1 he Vemonflration ofthe Probleme. hcdcftthe earth, when hecafcended vp to/ A heauen. The Acih,fa!th P,g~b'urcoiltrA Eu~J_c. /.4. whtldt it was hercvpon earth,was not tn hi.!.!ucn, a;JJ nowchattrtsmheaul!n,ttisno more vpoo the earth. · u LaGiy, wheu tranfubUantiation was onceeUabhiheJ, the mofllearned llucke to the opmion af confub(hnttation, as ruolt congruent vnto Scriptmc, rcc"iuing theopt– oiono( tr~nfutJflamiacion ,. either folely or chicfly,becaufcthcChurch had lo decreed. Scow;. 4,dt 1 1.t t.q.J.arr.t.holds e<prclfely, that the doctrinc of Trapfubflan!lation is note<prelfed in theScriptures,1ddingthis:lt feemerh to moouc vs chiefly [to hold tran– fubflantiation] bccaufe we mull hold of the B Sacraments,a.rhe RonuneChurch hath fet downe in the Extrauagantsde haret,c.dd abo– lcnd:un,whcrcnotcrhcCe wordc:il in the Paris cditionlttn1J,I4?7.inthe margenr:thc faith of this S1cramcnt zs only bec.aufe of the deter– minationot the Church.And in rhe farncar– ticlc"fP.'adarg.J.Caith rhus, Wefay rhatthe Church h1rh refolucJ that this meaning [that the br~ad IS tranCubflantiarc] isthctruefl fairh,tn thecrcedeof Lateranc vnder In· noCeotthe3. bcgi1ming, Fl~mirercredimuJ, &c.--where the trUth of fon1.e thingsro be bcleeued is declared, l!nhar more plarne– ly,then etcher in the A pofllcs Creede,A•h•· n•(tus his, orthat of the Councell of N•c,, C Brid!y,whatfoeuer isthcrc fa id fitto beebc– leeued,wcc mufl hold tobe of rhe fubilance of fairh--.If ycu aske why the Church would moke chotceof fo hard an vudcr(lan– diog ofthis arricle, when the Scripture may be falucd IYtth an explication, both more ea– Gc,and in 12pparance more true; to this I fay that the S:riptures are expounded by the famefpititthatmad<them. And we mu(li. magine that the Catho!tke Church expla– neth this to vs with the fame fptrit that it taughtvsour firfl tarth, namely, thefpirit of truth, This opinion, both in thefamefenfe, and a!moll in the fame words we may reade and makeChri!ls body anon.f<Jbflancc,For rhis putteth no accidents ~>llhour a fub· llance, which is one ofthe dtf!icuhies in rhis que(lion-.And therfore tt (eeme• not any way inconuenient to follow the firUway,tffo berharthc Church had fo dercrmineJ. And againe: The (l>urth,and more common opi– nion is,thatthe fubUanceofbrea1 remainech not,burccafeth !i!l>ply·to haue a beeing:--– anJ rhough this bee not fo probable out of Scnprure, nor in my iudgement, outofrhc derermtnationofthe Church: yet fincc it fa– uoureththisopinion, as the c0mmon opi– nion ofDodonand holy men·, therefore! alfo doe hold ir. Thus he. It is mofl plaine (faith Durandru,in 4,d,,1. 1 t .q. 1.) that it is a ralh parttofayrhat Chrills bodte by diuine power cannot be in the Sacrament othcrwife rhen by hauingthe bread conuerred into his fub(lance. And ·againe, But if rbatmanner [which tcachechtbe fubUance ofbread ro rc– malncafcerconfecrarion]werc true, de jg[}o, of'"" thing a one' wee flJOuld haue many doubtstak<n away which fall about rhts Sa– crament. in rcachlngthebrcad doth not re– maim~. For fir!}, there is a doubt how any thing can beenourifl1cd by 1his Sacrament; and then how the formes may bee corrupti· ble;or how any thing can hauegeneration by rhem,all which doubts rhe other fenfcwould clearc.-- But becaufe this way may not be held e.pre!fely,finccthe Church harh deter– mine:! on thecontraryway, \rhomcwc prc· fumenutroerrcin fuch cafe-s, thereforeby hohlrng exprclfely tharfiJe, we muU anfwcr vmo the arguments on the contrary lidc. And tn!Jisthird gucOion. S1uing rhcrcuc– renceotabetter i~dgcrnCc~it may be thought that in the Sacrament rhere is a conuerfion ofthe fubUance ofthe bread tnto ChriOs be· dy,and thattn this manner: The forme of th~ breadbeeingcorrupred, the matter ther· ofisvndcrtheformeof Chrills body, [ud– denly,and by the eternal! porverof God: as the matteroffood or nollrlfhment is vndcr rhe f<>rrnc of that which it fecdeth by rhe in Bit/,leU.41.in CanO»,MifJ: with tHisadditi– onmoreouer, that this ordinlltion(oftran– fub!hntiatton] wa! not knowne perhaps in the Churchvnttll afrerthe inlliruuon. And tt is thought to hauc bec:ne firll reuealedvn· to the holy Fathers, or found our by them through their labour in explaning of the Scrtptures. Though Chrifls body (faith /'e– tnnd: AUiaco,in 4.Sm.q.s.arr.~. Concl.l.) as 12 quantitre,and the bodily quanrity thereofbe in heaucn,andin theS;tcramcnt: yet is it not in the Sacramentas a quontatiuebody, ora bodtly quantity.And againe,q. 6.arr.:, That mancr [ofConfubllantiatio] whtch faith the fi>bUane< ofbread doth thereremaine,~>here the bodie ofChrifl beginsto b~, is poffible, & neither oppofire t'o reafon nor Scriptures: naytt is eaGer to vnderlland, and more rea– fonable to conceiue then any of thofe that fcp>rate th5 fubflar.ce from the accidents, D power ofoarure.And afterward• : The fore– Caid rnanmr of the conucrfion--is cui~ dentlypoffiblc: And the other[tranfub(lan– riation]1snot intelligible, neither i~ the one more approued or reproued by the Church, rhenrheother. VVhereas rhe words ofthe Scriptures (faith Cai:tant, in 3·ftirt.Thom. q. 7).Rrt.I.)are expoundc:d two waies, either properly,or metaphorically: the firfl errour in this point wasthcirs that rnterprcted rhefe wordesofourLord[ this is my body]mcf3. phorically, which rhe Mal!er of the fen. rcnces in his fourth booke, and tenth diflin . ctionfpeaketh of,~>hoin rhis point isreproo. ued.And the fore< of hisreproofeconlil!crh herein,thattbc Church vnderOandetbtlllfe lliords properly,and it behooueth them"' br verified properly, I fay the Church: for in– deed there is nor any forcibl e morioc in tl~c ------------------------------------------------------~Go~d . . .
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=