To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
A Confirmation of the same Iudgement of the Fathers, acknow∣ledging in expresse tearmes Bread to remaine after Con∣secration, in Substance, the same.
The First Father is THEODORET.
THeodoret maketh a Dialogue, or Conference betweene two Parties, being in Controversie about the humane and bodily
nature of Christ; the one is named Eramstes, upon whom is impo∣sed the person of an Heretike, for Defence of the Sect of the Eu∣tychians, who (falsly) held, That the Body of Christ, after his As∣cension, being glorified, was swallowed up of his Deity, and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence, as before his Resurrecti∣it had beene. The other Party and Disputer is named Or∣thodoxus, signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholique Doctrine; which Person Theodoret himselfe did sustaine, in behalfe of the Catholique Church. In this Dispute the Heretike is brought in, for Defence of his Heresie, arguing thus; Even as Signes in the Eucharist after the words of Invocation (or Consecration) are not the same, but are changed into the Body of Christ: Even so, after his As∣cension, was his Body changed into a Divine [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] meaning, Substance of a Divine Essence. Which both your Romanists and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes. This was that Heretike his Obiection. The Orthodoxe, or Catholique (which was Theodoret himselfe) commeth to answer, promising to catch the Heretique, as he saith, in his owne Snare, by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him, thus: a 1.1 Nay, But as the mysticall Signes in the Eucharist, after Sanctification, depart not from their former na∣ture, but continue in their former Figure, Forme and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, Substance. So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, remaineth in its former Figure, Forme, Circumscription, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Substance] which it had before. You may perceive that the Assertion, set downe in the name of a grand Heretike, is absolutely your Romish Profes∣sion for Transubstantiation at this day (to wit) Bread is changed af∣ter Consecration into the Substance of Christ's Body; and that also the Assertion of Theodoret, in the person of the Catholique Professor, being flat contradictory, is as absolutely the Doctrine of Prote∣stants, defending that Bread after Consecration remaineth in Substance the same. Wherefore, if ever, it now concerneth your Disputers to free your Romish Article from Heresie:) which divers have under∣taken to doe by their Answeres, but alas! so absurdly, that any reasonable man must needs laugh at; and so false, as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest them.
The Principall Answere is that, which your b 1.2 Cardinall giveth, that Theodoret, in saying that Bread remayneth the same in Figure, Forme, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] meant not Substance properly understood, but the essence of Accidents. So hee. An Answere (by your leave) notoriously, ridiculously, and heretically False.
First, Notoriously false, because the Argument of Theodoret, being taken from a Similitude, and every Similitude consisting of two Propositions, the first called Protasis, and the other Apodosis, it is necessary by the Rule of Logique (as you know) that the words and termes, betokening the same Similitude, be used in the same signification in both Propositions. But in the Apodosis of Theodo∣ret, which is this: So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, re∣maineth
the same in Figure, Forme, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] was meant properly Substance, because this was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the maine point in Question betweene Theodoret and the Heretique; viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same, which it had beene in time before his Resurrection (the Heretique denying it, and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance:) and not whether the same only in Quantities, and Accidents; for these the Apostle teacheth to be alterable, * 1.3 Cor∣ruption putting on Incorruption, Mortality Immortality, and shame Glory. Therefore in the Protasis and first Proposition of that com∣parison of Theodoret (which was this, As the Bread remaineth the same in Figure, Forme and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] can have no other signification than Substance, properly taken.
Secondly, Ridiculously false, because in reckoning Figure and Forme, which are knowne to be Accidents, and adding [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] this necessarily is opposed to the former Two, as Substance to Acci∣dents. Nor was there (we suppose) ever any so vnlearned, who did adde the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] to Formes, and Figures, but hee thereby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents.
Thirdly, Heretically false; for what was the Heresie of the E••∣tychians? tell us; They (say c 1.4 you) held that Christ (namely after his Resurrection) had not an humane nature, but only Divine. Which word Humane Nature doth principally imply the Substantiall na∣ture of Man; and therefore in his comparison, made for the illu∣stration of that Heresie concerning Bread, after Consecration, in Fi∣gure, Forme, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the same word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] had the same signi∣fication of Substance, as your Master Brereley afterwards is com∣pelled to confesse: who, to the end hee may disgrace Theodoret, rudely and wildly taketh upon him to iustifie the Heretiques speech to be Catholique, for proofe of Transubstantiation.
Wherefore Theodoret, in his Answere Retorting (as he himselfe saith) the Heretiques Comparison against him, did by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 likewise understand Substance, else had he not disputed ad Idem; but by a shamefull Tergiversation had betraid his Catholique Cause unto that pernitious Heretique. Much like as if one should use this comparison following. As the Moone-shine in the water (in the o∣pinion of the Vulgar) is truly of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament; so a feigned friend is equally as loving as is a Faithfull. And another retorting the same should confute him, saying; Nay, but as the Moon-shine in the water is not of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament; even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithfull. Here the word [Love] being taken for Loyall Affection by the Objectour, if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter, to signifie lust, the Disputers might be held to be little better than those Two in * 1.5 Agellius, where such an Obiectour is compared to a man mil∣king
an Hee-Goat, (or if you will, a Bull) and the Answerer to ano∣ther holding under a Sive.
Here had wee fixed a Period, but that wee againe espied one Master Brerely (a Romish Priest) comming against us with a full ca∣reere, who after that he had beene * 1.6 confuted, for urging the for∣mer Obiection, notwithstanding, concealing the Answere, he blu∣sheth not to regest the same; albeit, as one conscious to himselfe of the futility thereof, he leaveth it presently, falling foule upon Theodoret, as though that Father had beene in some distemper, when he so writ: d 1.7 saying, first, that Theodoret used that his Retor∣tion in his * 1.8 heate of Dispute. Then hee taketh part with the Here∣tique, saying, It is not likely that an Heretique should have urged a∣gainst a Catholique sentence for Transubstantiation, as for a point of Faith well knowne, if the same doctrine had beene then either un∣knowne, or else condemned as False. So hee, who might as well have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces, condemned by Christ, saying: It is not likely that they would so expressely have denied that there are any Spirits, in their Dispute against Christ, if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne, or condemned as False by the Church of God among the Iewes. And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was iudged execrable in that Church. Now if the Euty∣chian Heretique finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest, alas! what will become of the Father Theodoret? Hearken, Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop (saith hee) could not have pro∣pounded the Heretikes Argument, as grounded upon the Churches re∣ceived Doctrine of Transubstantiation, had the same beene then un∣knowne, and reputed False. So hee, who, if he had not lost his Lo∣gique, would certainly have argued contrarily, saying; Theodoret, being an Orthodoxe and Catholique Bishop, would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretique, and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same, except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholique Church in his time. Wherefore if you be men of Faith, and not rather of Faction, let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers, discovered both here, and throughout this whole Treatise, move you to renounce them, as men of prostituted Consciences; and their Cause, as for∣lorne of all Truth.
For a further Evidence, take unto you an Answere of your Ie∣suite Valen••ia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity: It is not to be held any marvell (saith * 1.9 he) why some Ancients have writ, and thought lesse considerately and truly, before that Transubstantia∣tion was handled publikely in the Church, especially they not handling the same Question of purpose. So he; and this hee calleth a briefe and plaine Answere. And so it is, whereby, in granting that Tran∣substantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church, hee plainly confuteth your now Romane Church, which iudgeth
it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith: And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose, it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret, who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretique in an extemporall speech personally, but deliberately and punctually by writing, and therefore of Purpose.
Th••••d. Dial. 2. c. 24. Non post sanctifi∣cationē mystica signa 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Paulo post. Sic illud Corpus Christi priorē habet Formam, Figuram, Circumscriptionem, & (ut summatim di∣cam) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] etiamsi post re∣surrectionem immor∣tale, & immune ab omni corruptione.
Non loquitur de substantiâ quae distin∣guitur contra Acci∣dentia, & quam in Categoricâ posuit A∣ristoteles; sed de Es∣sentiâ, & naturâ Ac∣cidentium. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch c. 27. §. Sed me.
1. Cor. 15. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
Alphonsus à Ca∣stro de haeres. Eutych. Negabant Christum habuisse naturam hu∣manam; tantùm i•• eo ponentes naturā divinam.
Alter hircū mul∣ge••: alter cribram supponit.
Ʋid. Protestants Appeale, Booke 2. Ch. 2. § ••0.
In his Liturgie of the Masse. Tract. 2. §. 2 subd. 3 p. 254.
Not so, for he was now not in a personall dispute, but deliberate∣ly writing against the Heresie of the Euty∣chians.
Valent. Ies. lib. 2. de Transub. c. 7. Dabi∣mus aliud breve, & simplex, & sine ullo incommodo respon∣sum. Enimverò ante∣quam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palàm in Ecclesia a∣gitaretur, minime mirùm est si unus, aut alter, aut etiam aliqui minùs considerate, & rectè hac de resense∣rint, & scripserint; maximè cum non tractarent ex institu∣to ipsam quaestionē.