered from the name of bread and is counted worthie of the Appellation of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it still Damascene saith As a fierie coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not onely bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but bread vnited to the Diuinitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is apparent that when fire is vnited to a coale that the materiall substance of wood remaineth at least in part The Aduersarie in answere to Theoderit and Gelasius pretendeth that these Fathers by the words Substance Nature and Kind vnderstand onely the naturall qualities and accidents which flow from the Nature and Essence of Bread and Wine and he yeeldeth a reason saying That in ordinarie speech the naturall properties and qualities of things are tearmed the nature of the thing c. But this Answere is insufficient because it might perhaps salue the Obiection grounded vpon the word Nature but the Fathers affirme also that the Sacramentall signes remaine in their essence substance and kinde and they adde farther that they may bee sensibly tasted and felt and haue force of nourishing the bodie and that they are compounded of many cornes and of many grapes which make one substantiall bodie of bread and wine Now these things cannot truely bee said of the naked shapes and accidents of bread and wine suspended and diuided from their materiall substance Besides the Fathers deliuer the foresaid Doctrine to prooue the veritie and distinction of the two substantiall natures in Christ by making a comparison betweene the holy Eucharist and the two natures in Christs Person but if the substance of bread and wine cease and are changed into the very bodie and blood of Christ then the former comparison would rather confirme the false beleefe of the Hereticke than maintaine the Orthodoxall Faith of Christs humanitie remaining euen after his Ascension for the Hereticke might inferre vpon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation two errours about the humane nature of Christ. First That as in the Eucharist there is onely the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance euen so in Christ there was the shape and forme of flesh but not the verie nature Secondly Euen as in the Eucharist the essentiall forme and materiall substance of bread and wine are swallowed vp and conuerted into the bodie and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs Ascension the humane nature is absorpt and conuerted into the Deitie IESVIT § 4. The seeming repugnancies this Mysterie hath with sence should incline Christians the sooner to beleeue it THe former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfie were this Mysterie easie and not accompanied with many seeming absurdities and repugnances against sense 〈◊〉 these foure First That a bodie as big as our Sauiours remayning still truely corpulent in it selfe should be contained within the compasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly That a bodie so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignities and obscenities that may befall vnto them Thirdly That the same bodie may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly That the substance of bread being conuerted into Christs bodie the sole accidents remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse than if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans bodie These difficulties so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Transubstantiation as impossible yea as absurd ridiculous barbarous others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to beleeue it as a 〈◊〉 of Faith To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this Proposition That these seeming absurdities should not auert but rather incline a true Christian minde to beleeue this Mysterie In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiestie these three Considerations ANSVVER WEe measure not supernaturall Doctrine by humane sence or reason neither can any seeming repugnances of reputed Philosophie to Diuine Reuelation hinder our Faith where the holy Ghost commaunds vs to beleeue as appeareth in the articles of the sacred Trinitie Incarnation Resurrection c. Est quidem de communibus sensibus sapere in Dei rebus sed in testimonium veri non in adiutorium falsi quod sit secundum diuinam non contrà diuinam dispositionem saith Tertullian We must haue vnderstanding in the things of God out of common sence but this must serue to testifie truth and not to patronise errour according to diuine disposition Reuelation not against it So farre as sence and reason are not repugnant to diuine veritie but subseruient we may giue credit to them and euerie good Christian saith S. Augustine Vbicunque inuenerit veritatem Domini sui intelligat esse Wheresoeuer he findeth veritie taught either by nature or grace must vnderstand that it is his masters The question betweene the Romists and vs is not Whether if Transubstantiatiō be reuealed by God we may notwithstanding therefore refuse to beleeue it because the matter is difficill to be conceiued or because it hath manie seeming repugnances to sence for if they be able to demonstrate the first we must renounce the latter But the question is Whether Transubstantiation hauing no certaine and manifest ground in diuine Reuelation and many repugnances to common sence and reason and besides being expressely repugnant to the letter of the Scripture we are to beleeue the same First the holy Scripture calleth consecrated Wine the fruit of the Vine and consecrated Bread by the name of verie Bread
flowers So the bodie of Christ by supernaturall participation of his Diuine Presence is really vpon earth in things visible inuisible in things hurtfull impassible in things noysome inuiolable in things impure immaculable to his friends that receiue him with loue most sweet and comfortable and ouerflowing in Graces but to the vnworthie present in a manner dead and sencelesse as if hee were not there at all And as hee that receiues into his armes a bodie wherein the spirit absorpt in contemplation neither feeling nor felt lyeth inclosed may bee said to imbrace the bodie without the spirit which is in that bodie insensible and as good as if it were not there so they that receiue vnworthily are sometimes said by the Fathers to receiue the Sacrament without the bodie of Christ because though the bodie of Christ bee really in the Sacrament they receiue yet hee is there in a dead manner in regard of them as if hee were not there at all because hee stirres not vp heauenly actions in them nor makes them feele the workings of his grace and loue in their sences ANSWER The glorified bodie of Christ being impassible cannot bee polluted or corrupted because although it retaineth the same essentiall forme figure and substance yet it is deliuered from all terrene staines and frailtie and conuerted into caelestiall puritie and stabilitie And as this bodie cannot be polluted so likewise it cannot be masticated or ground with mens teeth as a Roman Synod vnder Pope Nicholas compelled Berengarius to confesse But from impassibilitie to omnipresence and immensitie it followeth not for impassibilitie is an affection of finite creatures but omnipresence and immensitie are diuine and in communicable properties And although in an extasie there is alienation and independencie of the spirit vpon the sences yet this argueth not that Christs humane bodie is substantially and insensiblie in the consecrated creatures of Bread and Wine or according to the manner of Angelicall presence or rather a participation of diuine immensitie as the Iesuit compelled to turne vbiquitarie speaketh or without bodilie stature posture and dimensions Lastly the Obiector saith that wicked persons receiue into their bodilie mouthes and stomach the substance of Christs flesh He prooueth not this assertion but bringeth only a similitude taken from the spirit of man in an extasie and pretendeth that the Fathers did therefore affirme wicked persons to receiue the outward Sacrament without the bodie of Christ because Christ in regard of them is in the Sacrament after a dead manner But S. Augustine and other Fathers speake not figuratiuely or by similitude but literally and expressely saying Non manducant illam carnem wicked persons doe not eat that flesh The thing it selfe to wit the bodie of Christ whereof this Bread is a Sacrament is receiued of euerie man which eateth it to life and by no man to death IESVIT Thirdly We cannot imagine the same bodie can bee in many places together at the same time Jt is true but as hardly can we imagine the soule to be in the head and in the feet of a man one and the same without diui sion in it selfe or an Angell to bee in two townes of the countrie whereof he is president as distant one from the other as Yorke and London Also who can conceiue God who is infinitly one and indiuisible to be both in heauen and on earth at once What marueile then that imagination failes vs to apprehend the multiplyed presence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament which is Spirituall Angelicall Supernaturall comparable with the diuine that S. Gregorie Nissen stickes not to say Sicut Diuinitas replet mundum tamen vna est ita innumerabilibus locis offertur tamen vnum corpus est The bodie of Christ being glorious is for operation as swift and agill as any thought but a mans thought is so quicke that one may be by thought in two disjoined places at once for example in London and at Rome Some Diuines giue such agilitie to Angels that they can place themselues substantially where they please by a thought and thinke that as their thoughts so like wise their substances are so independent of corporall space that they can be naturally in two distinct places without being in the spaces interiacent But the agilitie of Christs glorious bodie is more excellent and perfect as being supernaturall than the naturall agilitie of Angells yea than of thoughts why then should we make any doubt but he may be disioined in different places at once ANSVVER This discourse being reduced to argumentation is as followeth If a soule may be in euerie part of the bodie the thought of man in many places an Angell in many distinct vbities and if God is in heauen and earth then the bodie of Christ may be in many places But the first is true Ergo c. It is answered First one part of the antecedent is false for an Angell being a finite creature is at one instant difinitiuely in one vbitie onely for that which mooueth and passeth from one vbitie to another is not in both the places at once but Angels mooue and passe from one place to another Genes 28. 12. Math. 4.11 cap. 12.43 Marc. 5.12 Ioh. 5.4 Genes 19.1 32.1 Apoc. 14.6 ca. 18.1 20.1 Damasc. li. 2. ca. 3. Angeli dum sunt in terra non sunt in coelo Whiles Angels are on earth they are not in heauen And the opinion of some Schoolemen alledged to the contrarie is not to be regarded because their owne fellowes teach that there is no certainetie of these and the like assertions Secondly the consequence is infirme because of the difference which is betweene a bodie and the things compared thereunto in the antecedent First the soule of man is in euery member of the bodie because it is the forme thereof and because it is by nature immaterial Secondly God is euery where because he is infinit Thirdly the thought of man is a spirituall or intentionall motion and action and not a substantiall thing therefore Speculando phantasmata it may conceiue and apprehend diuers distant obiects Per modum vnius at one instant Fourthly Angells are immateriall substances and therefore their motion and action is sodaine yet determined to one place at one instant but an humane body is materiall finite and limited to a certaine space and measure and differeth from all the former things mentioned in the argument in kind and motion in manner of being present Reade before pag. 180. Ergo haec nihil ad Rhombum Therefore all these instances to this purpose and question of bodies are no better than shadowes without bodies IESVIT Fourthly We finde difficultie to conceiue that accidents existing separated from any substance can performe the office of substance euen to the nourishment of mans body but we should perchance find as much difficultie to beleeue That of a little
in it selfe Js it iniury to his charitie to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them and to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faithfull man entering really into their bodies to signifie efficatiously his inward coniunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it an iniury to his Wisedome to beleeue that to satisfie on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hand on the other side the Ardencie of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauen he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of faith yet to afford full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuing personall presence and most intime coniunction with them On the other side it imports them that thinke Transubstantiation impossible or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once to consider if they erre easie it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstandings measure the power of God how dangerous and vnexcusable their errour will prooue when they shall be called to giue vnto their omnipotent Maker a finall account particularly of this Doctrine so much derogating from him Let them thinke how they will answer if God lay to their charge the neglect of the most prudent and reasonable aduise which S. Chrys. giues Let vs beleeue God saith he let vs not reiect his Word though the same seeme secret and absurd vnto our cogitation and sense for his speech doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceiue vs but our senses be deceiued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the Intergatory which S. Cyril makes vnto such misbeleeuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God Why didst thou not accuse the imbecility of mans wit rather than the omnipotencie of God Or how disputing or proposing so many arguments against Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it they neuer called to mind the saying of S. Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas ANSWER This third and last consideration is a meere declamation grounded vpon a vaine supposition for it presumeth as granted the opinion of Transubstantiation to be most probable and reasonable as being declared by many antient Fathers defined by generall Councells c. But this supposition is a begging of the question for not so much as one antient Father or generall Councell did euer declare or define the same as it will plainely appeare to all iudicious Persons which shall compare and apply the sentences of Fathers and antient Councells to the Popish definition of Transubstantiation And the said Doctrine is not grounded vpon our Sauiours words and the miracles which Romists venditate to authorise the same are eyther Fryars fables or reports misapplyed and wrested to a contrary end And that there should be merit or at leastwise lesse perill in adhering to this doctrine rather than to any other may bee proclaimed ouer and ouer againe by Romists but it deserueth credit when they demonstrate That an opinion which is not grounded vpon diuine Reuelation and which containeth so many difficulties as cannot be solued and the beleefe whereof is vnnecessarie can be imbraced with safetie and expectation of reward To the words following in the Iesuit That he might also bee continually with his Church secretly it is answered That excluding Transubstantiation Christ Iesus is continually with his Church secretly by his grace spirit and mysticall vnion and he dwelleth in the hearts of iustified persons by faith Epkes 3. v. 17. S. Chrysostome S. Cyril and S. Augustine in the places obiected affirme that we are not to beleeue our dull and carnall sence when it suggesteth vnto vs that which is repugnant to faith and when it acknowledgeth no other force and operation in the holy Sacraments but that which is sensible and naturall But embracing this doctrine of the holy Fathers we cannot from thence extract the fancie of Transubstantiation Learned Papists themselues acknowledge the intricacies and difficulties of this Article many of them affirme that secluding the authoritie of the Romish Church there is nothing in diuine Reuelation compelling to beleeue it The doctrine is not Catholike or Antient The Propugners of it vntill the late Trident Councell disagree in that which is maine and substantiall in it and for auoiding one figure they make many Therefore it standeth not with Christian Wisedome to imbrace or maintaine this doctrine and Romists are more confident than prudent in imposing the same as an Article of the Creed censuring the Noncredents as hainous Heretikes My finall conclusion about this Article is That doctrine which is not expresly taught or formally deduced from holy Soripture which no antient Councell or Church for the first 600 yeares plainely taught and vnto which many aduerse passages are extant in the monuments of antiquitie also which is repugnant to sence and common reason and hath no apparent vtilitie ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith But such is the doctrine of Romish Transubstantiation Therefore it ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith and the Roman Church should either cancell this part of their new Creed or be lesse censorious in obtruding of it THE SEVENTH POINT COMMVNION VNDER ONE KIND AND THE ABBETTING OF IT BY CONCOMITANCIE IESVIT YOur most Excellent Maiestie in the Proposition of this Controuersie shewes your deepe insight into Theologicall difficulties perceiuing a maine ground whereon the Catholicke opinion of the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde standeth to wit Concomitancie which being granted Communion vnder one kind is iustified ANSVVER IF his Sacred MAIESTIE should yeeld you Concomitancie yet vpon that ground Communion in one kinde could not be iustified Neuerthelesse we denie both 〈◊〉 and Communion vnder one kinde IESVIT § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancie prooued THe Doctrine of Concomitancie is that vnder the forme of bread not onely the bodie of Christ but also his precious blood and blessed soule are truely and really contained the bodie directly and by vertue of the words of Consecration the blood and the soule consequently for being contained within the bodie of Christ they must needs Concomitate that is follow the bodie in what place soeuer the same bee neither can any that acknowledges the reall Presence denie this Concomitancie without falling into many absurdities as I prooue by three Arguments ANSWER THe bodie of Christ is considered two wayes First According to the nature of a perfect liuing bodie secondly As it is represented and exhibited in the Sacrament If we consider it the first way the blood of Christ cannot properly be said to be
in his bodie by Concomitancie for then it were accidentally therein but as a part in the whole for as the bones sinews and veynes are integrall parts of anaturall humane bodie so likewise is the blood and naturall parts are in the whole by substantiall vnion not by Concomitancie for then they were in the bodie or belonging thereunto as an adiunct to his subiect If we consider the bodie of Christ taken for the more solid parts thereof as it is represented and exhibited in the Sacrament to wit as it was fixed to the crosse and diuided from the blood then according to this Sacramentall representation and exhibition the same alone neither containeth nor representeth the blood The sacred Eucharist is one intire Sacrament totum compositum hauing two externall Elements to wit Bread and Wine and these two signes or elements represent the materiall Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse which consisted at the time of the Oblation thereof of a bodie fixed on a tree and the same dying by effusion of blood Luk. 22.21 And in the holy Eucharist Christ is as it were crucified before our eyes and his bodie and blood by representation are diuided and God Almightie vseth these mysticall creatures as instruments to communicate vnto euery worthie Receiuer the Sacrifice of Christ his Sonne 1. Cor. 10.16 But as the Sacrifice vpon the Crosse was not performed in one of these Indiuiduals apart or by it selfe but ioyntly in them both and without effusion of blood there is no remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 So likewise in the holy Eucharist the bodie of Christ is represented as it was diuided from the blood and againe the blood as seuered from the bodie and God concurreth with both the Elements deliuered and receiued with the one as it were by inception and with the other by consummation and Communicants partake not the whole Sacrifice of Christ vntill they haue receiued both the materiall parts of the Sacrament Here then is no Popish Concomitancie either of the blood to the bodie when it is receiued apart or of the bodie to the blood when that is receiued alone but the Sacrament reacheth the bodie blood as they were diuided and they are then conioyned to make one Sacrifice when they are both deliuered and receiued The whole cannot be in one part neither doth one part Concomitate another but is substantially vnited to another and in a Sacrifice or Sacrament compounded of diuisible parts he which giueth or receiueth one materiall part doth not therein or thereby distribute or receiue the whole Neither againe is the Deitie vnited to the bodie or blood of Christ by Concomitancie but by personall vnion Thus then I argue Whatsoeuer is receiued in the Sacrament by vs was before offered to God vpon the Crosse. But the bodie of Christ hauing bloud in it by concomitance or the deitie in it by concomitancie or the bloud of Christ hauing in it the bodie or 〈◊〉 by concomitancie was not offered to God vpon the Crosse for before the effusion of the bloud the same was in the bodie as a part not by concomitancie After the full effusion the bloud was diuided from the bodie and the 〈◊〉 was with the bodie by personall vnion and not by concomitancie Ergo At this day the bodie and deitie of Christ are not in the bloud of Christ by concomitancie c. IESVIT First hee that acknowledgeth the reall presence of Christs sacred bodie vnder the forme of bread and denies concomitancie doth in his beleefe seperate the bloud and soule of Christ from his bodie but to seperate either Christs diuinitie from his humanitie or soule from his bodie or his bloud from his flesh is vnlawfull for such a beleeuer doth dissolue and destroy Christ Jesus and so is one of the number of them that S. Iohn condemneth Omnis Spiritus qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo hic est Antichristus ANSVVER The summe of this obiection is Whosoeuer dissolueth Christ Iesus is an Antichrist Euerie one who admitteth reall presence and yet denyeth concomitancie dissolueth Christ Iesus for he seperateth the bloud and soule of Christ from his bodie and his diuinitie from his humanitie Ergo Whosoeuer in the reall presence denyeth concomitancie is an Antichrist Our answer is Whosoeuer dissolueth Christ Iesus according to S. Iohns meaning 1. Ioh. 4.3 by denying his deitie humanitie or personall vnion is Antichrist But the denying of Popish concomitancie inferreth none of these For although we affirme that in the holy Eucharist the bodie and bloud of Christ are represented distinctly and as they were diuided at his passion yet this dissolueth not Iesus but signifieth the seperation of his bodie and bloud formerly made vpon the Crosse And we beleeue that the holy Ghost according to the distinct signification of the sacramentall elements reacheth in a spirituall manner the bodie and bloud of Christ crucified to all faithfull communicants and addeth a seuerall effect and vertue of spirituall refection to each distinct part receiued according to the signification and this is confessed by Vasques Ruard Tapper Alexander Halles IESVIT And this argument hath greatest force in their opinion who shall thinke that Christ leaues heauen for the time to come downe really according to his Bodie and Bloud for how can the bodic of Christ come downe from heauen without bloud and soule vnlesse he come downe dead and so Christ should be not only mystically and figuratiuely but truely and really massacred in the Sacrament and the Eucharist be a bloudie Sacrifice and not incruent as the Fathers tearme it ANSWER None of our part thinke that Christ leaueth heauen to come downe really according to his bodie and bloud Act. 3.21 Donec seculum finiatur 〈◊〉 est Dominus Augustine in Ioh. tract 7. vntill the world be finished the Lord continues aboue And the Fathers tearme the holy Eucharist an vnbloudie sacrifice not because Christ is properly and in his substance offred therein but because his bloudie sacrifice vpon the crosse is by this vnbloudie commemoration represented called to remembrance and applyed Read the sentences of Fathers placed in the margen Read also Peter Lombard and the Enchiridion of Colen IESVIT Secondly The Priest in the person of Christ who is glorious in heauen or rather Christ being glorious in heauen by the mouth of the Priest saith This is my bodie but a bodie deuoid of bloud without soule and consequently dead and sencelesse is not the bodie of Christ as he is now glorious in heauen which hath bloud in the veines and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soule Therefore Christ glorious in heauen cannot say truely that a bodie void of bloud sence and soule is his bodie but soule life and bloud must needs follow and concomitate his bodie wheresoeuer it be ANSVVER First The new Testament acknowledgeth no proper sacrificing Priests but Christ Iesus onely
conclusion you giue vs that which is worst Iohn 2. 8. The Antecedent or leading part of your Argument is dubious and the Consequence also is infirme First you are not able to prooue out of the Texts Act. 2.42 or Luk. 24.30 that Christ and his Apostles in those places administred the holy Communion for there may be Prayer and breaking of Bread and yet no Sacrament 1. Tim. 4. v. 3.4.5 Also the place Act. 2. 42. may be vnderstood of dealing bread by Eleemosinarie dole to the poore And although some of the Fathers apply these Scriptures to the Eucharist according to the mysticall sence yet other Fathers are contrarie yea many Pontificians expound these Texts of common food or bread and not of the Eucharist But if the first Exposition were true yet Communion in one kinde cannot be hence inferred for either the words are proper or figuratiue If Romists will presse them according to the letter then no wine at all was then vsed by Christ Luc. 24. or by the Apostles Act. 2. and consequently it followeth 〈◊〉 If they will yeeld that there is a 〈◊〉 in the words then euen as when wee reade in sundrie places of Scripture That people meet together to 31.34 〈◊〉 2.10 wee vnderstand by a part of the 〈◊〉 the whole not 〈◊〉 wine or other in the 〈◊〉 Texts making literall mention of bread onely must be vnderstood as mentioning a part of the spirituall Feast for the whole Neither is there any force in the Argument ensuing which is Their eyes were opened to know Christ Ergo They 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread for the eyes may be opened by Miracle Grace and by Donation of Faith Act. 10. 14. without receiuing Eucharisticall Bread The holy Eucharist is not a sole or 〈◊〉 cause of grace 〈◊〉 there are other caufes and meanes besides and therefore the Illation is inconsequent 〈◊〉 an effect which may proceed from diuers and fundrie 〈◊〉 to one speciall and determinate efficient cause But the Aduersarie proceedeth saying That after breaking of bread Christ straight way vanished out of their sight and they hastened to Hierusalem with all speed Therefore there was no space after receiuing the Bread for the sumption of Wine The Reader may perceiue by these and other such like writhings of the Text vpon what foundation Popish Faith is builded First The word Straight wayes is not in the Narration Luke 24. Secondly The receiuing a small quantitie of Wine could neither hinder our Sauiours expedition nor the Apostles iourney to Ierusalem Thirdly How appeareth it that receiuing Eucharisticall Bread made the Disciples more agile in bodie and prompter in minde to trauell to Hierusalem for two Disciples ranne to the Sepulchre with as much allacritie and expedition as was possible 〈◊〉 20. 4 and yet they had at that present time receiued no Eucharisticall Bread Yea on the contrarie the Apostles of Christ after the receiuing of the holy Eucharist doe all of them flie away and forsake their Master Math. 26.58 This collection therefore The Disciples hasted to Hierusalem Ergo They receiued the Eucharist is dissolute and not much vnlike that of Pope Boniface the eight God said Let vs make two great lights Ergo The Pope is greater than the Emperour IESVIT These bee the Warrants that Communion vnder one kinde hath being the greatest that may bee whereby appeares that the Roman Church is furnisht with all kinde of proofe in this point in which she doth seeme to her Aduersaries to be most forsaken of Antiquitie Now supposing Communion vnder one kinde to be good and lawfull That the Church could preseribe it and That shee had iust reasons to prescribe it J will let passe without proofe as a thing not doubted of by your Maiesties excellent wisedome ANSVVER All your warrants for halfe Communions are meere Impostures and audacious words and figments Commota semel excussa mens ei seruit à quo impellitur saith Seneca The mind which is disordered and put out of frame becomes a slaue to that which impells it This is verified in you you want all kinds of iust defence for your Sacriledge in mangling and dismembring the holy Communion yet hauing once ouershot your selues and become slaues to your owne conceit of not being subiect to errour Litigare magis quam sanari vultis you chuse rather to make warre with heauen than to retract your errour for they warre with heauen which oppose the Testament of the Sonne of God the Tradition of the holy Apostles and the practise of the Primitiue Church and this is your case although you list not to see it or rather seeing to acknowledge it THE EIGHT POINT WORKES OF SVPERERROGATION SPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TREASVRE OF THE CHVRCH IESVIT IT is hard if not impossible to giue satisfaction in this point vnto any that is not aforehand persuaded of the Catholicke Doctrine of Merit ANSVVER THe word or name of merit is taken in two notions First properly strictly and vniuocally Ro. 4.4 Deu. 7.10 Secondly improperly largely and equiuocally Eccle. 16.15 The first is tearmed by Schoolemen Merit of Condignitie and the latter Merit of Impetration or of Congruitie If the Iesuit maintaine Merit according to the first acceptation then out of all question the Doctrine of Merit is not Catholicke If he maintaine Merit according to the second notion then Popes pardons and workes of Supererogation cannot be inferred or concluded from the doctrine of Merit for how can that action bee applied to other persons as satisfactorie which is rewarded by God of his free fauour and grace aboue the desert of the person himselfe which hath wrought it IESVITS §. 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared THis Doctrine is much misliked by Protestants as proud and arrogant yet not so much misliked as misunderstood their dislike growing from misconstruction thereof For Catholickes hold that no worke is meritorious with God of it owne nature but to make the same meritorious many graces are required and those most diuine and excellent particularly these seuen ANSVVER CAn any thing be more arrogant and foolish than for a miserable begger and sinner whose iustice is rather in remission of sinnes than in perfection of vertues to maintaine that God should be vniust if he rendred not heauen to mans good workes And yet this proud Doctrine is deliuered by the Rhemists and by some other Romists But our Aduersarie laboureth by distinction to salue this Pharisaisme saying Good workes are not meritorious by their nature but by many graces c. I answer If he should maintaine that Good workes merit iustification or perseuerance not by their Nature but by Grace this distinction would not free his Tenet from error so likewise it is erroneus to maintaine that Good works merit glorie by Grace for that which is of Merit is not of Grace but of debt And diuine grace doth not eleuate vertuous actions by adding vnto them a force of meriting but
should be fully and sufficiently knowne as by Diuine and infallible Testimonie Lumine proprio by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it selfe onely and by the witnesse that it can so giue it selfe I could neuer yet see cause to allow For as there is no place in Scripture that tells vs such Bookes containing such and such particulars are the Canon and the infallible Will and Word of God so if there were any such place that were no sufficient proofe for a man might iustly aske another Booke to beare witnesse of that and againe of that another and where euer it were written in Scripture that must be a part of the whole And no created thing can alone giue witnesse to it selfe and make it euident nor one part testifie for another and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest Besides if it were so cleare by 〈◊〉 and in giuen Light What should hinder but that all which heare it and doe but vnderstand the Tearmes should presently assent vnto it as men vse to doe to Principles euident in themselues which dayly experience teacheth vs they doe not And this though I cannot approoue yet me thinkes you may and vpon probable grounds at least For I hope no Romanist will denie but that there is as much Light in Scripture to manifest and make ostension of it selfe to be infallibly the written Word of God as there is in any Tradition of the Church that it is Diuine and infallibly the vnwritten Word of God And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets Thus saith the Lord and from the mouths of the Apostles That the Holy Ghost spake by them are at least as able and as fit to beare witnesse to their owne Veritie as the Church is to beare witnesse to her owne Traditions by bare saying they come from the Apostles And your selues would neuer goe to the Scripture to prooue that there are Traditions as you doe if you did not thinke the Scripture as easie to be discouered by inbred Light in it selfe as Traditions by their Light And if this be so then it is as probable at the least which some of ours affirme That Scripture may be knowne to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it selfe as it is which you affirme That a Tradition may be knowne to be such by the Light which it hath in it selfe If this Argument were in ieast this were an excellent Proposition to make sport withall 3. For the third Either some thinke that there is no sufficient warrant for this vnlesse they fetch it from the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost and so looke in vaine after speciall Reuelations and make themselues by thisvery conceit obnoxious and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing priuate Spirit or else you would faine haue them thinke so For your side both vpon this and other occasions doe often challenge that wee resolue all our Faith into the Dictats of a priuate Spirit from which wee shall euer prooue our selues as free if not freer than you To the Question in hand then Suppose it agreed vpon that there must be a Diuine Faith Cui subesse non potest falsum vnder which can rest no possible error That the Bookes of Scripture are the written Word of God If they which goe to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost for proofe of this doe meane by Faith Obiectum Fidei The Obiect of Faith that is to be beleeued then no question they are out of the ordinarie way for God neuer sent vs by any word or warrant of his to looke for any such speciall and priuate Testimonie to prooue which that Booke is that wee must beleeue But if by Faith they meane the Habite or Act of Diuine infused Faith by which vertue they doe beleeue the Credible Obiect and thing to be beleeued then their speech is true and confessed by all Diuines of all sorts For Faith is the gift of God of God alone and an infased Habite in respect whereof the Soule is meerely recipient And therefore the sole Infuser the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that worke which none can doe but he For the Holy Ghost as hee first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles so did he not leaue the Church in generall nor the true members of it in particular without grace to beleeue what himselfe had reuealed and made credible So that Faith as it is taken for the vertue of Faith whether it be of this or any other Article though it receiue a kind of preparation or occasion of beginning from the Testimonie of the Church as it proposes and induceth to the Faith yet it ends in God reuealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without For till the Spirit of God mooue the heart of man he cannot beleeue be the Obiect neuer so eredible The speech is true then but quite out of the state of this Question which enquires onely after a sufficient meanes to make this Obiect credible and fit to be beleeued against all impeachment of follic and temeritie in beleefe whether men doe actually beleeue it or not For which no man may expect inward priuate reuelation without the externall meanes of the Church vnlesse perhaps the case of necessitie be excepted when a man liues in such a Time and Place as excludes him from all ordinarie meanes in which I dare not offer to shut vp God from the soules of men nor to tye him to those ordinarie wayes and meanes to which yet in great wisedome and prouidence hee hath tyed and bound all mankind Priuate Reuelation then hath nothing ordinarily to doe to make the Obiect credible in this That Scripture is the Word of God or in any other Article For the Question is of such outward and euident meanes as other men may take notice of as well as our selues By which if there arise any doubting or infirmitie in the Faith others may strengthen vs or we affoord meanes to support them whereas the Testimonie of the Spirit and all priuate Reuelation is within nor felt nor seene of any but him that hath it so that hence can be drawne no proofe to others Miracles are not sufficient alone to prooue it 〈◊〉 both they and the Reuelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an vnalterable Rule by Man or Angell 4. The last which giues Reason leaue to come in and prooue what it can may not iustly be denyed by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heauen nor beleeue this Booke in which God hath written the way yet Grace is neuer placed but in a reasonable creature and prooues by the verie seat which it hath taken vp that the end it hath is to be spirituall eye-water to make Reason see what by Nature onely it cannot but neuer to blemish Reason in that
in the second The Conclusion and not the Meanes For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if they be sometimes vncertaine as is prooued before the Conclusion cannot be infallible Not in the third The Meanes and not the Conclusion For that cannot but be true and necessarie if the Meanes be so And this I am sure you will neuer graunt because if you should you must denie the infallibilitie which you seeke to establish To this for I confesse the Argument is old but can neuer be worne out nor shifted off your great Maister Stapleton who is miserably hampered in it and indeed so are yee all answers That the infallibilitie of a Councell is in the second course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be vncertaine and fallible in the Meanes and proofe of it How comes this to passe It is a thing altogether vnknowne in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Well that is graunted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes knowledge But wee shall haue Reasons for it First because the Church is discursiue and vses the weights and moments of Reason in the Meanes but is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation from the Spirit of God in deliuering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appeare and all Controuersie is at an end Well I will not discourse here to what end there is any vse of Meanes if the Conclusion be Propheticall which yet is iustly vrged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Propheticall in the Conclusion I speake still of the present Church for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophesie and immediate Reuelation was euer propheticke in the Definition Then since it deliuers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can beare it there must be some supernaturall Authoritie which must deliuer this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flye to immediate Reuelation now the Enthusiasme must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the verie Exposition of all the Primitiue Church neyther say it nor inforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophesie in the Conclusion I know no other thing can warrant it If you thinke the Tradition of the Church can make the World beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that sayes this is an vniuersall Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a Generall Councell are Propheticall and by immediate Reuelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his owne authoritie That he thinkes so Nay make it appeare that euer any Prophet in that which he deliuered from God as infallible Truth was euer discursiue at all in the Meanes Nay make it but probable in the ordinarie course of Prophesie and I hope you goe no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute Power That that which is discursiue in the Meanes can be Propheticke in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for euer In the meane time I haue learned this from yours That all Prophesie is by Vision Inspiration c. and that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophesie is an Illumination not alwayes present but when the Word of the Lord came to them and that was not by discourse And yet you say againe That this Propheticke infallibilitie of the Church is not gotten without studie and Industrie You should doe well to tell vs too why God would put his Church to studie for the Spirit of Prophesie which neuer anie particular Prophet was put vnto And whosoeuer shall studie for it shall doe itin vaine since Prophesie is a Gift and can neuer be an acquired Habite And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authoritie of Generall Councels dares not come at this Rocke He preferres the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the deliberations of Councels and so doe wee but I doe not remember that euer he speakes out That the Conclusion is deliuered by Prophesie or Reuelation Sure he sounded the Shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speakes plainely Would his bad cause let him be constant Councels doe deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neyther haue they nor doe they write any immediate Reuelations The second Reason why hee will haue it propheticke in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be beleeued though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art or Meanes or Argument but the Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge This for the first part That the Church vses the Meanes but followes them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the latter part That then our admitting the Decree ofa Councell would be no Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge What great inconuenience is there if it be graunted For I thinke it is vndoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Beleeuer that cannot prooue and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing euen this the verie Wisedome of the Church in her Doctrine ascribes Vnderstanding to one sort of men and Beleefe to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him And for further satisfaction if not of you of others this may be considered too Man lost by sinne the Integritie of his Nature and cannot haue Light enough to see the way to Heauen but by Grace This Grace was first merited after giuen by Christ. This Grace is first kindled in Faith by which if wee agree not to some supernaturall Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply wee can neuer see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it selfe cleares the Eye of Reason it neuer puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the verie Catholike Church it selfe is reasonable as well as diffused euerie where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath beene able either to conuert or conuince or stop the mouthes at least of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the verie point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamentall Points of Faith without which there is no saluation they as they cannot be prooued by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councell nor euer were they attempted they are
enough not spared to say That what the B. would not acknowledge in this cause you would wring and extort from him then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denyed But euerie Error denyes not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ denie it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The B. said That the Error was not in Point fundamentall B. The B. was not so peremptorie His speech was That diuers learned men and some of your owne were of opinion That as the Greekes expressed themselues it was a Question not simply Fundamentall The B. knowes and acknowledges that Error of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne to be a grieuous Error in Diuinitie And sure it would haue grated the Foundation if they had so denyed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne as that they had made an inequalitie betweene the Persons But since their forme of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Sonne and is the Spirit of the Sonne without making any difference in the consubstantialitie of the Persons the B. dares not denie them to be a true Church for this though he confesses them an erroneous Church in this particular Now that diuers learned men were of opinion That à Filio per Filium in the sense of the Greeke Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not fundamentall is euident The Master and his Schollers agree vpon it The Greekes saith hee confesse the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Sonne with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. Ioh. 16. And since Non est aliud It is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Sonne then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Sonne in this they seeme to agree with vs in eandem Fidei Sententiam vpon the same Sentence of Faith though they differ in words Now in this cause where the words differ but the sentence of Faith is the same 〈◊〉 eadem euen altogether the same Can the Point be fundamentall You may make them no Church as Bellarmine doth and so denie them saluation which cannot be had out of the true Church but the B. dares not It ought to be no easie thing to condemne a man of Heresie in foundation of Faith much lesse a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greeke especially so as to make them no Church Heauen Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his owne Girdle And it is good counsaile which Alphonsus à Castro one of your owne giues Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie how easie it is for themselues to erre Or if you will pronounce consider what it is that seperates from the Church simply and not in part onely I must needs professe that I wish heartily as well as others that those distressed men whose Crosse is heauie alreadie had beene more plainely and moderately dealt withall though they thinke a diuerse thing from vs than they haue beene by the Church of Rome But hereupon you say you were forced F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against Dr. White concerning Points Fundamentall B. Hereupon it is true that you read a large discourse out of a Booke printed which you said was yours The particulars all of them at the least the B. tells me he doth not now remember and is sure he did not then approoue But if they be such as were formerly brought against 〈◊〉 White they are by him formerly answered The first thing you did was the righting of S. Augustine Which Sentence the B. doth not at all remember was so much as named in the third Conference much lesse was it stood vpon and then righted by you Another place of S. Augustine indeed was which you omit but the place of it comes after about Tradition to which I remit it But you tell vs of a great proofe made out of this place These words containe two Propositions One That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall The other That this is prooued out of this place of S. Augustine 1. For the first That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall It was not the least meanes by which Rome grew to her Greatnesse to blast euerie Opposer shee had with the name of Heretike or Schismatike for this serued to shriuell the credit of the persons and the persons once brought into contempt and ignominie all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of creditable persons to backe and support it To make this proceeding good in these later yeeres this course it seemes was taken The Schoole that must maintaine and so they doe That all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamentall necessarie to be beleeued of the substance of the Faith and that though it be determined quite Extra Scripturam And then leaue the wise and actiue heads to take order that there be strength enough readie to determine what is fittest for them But since these men distinguish not nor you betweene the Church in generall and a Generall Councell which is but her Representation for determinations of the Faith the B. though he be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by lawfull generall and consenting Authoritie though hee giue as much as can be giuen to the definitions of Councels truly generall nay suppose hee should graunt which hee doth not That Generall Councels cannot erre yet this cannot downe with him That all Points euen so defined are Fundamentall For Deductions are not prime and Natiue Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another in different Christians for then it could be no constant Rule for any nor could the soules of men rest vpon a shaking Foundation No If it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firme vnder all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall And Irenaeus layes this for a ground That the whole Church howsoeuer dispersed in place speakes this with one mouth Hee which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake vtters no more than this and lesse than this the most simple doth not vtter Therefore the Creed of which hee speakes is a common is a constant Foundation and an Explicite Faith must be of this in them which haue the vse of Reason for both Guides and simple people all the Church vtter this Now many things are defined by the Church which are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right mooue farre from the Foundation without which Deductions explicitely beleeued many millions of Christians goe to Heauen and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the Faith True
Deductions from the Article may require necessarie beleefe in them which are able and doe goe along with them from the Principle to the Conclusion but I doe not see either that the Learned doe make them necessarie to all or any reason why they should Therefore they cannot be Fundamentall Besides that which is Fundamentall in the Faith of Christ is a Rocke immooueable and can neuer bee varied Neuer Therefore if it be Fundamentall after the Church hath defined it it was Fundamentall before the definition else it is mooueable and then no Christian hath where to rest And if it be immooueable as indeed it is no Decree of a Councell be it neuer so generall can alter immooueable Verities no more than it can change immooueable Natures Therefore if the Church in a Councell define any thing the thing defined is not Fundamentall because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the definition of the Church if it be not so in it selfe For if the Church had this power shee might make a new Article of the Faith which the Learned among your selues denie For the Articles of the Faith cannot encrease in substance but onely in explication Nor is this hard to be prooued out of your owne Schoole for Scotus professeth it in this verie particular of the Greeke Church If there be saith he a true reall difference betweene the Greekes and the Latines about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost then either they or we be vere Haeretici truly and indeed Heretikes And he speakes this of the old Greekes long before any decision of the Church in this Controuersie For his instance is in S. Basil and Greg. Nazianz. on the one side and S. Ierome Augustine and Ambrose on the other And who dares call any of these Heretikes is his challenge I denie not but that Scotus addes there That howsoeuer this was before yet ex quo from the time that the Catholike Church declared it it is to be held as of the substance of Faith But this cannot stand with his former Principle if hee intend by it That whatsoeuer the Church defines shall be ipso facto and for that determinations sake Fundamentall For if before the determination supposing the difference reall some of those Worthies were truly Heretikes as hee confesses then somewhat made them so and that could not be the Decree of the Church which then was not Therefore it must be somewhat really false that made them so and fundamentally false if it had made them Heretikes against the Foundation But Scotus was wiser than to intend this It may be hee saw the streame too strong for him to swim against therefore hee went on with the Doctrine of the time That the Churches Sentence is of the substance of Faith but meant not to betray the Truth for hee goes no further than Ecclesia declarauit since the Church hath declared it which is the word that is vsed by diuers Now the Master teaches and the Schollers too That euerie thing which belongs to the exposition or declaration of another intus est is not another contrarie thing but is contayned within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted from which if the declaration depart it is faultie and erronious because in stead of declaring it giues another and a contrarie sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in a Councell either that which she declares was Intus or Extra in the nature and veritie of the thing or out of it If it were Extra without the nature of the thing declared then the declaration of the thing is false and so farre from being fundamentall in the Faith If it were Intus within the compasse and nature of the thing though not expert and apparant to euerie Eye then the declaration is true but not otherwise fundamentall than the thing is which is declared For Intus cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is if it were it could not be Intus Therefore nothing is simply fundamentall because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares And it is a slight and poore euasion that is commonly vsed That the declaration of the Church makes it fundamentall quoad nos in respect of vs for it doth not that neither for no respect to vs can varie the Foundation The Churches declaration can bind vs to peace and externall obedience where there is not expresse letter of Scripture and sense agreed on but it cannot make any thing fundamentall to vs that is not so in the nature of it For if the Church can so adde that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be fundamentall in the Faith that was not then it can take a thing from the foundation and make it by declaring not to be fundamentall which all men graunt no power of the Church can doe For the power of adding any thing contrarie and of detracting any thing necessarie are alike forbidden Now nothing is more apparant than this to the eye of all men That the Church of Rome hath determined or declared or defined call it what you will very many things that are not in their owne nature fundamentall and therefore neither are not can be made so by her adiudging them 2. For the second That it is prooued by this place of S. Augustine That all Points defined by the Church are fundamentall You might haue giuen me that place cited in the Margin and eased my paines to seeke it but it may be there was somewhat in concealing it For you doe so extraordinarily right this place that you were loth I thinke any 〈◊〉 should see how you wrong it The place of S. Augustine is this against the Pelagians about Remission of Originall sinne in Infants This is a thing founded An erring Disputor is to be borne with in other Questions not diligently digested not yet made firme by 〈◊〉 Authoritie of the Church their Error is to be borne with but it ought not to goe so farre that it should labour to shake the Foundation it selfe of the Church This is the place but it can neuer follow out of this place I thinke That euerie thing defined by the Church is Fundamentall For first he speakes of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not a Church definition This appeares for few Lines before he tells vs There was a Question mooued to S. Cyprian Whether Baptisme was concluded to the eight day as well as Circumcision And no doubt was made then of the beginning of Sinne and that out of this thing about which no Question was mooued that Question that was made was answered And againe That S. Cyprian tooke that which he gaue in answere from the Foundation of the Church to confirme a Stone that was shaking Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he giues hath not one