Answer to a Popish Pamphlet Called the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel, Part 2 · Subpart 10
10. THat the Churches unitie is not neceſſarie in al points of faith.
I anſwere, that this is an impudent Calumnie, as the Harmonie of Confeſsion of reformed Churches ſhoweth, and ours in particular, of 1581. art. 16. For wee maintaine that a two-fold unitie is neceſſarie to be in Chriſts church, to wit, An unitie in Trueth and an unitie in affection, both which wee ſhould pray for and promove, that (as the pſalmiſt ſpeaketh 122. 7.) peace may bee within her walls and proſperitie within her palaces.
And becauſe they brag ſo much of unitie in doctrine and all points of faith, for ſtopping the mouths of all Romaniſts ever heereafter, ut ex ungue Leonem, I will onelie amongſt many, inſtance but in one or two maine points of poperie, that their unitie is like the diviſion of tongues which was amongſt the builders of Babell,
The firſt is, papall Indulgences and Pardons, which are ſo lucrative, & dependeth on their Purgatorie, wherin thus they varie. 1. Some of the old ſchoolmen (as Bellar. witneſſeth lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 2.) they doubt of this spirituall treaſure, and Francis Mayro on 4. ſent. D. 19. maketh queſtion in particular (ſayth hee) of the treaſure of Chriſts overflowing ſatisfactions laid up in the Church. Againe, Durand. likewiſe (on 4. ſent. D. 2.) doubteth if the ſatisfaction of ſaints belong to the treaſure, but S. Thomas and Bonaventure (ſayeth hee) thinketh that both belongeth thereunto. Againe this is denyed by ſundrie ancient Divines (ſayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 7.) That pardons delivereth men from puniſhment, not onelie before the Church, but alſo before God, and verie graue Authours (ſayeth hee) as Alfonſus, Durand. Paludanus, Pope Adrian, the 6. Petrus à Soto and Cardinall Cajetan hold, That pardons were never given but for enjoyned penance, but Aquinas, Ioannes Major, Sylveſter, Dominicus a Soto, Michael medina, Ledeſinius, Antonius Cordubenſis, Navarrus, Panormitan, and Ioannes Andreas (ſayeth hee) theſe maintaine the contrarie.
2. For the Perſons that hauehave power to give pardons, it is queſtioned (ſayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 11.) by what law Biſhops may give pardons, for ſome hold that they may do it by Gods law (ſayeth hee) but others deny it, yea Angelus in ſumm…, and Bartholemus Fumus do hold that all Prieſts who may heare confeſſion, may alſo grant pardons (ſayeth hee) and they bring for their warrant Pope Innocentius and Panormitan. but the cōmon opinion (ſayth Bellarmin) is contrarie to theſe.
3. For the perſons whom they availe, thus they varie, for amongſt the Catholick Doctours (ſayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 14.) Oſtienſis in ſumma and Biel on the canon of the Maſſe, lect. 57. hauehave taught that pardons nowiſe profite the dead (and ſo this ma…teth ſoule Maſſes) but other Catholicks (ſayeh hee) do hold the contrarie. Again if they help the dead. Bellarmin (lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 14.) ſhoweth that it is controverted, whether by way of ſuffrage or otherwiſe, and that they are divyded in three opinions. Laſt of all (ſayeth Bellarmin in the ſame place) the hardeſt queſtion of all is, Whether pardons do help the dead upon any juſtice or condignitie, or onelyonly of the meer and free favour of God and congruitie, ſome hold the firſt (ſayeth he) as Dominicꝰ Soto (on 4. ſent. d. 21.) & Navarrus, & others hold it to be meerlie of the mercy & bounty of God. And ſo holdeth Cajetan, Petrus a Soto. Cordubenſis and others. Now in ſuch a diviſion of tongues and Pen's in this point, what is popiſh unitie, let any man judge?
The ſecond grand point which I will inſtance, is Tranſſubſtantiatiō, wheron is grounded the Idoll of their Maſſe, and that idolatrous adoration of their Hoſtie, wherein (ſayth the Ieſuite A…lapide on Iſai. 7. 14.) by the words of conſecration as the bread is trulie and reallie tranſſubſtantiat, ſo Chriſt is brought forth, and as it were begotten upon the Altar, ſo powerfully & efficaciouſlie, as if Chriſt were not yet incarnat, yet by theſe words (this is my Bodie) He ſhould be incarnat and aſſume an humane bodie, therfore (ſayth he) the Prieſt is as the Virgin that bare him, the Altar is the manger, the little Emmanuell which hee beareth, is Chriſt brought furth under the little Hoſtie, Than which, what can be groſſer blaſphemie let any man judge?
1. In this point thē let us ſee what is their catholick unitie in the ground wheron they build this their tranſſubſtantiation. Which is commonlie alleadged to bee expreſſe ſcripture, and in particular theſe words, Math. 26. 26. (this is my Bodie.) but concerning this, Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Maſſe, lect. 40. ſayeth Whether Chriſts Bodie in the Sacrament be by converſion, or without any converſion, the ſubstance and accidents of bread ſtill remaining, is not found expreſlie in the canon of the Bible. nor can it be proven by any ſcripture (ſayeth biſhope Fiſher) cont. Captiv. Babyl. num. 8. (Cardinall Cajetan likewiſe affirmeth) as witneſſeth Suarez tom. 3. diſp. 46.) That theſe words of Chriſt are not able to prove Tranſſubstantiation, but that they may be taken in a figurative ſenſe, as theſe. 1. Cor. 10. 4. (Cajet. 3. q. 78. art. 1.) yea Cardinall Bellarmin ſpeaketh thus. (lib. 3. de Euch. c, 23.) It is not altogether improbable, that there is no expreſſe place of ſcripture, which without the Churches determination, can evidentlie inforce a mā to admitt of Tranſſubſtantiation for albeit the ſcripture ſeem to us that they may compell any that is not refractarie to believe the ſame, yet it may be juſtly doubted, whether the Text bee cleare enough to inforce the ſame (ſayeth he) ſeing the moſt ſharp witted & learned men ſuch as Scotus was, hauehave thought the contrarie.
2. Wee hauehave ſundrie Roman Catholicks who hauehave denyed Tranſſubſtantiation upon any ground whatſoever, as, 1. Bertram a prieſt in his learned treatiſe of the Bodie and Blood of Chriſt, written to Charles the bald King of France, about the yeare 880. 2. Rabanus Maurus a… Abbot in his treatiſe of the Euchariſt, which is alſo extant. 3. Aelfricus Archbiſhope of Canterburie in his ſaxon ſermon on the ſacrament or houſell, (as he calleth it) anno 996. and yet to aſcend higher, Gelaſius a Pope in his treatiſe againſt Eutyches, of the two natures of Chriſt, where he ſayeth, Tho in the Sacrament we receiue a divine thing, to wit, the Bodie & blood of Chriſt, yet the ſubſtance and nature of the bread and wine ceaſſeth not to remaine (ſayeth he) and Biel on the canon of the Maſſe telleth us that in his time concerning the ſacrament or any converſion therein, amongſt Catholicks there were four opinions, wherof the firſt was, That the ſubſtance of bread remained ſtill (ſayeth hee)
3. In the manner or ſort of converſiō, which they pretend to be in the ſacrament, Papiſts they varie, and diſagree mightilie. For, 1. Bellarmin telleth us (lib 3. de Euch. cap. 11.) that Durand. holdeth That one eſſentiall part of the bread, namlie the forme is turned, but that the other part which is the matter or ſubſtance is not turned, and ſo did pope Innocent the 3. teach (ſayeth Durand. Rational. Divin. lib. 4. f. 63.) but others hauehave taught the contrarie (ſayth Bellarmin) That the matter of the bread is turned into Chriſts Bodie, but that the eſſentiall forme remaineth, but as for Lombard their great Maſter of ſentēces, his words are theſe (lib. 4. ſent. d. 11) If it it be asked what ſort of converſion it is, whether formal or ſubſtantiall, or what other ſort it is, definire non ſufficio (ſaieth hee) that is, I am not able to define it, and ſo he quyteth the matter. Biel againe on the canon of the Maſſe, lect. 40. he ſayeth that ther are four opinions concerning this converſion. The Firſt, That the ſubſtance of the bread remaineth ſtill together with Chriſts Bodie, The 2. is, That the ſubſtance of the bread remaineth not ſtill, but after conſecration becometh the body of Chriſt. The 3. is, That tho the bread remains not, yet the accidents of bread as weight, colour, & taſte remaineth, and that Chriſts Bodie begineth to be under theſe accidents, And the fourth opinion is contradicting all the former, That neither doeth the ſubſtance of bread remaine, nor yet is it converted into Chriſts bodie, for the abſurdities that follow theron, but is annihilat, or redacted to nothing, or elſe reſolved into that which they call materia prima. Bellarmin alſo in the forecited place, ſayeth, that Abbot Rupertus maintayned an opinion diverſe from all the former, to wit, That the bread is perſonallie aſſumed by Chriſt in the ſame manner that the humane nature was aſſumed by him▪ and of this alſo Cardinall Aliaco (in 4. ſent. q 6) ſayeth. That this is poſſible and more agreable to reaſon and eaſier to bee underſtood. But thereafter in the ſame place, (hee poſitivlie ſayeth, That the converſion of the bread (according to his judgement) into the bodie of Chriſt is ſucceſſive, as the night is turned into the day, becauſe, as after the night the day commeth, ſo (ſayeth he) after the breads departing, there is Chriſts Bodie. But Bellarmin (lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. §. ex his) will not hauehave this cōverſion, productive, nor ſucceſſiue, but adductive (as hee calleth it) that is, whereby Chriſts Bodie preexiſtent before this converſion in heaven, beginneth to be (ſayeth hee) under the accidents of bread wher it was not before, which indeed is no converſion at all, but onlie a meere tranſlocation.
Moreover (ſayeth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5.) There hath been two opinions devyſed in the Scholes for unfolding the greatnes of this myſterie, one of Durāds (on 4. ſent. d. 10.) who holdeth it probable, that the ſubſtāce of the bodie of Chriſt is in the Euchariſt without greatnes or quantitie, another is of ſome ancient Divines, whom Ockam followeth, who ſay, that there is in the ſacrament the very magnitude and quantitie of Chriſts bodie, which notwithſtanding they think cannot bee diſtinguiſhed from the ſubſtance therof, but that all parts do ſo runne one in another, that ther is no ſhape in Chriſts bodie, nor any diſtinction or order in the parts thereof. But the common opinion of the Schooles and of the Church (ſayeth hee) is contrarie to this, and that in the Euchariſt or little hoſtie; there is whole Chriſt with his magnitude and bigneſs, & all other accidents, & hath both order & ſhape agreable to a humane bodie. Which is the eight miracle of the eleavē that Durand▪ maketh the prieſt daylie to work in the Maſſe, (lib. 4. ration▪ divin. f. 63.) which miracles notwithſtanding are not ſeene, whereas Cardinall Cameracenſis (in 4. ſent. q. 5.) ſa…eth, I ought not to believe that he worketh any miracle (ſayeth hee) except I ſee the ſame. And indeed theſe are ſuch as are foreprophecied 2. Theſſ. 2. 9. and are called lieing ſignes and wonders.
4. They agree no better in this point, to wit, Wherby did Chriſt produce in his laſt ſupper Tranſſubſtantiation? Concerning which, their Biel on the canon of the maſſe lect. 36. ſayeth, There are four opinions. The 1. That Chriſt did make this converſion, not by any words which hee uttered, but by his divine power without any words, and that Pope Innocent 3. was of this minde. The 2. That Chriſt bleſſed and conſecrated the bread, but with a ſecret benediction unknowne to us▪ whereby he Tranſſubſtanti… the bread into his Bodie, of which the Evangeliſts maketh mentiē, when they ſay, that he tooke bread and bleſſed it, ſo that heerby Chriſts Bodie behoved to be preexiſtent in the ſacrament by that bleſſing, before he ſaid, this is my bodie, that ſo, that ſpeech of his might be true. The 3. is, That our Saviour by theſe words (this is my bodie) made that cōverſion of bread into his bodie, but ttha be ſpoke theſe words twiſe, though it be written but once, and that firſt he spoke them ſoftlie and unheard, whereby he made the converſion and thereafter audiblie, to teach them how thereafter they ſhould make this converſion. And the 4. opinion is, That by theſe words (this is my Bodie) which be ſpake audiblie he made this converſion of bread into his owne Bodie.
5. Herin again they greatly controvert, to, wit, whereby the Prieſt daylie doth make this converſion. 1. Some ſay (as Durand. in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. and Biel on the canon of the maſſe lect. 47. with others) That the ſame is by vertue which Chriſt hath placed and made wherent in the words themſelves of (this is my Bodie) 2. Others ſay, That this converſion dependeth upon the intention of the Prieſt as Bellarmin ſayeth, The whole Church holdeth, (lib. 3. de juſtifi. cap. 8.) whoſe words are theſe, The Sacrament without the intention of the prieſt cannot be made a Sacrament. 3. Lombard their great Maſter of ſentences (lib. 4. diſt. 13.) ſayeth, That it dependeth upon an Angels deſcending from heaven to conſecrate the Hoſtie. Whoſe words are theſe, It is called the Maſſe becauſe of the comming of the heavenlie Angell (ſayeth hee) to conſecrate the bodie of Chriſt, according to the Prieſts prayer▪ ſaying, Omnipotent God, command that theſe things be carried by the hands of thy holie Angel before thy high Altar, therefore except the Angel come, it cannot be called a Maſſe, (ſayth he) ſeing therefore (as Bellarmin hath told us) that it cannot be a Sacrament without the Prieſts intentiō, and that no man can know the intention of another (ſayth Bellar.) & farr leſſe be ſure of an Angels cōming downe to comſecrate the bread, & turne it into Chriſts body. I would thē on theſe grounds of their own, ask any papiſt when he adoreth the hoſtie, how he can be ſure whether hee adoreth Chriſts body, or onelyonly a piece of bread, which were moſt groſſe Idolatrie, as all muſt confeſs.
6. To come to the words of conſecration themſelves. 1 in generall, next in particular, let us ſee how they agree heerein, 1. The moſt common opinion is that in generall they are to bee taken properlie, and not figuratiuely, but on the contrarie, Bertram and the others with him forecited, as alſo Cardinall Cajetan (in 3. q. 78. art. 1.) holdeth that they are, and may be taken figuratiuelie and after a Sacramentall manner of ſpeech, as wee ſee in Circumciſion and the Paſſover, yea more, in the Popes owne canon Law, (de conſecra. diſt. 2. c. hoc eſt) it is ſaid ther, That the heavenlie Sacrament which trulie repreſenteth Chriſts fleſh, is called Chriſts Bodie, but improperlie and not in veritie of the thing (ſayeth that place) but by a myſticall ſignification, ſo that the meaning is (ſayth the gloſſe) it is called Chriſts Bodie, that is, it is a ſign of his bodie.
7. Next to come to the words in particular, 1. The Catholicks do not agree ſayth Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euc…. cap. 11) in the manner of explicating, what is properlie meaned by this Pronowne (hoc) or (this) in the words of conſecration (this is my Bodie) & in this there are two famous opinions (ſayth he) the one that this pronowne (hoc) ſignifieth the Body of Chriſt, the other is of S. Thomas (ſayeth he) that it ſignifieth not the body of Chriſt preciſ…ie, nor yet the bread (as ſome hold) but in cōmon that ſubſtance (be what it will) which is under theſe formes, ſo that the meaning is, hoc, this, that is, under this, and th…ſe formes or accidents is my bodie. Neither determinating it to the bread (ſays Biel in can. Miſſae, lect. 48.) becauſe ſo, this speech ſhould be falſe, this bread is my Bodie, nor to the bodie of Chriſt, for this were abſurd to ſay, this bodie is my bodie (ſayeth he) as alſo, ſeing the vertue of the words of conſecration depends on the pronouncing of the laſt word (meum) as Biel ſhoweth in the ſame place, therefore by (hoc) Chriſts bodie cannot bee underſtood. Againe the ſame Biel in the place forecited, ſayeth, that concerning this, there are diverſe opinions, which he reduceth to two. 1. That by (hoc) nothing at all is demonſtrat, and this Durand. alſo declareth, (lib. 4. rat. divin. f. 64.) 2. Some ſay that by (hoc) the bread is demonstrat, ſo that the meaning ſhould bee, this bread is my bodie, that is, in a Sacramentall way, the ſigne of my bodie. But becauſe this would ſeeme (ſayeth he) to be hereticall, therefore ſayeth Richardus de ſancto victore, that it is a mixt demonstration, partlie to the ſenſe, partlie to the underſtanding, ſo that the meaning is, this in which the bread (which is ſeene) is to be tranſſubstantiat, is my bodie (which muſt be believed) and ſo the word (is) muſt be expounded in the future, (ſhall be) & this is likewiſe the opiniō of Richardꝰ de media villa and others, but Alexander Ales expre…ſlie will hauehave by (hoc) the bread to bee demonſtrat, and thereafter to bee tranſſubſtantiated by the words of conſecration.
8. They controvert no leſſe likewiſe, in the next words (corpus meum or my bodie) as Gabriel Biel ſhoweth in his 37. lecture on the canon of the Maſſe, Whether that bodie which Chriſt gave to his Diſciples was his mortall and paſſible bodie or that which was immortall and impaſſible, to theſe who ſay the firſt, it is objected that then (ſayeth he… it is not the ſame bodie which is now given in the ſacrament which is immortall and impaſſible, and that the Maſſe is therefore called an unbloodie ſacrifice, Againe, in the contrarie to theſe who hold that it was his immortall and impaſſible bodie, it is likewiſe objected, that, this co…ld not be, becauſe his Bodie did afterward ſuffer and die, being yet unglorified, and therefore was mortall and paſſible. Therefore (ſayeth Biel) Hugo Cardinalis being ſtraitned on both hands by the former contradictions, concludeth for his part, ſiding with neither of them, ſaying, That in this queſtiō as in ſuch like others, I profeſſe (ſayeth hee) that I will rather reverence than diſpute ſuch ſecrets, and in ſimplicitie of faith. I think this ſufficient, if we ſay, that Chriſt gaue them ſuch a bodie as pleaſed Him to give, becauſe Hee was Omnipotent. And ſo leaveth the matter in doubt which of them it was, and uſeth a ſhort & eaſie way to ſolve all queſtions.
9 In the words alſo that followeth (which is broken for you) as they are ſet downe 1. Cor. 11. 24. They are againe like the Midianits, Judg. 7. 22. Every mans ſword againſt his fellow, For 1. Pope Nicolas the 2. with his Councell at Rome, as wee may ſee (decret. 3. p. d. 2 cap. 42) affirmeth, That it is Chriſts Bodie ſenſuallie that is broken & torne in pieces with the teeth of the receivers, which yet (ſayeth Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. §. quartum) cannot be spoken of Chriſts bodie or fleſh without great blaſphēie. And which a little after that time, made that great phyſitian & learned Philoſopher Averroes to ſay (as B. Esponceus reporteth lib. 4. de Euch. ador. cap. 3.) mundum peragravi▪ &c. that is, I have travelled through the world (ſayeth hee) and I never ſaw a worſe & more fooliſh …ect than that of the Chriſtians is, becauſe with their teeth they devoure that God whō they worſhip, & which I may ſay is at this day the greateſt ſcandell to Turks, Iewes and Pagans that ſcarreth and debarreth them from embracing Chriſtianitie, as ſir Edmund Sandys ſhoweth in his ſpeculum Europae p. 230. Next, their maſter of ſentēces Lombard (l. 4. diſt. 12.) telleth us that this definition of the Pope and his Councell is falſe & erronious, ſeing Chriſts bodie is now incorruptible, immortall, and impaſsible, & that Christ rebuked the carnall understanding of his Diſciples (ſayeth he) who thought that his fleſh was to be divyded in parts, or torne in morſels as other fleſh is, therfore ſayeth he (diſt. 11.) becauſe it is nefarious to devoure Christ with our teeth, he hath recommended his fleſh and blood to us in a myſterie. 3. Others againe (ſayth he) affirmeth that there is no reall breaking there, as men ſeemeth to ſee with their eyes, but that it is ſaid to be broken, ſicut fit in magorum prestigiis, &c. that is, as uſeth to be done by magick tricks or Iuglers, who by deluſion deceiveth mens eyes (ſayeth he) that they ſeeme to ſee, that which is not (a right compariſon indeed of maſſe prieſts) 4. Others againe (ſayeth the ſame Lombard) affirme that by the wonderfull power of God, there is a breaking ther, where notwithſtanding nothing is broken. (a groſſe contradiction) and this Durand. in his rationale divinorum. lib. 4. f. 36. maketh to bee the fourth miracle of the eleven, that is dayly wrought by the maſſe Prieſt, to wit, That in the Maſſe that which is indiviſible yet is divyded, and tho it be divyded, (ſayeth hee) it remaineth whole. 5. Biel alſo on the canon of the Maſſe, lect. 36. fayth, that, That which Chriſt brake, and the Priest now breaketh, is the ſacramentall species, as whytnes, roundnes, but neither Christs bodie, nor yet any thing that is whyte and round. (a ſtrange Chimera indeed.) The like ſayeth Lombard lib. 4. d. 12. That it is neither Christs body that is broke, nor bread (though the Apoſtle ſayeth, 1. Cor. 10. 16. the bread which we break) but this fraction is of the forme onelie and ſhape of the bread, ſacramentallie done (ſayth he) which was alſo the opinion of Pope Innocent the 3. And ſo ſpeaketh Cardinall Cameracenſis in 4. q. 6. ſaying, That this is the common opinion, that the accidents of the breade which remaine without any ſubject ar only that which is broken. Than which Aſſertion there can be no greater abſurditie.
10. No leſſe digladiation is amongſt Romaniſts, concerning what is eaten in the ſacrament, according to Chriſts words, Take, Eate, For 1. (as hath beene ſaid) according to pope Nicolas judiciall defyning, It is Christs bodie & fleſh that is eaten with the mouth and torne with the teeth, (which Bellarmin calleth blaſphemous, and Lombard hereticall.) But on the contrarie, Alexander Ales) p. 4. 11. memb. art. 2. (as alſo Bonaventure) in 4. ſent. d. 12. art. 3.) Affirme that the eating of Chriſts bodie is mysticall, and not orall or corporall and giveth this as a reaſone thereof, that whereas three things are implyed in corporall eating, to wit, 1. a maſticatiō or chewing with the teeth. 2. a trajection into the ſtomack and bellie. And 3. a Converſion of the thing eaten into the ſubſtance of the eater, this laſt which is moſt eſſentiall in eating, cannot agree to the bodie of Chriſt, which is not turned into our ſubſtance, but rather in a myſticall manner turneth us into it ſelf (ſay they) to which they might alſo added that which our Saviour …peaketh of that which goeth in at the mouth, that it likewiſe goeth out in the draught. Math. 15. 17.
Againe, if a Mouſe or Ratt, or any ſuch beaſt happen to eate the conſecrated Hoſtie, it is controverted what is eaten by ſuch. 1. then in the Roman miſſall and cautel's of the Maſſe, it is affirmed that they eate Chriſts bodie, for theſe ar the very words, Item … corpus Chriſti a muribus vel araneis conſumptum vel corroſum fuerit, &c. that is, If the bodie of Christ be conſumed or gnawne by Myce or ſpiders, if theſe vermine can be found, let them be burned, and what remaineth of that which is gnawn by them unconſumed, if it may be done without horror, let it be eaten. But Lombard in the contrarieꝰ (lib. 4. d. 13.) ſayeth, That Chriſts bodie is not eaten by ſuch beaſts, though it would ſeeme that it were, and if any will ask (ſayeth he) What is it then which is eaten by ſuch? he anſwereth verie bl…ntlie, ſaying, Deus novit, that is, God knoweth, not hee. But Durand. in his rationale divinorum. lib. 4. f. 63. telleth us that Pope Innocent the 3. reſolveth the matter otherwiſe, and ſayeth, That as the ſubſtance of the bread is miraculouſly turned into the bodie of Chriſt when it beginneth to be in the Sacrament, ſo doth bread miraculouſly returne whē Chriſts bodie ceaſſeth to be there, and therfore, that the mouſe or any ſuch beaſt eateth onlie the bread that miraculouſlie is ſo furniſhed unto them by God. Even as the ſame Durand tells a tale there, how a Matron that furniſhed bread ſabbathlie to Pope Gregorie did laugh when ſhee heard the Pope affirme, that to be Chriſts bodie which ſhee knew to be bread that her ſelf had baken, whereupon the Pope to cōvince her of her errour, by his prayer he converted the hoſtie viſiblie into a finger of fleſh, & when heere on ſhee was converted, he prayed againe, and turned the finger of fleſh into bread againe. And ſo heere were three pretie cō verſions, ſi credere fas ect. The firſt, of the Hoſtie into Chriſts bodie inviſiblie, the next, of the Hoſtie into a finger of fleſh viſibly, & the third, of the finger of fleſh back againe into bread viſiblie. Quis talia fando temperet. &c,
11. Heere againe in the other Element of the Sacrament, they contend one againſt another, concerning the mixture of water with the wine, & the Tranſſubſtantiatiō of both. 1. Then Cardinall Aliac… (in 4. ſent. q. 5.) telleth us that Scotus did hold That water is not ſimplie neceſſarie at all to be uſed in the ſacrament, ſeing there is no mention thereof in the inſtitution, but only that it is the precept of the Church (ſayeth he) and that the Grecian and Eaſterne Church uſeth it not to this day. But others againe pleadeth the neceſſitie of the mixture of water, and therein placeth a myſterie. Next, Whether the water mixed with the wine be both converted in Chriſts blood, it is controverted (ſayeth Biel on the canon of the Maſſe, lect. 35.) and of this (ſayeth hee) there are three opinions. 1. That the water remaineth ſtill in it owne kind and ſubſtance, taking onlie the colour and Taſte of the wine. 2. That the wine is turned into Chriſts blood, and the water into that which came out of Chriſts ſide on the Croſſe, but to that it is anſwered (ſayeth he) that the words of conſecration extendeth not themſelves to the converſion of water at all, & ſpecially into that which came out of Chriſts ſide, The third opinion (ſayeth he) is, that the water is turned into wine in the mixture thereof, and then, that both together are turned into Chriſts blood, and ſo that ther are two Tranſſubſtantiations of the water whereof no mention is in ſcripture. I could inſtance more concerning the adoration of the Hoſtie, whether it ſhould be abſolute or conditionall, as alſo their diſagrement in everie other point of poperie, beſide the diſſentions and diviſions betweene the Scotiſts and Thomiſts, the Dominicans and Franciſcans, the Sorbone and the Ieſuits, and all, in weightie matters, but ſtudying to brevitie, theſe ſhall ſuffice, wherein I da…e challenge all the Prieſts and Papiſts in the world to inſtance the like amongſt us, eſpeciallie in one point of doctrine. Whoſe differences (wherewith they upbraid us] ar like molehills in regard of theſe mountains, and rather in matter of government or ceremonie, nor in any point of fundamentall doctrine and ſubſtance, ſo that theſe Phariſee-like papiſts, ſhould firſt take the beame out of their owne eye, before they ſpy the mote in their neighbours, and hence-forth ceaſſe to brag of their Catholick unitie, & frō all which diſagrements and digladiations amongſt themſelves. I ſhall onlie conclude in Bellarmins owne words (lib. 4. de Eccleſ. cap. 10. §. adde.) That it is a moſt ſure Note of falſe doctrine, that hereticall authours agree not therein amongst themſelves.