liuing spiritually by faith hinders not his liuing by good vvorks for as breath meate and drinke concurre to his temporall so faith an good works concurre to his spirituall life and euen Protestants themselues must confesse that this text the iust man liueth by fatih cannot possibly inferre that he liueth by faith only for S. Paul saith Rom. 3.24 being iustifyed freely by his grace and v. 18. euen so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came vppon all men to the iustification of life So that according to S. Paul the iust liues by grace and by the righteousnsse of Christ as well as by faith and so not by faith only Neyther can it bee answeared that faith it self is that grace where of the Apostle speakes and consequently this objection of myne is to noe purpose for though faith be a gift and grace of God yet there are many more gifts and graces besides it signified by the word grace and particularly that preuentinge grace or diuine light and inspiration which the holy Ghost infuses into mans hart as the principles and causes of diuine faith in vs which is bestowed vppon vs purely gratis and out of mere mercy The 4. text Gal. 2. v. 11. Knowing that a man is not iustifyed by the vvorks of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ that vvee might be iustifyed by the faith of Christ and not by the vvorkes of the law for by the vvorks of the law shall no flesh be iustifyed This text is mistaken These words prooue as little as any of the former that is nothing at all for iustification by faith only For as it is most manifest by the whol precedent context in the chapter the whol matter there handled is about Circumcision and obseruation of the ceremoniall law of the Iewes as different from the life and practice of the Gentills see v. 2.3.5.7.8.12.14 and chap. 4. v. 10. Yee obserue dayes and monthes and tymes and yeares saith S. Paul reprehending the Christians for returning to those empty elements of the ceremoniall law v. 6. and the like chap. 5. v. 1.2.3 about circumcision stand and be not held in againe vvith the yoke of seruitude behold I Paul tell you that if yee be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing and I testify again to euery man circumcising himselfe that he is a debtour to the whol law Now neither Romane Catholike nor English Protestant beleeue that they are iustifyed by the ceremoniall law of the Iewes which only is touched in this chapter And it is no lesse cleare that there mention is made of the first iustification wherby a sinner becoms a child of God v. 10. VVe sinners by nature Iewes and not of the Gentiles Nay the text it selfe obiected Gal. 2. v. 16. speakes clearly of the first iustification of a sinner to the state of grace for by the workes of the law shall no flesh be iustified the word flesh signifijng most familiarly in S. Pauls Epistles that which is not yet spirituall but carnall vnder the guilt of sin and corruption of nature For though such as are already iustified retayne the concupiscenses of the flesh in them yet because they resist and subdue them so long as they remaine iustified they are not called flesh by S. Paul but rather spirituall men And that he speakes of the law as known by its own force light and doctrine is euident also v. 16. For if by the law be righteousnesse then Christ is dead in vayne which is most true if we speake of the law as known to vs and working in vs by its owne force wholy independent of the grace and illumination of Christ but can haue no true sense if we speake of the law as iustifying by the grace of Christ for then Christ will not haue dyed in vaine because by his death he merited that grace and light by vertu of which only the law iustifyes And chapter 3. v. 2. Haue yee receaued the Spirit by the vvorks of the law or by the hearing of faith wherby is manifest both that he speakes of the workes of the law as working before the receiuing the holy Ghost and of the first iustification or receiuing of the Spirit by the faith of Christ. and v. 18. For if a lavv vvere giuen vvich could viuificate righteousnesse vvere truly from the lavv which shewes euidently that the Apostle speakes of the law as considered in it selfe and its proper force for if we consider it as illuminated by faith and the grace of Christ it is able to viuificate and consequently to iustify as the Apostle here plainly affirmes And that he speakes of the law as preceding the faith of Christ is out of all question v. 23. Before faith came we were concluded vnder the law into that faith which was to be reuealed Therefore the law was our schoolmaster in Christ that we might be iustifyed from faith THE FOVRTH CONTROVERSIE Of the merit of Good workes The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered by the Council of Trent in this Point Sessione 6. THe Couneil of Trent hauing deliuered as appeares in the former Controuersie that noe worke truly pleasing to God which only we vnderstand by good workes esteemed by vs meritorious can possibly be done eyther by the force of nature or of the law without the inspiration of the holy Ghost nor that any good motion of the will assisted by such Inspirations can merit the grace of our first Iustification the Council supposes that none can produce any good worke truly meritorious of heauenly blessings but such as are allready iustified and in state of grace and soe deliuers the insuing doctrine Sessione 6. c. 16. Bene operantibus vsque in finem in Deo sperantibus proponenda est vita aeterna tanquam gratia filiis per Christum Iesum misericorditer promissa tanquam merces ex ipsius Dei promissione bonis ipsorum operibus ac meritis fideliter reddenda Eternall life is to be propounded to those who doe well and hope in God both as a grace mercifully promised through IESVS Christ to childeren and as a reward faithfully to be rendered through the promesse of God to theyr good workes and merits And yet the Council giues an other ground of Christian merits Ibidem c. 26. Si quis dixerit iustos non debere pro bonis operibus quae in Deo fuerint facta expectare sperare aeternam retributionem à Deo per eius misericordiam IESV Christi meritum â—i bene agendo diuina mandata custodiendo vsque in finem perseuerauerint anatheme sit If any one shall say that iust men are not to expect and hope for an eternall recompence for theyr good workes which were done in God through the mercy of God and the merits of Christ if they perseuer to the ende in doing well and keeping Gods commandements let him be accursed And the full reason of this doctrine is giâ—en Sess. 6. c. 16. Cùm enim ille
same iustification which is mentioned by S. Paul to the Romanes which they mainly contend to be a true iustification in the sight of God or if they will haue it here a iustification only before men they must acknowledge that the same mentioned to the Romanes is no other then before men and so by endeauoring by such shifts to weaken the force of this text against themselues they take away all force from that of Rom. 4. to conclude any thing against vs. Besides this iustification of Abraham here mentioned by S. Iames can be no other then that which is true and interuall before God for as it followes in the text he was called a friend of God and that truly for he was indeede as he was called a friend of God and hence it follows ineuitably that the iustification which S. Iames deduces from that of Abraham by works and not by faith only as appeares by the word then wee see then c. is a true intrinsecall iustification in the sight of God for no other saue that could be rightly inferred from the former And indeed though we had none of the foresayd euidences to conuince the true meaning of S. Iames yet what man of iudgment can imagine that this holy Apostle would labour so much to proue that Christians are iustifyed by their good works before men when that is a matter too cleare and known to need proofe and too light and friuolous to deserue it or what considerate man can thinke that this Blessed Apostle or the holy Ghost by whose inspiration he writ this would so earnestly exhort Christians to abound in good works to the end that they may be iustifyed before men seeing corrupt human nature is too too prone to doe good workes for such by endes as these and hath more need of a bridle then a spurre in this particular and rather to be deterred from it then put vppon it as our Sauiour did the Stribes and Pharisees who did their works to be seene and consequently to be praysed and iustifyed before men This text therefore hauing been demonstrated to be meant of iustification before Allmighty God by works and not by faith only seeing S. Paul inspired by the same holy Spirit in what is cited out of him in the insuing text cannot possibly contradict S. Iames here as he must needs be thought to haue done if he sayd as Protestants would haue it that we are iustifyed in the sight of God by faith only and not by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vinificating it as S. Iames describes them here we will now see in what sense S. Paul's words are to be vnderstood and reconcile them with this text of S. Iames. The Protestant Position Iustification by faith only This is proued by Scripture mistaken Therefore wee conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law Being iustifyed by faith we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. For therein is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith as it is written the iust shall liue by faith Knowing this that a man is not iustifyed by the works of the law but by the faith of Christ Iesus that we might be iustifyed by Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law for by the works of the law shall no liuing flesh be iustifeyd The first mistake The word only is not found in any of these texts In all these texts is not once the words faith only to be found which is put in this Protestant Position was to be proued by them Neither iâ— iâ— consequent a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law therefore a man is iustifyed by faith only no more then this follows a man is nourished by bread without the grasse of the field therefore a man is nourished by bread only for though the grasse of the feeld do not nourish vs yet many other things besides bread de nourish vs. in like manner though the woreks done by force of the grace of God and not by force of the law do iustify vs and so we are not iustifyed by saith only nor at all by the works of the law but by faith and good works done by the grace of Iesus Christ and not by the kâ—owledge of rhe law The Second mistake The workes of the law misunderstood That S. Paul here vnderstands only by works of the law such works as are done by force and knowledge of the law before the faith of Christ infused into a soul or that it is inlightned and assisted by his grace and by this law is vnderstood the law written in the books of Moyses both morall in the ten Commandements and ceremoniall as circumcision and other rites and ceremonyes of the Iewes That by works of the law I say are vnderstood by S. Paul only such works as are done by force of knowledge of the law befotc the inlightning of the faith and grace of Christ is euident out of this chapter Rom. 3. v. 14. Now we know that what things soeuer the law sayth it sayth to thcm that are vnder the law that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God Here he speakes of the law speaking or teaching what is to be done according to it and then adds presently as a conclusion from that knowledge got by the law v. 10. therefore by tbe deeds of the law no flesh shall be iustifyed in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin The reason why the deeds of the law iustify not is because they come from the knowledge of the law by the law is the knowledge of sin wherunto he opposes the tighteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ vnto all in the first texts following verses 21. but now the righteousnetre of God without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and Prophets v. 22. euen the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and vppon all them that beleeue for there is no difference This is the known doctrine of all Roman Catholikes against the Pelagians that no worke can iustify which comes only by doctrine and light of the written law but all iustifying works must come from the faith and grace of Christ so that we all confesse and conclude with S. Paul that a man is iustifyed by faith vvithout the vvorkes of the lavv that is wirhout such works as are meerly of and from the law as are opposed here by S. Paul to the grace and faith of Christ. Secondly by the law in this place is vnderstood both the motall law written by Moyses in the ten Commandements and the ceremoniall conteyned in the bookes of Leuiticus Deuteronomij c. for the morall law Protestants themselues doubt not that the Apostle speakes of it and that the ceremonial is here meant is euident in the two next following Verses
that there are two kinds of worship the one interiour the other exteriour the interiour is in the minde and soul only the exteriour is that interiour signifeyd by some humiliation of the body soe that though one may haue the inward of the soule without any outward or exteriour in the body yet one can heuer haue a true act of exteriour or bodily worship without an interiour worship in the soule thus the souldiers in the tyme of our Sauiours passioÌ„ though they bended their knees to him which is one part of exteriour worship taken Separately and absolutely in it selfe yet because it was not accompanied with the inward humiliation of the soule it was noe act of worship but of mockerie I say it followes that as the outward corporall humiliation is constitured an act of true worship by the inward intention of the minde Soe are the different kinds of worships distinguished only by the different intentions and humiliations of the soule For the very same externall comportment and prostration of the body may be vsed both when wee worship God an Angell a Saint an Apostle a Bishop a Priest a King a Magistrate a father a mother c. thus the very same hebrew and greeke word is vsed in these different worships the same bowing and kneeling is practised to them all as I haue allready proued But though the same externall gestures of the body may be vsed to all yet they bâ—ome different kinds of worships according to the different humiliations intentions and acknowledgments which he who worships desires to exptesse by those outward deportments of the body Thus if when I kneele I intend to exhibite worship to the Creatour and maker of all tkings that kneeling will be a diuine worship proper to God only If I kneele with intention to acknowledge only some ciuil dignity or morall exccllency in the person before whom I keele it will bc a meere ciuill worship but if I kneele before or to some other thing or person with intention to acknowledge in them 'a worth or dignity neyther infinite nor diuine but finite and createed neyther yet ciuil morall humane and naturall but christian spirituall and supernaturall such a kneeling will neither be an act of diuine worship proper to God only nor of ciuill worship proper to persons or things indued with meare humane and naturall excellences but will be an act of supernaturall and religious worship taken in a larger sense as I shall presently declare Thus wee see that the different intentions of the mynde make the same externall kneelings of the body to be differeÌ„t kinds of worships by intending there by to acknowledge a worth in that which is worshipped diuine Supernaturall or ciuill soe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in shewing clearly that there are these three different worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honored by an act of worship Two of these to witt diuine and ciuill excellency the one found in God alone the other in the ciuill Magistrate all Protestans Acknowledge the difficulty therefore at the last comes to make it eleare that there is allso a third worth and excellency which is neyther infinite nor increated nor diuine nor yet humane or naturall but wholy spirituall and supernaturall inspired or communicated aboue all reach of naturall force and light from the holy Ghost and giuen to men through the only merits and by the authority of our Sauiour These heauenly excellencies I find to be of two sorts the one internall and iustifying graces and gifts or at the least giuen freely to men as other supernaturall things the other externall powers and authorities both which I will conuince out of holy Scripture to be such supernaturall gifts of God as I haue affirmed S. Iames speaking of the internall graces saith thus Euery best and perfect gift is from aboue descending from the father of light And S. Paul by the grace of God I am what I am and his grace was not voyd in me and that of our Souiour without me yee can doe nothing And S. Iohn Soe many as receiued him he gaue them the power to become the sones of God who are not born of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God And many like texts which euidently proue that all true grace and Sancttitie is a free gift of God aboue the force of mans nature vnderstanding and will and this Protestans commonly graunt and noe Christian can deny without falling in to Pelagianisme Concerning the externall authority dignity and preheminencie of Ecclesiasticall persones in the true Christian church they are as euidently ascribed to Christ and the holy Ghost as the former Thus S. Paul And some verily God hath set in the church first Apostles secondly Prophetes thirdly Doctours next miracles then graces of doing cures helps gouermens kinds of tongues Which he ascribes with many other heauenly gifts to the holy Ghost towards the begining of this chapter in the words following And there are diuisions of graces but the same spirit And there are diuisions of ministries but the same Lord. And there are diuisions of workes but the same God who workes all in all But to euery one is giuen the manifestation of the spirit to profit To one by the spirit is giuen the word of wisdome but to another the word of knowledge according to the fame spirit to an an other faith in one spirit to an other the worke of power to an other Prophesie to an other discretion of spirits to an other kinds of tongues to an other interpretation of speeches All these workes one an the same spirit diuiding to euery one as he will And to the Galathians And he that is our Sauiour hath giuen some to be Apostles others to be Prophets others to be Euangelists but others to be Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the Saints into the worke of the ministry to the edifying of the body of Christ till wee all meete in the vnity of faith and the acknowledgment of the sone of God in a perfect man in the fullnesse of the age of Christ whence it is eleare that not only in the Apostles tyme but through all ages till the end of the world the dignities in the church were to be guifts of our Sauiour and not conferred by any authority purely humane and naturall And as those testimonies couince that both inward holinesse and ecclesiasticall dignities are gifts of the holy Ghost and conferred by the power and Authority deriued from Christ soe lickewise the worth and excellency of the Saints in heauen are to be accounted the highest and chiefest supernaturall gifts and graces of God Thus S. Paul The grace of God Protestants reade the gift of God is eternall life which all the Saints of heauen inioy And S. Iohn Be faithfull vntill death and I will giue the a crowne of life And S. Mat. Yee shall sit vppon
likenesse of our Sauiours Passion with them and so giuing the reuerence of kneeling to it they properly worship an Image or similitude or remembrance of our Sauiours death And if any should answer that they worship not the bread and wine in the Lords supper nor kneele to them but only to God when they receiue them I demand presently whether they exhibite any kind of reuerence to the bread and wine as a representation of our Lords Passion or no if they answer that they giue none at all to them why then doe they make an exteriour shew and that by way of command and obligation of exhibiting reuerence and respect to those signes seeing that in the exteriour none who see them can iudge that they giue not some reuerence euen to them againe if they giue no reuerence at all to them what greater respect doe they beare to the Lords supper then they doe to their own in their houses so that if a zealous brother would kneele to God at the same tyme when he eates his supper he whould shew as much respect to a brown loafe as he does to the Lords supper when he kneeles only to God in receiuing it And yet further if one who goes to their communion had no maw to adore God at that tyme but should put it of to some other when he found himselfe more moued by the spirit why could not he receiue sitting or standing and that without any externall reuerence at all to what he receiues visibly Nay how could he in conscience receiue kneeling ' or shewing any externall reuerence If they answer that they exhibit some reuerence to the externall signes as representations of our Lords death I demand whether it be a ciuill or a religious reuerence to say it is a ciuil reuerence were absurd for that is in matters of state and ciuill authority only and this is in matter of Religion If they say that it is a religious reuerence then I haue my intent that euen Protestants doe exhibite Religious reuerence to signes figures and representations of our Sauiour no lesse then Catholikes and then I demand further by what externall signe they make profession of such a reuerence to the signes of their communion certainly they will find no other which shewes it more clearly and fully then their kneeling or whatsoeuer they name it is an externall exhibition of religious reuerence which is nothing but worship in a true and Christian sense whence appeares that Protestants themselues are guilty of what they accuse vs that is of giuing woiship to an Image or figure of our Sauiour dying vppon the crosse for vs. That which I haue answered to the 20. of Exodus is in like manner applyable to the 26. of Leuiticus v. 1. and to the 6. v. 73. for they speak only of Idols and false Gods from which all Roman Catholikes abhorre far more then Protestants It is not my intention here to enter into any schoole questions which can neyther easily be made plaine enough to be rightly conceiued by all those whom I intend to informe in this treatis nor are they necessary to be known by all Catholicques nor if they were known is it necessary to beleeue them So long therefore as the doctrine of the Council of Trent cited in the beginning of this controuersie is beleeued and obserued noe more will or can be required for soe much as belongs to this point of any one who eyther is or intends to be a Child of the Roman Church which doctrine is not only without all danger but euen without all possibility of Idolatrie for seeing an Idolatrous worship must acknowledge a diuine power and vertu in that which it worships and the Council expressely theaches that noe such diuine power is to be acknowledged in any Image it is impossible to follow this doctrine and to commit Idolatrie in the worship we giue to any Image all therefore which is required to vnite a Protestant in this particular to the doctrine of the Roman Church is only this that he beleeue noe more that there is eyher life vertu or diuinity in any Image then he now beleeues there is in the name of IESVS spoaken or written that he put noe more confidence nor hope in the picture then he now puts in the name that he pray noe more to the picture then he now prayes to that name if kneeling before the name of IESVS grauen vppon some stone he pray to our Sauiour but as he now puts of his hat and boweth his knee or body when he sees or heares that name he hold it lawfull to exhibit the same reuerence when one sees the picture of our Sauiour and as he may now kisse that sacred name in deuotion to our Sauiour soe he hold it lawfull to kisse our Sauiours picture in deuotion to him or in his regard If a Protestant should demande whether there be as cleare proofs of Scripture for the worship of Images as there are for the worshipping the name of IESVS I answer there are That some Images may be lawfully made is cleare in the Brrazon serpent Num. 21.8.9 That they may lawfully be put in places dedicated to the seruice of God is euident in the two cherubins of gould Exod. 25.18 That they may haue a reference to diuine seruice and be ordinances helonging to it is manifest Hebr. 9.1.5 That it is lawfull to exhibite some worship to them is all ready proued Ps. 99.5 Adore his footstoole That the worship which is done to the Image of another tends as much to his honour whose Image it is as the worship done to his name tends to the honour of him-whose name it is is vndeniably prouued Reu. 13. v. 15.16.17 And he had power to giue life to the Image of the beast that the Image of the beast should both speake and cause that as many as would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed and he causeth all both small and greate rich and pore free and bond to receiue a marke in theyr right hand or in theyr foreheads and that noe man might buy or sall saue he who had the marke or the name of the beast or the number of his name whence is manifest that the worship of the Image of this accursed creature tended to his honour otherwise he would neuer haue compelled men to worship it and that he was honored noe lese in this if not more then in carijng his marke and his name which can be deduced from no other principle then this that all worship done proportionally to the Image is an honour to him who is represented by it and consequently that in this our Sauiour and the Saints are honoured as truly as any other in theyr Images If any Protestant demand farther whether there be any expresse command in the new Testament to worship holy Images I answer there is noe expresse command If it should be replied that nothing is to be held or practized by Christians
can be truly and really the one affirmed of the other thus This which I am to giue you is really and substantially my body which is giuen for you according to the rules of all good interpreters it must be vnderstood so as the opponent also acknowledged before if therefore the opponent or any other Protestant will proue any thing against vs in this particular there must be produced some text of Scripture where a proposition all things considered can be verifyed in a reall and proper sense as I haue proued this proposition This is my Body which is giuen for you can be and yet is to be vnderstood figuratiuly and improperly for so long as they produce ptopositions which cannot possibly be vnderstood in a reall and proper sense as this is which they haue cited seauen eares are seauen yeares and the like there is a manifest disparity because the former can very connaturally be vnderstood in a proper sense and these not and the fundamentall and vnanswerable reason is because the words of Scripture as also of all other authours must be vnderstood properly when soeuer they can be vnderstood so or when nothing compels vs to the contrary Obiection Euen before the fall of Adam there were two trees the one whereof was called the tree of life because it was a signe and memoriall to Adam that so long as he obeyed God he should inioye life the other of knowledge of good and euil because it was a signe and memoriall vnto him that if he obeyed God he should know by experience the difference betweene good and euill Answer These are only glosses and additions to Scripture contrary to what was before promised where read you in the Bible that those two trees were so called because they were signes the one of life the other of knowledge of good and euill if there be any such place why was it not cited in the margent if noe such what can it be but glossing and adding to Scripture not only without but against Scripture in the very places cited if we stand to the expresse words for if the tree of life had been so called only because it was a signe or memoriall to Adam that so long as he obeyed God he should enioye life as the objection affirmes why then did God Allmighty prouide euen after his disobedience that he should not eate of the tree of life by putting a cherub in the way least by eating he should liue for euer Thus farre I haue answered the objections and laid open the mistakes which are extant in the paper some others there are which are commonly objected and mainely stood vppon by our aduersaries in this most weighty point of the reall presence least therefore some might stik vppon them as not being yet solued I will propound distinctly some of the cheef of them obseruing the methode which I held before of objection and answer Obiection What soeuer may be answered to any figure or signe in these wordes my body which is giuen for you as being so cleare and determinately signifying the reall body of Christ yet why can there not be a figure in the word is which may be as much as signifies so that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may haue this sense this signifies my Body Answer I haue in effect already satisfyed this difficulty or at least giuen sufficient grounds to satisfye it for the word is is neuer to be drawn from its ordinary and proper signification when it can with all conueniency retaine it as I haue iust now demonstrated it may here beside that which is more cleere and known cannot prudently be signifyed by that which is more obscure and remote from our knowledge now the body of Christ visibly present before the eyes of the Apostles was more cleerely known to them then the significant figure of the bread and so could not be signifyed without absurditie by the bread in time of the first institution of this Sacrament as if I show my naked hand to any one it were absurd to hold vp my gloue to signifie that my hand is there Further had the bread then barely signifyed the body of Christ as presently after to suffer it would haue been a bare type and figure of his passion as was the Paschall Lamb and so a shaddow of things to come proper to the old law and consequently would not haue been a Sacrament of the law of grace as certainly according to all it was Objection When the Iews thought that our Sauiour would giue them his true flesh to eate he corrected theyr errour and tould them it is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life therefore our Sauiour giues vs not his reall flesh to eate Answer Sayes our Sauiour here my flesh profiteth nothing where find you that noe replies the protestant but he sayes that the flesh profiteth nothing and seeing he had spoken much before of his own flesh what can he be thoughâ— to meane by the flesh but his own and can any Christian thinke that he meant his own vnlesse he denie that he is redeemed by the torments and death of Christ or esteeme his redemption noe profit or dare a Christian entertaine so base an opinion of Christs most sacred and diuine flesh as to thinke that it is in opposition to the Spirit of God as the flesh here mentioned is affirmed to be by our Sauiour it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing or where through the whole Bible shall they finde flesh contradistinct from spirit as here they are wherby is not meant our corrupt nature our fleshly immaginations our low and naturall discourses ignorance malice c. and must it only here signify the flesh of Christ is not this Scripture mistaken it is therefore of the Iews carnall and grosse vnderstanding whereof he speakes which was wholy opposite to the true spirit light and life of God which made them immagine that our Sauiour would cut out peeces of flesh from his body and giue it them to eate or permit himselfe to be visibly cut and quartered as meat is at the shambles and so rosted and eaten by them as S. Augustine obserues in this place which naturall and carnall discours our Sauiour affirmes to profit nothing and not his own most pure and heauenly flesh vnderstood aright only by true faith which he calls here the Spirit or spirituall light it will be said that we affirming that our Sauiours flesh is truly eaten by vs though not in so grosse a maner are no lesse condemned by our Sauiour for our carnall vnderstanding of this mistery then were the Capernaites I answer that there is as much difference betwixt vs in this particular as there was betwixt S. Iofeph and Herod about our Sauiours natiuity for though both of them vnderstood that he had true flesh and was borne of a woeman yet Herod imagined that he
was conceiued and borne in the ordinary maner of other childrē that he was a mere man c. and was holy ignorant both of his mothers virginity and that his humaine soul and body were vnited to the diuine person Thus the Capernaites hauing no more knowledge of his diuinity then Herod had thought that his flesh was to be eaten after the same ordinary maner that other meates vse to be eaten merely to feed the body and went noe sarther But all true Catholiques beleeue that his sacred flesh is liuing and vnited to the diuine persone and eaten by vs though truly and really as he was truly and really borne yet after a most pure heauenly and in effable manner as he was brought into this world wherby his blessed flesh cōsidered absolutely in it selfe is neyther rent nor torne nor deuided nor consumed but remaines as whole perfect and intire after he is eaten by vs as it was before as the Apostle S. Andrew sais In this maner though our Sauiour spoake of his reall flesh yet were his words Spirit and Life noe lesse then these words of S. Iohn the word was made flesh and a thousand such like are though they speake of the true flesh of our Sauiour because his very flesh it selfe by reason of its vnion to the diuine person and glorious proprieties wholy deifyed and spiritualizd in such sort that receiuing it we receiue a Spirituall body though true and reall Here the earnest Reformer will tell mee that I speake contradictions for it is as vnpossible that a body should be spirituall as a Spirit corporall I answer If I speake cōtradictions I haue learned them out of the Protestant Bible and common prayer booke where S. Paul sayes of a body after the resurrection it is sown a naturall body it rises a Spirituall body And yet this wonder full body of Christ exists in the Sacrament much more like a spirit then doth any other glorious body according to ordinary prouidence viz whole in the whole host and whole in euery part of it as the soul exists in the body an Angel in the place he possesses and God in the world And as this admirable body hath the proprieties of a Spirit so hath it the properties of life being liuing bread and giuing life eternall to those who worthily receiue it as our Sauiour pronounces of it and according to S. Iohn what was made in him was life diuinity and humanity and soul and body and flesh and blood in him are all life foe great reason had our Sauiour to say speaking of them the words which I haue spoaken to you are spirit and life These are the cheefe arguments against the reall presence which Protestants vse to draw from Scripture others there are fittet for heathens then Christians which they draw from naturall reason where to though I be not oblidged to answer in this treatis yet because I am exceedingly desirous to giue all the satisfaction I am able to euery one I will breefly set the cheefe of them down and as breefly answer them but because I suppose for the present that I dispute against such as make profession to be Christians I esteeme my selfe to haue giuen a sufficient satisfaction to theyr difficulties if I giue them cleare instances in some article of Christian faith which they beleeue wherein they must solue the like difficulty to that which they vrge from naturall reason against this mystery Objection How can accidents exist without a suhstance as here they must doe Answer How can a humanc nature subsist without its propet personality as in the Incarnation of Christ it must doe vnlesse Protestants with Nestorius will grant that in Christ be two Persons Objection How can one and the same body be in many places at the same time as they must be if the reall presence be true Answer How can one and the same soul Angel and God be in many places at the same tyme which they must be if theyr spirituality and Gods vbiquity be true Objection How can the parts of our Sauiours body so penetrate one an other that the whole body may be conteyned in the least part of the host or drop of the chalice Answer How can the body of our Sauiour penetrate the dore and passe through his mothers wombe when they both remayned shut Objection How should the body of our Sauiour in the consecrated host be distinguished from others when it is put amongst them Answer How should a drop of our Sauiours blood he distinguished from the blood of other men if in tyme of his passion it had been mixed with them Objection If our Sauiours flesh and blood be really present in the Sacrament then cats and Rats may eate them Answer If our Sauiors flesh and blood were truly in the passion particles of his sacred flesh being rent of and drops of his blood shed here and there then dogs and cats might haue as well eaten them Objection How is it possible that the whol bulke of a mans body should be so light that a fly should be able to crary it Answer How should the whole bulke of a mans body be so light that it should mount vp like a flame of fyer into heauen as our Sauiours did in his ascension Objection If there be so many miracles as you must hold wrought by our Sauiour in the reall presence why were none of them seene as the other mitacles of Christ were Answer If there were so many miracles wrought in the Incarnation of our Sauiour as you must hold why were none of them seene as the other miracles of Christ were Objection How can we possibly conceiue a body with out any extention of parts or locall forme and figure Answer How can wee possibly conceiue a humaine nature subsisting without a humaine personality Objection What difference will there be betwixt a body without all extention and locall figure and a spirit Answer What difference will there be betwixt the soul of a new borne infant and that of a brute beast which cannot actually vnderstand the one hath a power to vnderstand will you say and not the other the one hath a power to be extended and haue a locall figure say I and not the other Objection If our Sauiours body be truly in the Sacrament then all wicked persons and greeuous sinners who frequent it receiue his true body into theyr mouthes and brests Answer If our Sauiours body was truly in the wildernesse then the Diuel receiued it into his armes and carryed it to the pinnacle of the temple and if it were a true body in tyme of his Passion then Iudas the traitour kissed it the hard harted Iewes and Barbarous souldiers tutcht it abused it scorgd it crucified it and troad his most pretious blood vnder their feete is not this as much disgracefull to his body and blood as now to be receiued into sinners mouthes Objection If there be nothing visible or sensible but species accidents