the power of Priests who make him and pin him up and walke him and may if they will cast him into the fire As Gabriel Biel a famous Doctor saith in the first Lesson upon the Canon of the Masse †Biel Lect. 1. in Canonem Missae Super utrumque corpus Christi Sacerdos insignes habet potesiates The Priest hath great power over the one and the other body of Christ that is to say over the Church and over the consecrated hoste Whereupon he addeth * Quis hujus rei â—ndâ—t similia Qui creavit me si fas est dicere dedit mihi creare se Eâ— qui creavit me creatur mediante me Who ever saw things like unto this He that hath created me if I may say so hath given me to create him And he that hath created mee without me is created by my meanes Thus Priests doe create Christ in the Masse and make Christ who is made already As if one should beget a man already born CHAP. VII That the very words of the Masse are contrary to Transubstantiation IN the midst of this alteration of the Lords Institution God hath permitted that in the Masse some clauses should remaine which manifestly condemne the Transubstantiation For a great part of the Canon of the Masse are prayers which have beene added when they did not yet beleeve the Transubstantiation As when the Priest having before him the consecrated hoste saith * Osserimus praeclarae â—uae Majestati de tuis domis datis hostiam puram Wee offer to thine excellent Majesty of thy gifts and presents a pure hoste By these gifts they understand at this day Christ himselfe Surely never a man in his right sense called Christ gifts and presents in the plurall But that agrees very well with the bread and wine The Priest goes on saying †Supra quae propitio aâ— sereno vuliu respicere digneris accepta habere sicut accepta habere d gnatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel Vpon which things vouchsafe to looke with a cheerefull eye Is it not a jeast to call Christ these things and for a full measure of abuse to aske of God that he may looke upon Christ with a gracious eye as if Christ had need of our recommendation Moreover the Priest demandeth of God afterward that he would be pleased to have these gifts and presents as acceptable as he had acceptable the presents of Abel That is to say that Christ may be as acceptable unto God as the beasts sacrificed by Abel This prayer is good being said upon the bread and the wine but being said upon Christ it is altogether blasphemous Chiefly this is evident in that the Priest looking upon the consecrated hoste and the chalice saith that * Per Christum Dominum nostrum per quem haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sanctificas vivificas henedicis by Christ our Lord God creates alwayes for us these good things sanctifies them and vivifies them Can Christ be called these good things Doth God create and vivifie Christ alwayes And since God creates these things through Jesus Christ as the Masse saith it is certaine these things are not Christ But all that agrees very well with the bread and wine We must not omit that Christ giveing the bread to his Disciples said simply Take Eate But in the Canon of the Masse there is Accipite manducate ex hoc omnes Take and eate all of it Whosoever added these words E X HOC lie did not beleeve that in the Eucharist the Lords body was really eaten by the mouth of the body For to eate of that is to eate a part thereof and not all Which cannot be said of Christs naturall body CHAP. VIII Recrimination of our Adversaries THe Prophet Elisha accused the Israelites of Idolatry and of forsaking Gods Covenant They out of revenge called him bald-pate which was a reproach nothing belonging to the doctrine We stand upon the like termes with our Adversaries We accuse the Roman Church to have brough in Idolatry in the Masse worshipping of the Sacrament and a Sacrifice of Christs body which Christ hath not instituted To have taken away from the people the halfe of the Sacrament To have changed the nature of the Sacrament yea of Christ himselfe which are thing of importance and altogether essentiall to the Eucharist and to Christian Religion But they out of recrimination tell us that we have likewise changed many things in the Lords Institutution For say they ye solemnizâ— the Supper in the morning but Chriâ—â— instituted it after Supper Ye celebrate it in a Temple but Christ did celebrate it in an upper Chamber Yee receive women to the Communion But when Christ instituted the Eucharist there were none but men Things whereof the two first are indifferent and all three not onely are not of the essence of that Sacrament but even make no part of that action To this objection Christ affords us an answer For hee said Doe this in remembrance of mee Hee said not Doe this in such a place nor at such an houre nor with such a Sexe or such persons But hee said Doe this commanding us to doe as hee hath done and to imitate his action Christ did not exclude women If any had beene there present worthy to be partakers of the holy Supper he would not have rejected them CHAP. IX Causes why the Pope admitteth not of any alteration in the Masse and will not conforme himselfe to the Lords Institution THough the abuse be so apparent yet the Church of Rome and the Pope will not let goe their hold and suffer any change or alteration to be made in the Masse The cause of that is easie to be knowne For if the Church of Rome should yeeld to the least alteration it would overthrow the three Maximes that are the basis whereon all Popery is grounded whereof the first is that the Church of Rome cannot erre the second that the Pope and Church of Rome are not subject to the holy Scripture and have greater authority than the holy Scripture the third that the Pope and Church of Rome have power to change Gods Commandemens and make new Articles of Faith All which things are seene not one by practice in that all the doctrine 〈◊〉 the Roman Church is contrary to thâ— holy Scripture but also by example of Popish Councels and open profeâ—sion of the principall Doctors of thaâ— Church whereof I will alleadge soâ—â— places in the next chapter CHAP. X. Places wherin the Doctors and Councels of the Roman Church maintain that the Pope and the Church of Rome are not subject to thâ— Scripture and have greater authority than the Scripture anâ— may make voide and abolish thâ— Commandements of God THe Romish Decree and its Glosseâ— are all stuffed with this brave maxime * Can. Lect. Dist 34. in Gloss Papa dispensat contra Apostolum Innec III. Dâ—cretaâ—â—le Concessione Praeâ—end Tu. 8. c p. Proposâ—â—t
fieâ—i ut redigatur ad locum unitatis â—t a ut quatuor homines occupent locum unius hominis when for to prove that a body may be in severall places at once hee saith that it is possible that foure men hold no more place than one of the foure alone and that all foure fill up but one place Take me a man clothed with a sute of clothes that sits close and is made just to his body Bellarmin saith it is possible for these foure men to be contained in the same sute of clothes without being made larger and the men never a whit the lesse If that be possible for foure it is also possible for ten yea for a hundred yea for a thousand so that all the men of the World shall be contained in a single doublet But if of these foure men in this little doublet one be sitting the other lying and the other standing If one of-them embrace the other and by consequent is out of the other they shall not be in one and the same place If they speake together and looke one upon another the one shall be the object of the others eyes and therefore shall not bee in one and the selfe same place Truly I thinke this Jesuite propounding such things and shutting up a whole Common-wealth in a doublet had a minde to deride his owne Religion For by the same reason a man may have both his eyes in one place and not different of sitnation Bellar. lib. 1. de Euchar c. 2. § Tertia Christus in Eucharistia non habet modum existendâ— corporum sed potius spiritâ—uÌ„ cum sit totus in qualibeâ— parte By this meanes a man shall have two eyes and shall have but one And the parts of an humane body shall not be distinct and the one shall not be out of the other This our Adversaries doe by their Transubstantiation as Bellarmin acknowledgeth saying that in the Eucharist Christ doth not exist after the manner of bodies but rather after the manner of Spirits since hee is whole in everie part It is false likewise that according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome Christs body be in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits For when an Angell is present in any place he is not present in a thousand others severall places and is not far from himselfe and divided from himselfe aâ— they will have Christs body to bee in a million of severall places at one and the same time The same Jesuite in the third Booke and fifth chapter saith * §. Ad haec Substantia fius quanti â—ate caâ—o dâ—ci non potese that a Substance without qantity cannot bee tearmed flesh Whereupon it followes that Christs body under the Host is not flesh for there is no quantity since it is whole under every point that hath no quantity Besides that the quantity of a body is a continued quantity But Christs body in the Host is not one in continuity with that which is in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God the Father since hee is farre and remote from it Againe he saith in the same place * Quid est corpus nisi extentâ—o 〈◊〉 longitudinem latitudinem prosunditatâ—m That a body is nothing else but an extension in length breath and depth Therefore in the Sacrament there is no true body of Christ since it hath no extension no length breadth and depth As he saith himselfe in the second chapter of his first Book Christs body in the Eucharist hath no extension I have wondred many times seeing that our Adversaries hold that Christ municants untill the species be destroyed and consumed by the disgestion why they do not give them hard bread and not of easie disgestion that they might have Christ in them a longer time rather then to give them such light Hosts or wafers which are presently turned into a Chylus and disgested in an instant CHAP. VIII Of the progresse of this abuse and by what meanes Satan hath established the Transubstantiation UPon this matter the opinions of men began to varie in the eight Age wherein the controversie touching the adoration of Images was in its hight and force For Satan at the same time did labour and busie himselfe to introduce and bring into the Church these two sorts of Idolatry In the yeere of our Lord 754 the Emperor Constantin son to Lisaurus called a Councell of his whole Empire at Constantinople where 330 Bishops were present that condemned the adoration of Images Among other reasons that they bring they exhort the people to be contented with those Images that Christ had instituted having given in the holy Supper the bread and wine for Images and Figures of his body and blood And speaking of the Eucharisticall bread they say * Ecce vivificantis illâ—â—s corporâ—â—s Imaginem Behold the image of this quickning body that is honorably presented And a little after The Lord commanded to set upon the table that image altogether chosen to wit the substance of the bread least Idolatry should creep in if it were represented in an humane forme But few yeares after the Empire being fallen into the hands of Irenea an Idolatrous woman and who did put out the eyes of her own son and ravished the Empire from him this monster called another Councell at Nice in the year 787. where she caused Images to be re-established and the worshipping of them to be commanded under paine of a curse There likewise were condemned as abhominable these foresaid clauses of the former Councell whereby the bread and wine are called Images of the Lords body and blood And it is the same Councell that declares that Images are equivalent and of as much worth as the Gospell and that an Image is better than Prayer And that Angels are corporall And that he that hath the least doubt whither Images must bee worshipped is accursed For certainly the spirit of Satan reigned in that pernicious Councell Wherefore also Charles the Great who lived then called another Councell at Franâ—kford anno Domini 794 in which that Councell of Nice was condemned as erroneous by a generall consent notwithstanding that Pope Adrian had approved that Councell and made a Treatise in defense of it Whilest Satan bestirred himselfe thus in the East parts the Roman Bishops on their side did labour in the West parts For they did well perceive that these two things to wit the adoration of the Sacrament and the adoration of Images would be of great use and would serve much for the strengthning of their Empire and encreasing of the dignity of the Romish Clergy For the Pope taking out of the way the holy Scriptures from the eyes of the People hatâ—â—given them Images which they call Ignorant mens Books busying the eyes of the people whilest he conveyed away the Word of God from them And the opinioÌ„ of the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist exalts the dignity and power of Priests so
conforme himselfe to the Lords Institution 45. Chap. X. Places wherein the Doctors and Councels of the Roman Church maintaine that the Pope and the Church of Rome are not subject to the Scripture and have greater authority than the Scripture and may make voide and abolish the Commandements of God 46. Chap. XI That our Exposition of these words This is my body is conformable to the Scripture and to the nature of Sacraments and approved by the ancient Fathers and confirmed by our Adversaries 55. Chap. XII That our adversaries to avoide a cleare and naturall figure forge a multitude of harsh and unusuall ones and speake but in figurative tearmâ—â— And of Berengarius his confession 63. Chap. XIII Of the Ascension of the Lord and of his absence and of that our Adversaries say that in the Sacrament he is Sacramentally present 68. Chap. XIV Confession of our Adversaries acknowledging that Transubstantiation is not grounded in the Scriptures That the Primitive Church did consecrate by the Prayer and not by these words This is my body 76. Chap. XV. Of the adoration of the Sacrament The opinion of the Roman Church 82. Chap. XVI Examen of the Adoraâ—â—â—n 〈◊〉 Sacrament by the word of God That the ancient Christians did not worship the Sacrament 88. Chap. XVII Of the Priests intention without which the Roman Church beleeveth no consecration nor Transubstantiation is mad â—6 Chap. XVIII That our Adversaries in this matter intangle themselves into absurdities and insoluble contradictions 104 Chap. XIX Of accidents without a subject Places of Fathers 117. Chap. XX. Answers to some examples brought out of the Scriptures by our Adversaries for to prove that the body of Christ hath beene sometimes in two severall places 122. Chap. XXI Of the dignity of Priests And that our Adversaries debase and vilifie the utility and â—fficacy of Mâ—sses and make them unprofitable for the remission of sinnes And of the traffick of Masses 126 Chap. XXII That the Roman Religion is a new Religion and forged for the Popes profit and of the Clergies 138. Chap. XXIII Answer to the question made unto us by our Adversaries Where was your Religion before Calvin 146. Chap XXIV That our Adversaries doe reject the Fathers and speake of them with contempt 161 Chap. XXV Of the corruption and falsification of the Fathers Workes and of the difficulty to understand them 169. Chap. XXVI Places of the Fathers contrary to Transubstantiation to the manducation of the body of Christ by the corporall mouth 175. Chap. XXVII Confirmation of the same by the custome of the Ancient Church 197. Chap. XXVIII Explanation of the places of the Fathers th t say that in the Eucharist we eate the body and blood of Christ and that the bread is changed into the body of Christ and is made Christs body Specially of Ambrose Hilary and Chrysostome That the Fathers doe speake of severall kindes of body and blood of Christ 200. Chap. XXIX That divers ancient Fathers have beleeved a mystical Vnion of the Godhead of Christ with the bread of the Sacrament 212. Chap. XXX Pâ—rticular opinion of Saint Austin and of Fulgenâ—â—uâ— and of Innocent the third 226. Chap. XXXI Tâ—at the Church of Rome condemning the Impâ—â—â—â—tion is fâ—llen her selfe into an error a thousand times more pernicious by Transubstantiation And of the Adoration of the accidents of the bread 228. Chap. XXXII That the Sacrifice of the Masse was not instituted by Christ Confesssion of our Adversaries 231. Chap. XXXIII That the Sacrifice of the Masse agrees neither with Scripture nor with reason 235 Chap. XXXIV In what sence the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice Of Melchisedeks sacrifice And of the Oblation whereof Malachy speaketh 243. Chap. XXXV In what sence the Fathers have called the Eucharist a sacrifice 247. The Second Booke OF THE MANDUCATION of the Body of Christ Chap. I. OF two sorts of manducation of Christs flesh to wit the spirituall and corporall and which is the best 253. Chap. II. That in the sixt of Saint John the Lord speakes not of the Sacrament of the Eucharist nor of the manducation of his flesh by the mouth of the body 260. Chap. III. That the Roman Church by this doctrine depriveth the People of salvation 269. Chap. IV. That the Principall Doctors of the Roman Church yea the Popes themselves doe agree with us in this point and hold that in the sixt of Saint John nothing is spoken but of the spirituall manducation and that those that contradict them doe speake with incertitude 274. Chap. V. Reasons of our Adversaries for tâ— prove that in the sixt Chapter of Saint John it is spoken of the Manducation by the mouth of the body 280. Chap. VI. Testimonies of the Fathers 285. Chap. VII Impiety of Salmeron the Iesuite and of Peter Charron And of Bellarmins foure men inclosed in one sute of clothes That by this doctrine Christ hath not a true body in the Sacrament 292. Chap. VIII Of the progresse of this abuse and by what meanes Satan bath established the Transubstantiation 298. Chap. IX Of the judgement which the Doctors of the Roman Church doe make touching the apparitions whereby a little Child or a morsell of flesh hath appeared at the Masse in the hands of the Priest and touching Christs blood that is kept in Reliques 312. Chap. X. Of the corruption of the Papall Sea in the Ages wherein this errour was most advanced 317. Chap. XI Of the oppression of England How Reliâ—ion passed out of England into Bohemia Of Wicklef Of John Huz and of Hierome of Prague Of the Councell of Constance Of Zisca and Procopius and of their Victories 323. Chap. XII The Confession of Cyril Patriarch of Consta tinople now living touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist 324. ERRATA Page 5. Line 3. Reade any p. 10. l. 1. What is in the Margent must be in the Text. p. 11. l. 5. r. of this bread p. 28. l. 2. r. nor stirred and line 11. r. Saviour p. 68. l. 8. r. sensibly p. 69. l. 11. r. chap. 17. 11. p. 70. l. 23. r. Word p. 76. l. 15. r. Doctor p. 79. l. 15. r. Church p. 105. l. 10 r. as if I should say p. 121. l. 23. r. of miraculous p. 136. l 18. put a full point after fourefold p. 145. l. 20. r. benefit p. 152. from the 14 line to the 27 should be Italica p. 157. l. 2. r. yeare 1512. p. 177. l. 21. r. remained p. 178. l. 25. r. For the old Passeover p. 182. l. 1. r. Father p. 186. l. 2. r. invisible p. 187. l. 9. r. Brethren p. 194. l. 2. r should be made p. 200. l. 12. r. three sorts p. 223. l. 10. r. those of Ambrose p. 233. l. 17. r. acknowledgeth p. 244. l. 7. r. alleadge p. 248 l. 12. r perfecting l. 23. r. sacrificed p. 250. l. 28. 30. r. gifts p. 253. Chap. 1. r. Of the two sorts c. p. 282. l. 22. r. of
Secundum plenitudineÌ„ potestatis de jure possumus supra jus dispensare El thi Glossa Nam contra Apostolum dispensat IteÌ„ contra vetus Testamentum El Glossa Canonis sut quidam Caus 25. quaest 1. Papa dispensat in Evangelio interpretaÌ„do ipsum that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle and against the Old Testament and may dispense with the Law as being above the Law And that he may dispense against the Gospel in giving interpretation to it In the first booke of the Decretals of Gregory the 9. Title 7. at the Chapter Quanto personam the Pope Innocent the third saith that the Pope on earth holdeth not the place of a meere man but of a very God And thereupon the Glosse of the Doctors saith The Pope of nothing can make something And a sentence that is of no value he can make it to bee some thing Because in the thing that he willeth his will standes him in stead of reason And no man saith to him Wherefore doest thou doe that For he may dispense above the Law and make of injustice Justice Thomas Aquinas whom the Pope hath Sainted saith †Thom. 2.2 quaest 1. art 10. Ad solam authoritatem summi Pontificis pertinet nova editio Symboli A new edition of a Creed belongeth solely to the Popes authority The same is defined by the Councell of Florence in the last Session to wit that the Pope may adde to the Creed That is one of the crimes for which Luther was anathematised by Pope Leo the tenth viz. because he had taught * Bulla exurge Leonis X. subjecta Concilio Lateranensi inter errores Lutherâ— hâ—oresertur Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus noÌ„ esse statuere articulos sidei That it is not in the power of the Pope and of the Roman Church to establish any Articles of faith as is to be seen in the Bull added to the last Councell of Lateran The Cardinall du Perron in his book against the King of Great Brittaine hath a chapter * 2 Booke Observat 3 Cap. 3. whose title is such Of the Churches authority in changing 〈◊〉 things contained in the Scriptures Vasquez the Jesuit in the third Toâ—â— upon the third part of Thomas Disputâ— 216. speaking of this Commandemenâ— of the Lord Drinke yee all of it saith * Vasquez 〈◊〉 3. Tâ—om Tomo 3. Disput 216 num 60. Licet concederemus hoc suisse ApostoloruÌ„ praeceptum nihilominus Ecclesia suÌ„mus Pontifex potuerunt illud justis de cansis abrogare c. Though even we should grant that thâ— was a Commandement of the Apostles yet the Church and the soveraigne Bishâ—â— might abolish it upon good grounds 〈◊〉 the Apostles power to make Lawes was nâ—â— greater than the power of the Church anâ— of the Pope Salmeron the Jesuite in the second Prolegom * Non miruÌ„ si Scriptura Ecclesiae dei quae spiritiâ— habet subijcitur It is no wonder if the Scripture be subject to the Church which hath thâ— Spirit The same man in the ninth Tome and 13 Treatise * disputing of the change and alteration in the forme of the Sacrament speakes thus Wee are no waâ— tyed to imitate Christ in all things †§. Ad illud NequaquaÌ„ astrâ—ngâ—mur in omnibus Christum imitari nâ—si in honis moribus except in good manners By that hee teachetâ— we are not bound to imitate Christ in the Sacraments nor in the communion under one kind nor in that he celebrated the holy Supper in a known tongue nor in the doctrine of Pargatory not In the Sacrifice of the Masse c. For these things concerne not manners The same in the first Prolegom a Ecclesiae authoritas antiquior dignior authoritate Scripturae The Churches authority is more ancient and more worthy than the authority of the Scriptures That truly is to say that men are above God For it is God that speaketh in the holy Scriptures Can a man say without impiety that the Church of Israel was above the Law which God had written in two tables Are Subjects above the Laws Is not the Pope subject to the Law of God The same Jesuite saith that the b Salm. Tomo XIII part 3. Disp 6. § Esl ergò Doctrina fidei admittit additionem in essent ialibus Christian Religion admitteth still of some additions in things essentiall Whence followeth that Christian Religion is not yet perfect since that essentiall Articles may be added thereunto John Almain a Sorbonist in his Booke of the Ecclesiasticall and Temporall power chapter 12. c Papa potest dâ—spensare in illis quae sunt lege Dei prohibita The Pope may dispense in things that are forbidden by Gods Law and alleadges thereupon Panormitanus and Angelus Andradius in the second Booke of the Defense of the Tridentine Faith d Romanos Pontifices multa desiniâ—ndo quae ante latitâ—bant symbolum fidei augere consuevâ—sse The Roman Bishops in defining many things that were bidden before are accustomed to enlarge the Creed And in the same place a Liquet minime cos errasse qui dicunt Rom. Pontifices posse nonnunquam in legibus dispensare à Paulo à quatuor primis Concilijs It appeareth those havenâ— erred which say that the Roman Bishop may some times dispense from obeying thâ— Lawes of the Apostle Saint Paul and thâ— foure first Councels Item b Minime vero majores nostri relig one pietate excellentes Apostoloriâ— haec quam plurim â—alia decret a resigere in animum induxissent nifi intellâ—xissent c. Our Ancesâ—ers excellent men in Piety have canceled and abrogated many of the Apostle Decrees Cardinall Bellarmin in the fourth Booke de Pontif. chapter 5. If the Pepâ—â— should erre in commanding the vices an forbâ—dding vertues the Church were bouâ—â— to beleeve that vices be good and vertues bad unlesse she would sinne against her own conscience The same Cardinall in the 31 chapter against Barklay In a good sense Chrisâ— gave to Peter that is to say to the Pope the power to doe that that which is sinne be not sinne and that which is noâ— sinne to be sinne The Romish Decree in the fortieth Distinction Canon Si Papa hath these words c Si Papa suae fraternae salutis nâ—gligens deprehenditur c. nihilominus innumer abiles pes pulos catervaâ—â—m secum ducit prano mancipio gehennoe 〈◊〉 ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturos Hujus culpa â—stic redarguere praesuâ—â—t murtalium nullus quia cunctoâ—â—pse judicaturus à nemiae est judicandus nisi sit à sidâ— aâ—â—â—ius If the Pope being carelesse of his owne Salvation and of the Salvation of his brethren leadeth by troopes with him first slave of hell fire innumerable peoples to be tormented with him with many plagues eternally none dares reprove him of his faults Because that he that is to be Judge
Gabriel Biel and the old editions of Saint Austin have oportet Reason also requireth it For it would be repugnant to common sense to say that the body of Christ may be in one place as if one should say that the Sunne may be in one place it were to say that it may be in no place Cyril of Alexandria in his eleventh booke upon Saint John chap. 3. * Dâ—st 10. A. Thomas 3. parte suâ—â—mae qu. 75. art 1. Gabr el Biel Lell 39. in Canonem M ssâ— Eâ—st abest corpore Patri pro nobis apparens ac à dextris ejus sedens habitat tamen in Sanct is per Spiritum Though he be absent in body appearing for us before his Father and sitting at his right hand he dwelleth in his Saints through his Spirit He supplyeth the want of his corporall presence by giving his Spirit and nor in keeping himselfe hidden under the accidents of bread The Eutychian hereticks spake as our Adversaries doe For they said thâ—â— Christs body is present on earth as well as in heaven by an invisible presence Against whom whither Vigil or Gelasius Pope hath written five Bookes in the first whereof he speaketh thus * Vigil l. 1. Dei silius secundum humanitatem suam recessit à nobis Secundum divinitateÌ„ suaÌ„ alt nobis Ecce sum vobiscum usque ad consummationem saeculi The Sonne of God according to his humanity hath left us and withdrawne himselfe from us But according to his divinitie he saith unto us I will be with you till the consummation of the world And in the 4 Booke †Lib. 4. Quando in terra fuit non erat utique in coelo Et nunc quia in coelo est non est utique in terra When Christs flesh was upon earth it was not in Heaven and now that it is in Heaven it is not on earth Even as Vigilius saying that when Christs flesh was upon earth it was not in heaven understood it was not in heaven neither visibly nor invisibly So when he saith that now it is no more on earth he meaneth it is not there neither visibly nor invisibly That if he meant or understood that Christs flesh is present unto us invisibly then would he plead the Eutychians cause for that was their opinion To be short the Apostle to the Ephesians chap. 3.17 saith that Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith and not in our stomacks in the midst of meat When we aske of them after what manner the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament they answer that it is not present there circumscriptively as wine is enclosed in a tunne or caske nor definitively as immateriall spirits But that it is Sacramentally present This answer truly is ridiculous For to say that Christ is in the Sacrament sacramentally present is a thing as absurd as to say that a man which is in a Temple is there Templarily present and he that is in a Coach is present in it Coacharily Moreover it is certaine that by this answer they come to be of our side For they say themselves that this word Sacrament signifieth a sacred signe Therefore to be present sacramentally signifieth no other thing but to be present significatively and by figure and representation CHAP. XIV Confession of our Adversaries acknowledging that Transubstantiation is not grounded in the Scriptures That the Primitive Church did consecrate by the prayer and not by these words This is my body THe most learned of the Roman Church ground their Transubstantiation not upon these words This is my body but upon the authority of the Church of Rome which as they hold cannot erre Scotus which is termed the suttle Doâ—tor upon the fourth of the Sentences Dist 11. quest 3. saith There is no place 〈◊〉 be found in the Scripture that may wi hout the determination of the Church compellâ— man to beleeve the Transubstantiation Vpon which place Cardinall Bellarmine in his 3. booke of the Eucharist chap. 23. speaketh thus * Secundo dicit non extare loâ—uÌ„ ulluÌ„ Scripturae tam expressuâ—â— ut sine declara â—â—ne Ecclesâ—â—â—â—â—dentâ—â— cogaâ— Trasubstant â—â—â—ionem admittâ—â—â— Et id non est omatâ—â— improhahile Nam et si Scriptura quam 〈◊〉 suprà ad duxâ—â—â— videatur nobis 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ra ut possiâ—◠〈…〉 non proteâ—â—â—umâ— tamen an 〈◊〉 sit merito dubitarâ— poâ—est cum 〈◊〉 nâ—s doctissiâ—â— acurat â—â—â—mi qualâ—s imprâ—â—â— Scotus 〈◊〉 â—â—â—trarium sentiant Sc tus saith that there is no place in the Scripture so expresse as to compell evidently without the declaration of the Church to receive the Transubstantiation And that is not altogether improbable For although the Scripture that we have alleaged seeme to us so plaine that it may compell a man not proud or insolent yet neverthelesse it may justly be doubted whether it be so or no seeing the most acute and learned men such especially as Scotus was are of a contrary opinion And in the same place he tels us that Scotus saith that Transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the Councell of Lateran held Anno 1215. For that cause Vasquez the Jesuite upon the 3. part of Thomas Disp 180. chap. 5. having represented the opinion of Scotus who saith * Scotus docet potuisse servari veritatem verborum consecrationis etiamsi in Eucharistia maneret substantia panis v ni that the truth of the words of consecration might have beene preserved though the substance of the bread and wine had remained in the Eucharist to whom also Durand joyneth himselfe blameth Bellarmine without naming him for saying that the opinion of Scotus is probable accuseth him of halting on both sides We see †Videas aliquos Theologiae Professores nostriceporis qui in utraÌ„que parteÌ„ al quaÌ„tulum clau diâ—aÌ„tes non putant improhahile id quod Scotus de verhis consecrationis dixit saith he certaine professors in Divinity in our times who halting a little on both sides do not esteeme improbable that which Scotus hath said touching the words of consecration Of that number of learned and acute men was Cardinall Cajetan who in hiâ— notes upon Thomas speaketh thus * Cajetanus in 3. Thomae q. 75. art 1. Alterum quod Evangelium non explicavit expresse ab Ecclesia accepimus scile conversionem panis in corpus Christi Thâ— other point which the Gospel expoundeth nâ—â— expresly we have received it from the Church to wit the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ Item Conversio non explicate habetur iâ— Evangelio The conversion of the bread is not to be found explicitly in the Gospel The Cardinall de Alliaco †Petr. de Alliaco in 4. Sent. q. 6. art 2. Patet quod ille modus est possibilis nec repugnat rationi nec authoritati Bibliae immo est sacilior ad intelligendum rationabilior quà m aliquis aliorum It appears that this manner which supposeth that