fit sanguis Christi nec tamen aliquid additur corpori vel sanguini nec augetur corpus Christi vel sanguis To which we answer thus Christ's Sacred Body is not said after that manner made by a Heavenly word that 't is framed a new in the Virgin but because the substance of Bread and Wine which before were not the Body and Blood of Christ by the Heavenly Word of Consecration is made that Body and Blood and therefore Priests are said to make Christ's Body and Blood because by their work or Ministry the Substance of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ and the Substance of Wine is made his Blood yet nothing is added to that Body and Blood neither are made more or encreased Thus Lombardus answers the Objection which the Doctor only sets down and therefore in plain English he deals with his Reader as Sr. Morney Plessy once did with Cardinal Peron he gives you the Objections for Lombards own doctrine that this is most evidently Lombards Doctrine lit D. clears all chiefly towards the end Non sunt tamea multa corpora Christi sed unum corpus unus sanguis ideoque sive plus sive minus quis inde percipiat omnes aequaliter corpus Christi integerrimè sumunt post consecrationem ergo non est substantia panis vel vini licet species remaneant est enim species panis vini sicut sapor unde aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Yet there are not many bodies of Christ but one only Body and Blood and therefore though any take more or less all equally and wholly take the Body of Christ After the Consecration then there is no substance of Bread and Wine although the species of Bread and Wine remain as also the tast wherefore one thing is seen and another is understood Never did Lateran Council or any Catholick Author speak more plainly for Transubstantiation To be sure of what I here affirm I have read two Editions of Petrus Lombard that which was Printed at Loven anno 1546. and the other most usual with Albertus Magnus his Commentaries The Doctor next quotes Durandus lib. 4. sent distinc 11. qu. 1. Sect. Propter tertium who saies he Publickly maintained that after consecration the very matter of Bread remain'd although he saies by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held I Answer That Durand in all that first question hath not a word like what the Doctor asserts read him Art 3. he plainly maintains the Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation and absolutely concludes that the Substance of Bread and Wine are converted into Christs Body All he hath Sectio propter tertium is that the Words of Christ might be verified although the Body were present with Bread which is a Theological disputation and neither clears the Doctor for his abusing Durand nor advanceth him one whit in his cavils against Transubstantiation Page 40. and 41. he gives you a few weak Authorities against our Doctrine and thinks to confute all by the Testimony of St. Gregory Nazianzen cited page 42. Orat. 2. in Paseha The Oration is long and the Doctor well might either by page or number have helped his Reader to find the place but thus he deals with you often and far worse afterwards Well St. Gregory in his Works Printed at Antwerp 1612. Orat. 2. in Pascha pag. 261. nu 5. saith Iam vero Paschalis participes erimus nunc quidem adhuc typice tametsi apertius licet quam in veteri legale siquidem pascha nec enim dicere verebor figurae figura erat obscurior These words the Doctor gives you in English and what conclude they against Transubstantiation nothing for were the Sacred Body of our Dearest Lord present in the Eucharist with the substance of Bread were it as it now is really present without the substance of Bread In St. Gregori's sence Christ concealed under the species of Bread may be rightly called a Figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in Heaven For as the legal Pascha was a Figure because it more obscurely pointed out this true one in the New Law So this also where Christ Jesus is concealed from our sences may be rightly called a Figure because it exhibits not most clearly that Saviour we shall see with greatest clarity in Heaven This sence is gathered out of St. Gregories next ensuing words which the Doctor wholly omits Figurae erat figura obscurior saith the Saint aliquam post autem perfectius purius tum videlicet cum verbum novum illud nobiscum in regno Patris bibet pate faciens docens quae nunc plane demonstravit The legal Pascha was a more obscure Figure of this Figure which we shall afterward see perfectly and with greater clarity to wit when the new Word shall drink it with us in his Fathers Kingdom laying open himself and teaching us those things which now he hath fully demonstrated Mark these last words very useful to explicate other Authorities where mention is made of a Sign a Type and Figure in this matter but they are neither for or against Transubstantiation unless the Doctor shews which he shall never that Christs Sacred Body is so barely Figured in this Pascha that it is not also really present Theodoret and Gelasius cited pag. 43. are answered in every Book by our Writers The nature of the Symbols or Signs are not changed that is the Species or accidents of Bread and Wine remain these recide not from their nature Grace is added What is here against Transubstantiation I pass by those witty questions which the Doctor moves pag. 45. What if a Priest says Hoc est corpus meum over all the Bread in a Bakers shop doth he turn it into Christs Body the like question is And what if a Minister say the same words over the same Bread doth he turn it into Holy and Sanctifyed Bread may the People kneel down and take this as Christs Body Again Whether a Church-Mouse doth eat her Maker And what if a Mouse or a viler Creature had bit the Sacred body of our Saviour laid in Bethlem Stable had they bit their Maker Away with these Trifles they become not a Doctor of Divinity And be pleased To reflect on one doubty Argument he hath page 46. which is indeed pressing but how to shew that he knows not our Catholick Doctrine Since secondly saith he they say that every consecrated wafer is Christs whole Body and yet this wafer is not that Wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs Body or else Christ hath two Bodies for there are two Wafers My God! what is here out of two Wafers he inferrs two Bodies as if one from the two parts in man his Head and Feet should infer a necessity of two Souls or conclude there are two Gods one in Heaven and the other in Earth because Heaven and Earth are more distinct then two Wafers That known
and Origen Homil. 14. in Lucam and these perhaps Otho impugned Next he discourseth how Infants that dye with Original sin only are to be punished whether with a milder pain or no Here is the substance of that Chapter I could wish the Doctor would read those words of Otho towards the end of this 26. Chapter Quod si locus etiam ille superior non ut prius ad purgationem which manifestly declare the Authors meaning nothing God knows contrary to Purgatory Pag. the 33. he cites Maldonat alledging divers Greek Fathers denying that the Souls of the dead ever do appear what is that to our purpose of Purgatory Maldonat gives you St. A 〈…〉 in s severe censure against them and a proof is evident Moses and Elias appeared to our Saviour in Mount Tabor Ergo Souls do appear The Authorities he brings against Purgatory pag. 34. are both so weak and vulgar that they deserve no answer There is no place of Penance saith he out of St. Ciprian There is no Effect of Satisfaction Answ Most true doubtless for this life is the place allotted for wholesome penance In Purgatory there is no meritorious satisfaction I see not where the least shadow of a difficulty lyes in his next Quotation out of St. Denis Ecclesias Hierarch cap. 7. whose words faithfully rendered are these Those that have lived holily looking on the true promises of God as if they saw the verity of them in his Resurrection with firm and true hope full of Divine joy go to the extremity of death as to an end of their holy conflicts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit in this life and therefore the Saint adds Because they certainly know that all their conflicts for their future and entire Resurrection will be safe in a perfect and Eternal Life He goes on For holy Souls while they are in this life can be changed to worse but in the second Resurrection by a likeness they have with God they cannot be changed Thus St. Denis Now let the Doctor make his Argument Holy men relying on Gods promises full of Hope and Joy consider death as an end of their conflicts in this World knowing a happy Resurrection will recompence their grievances Ergo there is no purgatory or penal suffering hereafter A most powerful Argument Had the Doctor only reflected on what Bellarmine cites lib. 1. de Purgatorio cap. 10. initio out of this very 7th Chapter of St. Denis he would never have troubled the Reader with so unweighty an Objection Bellarmine relates St. Denis his words thus Accedens deinde Venerandus Antistes c. The Venerable Prelate then coming makes his Prayer over the dead and that Prayer is to begg for Gods Clemency that he remit all sins done by the deceased party through humane infirmity and set him in a place of Light and the Region of the Living The substance hereof you have Bibliotheca Patrum saeculo 1. Colen Print Page 135. 1. Columna Next the Doctor cites St. Iustin Martyr questi Respons ad Orthodoxos questi 75. saying That when the Soul is parted from the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently there is made a separation of the lust and Unjust the Unjust are carryed by Angels into places they deserved but the Souls of the Iust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where they have the Conversation of Angels c. Answ Take notice first how the Doctor varies from himself page 29. Where we heard him speak thus Sixtus Senensis saies and saies very true That Justin Martyr did affirm that before the day of Iudgment the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles reserved to the sentence of the great Day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this Life Here presently the Souls are carryed into Paradise that is into Heaven If Iustins Authority be for the Doctors purpose otherwise there is a third place These Souls therefore make a long demur after their separation from their body in secret Receptacles even to the Day of Judgment and yet are carryed presently into Heaven Let him that can accord these two Assertions and learn moreover that Iustin only says the separation of the Just and Unjust is made presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but affirms not that all Just Souls are forthwith carryed into Heaven if yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Iustins sence signifies Heaven and not rather another place whereof see Bellarmine l. 2. de Purgat cap. 7. § videtur mihi dicendum Be it how you will at most this Ancient Father only points out the two Final places of Wo and Happiness for two sorts of men which is no way inconsistent with an intermedial place of Purgatory or atrium Caeli Thus much is said to comply with the Doctor who cannot but know that these Quest and Respon ad Orthodox are not Iustin Martyrs See Bellar. de Script Eccl. The Authority of St. Ambrose next following asserting That death is a Haven of Rest and makes not our condition worse c. is an excellent saying for worse he is not but infinitly better that quit of the occasions of living here is acertained of future Bliss hereafter which is the whole drift of the Saint in that fourth Chap. de bono mort is cited by the Doctor Read it and say afterwards whether I say not true The Doctor quotes again St. Gregory Nazianzen in his 5th Oration in Plagam grandinis by his good leave 't is the 15th not the 5th as I have seen in three Editions that which I follow is Paris Print anno 1609. pag. 249. his words after he had mentioned the calamities of this World are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I omit to speak of those great Tribunals in the next life to which pardon and impunity in this delivers them so that it is much better to be chastised and purged now then to be sent to punishment to wit those Tribunals Now is a time of penalty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of Purgation Therefore says the Doctor there is no Purgatory I say contrary that the Saint speaks not a word of Purgatory but only denies a purgation of Life and Manners after those Tribunals The following particles fraudulently omitted by the Doctor make my assertion evident for says St. Gregory As he that is mindful of God is superior to death so to the departed as holy David affirms Non est in Inferno confessio nec morum correctio So in Hell there is no confession nor correction of Manners and he gives this Reason because God here shuts up both Life and Action with a final sentence of things done c. St. Hilary and St. Macarius speak only of the two Final States of Souls and make no third place Eternal Conformable to this Olimpiodorus cited by the Doctor speaks in Eccles cap. 11. his words are Biblioth patrum Com. 2. Paris Print 1624. pag. 670. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In what place soever of Light
and mortal Yet one citation more remains of Eman. Sa which will make the Doctor famous he referrs us to Sa Tit. debitum conjugale n. 6. who saith he affirms that if a man lyes with his intended wife before Marriage it is no sin or a light one only Answ Hear I beseech you Sa his own words in my Edition printed at Antwerp anno 1599. and never cease to wonder at what the Doctor saith n. 6. Copulariante benedictionem aut nullum aut lene peccatum est si quidam mortale esse putant quin etiam expedit si multum illa Benedictio differatur That is For a man and Wife to lye together now married before the Solemn Benediction of the Sacrament not before Marriage as our Doctor unworthily tells yee although some think it a mortal sin is not so but at most venial Yes it s sometimes expedient if Benediction be put off for a long time that they live together as Man and Wife Did you ever hear of a Doctor that doth not distinguish betwixt the Sacrament of Marriage and the Benediction of the Married couple Thus much of the seventh Section CHAP. XVIII Of Attention necessary in prayer One may pray that perfectly understands not the words of prayer The Doctor quotes amiss and abuseth Suarez THe Doctor in his 8 and 9th Section hath much sleight work and his 10th Section is a story of Exorcisms Of these a word In passing I must not omit to make him memorable for his quotations you know this is my chiefest task Pag. 117. Sect. 8. he saith They teach we Catholicks that prayers themselves ex opere operato or by natural work it self do prevail for it is not essential to prayer for a man to think particularly of what he sayes or of the things signified by the words So saith he Suarez teaches And where think you lib. 3. de Oraratione cap. 4. sayes the Doctor Briefly He should first have cited the Tome and the general Title of it thus Tomo 2. de Statu Religionis before he came to the Book and chapter but we will pardon this Lesser Fault and complain of a greater and it is that he wrongs Suarez unpardonably Suarez sayes no where in that whole chapter nor any Author I ever read that prayers prevail ex opere operato or by the work it self done as the Sacraments prevail He excludes no where attention but requires it in prayer Hear this Learned Authour num 3. in the chapter now cited Imprimis necessariam esse attentionem ut oratio honeste fiat communis est sententia doctorum First that attention is necessary that prayer be well done is the common opinion of Doctors and this not onely in prayers we have of obligation but in others also not obligatory for although saith he we are not obliged to pray in such and such circumstances yet if we do it we are bound to pray debito modo in a dutiful way and manner He adds more to this purpose Num. 4. and Num. 5. concludes that that vocal prayer or speaking to Almighty God which is made without mental attention is no prayer at all Whence it follows that who prayes must either attend to what he sayes or have his mind so devoutly elevated to Almighty God that his prayers prove acceptable for if that known Maxim be true Divisum cor non impetrat quod petit a heart divided in prayer that is partly in Heaven partly in earth gets little much more a heart which attends to no good thing when we pray doth the work without fruit Attention therefore is even necessary actual or virtual whereof see Suarez Num. 7. To what the Doctor opposeth next after thus Nay it is not necessary to the essence of prayer that he who prayes should think de ipsa locutione of the speaking it self Suarez answers from his Number 15. to the end of the chapter His discourse is long I 'le therefore give you the substance of his resolution by proposing to our Doctor one or two questions Suppose Dr. Taylor hath made to himself a set form of prayer which he knows most perfectly and sayes it before his Sermon yet now and then surprised by an unvoluntary distraction thinks not de ipsa locutione I ask whither the fruit of such prayer is lost and the essence of it perish if he says yes he speaks a paradox and must either conclude that few Ministers pray to the purpose or tell us a strange story that they are never distracted in prayer Yet more suppose Dr. Taylor while he saith his prayer hath his mind so deeply fixed on Almighty God that though his tongue speaks he thinks not of the speaking but of God onely and his immense goodness Will he also say that his prayer is worth nothing T is impious to think it Now hear Suarez at the end of his 17. number and observe how he is abused Non est saith he de ratione orationis ut cogitet orans de ipsa locutione sed satis est si cogitet de Deo cum quo loquitur 'T is not of the essence of prayer to think of the speaking but it is enough that he who prayes think of Almighty God with whom he speaks for here is ascensio mentis ad Deum the lifting up of our heart to God therefore true prayer This of prayer in general for those who have a set forme of prayer prescribed as Priests have Suarez num 19. requires a decent attention to the words according to that of the Wise man Ne temerè quid loquaris c. I must not quite omit that other cavil of our Doctor It is not necessary saith he out of Suarez to think of the things signified by the words Answ God forbid it should be necessary for if our Doctor should pray for Vrim and Thummim and to have Such is the dark Language of D. Taylor and D. Pierce his tongue touch'd with a coal from the Altar and that God would bless him and his from that Empuse that met Apollonius Tyanaeus and all remnants of embrodery from the Theopneust Aholiah and finally from the pride of Popes stigmatiz'd by a prolepsis Few I believe and very few who pray with him would think because they understand not of the things signified by these words Yet they pray or do not pray Angustiae undique If the first poor people may pray though they know not the thing signified by words If they do not pray all is vanity when they kneel down at such a prayer and say Amen to it The Doctor may say they use no such language in prayer Ans They use worse in preaching witness Dr. Pierce's late Sermon whereof part at least might by some industrie be turned into a long prayer with all its pedantry and vain affectation If so I seriously ask whether a hundred old women who heard such a prayer said at Paul's Cross and pray according to the sence of it pray or no if they do old
had not wherewithall to buy an other What did he Ad viginti Martyres c. he prayed before the twenty Martyrs and begged with a loud voice that he might be clothed some young men heard him and scorned the good Taylor as our Doctor doth here vulgar people yet his prayer proved successeful heard he was and his want miraculously supplied This you may read in S. Austin lib. 22. de civit Dei cap. 8. circa medium Whence I argue if this poor man by addressing himself to deceased Martyrs for a cloak prayed wel and laudably yes and by such prayers got what he asked most blameless certainly are the common people while they petition any Saint in Heaven for their temporal goods whether sheep or oxen it imports not or if the Doctor jeer'd at these mens devotion he may if he like it also play the boy and laugh at the Taylor S. Austin did not so And Here without much digressing reflect I beseech you on that witty margent note Mr. Whitby hath in his book against S C. pag. 292. where to discredit this known miracle he speaks thus Further let it be considered that here we have no better president then a Taylor and he so simple as to bargain with the Martyrs how many half-pence he would have to buy his cloak Subtilely observed for first there is not a word in S. Austin of the poor mans bargaining with the Martyrs unless his earnest prayer be called a bargain Secondly Mr. Whitby saith in his context that the Taylor prayed not to the Martyrs but to God at the tomb of the Martyrs if therefore he bargained with any it was with God for so many half-pence Thirdly he slâ—ights this miracle upon the account of the Taylors simplicity as if forsooth God could do wonders on none but the Learned or Doctors of Divinity Fourthly and chiefly he is pittifully out every way for no one takes this miracle upon the Taylors credit but upon S. Austins who recounts it as a wonder done in behalf of this poor man and so we credit what he adds of the Cook that opening the fish found a gold ring in it and pittying the distressed Suppliant gave it him with ecce quomodo viginti Martyres te vestiverunt See how the twenty Martyrs have clothed thee And thus much of good peoples devotion to Saints for temporals Now if you further inquire not only after the recourse made by devout Christians to the blessed See Bellar. cap. 20. Supra § Argumentum nonuÌ„ in Heaven for health and cure of Infirmities but also after the happy success they have had by their prayer volumes would not suffice to recount particulars The most I 'le do here is to remit any that doubts if judicious and prudent to S. Austin in the place now cited where he tells us next after those words ad Aquas Fibilitanas not of one but many miraculously cured at the relicks of S. Stephen There a blind woman received her sight There Eucharius a Priest of Spain tormented with the stone we freed of his misery and the self same man cast do 〈…〉 by an other infirmity lay so dead ut ei jam pollices ligarentur but was raised up miraculously and â—his saith S. Austin was done â—pitulatione memorati Martyris by the help and assistance of S. Stephen Learn therefore and 't is the main drift of S. Austin that Saints hear ouâ— prayers pray for us yes and obtain by 〈…〉 ir in 〈…〉 ssion many a large blessing So the Sainâ— in thâ—â—suing ninth Chaprer which relates to the miracles â—entioned in the precedent pro ista fide mortui sunt qui 〈◊〉 à Demino impetrare possunt for this Faith the Martyrs dyed who can get such favours of our Lord. Again a few lines after quare Martyres tanta possunt qui pro ea fide c. wherefore Martyrs can doe these great matters who were slain for that Faith which preaches Christs holy resurrection Finally he ends thus siue enim Deus ipse per se ipsum c. whether God by himself work after a strange manner or do these wonders by his Ministers or some of them by the Spirits of Martyrs eis orantibus tantum impetrantibus non etiam operantibus they onely praying for us and impetrating but not effecting or working these wonders immediatly cannot be comprehended of mortalls Thus S. Austin who undoubtedly here affirms that these blessed Spirits pray and obtain'd by their prayers orantibus impetrantibus mark the words both health of body and greater benefits Mr. Whitby page 292. cited above seems to make little account of S. Austins eighth Chapter now mentioned because of some corruptions so he speaks noted by Ludovieus Vives And what are these I Answer two or three differences in words only variously read in other copies as for Episcopo projecto other copies have Episcopo afferente projecto c. greater exceptions Ludovicus Vives hath not against this eighth Chapter nor questions at all the substance of one miracle there related by S. Austin No these stand as they are told and so doth the ninth Chapter entirely unexcepted against by Ludovicus or any body else do so powerfully prove that the Saints in Heaven pray for us and afford us assistance that none shall ever answer them with probability It were but lost time because they are vulgarly known to add to these ancient miracles others of undoubted credit wrought by the intercession of Saints in later ages and very universally There is not a Kingdome or Country where Catholick Religion florishes which will not evidence these wonders And England also anciently hath had this glory but now a new Faith hath outed all old miracles Blessed be Almighty God not onely our age we live in is renowned for miraculous cures done upon the infirm and diseased by earnest prayer made to the ever immaculate Virgin mother of God but this very year also and the last now over affords us most undoubted ones wrought in Antwerp and Mecklin by the intercession of the ever glorious Saint Xaverius a Saint our Doctor pag 133. would cast out of Heaven For the first see Justus Lipsius an erudite and learned writer in his third Tome towards the end printed at Antwerp anno 1637. page 687. intituled thus Diva Virgo Hallensis and page 721. with this title Diva Sichemiensis sive Aspricollis For the Second to wit for strange cures done on the diseased by the great Apostle of the Indies S. Xaâ—â—rius they are here most manifestly laid open to the eyes of all sick patients own them sworn witnesses testify them expert Doctors of Physick after long trial to cure them acknowledge the cures to be miraculous Bishops after a most â—igid examination have approved them none can doubt of them but such as either incline to a spirit of Atheism or vainly endeavour to make null the best proof of our Faith to extinguish the clearest light of Christianity which Age after Age hath