thereof is abolished into the body of Christ. Secondly the example you bring about Regenerate persons is by you vsed impertinently and truly pondered applyed serueth our purpose For in Regeneration the substance of man is not abolished because by Regeneration man is changed to be participant of the Diuine Nature not from what he is originally by the constitution of nature but from what he is by the corruption of the Diuell and sinne Hence by vertue of Regeneration a man ceaseth to be not according to the substantiall Origen of his nature but only according to the superinduced peruersion thereof by the Diuell But in the Eucharist Saint Ambrose sayth that bread by consecration passeth into the sacred body of Christ from the thing it was by the framing constitution of nature Ergo bread according to S. Ambrose ceaseth to be according to the thing it is by the framing of nature to wit the essence of bread VI The Minister Replyes That to a mysticall change the omnipotency of God is required as appeareth in Baptisme Therefore although some Fathers require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of bread and wine yet it followeth not that they maintayned Transubstantiation Answere The Fathers indeed require the omnipotency of God in Baptisme not to change the nature of water into the nature and verity of Christs bloud but to the end that water remayning water vnchanged in nature be eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in the soules of men Thus Saint Leo by you often cited serm 4. de natiuit sayth Virtus altissimi quae fecit vt virgo pareret Saluatorem eadem facit vt regeneret vnda credentem He doth not say as you would make fooles belieue the Fathers vse to speake that the Diuine omnipotency doth change the water into the nature and verity of his bloud but That the same power of the Highest makes water being water to bring forth regenerate persons which caused a virgin remayning a virgin to bring forth the Sauiour But about the holy Eucharist the Fathers speake in another manner They require the Omnipotency of God not to eleauate bread wine that remayning still in nature bread and wine they may sanctify mens soules but to change them into Christs body and bloud by which change they become in thēselues without further eleuation proportioned meanes to sanctify soules as cōtaining within themselues the fountaine of grace Yea the Fathers speeches about the water of baptisme be so different from their speeches about the bread and wine of the Eucharist as this alone might suffice to conuert the Minister were he not obstinate What Fathers say that Christ at the Mariage of soules with him in Baptisme can doth conuert water into his blood by his omnipotency as he could and did conuert water into Wine at the carnall Mariage of Cana as S. Cyrill S. Gaudentius cited by the Iesuit say of the wine of the Eucharist What Father doth say that water changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made his flesh as is sayd of the Eucharisticall bread by the Authour of the booke De Coena Domini VII Though some question be made whether this Authour was S. Cyprian yet learned men both Catholicks and Protestants agree he was an holy ancient Father The Authour of the booke de Coena Domini sayth M. Fulke agaynst the Rhem. Testam in 1. Cor. 11. fol. 282. was not in tyme much inferiour to Cyprian Erasmus in his Annotatiōs vpon S. Cyprian printed at Basill Anno 1558. fol. 287. sayth The Authour was some learned man of S. Cyprian his age as Pamelius doth demonstrate by many euident reasons so that we haue Transubstātiation as ancient as S. Cyprian For what the Minister sayth that this Authour meaneth only a mysticall and Sacramental change to be made is idle as I thus demonstrate The change this holy Father teacheth is made not in the shape quantity accidēts of bread but only in the inward nature and essence thereof panis non effigie sed natura mutatus But the Ministers mysticall conuersion is made vpon the shape quantity accidents of bread as he sayth pag. 425. it passeth vpon the quantity and accidents of bread as well as vpon the substance Ergo the conuersion of bread into Christs flesh taught by this holy ancient Father is an inward substantiall conuersion and not the Ministers mysticall change VIII What the Minister sayth to this Argument that the Fathers affirme the water of Baptisme to be changed into Christs blood by the vertue of his word is false nor hath he cited any Father that doth so affirme Yea such speaking of the water of Baptisme were ridiculous or rather impious as affirming thinges about the mysteryes of Religiō which may make them seeme senselesse and ridiculous without any ground so to affirme in Gods word For Christ neuer sayth of the water of Baptisme Be washed herewith for this is my blood as he sayth often in Scripture of the wine of the Eucharist drinke yee of this for this is my bloud IX To the fourth argument the Minister replyes that the Fathers exhort People to abnegate their senses in Baptisme wherein they mantayne no Transubstantiation I Answere The Minister still singes the same songe that the fathers speake in the same manner of the conuersiō of water into Christs blood in Baptisme as they speake about the conuersion of wine in the Eucharist which is most false and the Minister hath not cited the wordes any Father so affirming The Fathers about Baptisme exhort men to belieue that God can by water wash and purify the soule and this to be a supernaturall worke aboue the naturall force of water which one may belieue without contradicting the euidence of any of his senses yea without any great difficulty in reason For what great matter is it to belieue that God being omnipotent at the presence of water washing the body can inwardly by grace wash the soule But about the Eucharist they say that we must firmely and indubitately belieue that that which seemeth bread and wine is not bread wine but the body bloud of Christ so that vnder the forme of bread and wine is giuen vs the bloud of our Lord and though sense suggest the contrary that it is wine we must abnegate and not belieue our senses herein Shew one Father I say that doth thus affirme of the water of Baptisme that we must firmely and indubitately belieue the same not to be water in truth though it be water in shew and because our sight feeling and tast suggest that it is water that we must with full Fayth abnegate and deny this iudgment framed by sense X. The Minister heere pag. 429. bringeth three triuiall argumēts to prooue the Fathers held the substance of bread to remayne after consecration which are not worth the answering yet I will say a word to each of them not to omit any thing that
this mystery not accompanyed with many seeming absurdityes repugnances agaynst sense particularly these foure First that a body as big as our Sauiours remayning stil truly corpulent in it selfe should be contayned within the cōpasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly that a body so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignityes and obscenityes that may befall vnto them Thirdly that the body may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly that the substance of bread being cōuerted into Christs body the sole accidēts remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse then if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans body These difficultyes so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Trāsubstantiation as impossible yea as (f) Field of the Church lib. 3. absurd ridiculous barbarous Others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to belieue it as a matter of Fayth To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this proposition that these seeming absurdityes should not auert but rather incline a true Christian mind to belieue this mystery In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiesty these three Considerations (g) The Minister here sayth that this longe tract about Gods omnipotency is impertinent because Protestants deny not Gods omnipotency But this Cauill is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 3. where it is shewed that to deny the litteral sense of Gods word about the mysteryes of our fayth to be possible vnto God is Infidelity Now Protestants grant the holy Eucharist to be a chiefe mystery of fayth Transubstantiation to be the literall sense of Gods word about the same wherefore this tract about the Diuine omnipotēcy is pertinently brought agaynst them The first Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two thinges most certayne First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidells the rest of Christian mysteryes as the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection of the body did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mystery of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens Infidells being fully acquainted with the whole mystery the one shold be scandalized the other mocke therat Hence it was accounted such an heynous offence that Christians should discouer vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficultyes thereof in their presence The Councell (g) Concil Alexand. apud Athanas. Apolog. 2. of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arrians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publike and as it were vpon a scaffold to treate of the mysteryes before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after It (h) Epist. Iulij apud Athanas Apol. 2. is not lawfull to publish the mysteryes before them that are not initiated for feare Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosityes be scandalized And agayne Before Catechumens which is more before Iewes Pagans blaspheming Christianity they handled a question about the body and bloud of our Sauiour And to the same purpose Saint Ambrose (i) Ambros. de myster initian c. 1. saith To declare the Mysteryes vnto them that be Catechumens is no tradition but prodition seing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Infidells that will scoffe at them This supposed I inferre that the seeming absurdities of the Catholike reall presence should encourage a true Christian mind to belieue it For a true Christian desires to belieue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall Presence that was belieued by the primitiue Church But this was a reall Presence accompanyed with many seeming grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfy Infidells therein or to keep them from blaspheming but by concealing the mystery from them and consequently they held the Catholicke not the Protestant doctrine in this point The Protestāts (k) The Minister pag. 442. lin 12. saith that Protestāts hold the elements of bread wine to remaine to be instruments of our coniunction by grace vnto God and that this is a mystery incomprehensible Answere First Protestants do not hold the elements of bread and wine to be proper instrumēts infusing grace into mans soule but that men are iustifyed by their faith onely that this Sacrament is a meere signe and seale therof Secōdly though Sacramental influence of grace into the soule be a thinge supernaturall yet no mystery of extraordinary difficulty to be belieued nor absurd vnto sense For this is no more thē that vpon our eating and drinking of bread and wine in remēbrance of Christs body broken of his blood shed on the Crosse God infuse soule-nourishing grace into the worthy receauer Now what difficulty to belieue this or what seeming absurdity therin This is no greater mystery then that vpon the washing of the body with the element of water God inwardly wash the soule with grace Wherfore seing Protestāts cā find in their Eucharist no mystery more hard seemingly absurd thē in Baptisme doubtlesse it is not the mystery of the Primitiue Church concealed frō Infidells in regard of the seeming absurdity and immanity therof vnto carnall imaginatiō whereas Baptisme was not conceaued to be of that seeming absurdity nor concealed doctrine that makes Christs body present spiritually by fayth vnto the deuout receauer that communicating thinkes sweetly of Christs passion and death contaynes no mystery to be cōcealed in respect of the seeming absurdityes yea the Fathers did not feare to declare to Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his passion as appeares by the treatises of Saint Augustine vpon S. Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue Presence alleadge many sentēces to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by fayth and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs body in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the teeth but denyes not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not only by fayth but by reall sumption though to conceale the mystery from Catechumens he speaks not so cleerly thereof Wherfore as the Palm-tree the heauier the weight is that is layd vpon it the more it riseth vpward as it were ioying in difficultyes So a true Catholike Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstātiation many seeming absurdityes that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to belieue it imbracing these difficultyes as manyfest signes that this doctrine was belieued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side the Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnes thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from
Infidells as more absurd to humane imagination then any other Mystery of Christian Religion The second Consideration This consideration is drawne from the quality of the difficultyes obiected agaynst this mystery which be such as a Christian in honour should neglect them (l) Vnto this argument shewing God cā couer the face of the whole world with thinner thinner parts taken out of a flyes wing euery Puny in our Vniuersities saith the Minister pag. 448. can distinguish betweē mathematicall and potentiall diuision of a body physicall and actuall Aristotle him selfe teaching vs that there is minima Caro though there be not minimum corpus Answere By this reply you shew your selfe to be not so much as a Puny in Philosophy For not knowing what you say you grant vnto your Aduersary as much as he would proue because you vnderstād not the Philosophicall tearmes you vse He did not say that the winge of the fly is physically or actually diuided into so many thinne parts as would couer the world but only that it is diuisible into so many thinne parts but you do not deny but there is so much potential or possible diuisiō in the flyes winge And if the diuision of a flyes winge into so many thinne parts as will couer the world be potentiall and possible I hope you will not deny but God can make the same actuall except you will say that there is in the quantity of a flyes winge more potentiality to be deuided then in God power to deuide so denying him to be Omnipotent Secondly your coming forth with Aristotles minima caro sed non minimum corpus doth more more bewray your Ignorance For the Philosophicall disputation de termino paruitatis is de minimo naturali whether a thinge homogeneous that is whereof euery particle is of the same kind with the whole as water fire flesh can be so little as it cannot be lesser or thinner by the course of nature wherein many learned Deuines hold the Negatiue part that no flesh is so little but it may be lesse by the course of nature But in respect of the Diuine power no Christian Philosopher doth hold there is minima caro flesh so litle and thine that God can not make the same lesser and thinner without end and so with a flyes winge couer the world And whereas you iestingly require you may haue respite not to belieue Transubstantiation vntill this vast worlds Capcase be made of a flyes winge you may haue your desire so you cā be contēt the meane tyme to vndergoe the punishment they must endure who will vndertake to comprehend the Omnipotency of God within the CAPCASE of their idle brayne For if it be the part of a prudent intelligent man not to permit imagination to preuayle agaynst his reason what a disgrace is it for a Christian that his fayth should be conquered by these kind of difficultyes For that the seeming absurdityes of this mystery be not in respect of naturall reason but meerly of imagination may hence appeare that some naturall truthes be in a manner as difficill and incredible which wil be seene if we compare the foure aboue mentioned difficulties with the difficulties some truthes euident in nature haue First we cannot imagine that the whole body of Christ can be contayned in the cōpasse of a small hoast But it is not more incredible that in a thing of small quantity for example in the winge of a fly there should be so many parts as vnfolded and layd togeather would couer the whole face of the world both of heauen and earth And yet it is demonstrable in Philosophy that euen in the wing of a fly there are so many parts as broad long as the wing though still thynner and thinner that Almighty God separating and vnfolding thē may therewith couer the whole world For certayne it is that some finite number of such parts so separated each of thē as long and as broad as a flyes winge would couer the face of the whole world Certayne also it it that the winge of a fly is stil diuisible into more more such parts that no finite number of them is assignable but God may still separate from that winge a greater nūber without end Therefore it is certayne that in the wing of a fly there is so much quantity as is sufficient to couer the face of the whole world both of heauen earth if God would but separate and vnfold the same Is not this secret of Philosophy as incredible to carnall imagination as the being of Christs body within a small hoast We that cānot comprehend thinges we see with eyes and feele with hands certaynly we shall haue much adoe at the day of Iudgement to iustify our not belieuing any part of Gods word by reason of the seeming absurdityes therof Secondly we cannot imagine the body of Christ to be really combined vnto the consecrated formes and not to be polluted by such indignityes as may happen vnto the formes yet we haue seene or may see thinges able to make this not to seeme incredible For holy men often by prayer so purify their soules and by contemplation bring their spirits to such an independency of their senses that neyther bitter meats offend their tast nor loathsome sents their smell nor shrill cryes their hearing yea burnings torturings are not perceaued their spirit being eloyned through diuine vnpolluted affection from the cōtagion of the body vnto the substance wherof it still remaynes most really vnited This being so cānot the glorious body of Christ graced with most diuine ornaments flowing from the excessiue blisse of the soule and and thereby made spirituall impassible vnsearchable be really present vnto the formes of consecrated Bread and yet immune free and wholy independent of any contagion or corruption that may happen to the formes specially the body of Christ not being so strictly and substantially tyed vnto the formes as the spirit to the body it informeth but is present vnto them as an Angell assistāt is to the body wherein he worketh what dishonor can it be to attribute vnto Christs most venerable body this spirituall manner of Angelicall presence yea rather a participation of the diuine immensity For as God by his incomprehensible immēsity existes euery where no lesse pure in the sinke then in the sunne no lesse sweet in the dungehill then in a garden of odoriferous floures So the body of Christ by supernatural participation of his diuine presence is really vpon earth in things visible inuisible in thinges hurtfull impassible in thinges noysome inuiolable in things impure immaculable to his friends that receaue him with loue most sweet and comfortable and ouerflowing in graces but to the vnworthy receauer present in a manner dead senseles as if he were not there at all And as he that receiues into his armes a body wherin the spirit absorpt in contemplation neyther feeling nor felt lyeth inclosed may be sayd
there may be great merit and excellent Fayth if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in belieuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this vnpossible case yet what can be layd to our charge which we may not defend and iustify by all the rules of equity and reason If we be accused that we tooke bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent heerin For seing the body is not made guilty but by a guilty mind euen our body may plead not guilty seing our mind our thoughts our deuotiō were totally referred vnto Christ whom we truly apprehend by faith as veyled with the accidents of bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread-worshippers with saying Quae vouit mens est pani nil vouimus illâ Neyther did we belieue that the bread was changed into Christs body vpō slight reasons or mooued by the fancyes of our own head but contrary to our fancyes out of reuerence to the (q) The Minister here contradicting himselfe sayth that Trāsubstantiation is not inuolued in the litterall sense of Gods word And further that the same was neuer defined in Generall Councells For as the Ariās would allow no Councell to be lawfull which condemned Arius so with these mē no Councell is lawfull vpon which Iohn Caluin will not bestow his Blessing Otherwise why should not the Lateran Councell vnder Innocent the third and the second Councell of Nice celebrated aboue eight hūdred years agoe where the substātiue reall presence is defined and the figuratiue condemned be lawful general in which both the Latin and Grecian Church did concurre to define expresse wordes of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most ancient Fathers defined by many Generall Councels deliuered by full consent of our Ancestours so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning Finally confirmed with the most credible cōstant report of innumerable (r) The Minister sayth that these Miracles be but the lyes of Fryars which he proues by a iest that was rife in the mouth of Wickliffifts Est Frater Ergo mendax Answer The miracles done in proofe of the Corporall and substantiall permanent presence of Christs body in the Eucharist are related by most auncient Fathers and writers of which many whole Townes Cittyes and Countreyes haue been eye witnesses as it were madnes to questiō thē These may be read in Ioannes Garetius who hath gathered them together as also in Iudocus Coccius The Prouerbe He is Fryar Ergo a lyar is true of such Fryars as Martin Luther Bucer Peter Martyr Fryar Barnes and the like founders and pillars of the fifth Gospell And if the matter be looked into without passiō this inference Est Minister Ergo mēdax will seeme more iustifiable euen in Caluins iudgement who sayth that most of them that shew most zeale are ful of falshod fraud lying Hierom Zanchius a famous Protestāt in the Preface of his booke contra Arianum Anonymū saith of Ministers That euen they who are tearmed Pillars of the Ghospell are for the most part impudēt lying companions that out-face the truth euery way thereupon exclayming O Tempora O Mores most euidēt miracles Can a Christian belieue any point of religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of Iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prōpt credulity of Transubstātiation that is of Gods word takē in the playne proper sense Is it any iniury to his verity that they deny their senses correct their imaginatiōs reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgments rather then not to belieue what to them seemeth his word Is it iniury to his power to be perswaded that he can doe things incomprehēsible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once make a body occupy no place yet remayne a quantitatiue substance in it selfe Is it iniury to his charity to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faythfull man entring really into their bodyes to signify efficaciously his inward cōiunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it any iniury to his wisdome to belieue that to satisfy on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hād on the other side the ardency of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauē he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of Fayth yet to affoard full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuall personall presence and most intime coniunction with them On the other side it imports them that thinke Transubstantiation impossible or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once to consider if they erre easy it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstanding measure the power of God how dangerous inexcusable their errour will prooue when they shal be called to giue vnto their omnipotent maker a finall account particularly of this doctrine so much derogating from him Let them thinke how they will answere if God lay to their charge the neglect of that most prudent reasonable aduise which S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in Mat. giues Let vs belieue God sayth he let vs not resist his word though the same seeme absurd vnto our cogitation sense for his speach doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceaue vs but our senses be deceaued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the interrogatory which S. Cyrill l. 12. in Ioan. makes vnto such vnbelieuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God why didest thou not accuse the imbecillity of mans wit rather then the omnipotency of God Or how disputing proposing so many Arguments agaynst Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it neuer called they to mynd the saying (s) August lib. 12. de Ciuit c. 11. of Saint Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis Diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas THE SEAVENTH POINT Communion (*) Note that the holy Eucharist is both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament A Sacrifice as offered vnto God for thansgiuing and remission of sinnes A Sacrament as receaued by mē for the foode sanctification of their soules It is a Sacrifice because a liuely and expresse representation of Christs bloudy Sacrifice on the Crosse. It is a Sacramēt because representing exhibiting Christ Iesus as the full and all-sufficient
would blush to confirme your slaunders with such seely and ridiculous proofes Other Fathers impudently falsifyed as if they did denye what they do most constantly mantayne and proue §. 4. YOW are so bold in your Falshood as you dare cite the Fathers for your fancy where ex professo euen of purpose they dispute agaynst it and proue the contrary Pag 85 lin 26. you say the gifts of doing Miracles were neuer promised in the Scripture to be perpetuall and are longe since ceased Augustin Retract l. 1. c. 13. Now S. Augustine doth in that place say and proue the contrary to wit that though Miracles be not now ordinarily annexed vnto the office of teaching and administration of Sacraments as they were in the Primitiue Church yet Miracles are done and frequently done so that they are for multitude innumerable I neuer meant saith (a) August lib. 1. retract c. 13. he as though that now no Miracles are done in the name of Christ for that in Milan a Blind-man receaued his sight at the Shrine of the Martyrs and sundry the like miracles my selfe did euen then know to haue been done In which kind so many are wrought in this our age as we neyther know theÌ„ all nor can number them we know How durst you name this testimony to proue Miracles to be ceased Also that Miracles cannot be sufficient testimonyes of Christian Fayth as the (b) Si non opera in eis fecissem quae nemo alius fecit peccatum non haberent Ioan. 15. â—4 5.20 Ego habeo TestimoniuÌ„ maius Ioanne Opera enim quae dedit mihi Pater vt faciam ipsa testimonium perhibent de me Scripture tearmeth theÌ„ you (c) Pag. 112. lin 24. cite Suarez the Iesuit (d) De fide Catholica contra Sect. Anglican l. 1. c. 7. §. 3. saying Haec adulterari possunt ita exteriùs fingi vt noÌ„ sint necessaria signa verae fidei Miracles may so be adulterared and externally falsifyed that they can not be necessary signes of the true Fayth Thus you cite Suarez but how grossely These be not the wordes of Suarez but wordes spoken by way of obiection in the behalfe of Protestants for their Paradoxe That the Church is inuisible This is then your argument in Suarez Without fayth the true Church can not subsist But there are no infallible externall visible signes of true fayth seeing euen Miracles themselues may be forged and counterfaite Ergo the Church cannot be assuredly knowne by visible markes Suarez having vrged this argument with others largely he sayth (e) Ibid. § 8. Notwithstanding all this we must belieue the Church to be visible And to the Argument about Miracles (f) Ibid. c. 8. §. 9. Non ad cognoscendam singulorum credentium fidem sed ad cognoscendam congregationem verè credentium he sayth that though they be not certayne tokens of the sanctity of the person that doth them yet they are sufficient signes to proue that true Fayth sanctify are in the Church wherein they are done So that what Suarez the Iesuit setteth downe out of Protestants as to be by him refelled you produce as the assertion and doctrine of Suarez If you belieue that God will seuerely punish those that deceaue soules in matter of Religion by forgery and fraud I wonder how you did not feare to cite (g) Pag. 160. lin vlt. in marg lit a S. Chrysostome Homil. 3. vpon the Acts as affirming That no Monarchicall and supereminent actions were exercised by S. Peter no vassallage or subiection yielded him by the rest of the Apostles In your margent you cite these wordes his Petrus egit omnia ex communi discipulorum sententia nihil ex authoritate nihil cum imperio Peter did all thinges by common aduise of the disciples nothing by way of authority and command Thus you cite S. Chrysostome Now see your falshood He saith not as you cite him vniuersally Peter neuer did any thing by way of authority and command but speaking of the electioÌ„ of S. Matthias he sayth that in this busines he did all by common aduise not by way of authority and then addeth presently that this not vsing authority was wisedome and modesty not want of authority in Peter Behold his wordes so pregnant for Peters Monarchy as nothing can be spoken more fully Why doth he Peter communicate this busines with them (h) Quid An non licebat ipse eligere Licebat quidem maximè Verumtamen non id fecit ne cuiquam gratificari videretur What Had he not power to make the election him selfe He might verily haue done it alone without any question but he did not least he should be thought partiall to some one had he chosen him by this sole authority And agayne This was the wisedome and foresight of this Doctour He sayd not We alone are sufficient to teach and although he had right to appoynt an Apostle as much as they all had that is he could alone haue done as much as togeather with them in respect of his eminent power yet this doing it with aduise was agreable to the vertue of the man and because eminency in spirituall power is not an Honour but Care of subiects yet worthily (i) Meritò primus omnium authoritatem vsurpat in negotio vt qui omneâ— habebat in manu Ad huÌ„c enim dixit Christus tu conuersus confirmâ— Fratres â—uoâ— doth he FIRST before them all EXERCISE AVTHORITY in the busines who had ALL THE REST AT HIS DISPOSITION and will For this is he vnto whome our Lord sayd Thou being conuerted confirme thy BrethreÌ„ Thus S. Chrysostome Could any thing â—e deuised more full to shew that Peter had and did â—xercise Monarchicall authority specially seing S. Chrysostome in that very place saith further vpon the wordes Peter rising vp in the midst of the Disciples sayd (k) Quomodo cognoscit creditum sibi à Christo Gregem quam in hoc Choro est princeps Behold how feruent is Peter how he doth acknowledge â—nd oueruiew the FLOCKE COMMITTED to HIM by Christ How doth he shew himselfe PRINCE Primate â—f this Quire Behold likewise the modesty of Iames He â—ad the office of Bishop of Hierusalem yet he speaketh noâ—hing Consider also the singular modesty of the rest of the Apostles (l) Quo pacto conceduÌ„t ei solium non ampliùs disceptantes how they YIELD the THRONE of Primacy â—nto him not striuing for it amongst themselues as they â—ad formerly done Thus S. Chrysostome which thinges â—re so cleere for Peters exercising Monarchicall Priâ—acy and for the Apostles yielding Vassallage vnto â—im that it is manifest you could not cite this place â—ut agaynst your Conscience knowing you did but â—elude soules in matters of Saluation agaynst the â—ruth Grosse Imputations with manifest Falshood imputed vnto Card. Baronius §. 5. WHAT impudency it is for you to write as you doe pag. 114. lin 14.
to euade First by denying that blessed Saints haue the knowledge of prophesy in a more excellent and permanent manner then haue the Prophets in this life This is plaine against the words of the Apostle cited by the Answerer For the Apostle affirmâ— that the gift of Prophesy in this life is but ex parte imperfect in respect of thâ— Prophesy and knowledge of the next which the blessed enioy Ex parte propheâ—â—mus tunc cognoscam sicut cognitus sum Secondly he sayth though the blesed haue the gift of Prophesy eminently it doth not follow that theâ— haue the exercise thereof according to euery materiall obiect it had in thâ—â— life I Answere that the Saynts of God hauing the gift of Prophesy peâ—manently eminently as knowledge pertinent vnto their Blisseful state must thereby know any secret they desire to know which beloÌ„geth to their state such are the prayers of the liuing made vnto them The Prophet Elizaeus 4. Reg. 5.16 saw in absence what passed betwixt his seruant Giezi About the 2. Argument and Naman to whome he sayd My hart was there present with thee With farre greate reason sayth Saint (*) Videbunt sancti omnia clausis oculis etiaÌ„ vnde sunt corpore absenâ—â—â— Augustine l. 22. de ciuit c. 29. The Saints of God euen with eies of body closed vp shall see all things not onely present but also from which they are corporally absent for then shall be that perfection where the Apostle saith we now prophesy but in paâ—â— â—ut then the imperfect shall be euacuated (a) To Answere the Ministers Cauill that the place of S. Augustine is vnderstood onely of Saints after their resurrection Note that although the Father name the Saints in their glorified bodyes yet his reason conuinceth the same of soules that be blessed before the resurrection For his reason why the Saints after the resurrection shal see the secrets of harts and things froÌ„ which they are substaÌ„tially distant is because theÌ„ they shall Prophesy not in parte but fully euacuabitur quod ex parte est all imperfection of knowledge shall be euacuated but the deceased soules of Saints now before the resurrection do Prophesy not in part but know as they are kowne all imperfection of knowledge being euacuated from them Ergo they see things absent and secrets of harts now no lesse then they shall do then This is that which S. Hierome doth defend To earnestly against Vigilantius that the soules of the Martyrs are present where their shrines and reliques are neuer absent but still ready to heare the prayers of their suppliaÌ„ts not thinking that they are present in so many places substantially according to their soules but that they are preseÌ„t as Elizaeus was present vnto Giezi in Spirit beholding what passed as cleerly as if they were corporally present Thirdly it is cleerely to be proued by Scripture that holy Angels see the prayers and actions and affections of men In the Apocalip c. 8.4 An Angell offered vnto God the prayers of men which he could not haue done had he not knowne them (b) The Minister pag. 314. lin 12. saith this place is vnderstood not of an Angell by nature but of an Angell by type Answer We must vnderstand the word of God in the literall sense except we can cleerly demonstrate by Scripture the literal sense to be absurd And this obligation doth more specially lye vpon Protestants who from perpetuall Tradition appeale vnto Scripture vnderstood by exact conference of places as vnto the last and supreme Iudge But you bring not one word of Scripture to proue that in this place an Angell by nature cannot be vnderstood therfore you runne to types and tropicall senses without warrant of Scripture by which yet you pretend you will be finally tryed Are you not then a ridiculous and vaine Appellant Our Sauiour witnesseth Luc. 15.10 That the Angells reioyce at the conuersion of a sinner So they must needs know it nor can they know it without knowing the sinners harte (c) The Minister pag. 315. lin 15. obiects against this argument that holy men on earth reioyce at the conuersion of sinners yet they know not secrets of harts therfore this argumeÌ„t is not good Angells reioice in the conuersion of sinners Ergo they know the secret pious affections of meÌ„s harts Answer The ioy of iust men in this life is imperfect and mingled with feare nor do they reioyce in re in the thing but in spe in the hope that mens coÌ„uersions are sincere and in the outward signes therof But the blessed Angells ioy is perfect deuoid of feare they reioyce not in the hope but in the thing conuersion it selfe Therfore they must know the inward piety and deuotion of the soule Conuersion not being true noâ— worthy of ioy except it proceed from the hart (d) Although the places speake directly of the Blessed that they shal be like vnto Angells in incorruption of body yet it proueth the same of beatitude of soules For seeing the glory of body floweth from the glory of the soule Blessed Saints should not be like to the Angells in glory of body were they not like and their equalls in the blessed sight and vision their soules haue of God and of things contained in him S. Paul sayth we are made a spectacle vnto God and Angells he adiureth Timothy by God and his Angells which sheweth that we liue in the sight of Angels that they behold what we doe and heare what we say euen in our harts But as the same Scripture Luc. 20.36 Math. 22.30 auerreth the Saints are like vnto the Angells and equall vnto the Angells And in heaueÌ„ the same is the measure of a man of an Angell Apocal. 21.17 Aug. ep 112. Ergo knowledge of our prayers is not to be denyed to glorious Saints the fellowes of Angells Neither could Saints without knowledge of humane affaires be perfectly blessed Blessednes being a state wherin all iust and reasonable desires of nature are satisfyed with vttermost content according to that of the Psalme 16.15 Satiabor cùm apparuerit gloria tua And who can thinke that Saints full of glory and charity do not earnestly desire (e) The Minister against this replyes pag. 319. saying That the Saints desire to know no more then it is Gods will they should know But it cannot be proued by Scripture that it is Gods will they should know the things done on earth Answere We must still suppose that the courses and wills of God be sutable to the nature of things except the contrary be cleerly proued The nature of charity is to desire to know the state of our freinds and their proceedings and affections towards vs. Ergo the Saints beâ—ng full of charity are to be supposed to desire to know the state of their â—reinds they left behind them vpon earth and for whose saluation they â—e sollicitous except our Minister