in his Epistle to Bonifacius If Sacraments did not some maner of vvay resemble the things wherof they are Sacraments they should not be Sacraments at all And for this resemblance they doe of oftentimes also beare the names of the things themselves As therefore the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ and the sacrament of Christs blood is the blood of Christ so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith By the sacrament of faith hee understandeth Baptisme of which he afterward alledgeth that saying of the Apostle Rom. 6.4 Wee are buried with Christ by baptisme into death and then addeth He saith not We signifie his buriall but hee plainly saith Wee are buried Therefore the sacrament of so great a thing hee would not otherwise call but by the name of the thing it selfe And in his Questions upon Leviticus The thing that signifieth saith he useth to be called by the name of that thing which it signifieth as it is written The seven eares of corne are seven yeares for hee said not they signifie seven yeares and the seven Kine are seven yeares and many such like Hence was that saying The Rocke was Christ. For he said not The Rock did signifie Christ but as if it had beene that very thing which doubtlesse by substance it was not but by signification So also the blood because for a certaine vitall corpulencie which it hath it signifieth the soule after the maner of Sacraments it is called the soule Our argument therefore out of the words of the institution standeth thus If it be true that Christ called Bread his bodie and Wine his blood then must it be true also that the things which bee honoured with those names cannot be really his bodie blood but figuratively and sacramentally But the former is true Therefore also the latter The first proposition hath bene proved by the undoubted principles of right reason and the cleare confession of the adverse part the second by the circumstances of the Text of the Evangelists by the exposition of S. Paul and by the received grounds of the Romanists themselves The conclusion therefore resteth firme and so wee have made it cleare that the wordes of the Institution do not only not uphold but directly also overthow the whole frame of that which the Church of Rome teacheth touching the corporall presence of Christ under the formes of Bread and Wine If I should now lay downe here all the sentences of the Fathers which teach that that which Christ called his Body is Bread in substance and the Body of the Lord in signification and sacramentall relation I should never make an end Iustin Martyr in his second Apologie to Antoninus the Emperour telleth us that the bread and the wine even that sanctified food wherewith our blood and flesh by conversion are nourished is that w ch we are taught to be the flesh and blood of Iesus incarnate Irenaeus in his 4 th book against heresies saith that our Lord taking bread of that condition which is usuall among us confessed it to be his body the cup likewise contayning that creature which is usuall among us his blood And in his fift book he addeth That cup which is a creature he confirmed to be his blood which was shedde wherby he increaseth our blood and that bread which is of the creature to be his body wherby he increaseth our bodies Therefore when the mixed cup and the broken bread doth receive the word of God it is made the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ whereby the substance of our flesh is increased and doth consist Our Lord saith Clemens Alexandrinus did blesse vvine vvhen hee said Take drinke This is my blood the blood of the Vine Tertullian Christ taking bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body Origen That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer as touching the materiall part thereof goeth into the belly and is voyded into the draught but as touching the prayer which is added according to the portion of faith it is made profitable enlightning the minde and making it to behold that which is profitable Neyther is it the matter of bread but the word spoken over it which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eate thereof And these things I speake of the typicall and symbolicall bodie saith Origen In the Dialogues against the Marcionites collected for the most part out of the writings of Maximus who lived in the time of the Emperors Commodus and Severus Origen who is made the chiefe speaker therein is brought in thus disputing against the Heretickes If Christ as these men say were without bodie and blood of what kinde of flesh or of what body or of what kinde of blood did hee give the bread and the cup to be Images of when he commanded his Disciples by them to make a commemoration of him S. Cyprian also noteth that it was Wine even the fruit of the Vine which the Lord said was his blood and that floure alone or water alone cannot bee the bodie of our Lord unlesse both be united and coupled together and kneaded into the lumpe of one bread And againe that the Lord calleth bread his body which is made up by the uniting of many cornes and wine his blood which is pressed out of many clusters of grapes and gathered into one liquor Which I finde also word for word in a maner transcribed in the Commentaries upon the Gospels attributed unto Theophilus Bishop of Antioch Wherby it appeareth that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived then as if Christ had plainly said This bread is my body and This wine is my blood which is the maine thing that wee strive for with our Adversaries and for which the words themselves are plaine enough the substance whereof we finde thus laid downe in the Harmonie of the Gospels gathered as some say by Tatianus as others by Ammonius within the second or the third age after Christ. Having taken the bread then afterward the cup of wine and testified it to be his body and blood hee commanded them to eate and drinke thereof forasmuch as it was the memoriall of his future passion and death To the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares we will now adjoyne the testimonies of those that flourished in the ages following The first whereof shall be Eusebius who saith that our Saviour delivered to his Disciples the symboles of his divine dispensation commanding them to make the Image of his owne body and appointing them to use Bread for the symbole of his Body and that we still celebrate upon the Lords table the memory of his sacrifice by the symboles of his body and blood according to the ordinances of the New Testament Acacius
mysterium corporis ejus continetur quanto magis vasa corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit non debemus locum dare Diabolo agendi in eis quod vult If therefore it be so dangerous a matter to transferre unto private uses those holy vessels in which the true body of Christ is not but the mysterie of his body is contained how much more for the vessels of our body which God hath prepared for himselfe to dwell in ought not wee to give way unto the Divell to doe in them what he pleaseth Those words in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur in which the true body of Christ is not but the mysterie of his body is contained did threaten to cut the very throat of the Papists real presence and therefore in good policie they thought it fit to cut their throat first for doing any further hurt Whereupon in the Editions of this Worke printed at Antwerpe apud Ioannem Steelsium anno 1537 at Paris apud Ioannem Roigny anno 1543 and at Paris again apud Audoenum Parvum anno 1557. not one syllable of them is to be seene though extant in the ancienter editions one whereof is as olde as the yere 1487. And to the same purpose in the 19 Homily in stead of Sacrificium panis vini the sacrifice of bread and vvine which we find in the old impressions these latter editions have chopt in Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Christi the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. In the yeare 1608. there were published at Paris certaine workes of Fulbertus Bishop of Chartres pertayning as well to the refuting of the heresies of this time for so saith the inscription as to the cleering of the History of the French Among those things that appertaine to the confutation of the Heresies of this time there is one especially fol. 168. laid downe in these words Nisi manducaveritis inquit carnem filij hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere Figura ergo est dicet haereticus praecipiens Passioni Domini esse coÌ„municandum tantùm suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa vulnerata sit Vnlesse saith Christ ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee shall not haue life in you He seemeth to command an outrage or wickednesse It is therefore a figure will the hereticke say requiring us only to communicate with the Lords Passion and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us He that put in those words dicet haereticus thought hee had notably met with the heretickes of this time but was not aware that thereby he made S. Augustine an Hereticke for company For the Hereticke that speaketh thus is even S. Augustine himselfe whose very words these are in his third booke de Doctrinâ Christianâ the 16. chapter Which some belike having put the publisher in minde of he was glad to put this among his Errata and to confesse that these two words were not to be found in the Manuscript copie which hee had from Petavius but telleth us not what we are to thinke of him that for the countenancing of the Popish cause ventured so shamefully to abuse S. Augustine In the yeare 1616. a Tome of ancient Writers that never saw the light before was set forth at Ingolstad by Petrus Steuartius where among other Tractates a certaine Penitentiall written by Rabanus that famous Archbishop of Mentz is to be seene In rhe 33. chapter of that booke Rabanus making answer unto an idle question moved by Bishop Heribaldus concerning the Eucharist what should become of it after it was consumed and sent into the draught after the maner of other meats hath these words initio pag. 669. Nam quidam nuper de ipso sacramento corporÃs sanguinis Domini non ritè sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini quod de Mariâ Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de sepulcro* cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilum Abbatem scribentes de corpore ipso quid veré credendum sit aperuimus For some of late not holding rightly of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord have said that the very body and blood of our Lord which was borne of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord himselfe suffered on the Crosse and rose againe from the grave * Against which error writing unto Abbot Egilus according to our ability we have declared what is truly to be beleeved coÌ„cerning Christs body You see Rabanus tongue is clipt here for telling tales but how this came to passe were worth the learning Steuartius freeth himselfe from the fact telling us in his margent that here there was a blanke in the manuscript copy and we doe easily beleeve him for Possevine the Iesuite hath given us to understand that Manuscript bookes also are to be purged as well as printed But whence was this Manuscript fetcht thinke you Out of the famous Monastery of Weingart saith Steuartius The Monkes of Weingart then belike must answer the matter and they I dare say upon examination will take their oathes that it was no part of their intention to give any furtherance unto the cause of the Protestants hereby If hereunto we adde that Heribaldus and Rabanus both are ranked among heretickes by Thomas Walden for holding the Eucharist to be subject to digestion and voidance like other meates the suspition will be more vehement whereunto yet I will adjoine one evidence more that shall leave the matter past suspition In the Libraries of my worthy friends S r. Rob. Cotton that noble Baronett so renowmed for his great care in collecting preserving all antiquities D r. Ward the learned Mast r of Sidney Colledge in Cambridge I met with an ancient Treatise of the Sacrament beginning thus Sicut ante nos quidam sapiens dixit cujus sententiam probamus licèt nomen ignoremus which is the same with that in the Iesuites Colledge at Lovaine blindely fathered upon Berengarius The author of this Treatise having first twited Heribaldus for propounding Rabanus for resolving this question of the voidance of the Eucharist layeth downe afterward the opinion of Paschasius Ratbertus whose writing is yet extant quòd non alia plané sit caro quae sumitur de altari quà m quae nata est de Mariâ Virgine passa in cruce quae resurrexit de sepulcro quaeqúe pro mundi vitâ adhuc hodie offeratur That the flesh which is received at the altar is no other then that which was borne of the Virgin Mary suffered on the Crosse rose again from the grave and as
of Monasticall discipline in the East S. Antony I meane who taught his Schollers that the Scriptures were sufficient for doctrine and S. Basil who unto the question Whether it were expedient that novices should presently learne those things that are in the Scripture returneth this answere It is fit and necessarie that every one should learne out of the holy Scripture that which is for his use both for his full settlement in godlinesse and that hee may not be accustomed unto humane traditions Marke here the difference betwixt the Monkes of Saint Basil and Pope Hildebrands breeding The Novices of the former were trayned in the Scriptures to the end they might not be accustomed unto humane traditions those of the latter to the cleane contrarie intent were kept back from the studie of the Scriptures that they might be accustomed unto humane traditions For this by the foresaid author is expressely noted of those Hildebrandine Monkes that they permitted not yong men in their Monasteries to studie this saving knowledge to the end that their rude wit might be nourished with the huskes of divels which are the customes of humane traditions that being accustomed to such filth they might not taste how sweet the Lord was And even thus in the times following from Monkes to Friars and from them to secular Priests and Prelates as it were by tradition from hand to hand the like ungodly policie was continued of keeping the common people from the knowledge of the Scriptures as for other reasons so likewise that by this meanes they might be drawne to humane traditions Which was not onely observed by Erasmus before ever Luther stirred against the Pope but openly in a maner confessed afterwards by a bitter adversarie of his Petrus Sutor a Carthusian Monke who among other inconveniences for which he would have the people debarred from reading the Scripture alledgeth this also for one Whereas manie things are openly taught to be observed which are not to be expressely had in the holy Scriptures will not the simple people observing these things quickly murmure and complaine that so great burdens should be imposed upon them whereby the libertie of the Gospell is so greatly impaired Will not they also easily be drawne away from the observation of the ordinances of the Church when they shall observe that they are not contained in the Law of Christ Having thus therefore discovered unto these Deuterotae for so S. Hierome useth to style such Tradition-mongers both their grandfathers and their more immediat progenitors I passe now forward unto the second point OF THE REAL PRESENCE HOw farre the real presence of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament is allowed or disallowed by us I have at large declared in an other place The summe is this That in the receiving of the blessed Sacrament we are to distinguish betweene the outward and the inward action of the Communicant In the outward with our bodily mouth wee receive really the visible elements of Bread and Wine in the inward wee doe by faith really receive the bodie and bloud of our Lord that is to say wee are truely and indeed made partakers of Christ crucified to the spirituall strengthning of our inward man They of the adverse part have made such a confusion of these things that for the first they do utterly denie that after the words of consecration there remaineth anie Bread or Wine at all to be received and for the second do affirme that the bodie and bloud of Christ is in such a maner present under the outward shewes of bread and wine that whosoever receiveth the one be he good or bad beleever or unbeleever doth therewith really receive the other We are therfore here put to prove that Bread is bread and Wine is wine a matter one would thinke that easily might be determined by common sense That which you see saith S. Augustine is the Bread and the Cup which your very eyes doe declare unto you But because we have to deale with men that will needs herein be senselesse wee will for this time referre them to Tertullians discourse of the five senses wishing they may be restored to the use of their five witts againe and ponder the testimonies of our Saviour Christ in the sixt of Iohn and in the words of the Institution which they oppose against all sense but in the end shall finde to be as opposit to this phantasticall conceit of theirs as anie thing can be Touching our Saviours speech of the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his bloud in the sixth of Iohn these five things specially may be observed First that the question betwixt our Adversaries us being not Whether Christs bodie be turned into bread but whether bread be turned into Christs bodie the words in S. Iohn if they be pressed literally serve more strongly to prove the former then the latter Secondly that this Sermon was uttered by our Saviour above a yeare before the celebration of his last Supper wherein the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud was instituted at which time none of his hearers could possibly have understood him to have spoken of the externall eating of him in the Sacrament Thirdly that by the eating of the flesh of Christ and the drinking of his bloud there is not here meant an externall eating or drinking with the mouth and throate of the bodie as the Iewes then and the Romanists farre more grossely then they have since imagined but an internall and a spirituall effected by a lively faith and the quickning spirit of Christ in the soule of the beleever For there is a spirituall mouth of the inner man as S. Basil noteth wherewith hee is nourished that is made partaker of the Word of life which is the bread that commeth downe from heaven Fourthly that this spirituall feeding upon the bodie and blood of Christ is not to be found in the Sacrament onely but also out of the Sacrament Fiftly that the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the bâ—ood here mentioned is of such excellent vertue that the receiver is thereby made to remaine in Christ and Christ in him and by that meanes certainly freed from dâ—ath and assured of everlasting life Which seeing it cannot be verified of the eating of the Sacrament whereof both the godly the wicked are partakers it proveth not onely that our Saviour did not here speake of the Sacramentall eating but further also that the thing which is delivered in the externall part of the Sacrament cannot be conceived to be really but sacramentally onely the flesh and blood of Christ. The first of these may be plainly seene in the Text where our Saviour doth not onely say I am the bread of life vers 48. and I am the living bread that came downe from heaven vers 51. but addeth also in the 55. verse For my flesh is meate indeed and my bloud is drinke indeed Which words being the
who succeeded him in his Bishopricke saith that the bread and wine sanctifieth them that feed upon that matter acknowledging thereby that the materiall part of those outward elements do still remaine In the Church saith Macarius is offered bread wine the type of his flesh and blood and they which are partakers of the visible bread doe spiritually eate the flesh of the Lord. Christ saith S. Hierome did not offer water but wine for the type of his blood S. Augustine bringeth in our Saviour thus speaking of this matter You shall not eate this bodie which you see nor drinke that blood which they shall shed that will crucifie mee I have commended a certaine Sacrament unto you that being spiritually understood vvill quicken you The same Father in another place writeth that Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet wherein he commended and delivered unto his Disciples the figure of his body and blood but as he elsewhere addeth they did eate that bread which was the Lord himselfe hee the bread of the Lord against the Lord. Lastly the Lord saith he did not doubt to say This is my body when he gave the signe of his body So the Author of the Homily upon the 22. Psalme among the workes of Chrysostome This table hee hath prepared for his servants and hand-maydes in their sight that he might every day for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ shew unto us in a sacrament bread and wine after the order of Melchisedec And S. Chrysostome himselfe in his Epistle written to Caesarius against the heresie of Apolinarius As before the bread be sanctified we call it bread but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by the meanes of the Priest it is delivered from the name of bread and is reputed worthy the name of the Lords body although the nature of the bread remain still in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of Gods sonne so likewise here the divine nature residing in the body of Christ these two make one sonne and one person In the selfe same maner also doe Theodoret Gelasius and Ephraemius proceed against the Eutychian heretickes Theodoret for his part layeth downe these grounds That our Saviour in the deliverie of the mysteries called bread his body and that which was mixt in the cupp his blood That hee changed the names and gave to the body the name of the symbol or signe and to the symbol the name of the body That hee honoured the visible symboles with the name of his bodie and blood not changing the nature but adding grace to nature And that this most holy food is a symbol type of those things whose names it beareth to wit of the body and blood of Christ. Gelasius writeth thus The sacraments which we receive of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing by meanes whereof wee are made partakers of the divine nature and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine doth not cease to be And indeed the image and the similitude of the bodie and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries It appeareth therefore evidently enough unto us that wee are to hold the same opinion of the Lord Christ himselfe which we professe celebrate and are in his Image that as those Sacraments by the operation of the holy Spirit passe into this that is into the divine substance and yet remaine in the propriety of their owne nature so that principall mysterie it selfe whose force and vertue they truely represent should be conceived to be namely to consist of two natures divine and humane the one not abolishing the truth of the other Lastly Ephraemius the Patriarch of Antioch having spoken of the distinction of these two natures in Christ and said that no man having understanding could say that there was the same nature of that which could be handled and of that which could not be handled of that which was visible and of that which was invisible addeth And even thus the body of Christ which is received by the faithfull the Sacrament he meaneth doth neither depart from his sensible substance and yet remayneth undivided from intelligible grace and Baptisme being wholly made spirituall and remayning one doth both retaine the propertie of his sensible substance of water I meane and yet looseth not that which it is made Thus have wee produced evidences of all sorts for confirmation of the doctrine by us professed touching the blessed Sacrament which cannot but give sufficient satisfaction to all that with anie indifferencie will take the matter into their consideration But the men with whom wee have to deale are so farre fallen out with the truth that neither sense nor reason neither authoritie of Scriptures or of Fathers can perswade them to be friends againe with it unlesse we shew unto them in what Popes dayes the contrarie falshood was first devised If nothing else will give them content we must put them in minde that about the time wherein Soter was Bishop of Rome there lived a cousening companion called Marcus whose qualities are thus set out by an ancient Christian who was famous in those dayes though now his name be unknowne unto us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where first hee chargeth him to have beene an Idolmakeâ— then hee objecteth unto him his skill in Astrologie and Magicke by meanes whereof and by the assistance of Satan hee laboured with a shewe of miracles to winne credite unto his false doctrines amongst his seduced disciples and lastly hee concludeth that his father the Divel had imployed him as a forerunner of his antithean craft or his antichristian deceiveablenesse of unrighteousnesse if you will have it in the Apostles language For he was indeed the Divels forerunner both for the idolatries and sorceries which afterward were brought into the East and for those Romish fornications and inchantments wherewith the whole West was corrupted by that man of sinne whose comming was foretold to be after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders And that we may keep our selves within the compasse of that particular which now wee have in hand wee finde in Irenaeus that this Arch-heretick made speciall use of his juggling feates to breed a perswasion in the mindes of those whom hee had perverted that in the cup of his pretended Eucharist he really delivered them blood to drinke For fayning himselfe to consecrate the cups filled with wine and extending the words of Invocation to a great length he made them to appeare of a purple and redd colour to the end it might be thought that the Grace which is above all things did distill the blood thereof into that cup by his Invoâ—ation And
even according to this precedent we finde it fell our afterwards that the principall and most powerfull meanes whereby the like grosse conceit of the gutturall â—ating and drinking of the bodie and blood of Christ was at the first fastened upon the multitude and in processe of time more deeply rooted in them were such delusions and fained apparitions as these which yet that great Schooleman himselfe Alexander of Hales confesseth to happen sometimes either by â—he procurement of man or by the operation of the divell Paschasius Radbertus who was one of the first letters forward of this doctrine in the West spendeth a large chapter upon this point wherein he telleth us that Christ in the sacrament did shew himselfe oftentimes in a visible shape eyther in the forme of a Lamb or in the colour of flesh and blood so that while the hoste was a breaking or an offering a Lamb in the Priests hands and blood in the Chalice should be seene as it were flowing from the sacrifice that what lay hid in a mysterie might to them that yet doubted be made manifest in a miracle And specially in that place hee insisteth upon a narration which he found in gestis Anglorum but deserved well to have been put into gesta Romanorum for the goodnesse of it of one Pleâ—gils or Plegilus a Priest how an Angell shewed Christ unto him in the forme of a childe upon the Altar whom first hee tooke into his armes and kissed but eate him up afterwards when he was returned to his former shape again Whereof arose that jeast which Berengarius was wont to use This was a proper peace of the knave indeed that whom hee had kissed with his mouth hee would devoure with his teeth But there are three other tales of singular note which though they may justly strive for winning of the Whetstone with anie other yet for their antiquitie have gained credite above the rest being devised as it seemeth much about the same time with that other of Plegilus but having relation unto higher times The first was had out of the English Legends too as Iohannes Diaconus reporteth it in the life of Gregory the first of a Romane Matron who found a piece of the sacramentall bread turned into the fashion of a finger all bloodie which afterwards upon the prayers of S. Gregory was converted to his former shape againe The other two were first coyned by the Grecian lyars and from them conveyed unto the Latines and registred in the booke which they called Vitas patrum which being commonly beleeved to have beene collected by S. Hierome and accustomed to be read ordinarily in everie Monasterie gave occasion of further spred and made much way for the progresse of this mysterie of iniquitie The former of these is not onely related there but also in the Legend of Simeon Metaphrastes which is such another author among the Grecians as Iacobus de Voragine was among the Latines in the life of Arsenius how that a little childe was seene upon the Altar and an Angell cutting him into small piecâ—s with a knife and receiving his blood into the Chalice as long as the Priest was breaking the bread into little parts The latter is of a certaine Iew receiving the Sacrament at S. Basils hands converted visibly into true flesh and blood which is expressed by Cyrus Theodorus Prodromus in this Tetrastich 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the chiefe author of the fable was a cheating fellow who that hee might lye with authoritie tooke upon him the name of Amphilochius S. Basils companion and set out a booke of his life fraught with leasings as Cardinall Baronius himselfe acknowledgeth S. Augustines conclusion therefore may here well take place Let these things be taken away which are eyther fictions of lying men or wonders wrought by evill spirits For eyther there is no truth in these reports or if there be any strange things done by hereticks we ought the more to beware of them because when the Lord had said that certaine deceivers should come who by doing of some wonders should seduce if it were possible the very elect he verie earnestly commended this unto our consideration and said Behold I have told you before yea and added a further charge also that if these impostors should say unto us of him Behold he is in secret closets wee should not beleeve it which whether it be appliable to them who tell us that Christ is to be found in a Pixe and thinke that they have him in safe custodie under Locke and Key I leave to the consideration of others The thing which now I would have further observed is onely this that as that wretched heretick who first went about to perswade mâ—n by his lying wonders that he really delivered wine unto them in the cup of the Eucharist was censured for being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idol-maker· so in after ages from the Idol-makers and Image-worshippers of the East it was that this grosse opinion of the orall eating and drinking of Christ in the Sacrament drew it first breath God having for their idolatrie justly given them up unto a reprobate minde that they might receive that recompence of their errour which was meete The Popes name in whose dayes this fell out was Gregory the second the mans name who was the principall setter of it abroach was Iohn Damascen one that laid the foundation of Schoole-divinitie among the Greeks as Peter Lombard afterwards did among the Latins On the contrarie side they who opposed the Idolatrie of those times and more especially the CCCXXXVIII Bishops assembled together at the Councell of Constantinople in the yeare 754. maintayned that Christ chose no other shape or type under heaven to represent his incarnation by but the Sacrament which he delivered to his ministers for a type and a most effectuall commemoration therof commanding the substance of bread to be offered which did not any way resemble the forme of a man that so no occasion might be given of bringing in Idolatry which bread they affirmed to be the bodie of Christ not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as they themselves expound it a holy and a true image of his naturall flesh These assertions of theirs are to bee found in the third Tome of the sixth Action of the second Councell of Nice assembled not long after for the reestablishing of Images in the Church where a pratchant deacon called Epiphanius to crosse that which those former Bishops had delivered confidently avoucheth that none of the Apostles nor of the Fathers did ever call the Sacrament an image of the bodie of Christ. Hee confesseth indeed that some of the Fathers as Eustathius expounding the Proverbs of Salomon and S. Basil in his Liturgie doe call the bread and wine 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correspondent types or figures before they were consecrated but after the consecration saith hee they are called and are and beleeved to be the body and blood of Christ properly where the Popes owne followers who of late published the Acts of the generall Councells at Rome were so farre ashamed of the ignorance of this blind Bayard that they correct his boldnesse with this marginall note The holy gifts are oftentimes found to be called antitypes or figures correspondent after they be consecrated as by Gregory Nazianz. in the funerall Oration upon his sister and in his Apologie by Cyrill of Ierusalem in his fifth Cateches Mystagogic and by others And wee have alreadie heard how the author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites and after him Eusebius and Gelasius expressely call the Sacrament an image of Christs bodie howsoever this peremptorie Clerke denieth that ever anie did so By all which it may easily appeare that not the oppugners but the defenders of Images were the men who first went about herein to alter the language used by their fore-fathers Now as in the daies of Gregory the third this matter was set afoot by Damascen in the East so about a hundred yeares after in the Papacie of Gregory the fourth the same began to be propounded in the West by meanes of one Amalarius who was Bishop not as hee is commonly taken to be of Triers but of Mets first and afterwards of Lyons This man writing doubtfully of this point otherwhiles followeth the doctrine of S. Augustine that Sacraments were oftentimes called by the names of the things themselves and so the Sacrament of Christs bodie was secundùm quendam modum after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ otherwhiles maketh it a part of his beleefe that the simple nature of the bread and wine mixed is turned into a reasonable nature to wit of the body and blood of Christ. But what should become of this bodie after the eating therof was a matter that went beyond his little witt and therefore said he when the bodie of Christ is taken with a good intention it is not for me to dispute whether it be invisibly taken up into heaven or kept in our body untill the day of our buriall or exhaled into the ayre or whether it go out of the body with the blood at the opening of a veyne or be sent out by the mouth our Lord saying that every thing which entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is sent forth into the draught For this and another like foolerie de triformi tripartito corpore Christi of the three parts or kindes of Christs body which seeme to be those ineptiae de tripartito Christi corpore that Paschasius in the end of his Epistle intreateth Frudegardus not to follow he was censured in a Synod held at Carisiacum wherein it was declared by the Bishops of France that the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ which being a meat of the mind and not of the belly is not corrupted but remayneth unto everlasting life These dotages of Amalarius did not only give occasion to that question propounded by Heribaldus to Rabanus wherof we have spoken heretofore but also to that other of far greater consequence Whether that which was externally delivered received in the sacrament were the verie same body which was borne of the Virgin Mary suffered upon the Crâ—sse rose again from the Grave Paschasius Radbertus a Deacon of those times but somewhat of a better and more modest temper then the Greek Deacon shewed himselfe to be of held that it was the veâ—ie same and to that purpose wrote his book to Placidus of the Body Blood of our Lord wherein saith a Iesuite he was the first that did so explicate the true sense of the Cà tholick Church his owne Romane he meaneth that he opened the way to those manie others who wrote afterwards of the same argument Rabanus on the other side in a writing directed to Abbot Egilo maintayned the contrarie doctrine as hath before beene noted Then one Frudegardus reading the third book of S. Augustin de doctrinâ Christianâ and finding there that the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ was a figurative maner of speech began somewhat to doubt of the truth of that which formerly he had read in that foresaid Treatise of Paschasius which moved Paschasius to write againe of the same argument as of a question wherein he confesseth many were then doubtfull But neither by his first nor by his second writing was hee able to take these doubts out of mens mindes and therefore Carolus Calvus the Emperour being desirous to compose these differences and to have unitie setled among his subjects required Ratrannus a learned man of that time who lived in the Monasterie of Corbey whereof Paschasius was Abbat to deliver his judgement touching these points Whether the body and blood of Christ which in the Church is received by the mouth of the faithfull be celebrated in a mysterie or in the truth and whether it be the same body which was born of Mary which did suffer was dead and buried which rising againe and ascending into heaven sitteth at the right hand of the Father Whereunto he returneth this answer that the bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ figuratively that for the substance of the creatures that which they were before consecration the same are they also afterward that they are called the Lords bodie and the Lords blood because they take the name of that thing of which they are a sacrament that there is a great difference betwixt the mysterie of the blood and body of Christ which is taken now by the faithfull in the Church and that which was borne of the Virgin Mary which suffered which was buried which rose again which sitteth at the right hand of the Father All which hee proveth at large both by testimonies of the holy Scriptures and by the sayings of the ancient Fathers Wherupon Turrian the Iesuite is driven for pure need to shift off the matter with this silly interrogation To cite Bertram so Ratrannus is more usually named what is it else but to say that the heresie of Calvin is not new As if these things were alledged by us for anie other end then to shew that this way which they call heresie is not new but hath been troden in long since by such as in their times were accounted good and Catholick teachers in the Church That since they have been esteemed otherwise is an argument of the alteration of the times and of the conversion of the state of things which is the matter that now we are inquiring of and which our Adversaries in an evill houre to them doe so earnestly presse us to discover The Emperour Charles unto whom this
answer of Ratrannus was directed had then in his Court a famous countrey-man of ours called Iohannes Scotus who wrote a booke of the same argument and to the same effect that the other had done This man for his extraordinarie learning was in England where hee lived in great account with King Alfred surnamed Iohn the wise and had verie lately a roome in the Martyrologe of the Church of Rome though now he be ejected thence Wee finde him indeed censured by the Church of Lyons and others in that time for certaine opinions which he delivered touching Gods foreknowledge and predestination before the beginning of the world Mans freewill and the concurrence thereof with Grace in this present world and the maner of the punishment of reprobate Men Angels in the world to come but we finde not anie where that his book of the Sacrament was condemned before the dayes of x Lanfranc who was the first that leavened that Church of England afterward with this corrupt doctrine of the carnall presence Till then this question of the reall presence continued still in debate and it was as free for anie man to follow the doctrine of Ratrannus or Iohannes Scotus therein as that of Paschasius Radbertus which since the time of Satans loosing obtayned the upper hand Men have often searched and doe yet often search how bread that is gathered of corne and through fires heate baked may be turned to Christs bodie or how wine that is pressed out of manie grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords blood saith Aelfrick Abbat of Malmesburie in his Saxon Homily written about 650. yeares agoe His resolution is not onely the same with that of Ratrannus but also in manie places directly translated out of him as may appeare by these passages following compared with his Latin layd downe in the margent The bread and the wine which by the Priests ministery is hallowed shew one thing without to mens senses and another thing they call within to beleeving mindes Without they be seene bread wine both in figure and in taste and they be truely after their hallowing Christs body and his blood by spirituall mysterie So the holy font water that is called the well-spring of life is like in shape to other waters and is subject to corruption but the holy Ghosts might commeth to the corruptible water through the Priests blessing and it may after wash the body and soule from all sinne by spirituall vertue Behold now we see two things in this one creature in true nature that water is corruptible moisture and in spirituall mysterie hath healing vertue So also if we behold that holy housel after bodily sense then see wee that it is a creature corruptible and mutable If we acknowledge therein spirituall vertue then understand we that life is therein and that it giveth immortalitie to them that eate it with beleefe Much is betwixt the bodie Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housel The body truely that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbs with a reasonable soule living and his spirituall body which we call the housel is gathered of many cornes without blood and bone without lim without soule and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily but spiriâ—ually Whatsoever is in that housel which giveth substance of life that is spirituall vertue and invisible doing Certainly Christs body which suffered death and rose from death shall never dye henceforth but is eternall and unpassible That housel is temporall not eternall corruptible dealed into sundry parts chewed betweene teeth and sent into the belly This mysterie is a pledge and a figure Christs bodie is truth it selfe This pledge wee doe keepe mystically untill that we be come to the truth it selfe and then is this pledge ended Christ hallowed bread and wine to housel before his suffering and said This is my body my blood Yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding hee turned through invisible vertue the bread to his owne body and that wine to his blood as he before did in the wildernesse before that he was borne to men when he turned that heavenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to his owne blood Moses and Aaron and manie other of that people which pleased God did eate that heavenly bread and they died not the everlasting death though they dyed the common They saw that the heavenly meate was visible and corruptible and they spiritually understood by that visible thing and spiritually received it This Homily was appointed publikely to be read to the people in England on Easter day before they did receive the communion The like matter also was delivered to the Clergie by the Bishops at their Synods out of two other writings of the same Aelfrick in the one wherof directed to Wulfsine Bishop of Shyrburne we reade thus That housel is Christs bodie not bodily but spiritually Not the body which he suffered in but the bodie of which he spake when he blessed bread and wine to housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed bread This is my body and againe by the holy wine This is my blood which is shed for many in forgivenesse of sinnes In the other written to Wulfstane Archbishop of Yorke thus The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering and saith that the bread was his owne bodie and that the wine vvas truely his blood halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in spirituall mysterie as wee reade in bookes And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so nor the selfe same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy vvine is the Saviours blood which was shed for us in bodily thing but in spirituall understanding Both be truely that bread his body and that wine also his blood as was the heavenly bread which vve call Manna that fedde fortie yeares Gods people and the cleare water which did then runne from the stone in the vvildernesse vvas truely his blood as Paul wrote in one of his Epistles Thus was Priest and people taught to beleeve in the Church of England toward the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh age after the Incarnation of our Saviour Christ. And therefore it is not to be wondered that when Berengarius shortly after stood to maintaine this doctrine manie both by word and writing disputed for him and not onely the English but also all the French almost the Italians as Matthew of Westminster reporteth were so readie to entertaine that which hee delivered Who though they were so borne downe by the power of the Pope who now was growne to his height that they durst not make open profession of that which they beleeved yet manie continued even
there where Satan had his throne who privately employed both their tongues and their penns in defence of the truth as out of Zacharias Chrysopolitanus Rupertus Tuitiensis and others I have elsewhere shewed Vntill at length in the yeare 1215. Pope Innocent the third in the Councell of Lateran published it to the Church for an oracle that the body and blood of Iesus Christ are truely contayned under the formes â—f bread and wine the bread being transsubstantiated into the bodie and the wine into the blood by the power of God And so are wee now come to the end of this controversie the originall and progresse whereof I have prosecuted the more at large because it is of greatest importance the verie life of the Masse and all massing Priests depending thereupon But this prolixitie shall be some wayes recompensed by the briefer handling of the points following the next whereof is that OF CONFESSION OVr Challenger here telleth us that the Doctors Pastors and Fathers of the primitive Church exhorted the people to confesse their sinnes unto their ghostly fathers And wee tell him againe that by the publike order prescribed in our Church before the administration of the holy Communion the Minister likewise doth exhort the people that if there be any of them which cannot quiet his owne conscience but requireth further comfort or counsell he should come to him or some other discreet and learned Minister of Gods word and open his griefe that he may receive such ghostly counsell advice and comfort as his conscience may be relieved and that by the ministery of Gods word hee may receive comfort and the benefite of absolution to the quieting of his conscience and avoyding of all scruple and doubtfulnesse Whereby it appeareth that the exhorting of the people to confesse their sinnes unto their ghostly fathers maketh no such wall of separation betwixt the ancient Doctors and us but we may well for all this be of the same religion that they were of and consequently that this doughtie Champion hath more will then skill to manage controversies who could make no wiser choyce of pointes of differences to bee insisted upon Be it therefore knowne unto him that no kinde of Confession either publick or private is disallowed by us that is anie way requisite for the due execution of that ancient power of the Keyes which Christ bestowed upon his Church the thing which wee reject is that new pick-lock of Sacramentall Confession obtruded upon mens consciences as a matter necessarie to salvation by the Canons of the late Conventicle of Trent where those good Fathers put their curse upon everie one that either shall deny that Sacramentall confession was ordayned by divine right and is by the same right necessary to salvation or shall affirme that in the Sacrament of Penance it is not by the ordinance of God necessarie for the obtayning of the remission of sinnes to confesse all and every one of those mortall sinnes the memory wherof by due and diligent premeditation may be had even such as are hidden and be against the two last Commandements of the Decalogue together with the circumstances which change the kinde of the sinne but that this confession is only profitable to instruct and comfort the penitent and was anciently observed onely for the imposing of Canonicall satisfaction This doctrine I say wee cannot but reject as being repugnant to that which wee have learned both from the Scriptures and from the Fathers For in the Scriptures wee finde that the confession which the penitent sinner maketh to God alone hath the promise of forgivenesse annexed unto it which no Priest upon earth hath power to make voyde upon pretence that himselfe or some of his fellowes were not first particularly acquainted with the businesse I acknowledged my sinne unto thee and mine iniquity have I not hid I said I will confesse my transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquitie of my sinne And lest we should thinke that this was some peculiar priviledge vouchsafed to the man who was raised upon high the Anointed of the God of Iacob the same sweet Psalmist of Israel doth presently enlarge his note and inferreth this generall conclusion thereupon For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found King Salomon in his prayer for the people at the dedication of the Temple treadeth just in his Fathers stepps If they turne saith hee and pray unto thee in the land of their captivity saying Wee have sinned we have done amisse and have dealt wickedly if they returne to thee with all their heart and with all their soule c. forgive thy people which have sinned against thee all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee And the poore Publican putting up his supplication in the Temple accordingly God bee mercifull to me a sinner went back to his house justified without making confession to anie other ghostly Father but onely the Father of Spirits of whom S. Iohn giveth us this assurance that if wee confesse our sinnes he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sinnes and to cleanse us from all unrighteousnesse Which promise that it appertained to such as did confesse their sinnes unto God the ancient Fathers were so well assured of that they cast in a maner all upon this Confession and left little or nothing to that which was made unto man Nay they doe not onely leave it free for men to confesse or not confesse their sinnes unto others which is the most that we would have but some of them also seeme in words at least to advise men not to doe it at all which is more then we seeke for S. Chrysostome of all others is most copious in this argument some of whose passages to this purpose I will here lay downe It is not necessary saith he that thou shouldest confesse in the presence of witnesses let the inquiry of thy offences bee made in thy thought let this judgement be without a witnesse let God onely see thee confessing Therefore I intreat and beseech and pray you that you would continually make your confession to God For I doe not bring thee into the theater of thy fellow servants neyther doe I constraine thee to discover thy sinnes unto men unclaspe thy conscience before God and shew thy wounds unto him and of him aske a medicine Shew them to him that will not reproach but heale thee For although thou hold thy peace he knoweth all Let us not call our selves sinners onely but let us recount our sinnes and repeate every one of them in speciall I doe not say unto thee Bring thy selfe upon the stage nor Accuse thy selfe unto others but I counsaile thee to obey the Prophet saying Reveale thy way unto the Lord. Confesse them before God confesse thy sinnes before the Iudge praying if not with thy tongue yet at least with thy memory and
most forcible of all the rest those wherewith the simpler sort are coÌ„monly most deluded might carry some shew of proofe that Christs flesh blood should be turned into bread wine but have no maner of colour to prove that bread and wine are turned into the flesh and blood of Christ. The truth of the second appeareth by the fourâ—h verse in which we finde that this fell out not long before the Passeover and consequently a yeare at least before that last Passeover wherein our Saviour instituted the Sacrament of his Supper Wee willingly indeed do acknowledge that that which is inwardly presented in the Lords Supper and spiritually received by the soule of the faithfull is that verie thing which is treated of in the sixth of Iohn but wee denie that it was our Saviours intention in this place to speake of that which is externally delivered in the Sacrament and orally received by the Communicant And for our warrant herein wee need looke no further then to that earnest asseveration of our Saviour in the 53. verse Verily verily I say unto you Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in you Wherin there is not onely an obligation laid upon them for doing of this which in no likelyhood could be intended of the externall eating of the Sacrament that was not as yet in being but also an absolute necessitie imposed non praecepti solùm ratione sed etiaÌ„ medij Now to hold that all they are excluded from life which have not had the meanes to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is as untrue as it is uncharitable And therefore manie of the Papists themselves as Biel Cusanus Cajelan Tapper Hessels Iansenius and others confesse that our Saviour in the sixth of Iohn did not properly treat of the Sacrament The third of the points proposed may be collected out of the first part of Christs speech in the 35. and 36. verses I am the bread of life hee that commeth to mee shall never hunger and he that beleeveth on me shall never thirst But I said unto you that yee also have seene me and beleeve not But especially out of the last from the 61. verse forward When Iesus knew in himselfe that his Disciples murmured at it hee said unto them Doeth this offend you What then if you should see the Sonne of man ascend up where hee was before It is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speake unto you are spirit and life But there are some of you that beleeve not Which words Athanasius or whosoever was the author of the Tractate upon that place Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium homiâ—is noteth our Saviour to have used that his hearers might learne that those things which hee spake were not carnall but spirituall For how many could his bodie have sufficed for meat that it should be made the food of the whole world But therefore it was that he made mention of the Sonne of mans ascension into heaven that he might draw them from this corporall conceit and that hereafter they might learne that the flesh which he spake of was celestiall meat from above and spirituall nourishment to be given by him For the words which I have spoken unto you saith he are spirit and life So likewise Tertullian Although he saith that the flesh profiteth nothing the meaning of the speech must be directed according to the intent of the matter in hand For because they thought it to be a hard and an intolerable speech as if he had determined that his flesh should be truly eaten by them that hee might dispose the state of salvation by the spirit hee premised It is the spirit that quÃckneth and so subjoyned The flesh profiteth nothing namely to quicken c. And because the Word was made flesh it therefore was to be desired for causing of life and to be devoured by hearing and to be chewed by understanding and to be digested by faith For a little before he had also affirmed that his flesh was heavenly bread urging still by the Allegory of necessary food the remembrance of the fathers who preferred the bread and the flesh of the Egyptians before Gods calling Adde hereunto the sentence of Origen There is in the New Testament also a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually conceive the things that be spoken For if according to the letter you do follow this same which is said Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood this letter killeth And those sayings which everie where occurre in S. Augustines Tractates upon Iohn How shall I send up my hand unto heaven to take hold on Christ sitting there Send thy faith and thou hast hold of him Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly Beleâ—ve and thou hast eaten For this is to eate the living bread to beleeve in him He that beleeveth in him eateth He is invisibly fedd because he is invisibly regenerated He is inwardly a bâ—be inwardly renewed where he is renewed there is he nourished The fourth proposition doth necessarily follow upon the third For if the eating and drinking here spoken of be not an externall eating and drinking but an inward participation of Christ by the communion of his quickning spirit it is evident that this blessing is to be found in the soule not onely in the use of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper but at other times also It is no wayes to be doubted by anie one saith S. Augustine that every one of the faithfull is made partaker of the body and bloud of our Lord when he is made a member of Christ in Baptisme and that hee is not estranged from the communion of that bread and cup although before he eate that bread and drinke that cup hee depart out of this world being setled in the unitie of the body of Christ. For he is not deprived of the participation and the benefite of that Sacrament when hee hath found that which this Sacrament doth signifie And hereupon wee see that diverse of the Fathers doe apply the sixth of Iohn to the hearing of the Word also as Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Eusebius Caesareensis and others We are said to drinke the blood of Christ saith Origen not onely by way of the Sacraments but also when we receive his word wherein consisteth life even as hee himselfe saith· The words which I have spoken are spirit and life Vpon which words of Christ Eusebius paraphraseth after this maner Doe not thinke that I speake of that flesh wherewith I am compassed as if you must eate of that neither imagine that I command you to drinke my sensible and bodily blood but understand well that the vvords which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life So that those very words and speeches of his are his flesh and blood whereof who
is partaker being alwayes therewith nourished as it were with heavenly bread shall likewise be made partaker of heavenly life Therefore let not that offend you saith he which I have spoken of the eating of my flesh and of the drinking of my blood neither let the superficiall hearing of those things which were said by me of flesh and blood trouble you For these things sensibly heard profite nothing but the spirit is it which quickneth them that are able to heare spiritually Thus farre Eusebius whose words I have layd down the more largely because they are not vulgar There remaineth the fift and last point which is oftentimes repeated by our Saviour in this Sermon as in the 50. verse This is the bread which commeth downe from heaven that a man may eate thereof and not dye and in the 51 If any man eate of this bread hee shall live for ever and in the 54 Who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and in the 56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in mee and I in him and in the 58 This is that bread which came downe from heaven not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead hee that eateth of this bread shall live for ever Whereupon Origen rightly observeth the difference that is betwixt the eating of the typicall or symbolicall for so he calleth the Sacrament and the true bodie of Christ. Of the former thus he writeth That which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer doth not of it ownâ— nature sanctifie him that useth it For if that were so it would sanctifie him also which doth eate unworthy of the Lord neither should any one for this eating be weake or sicke or dead For such a thing doth Paul shew when he saith For this cause many are weake and sickly among you and many sleepe Of the latter thus Many things may be spoken of the Word it selfe which was made flesh and true meate which whosoever eateth shall certainly live for ever which no evill person can eate For if it could be that he who continueth evill might eate the Word made flesh seeing hee is the word and the bread of life it should not have beene written Whosoever eateth this bread shall live for ever The like difference doth S. Augustine also upon the same ground make betwixt the eating of Christs bodie sacramentally and really For having affirmed that wicked men may not be said to eate the body of Christ because they are not to be counted among the members of Christ hee afterward addeth Christ himselfe saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud remaineth in mee and I in him sheweth what it is not sacramentally but indeed to eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud for this is to remaine in Christ that Christ likewise may remaine in him For hee said this as if he should have said He that remayneth not in me and in whom I do not remaine let not him say or thinke that he eateth my flesh or drinketh my bloud And in another place expounding those words of Christ here alledged hee thereupon inferreth thus This is therefore to eate that meate and drinke that drinke to remaine in Christ and to have Christ remayning in him And by this he that remaineth not in Christ and in whom Christ abideth not without doubt doth neither spiritually eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud although he do carnally and visibly presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ and so rather eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing for judgement to himselfe because that being uncleane hee did presume to come unto the Sacraments of Christ. Hence it is that we finde so often in him and in other of the Fathers that the bodie and bloud of Christ is communicated only unto those that shall live and not unto those that shall dye for ever He is the bread of life He therefore that eateth life cannot dye For how should he dye whose meat is life how should he fayle who hath a vitall substance saith S. Ambrose And it is a good note of Macarius that as men use to give one kinde of meate to their servants and another to their children so Christ who created all things nourisheth indeed evill and ungratefull persons but the sonnes which he begat of his owne seed and whom he made partakers of his grace in whom the Lord is formed he nourisheth with a peculiar refection and food and meat and drinke beyond other men giving himselfe unto them that have their conversation with his Father as the Lord himselfe saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud remayneth in me and I in him and shall not see death Among the sentences collected by Prosper out of S. Augustine this also is one He receiveth the meat of life and drinketh the cup of eternitie who remaineth in Christ and whose inhabiter is Christ. For he that is at discord with Christ doth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud although to the judgement of his presumption he indifferently doth receive everie day the sacrament of so great a thing Which distinction betweene the Sacrament and the thing whereof it is a sacrament and consequently betweene the sacramentall and the reall eating of the bodie of Christ is thus briefely and most excellently expressed by S. Augustine himselfe in his exposition upon the sixt of Iohn The sacrament of this thing is taken from the Lords Table by some unto life by some unto destruction but the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament is received by every man unto life and by none unto destruction that is made partaker therof Our conclusion therfore is this The bodie and bloud of Christ is received by all unto life and by none unto condemnation But that substance which is outwardly delivered in the Sacrament is not received by all unto life but by manie unto condemnation Therefore that substance which is outwardly delivered in the Sacrament is not really the bodie and bloud of Christ. The first proposition is plainly proved by the Texts which have been alledged out of the sixth of Iohn The second is manifest both by common experience and by the testimonie of the Apostle 1. Cor. 11. vers 17 27 29. We may therefore well conclude that the sixth of Iohn is so farre from giving anie furtherance to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point that it utterly overthroweth their fond opinion who imagine the bodie and bloud of Christ to be in such a sort present under the visible formes of bread and wine that whosoever receiveth the one must of force also really be made partaker of the other The like are we now to shew in the words of the Institution For the better clearing whereof the Reader may be pleased to consider first that the words are not This shall be my body nor This is
the now Church of Rome And if he looke into every one of them more neerely he may perhaps finde that we are not such strangers to the originall and first breedings of these Romish errors as he did imagine It now remaineth on his part that he make good what he hath undertaken namely that for the confirmation of all the above mentioned points of his Religion he produce both good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures and the generall consent likewise of the Saints and Fathers of the Primitive Church Wherein as I advise him to spare his paines in labouring to prove those things which he seeth me before hand readily to have yeelded unto so I wish him also not to forget his owne motion made in the percloase of his Challenge that all may be done with Christian charity and sincerity to the glory of God and instruction of them that are astray FINIS Faults escaped PAge 10. line 15. for once reade one p. 18. l. 8. as also p. 19. l. 1. and 113. l. 2. Radbertus p. 30. l. 9. Canonicall p. 63. l. 28. bread and wine p. 67. l. 9. or p. 71. l. 12. for wine reade bloud ibid l. 21. for second reade third p. 77. in tâ—e margâ—nt at the very beginning adde x. Lanfranc lib. de Sacram. Eucharist contra Berengar pag. 85. lin 15. for he read God p. 103. l. 20. sett p. 163. lin 12 13. crosse out those words then in any of the rest pag. 271. in the margent lin 16. for Id. put Hieronym pag. 326. in the margent lin 17. Marcellam pag. 341. lin 5. Christian. pag. 352. l. 5. crosse out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 405. l. 20. put out the word Iesuite and in the last line of the margent aftâ—r quaest 12. adde artic 10. disput 7. conclus 6. pâ—g 444. lin ulâ— Pitsio pag. 449. in marg l. 35. Naclantus pag. 448. at the astâ—risc * lin 14. adde in the margent Ab omnibus deinceps doceatur communiter atque praedicetur Crucem Imaginem Crucifixi ceterasque Imagines Sanctorum in ipsorum memoriam honorem quoâ— figurant ac ipsorum loca reliquias processionibus genâ— flexionibus inclinationibus thurificationibus deosculationibus oblationibus luminarium accensionibus peregrinationibus nec non alijs quibuscunque modis formis quibus nostris predecessorum nostrorum temporibus fieri consuevit venerari debere Guâ—lhâ—lm Lyndewode Provincial lib. 5. de Haeretic cap. Nullus quoque pag. 451. l. 12. Mâ—rsilius pag. 453. in the margent lin 12. and 26. and pag. 454. l. 9. for Prâ—phetic reade Protreptic pag. 456. marg lin 38. manuum pag. 463. marg lin 9. Patres A CATALOGVE OF THE AVTHORS HERE alleaged disposed according to the order of the times wherein they are accounted to have lived Anno Domini 40 NIcodemus The author of the counterfeit Gospell attributed unto him lived within the first 600. yeeres being cited by Gregorius Turonensis 43. Thaddaeus vouched by Eusebius 70. Clemens I. Romanus episc Counted the author of the Apostolicall Constitutions 70. Dionysius Areopagita The bookes that beare his name seeme to be written in the fourth or fifth age after Christ. 100. Ignatius Antiochenus 120. Hermes 163. Iustinus Martyr 170. Theophilus Antiochenus 180. Irenaeus Lugdunensis 180. Tatianus 190. Maximus out of whom the Dialogues against the Marcionists attributed to Origen are collected as appeareth by the large fragment cited out of him by Eusebius in the end of the seventh booke de Praeparatione Euangelicâ 200. Clemens Alexandrinus 200. Tertullianus 210. Caius 220. Hippolytus Martyr 230. Origenes 230. Ammonius 230. Minutius Felix 240. Novatianus 250. Gregorius Neocaesareensis 250. Cyprianus 260. Zeno Veronensis 270. Victorinus Pictaviensis 290. Pamphilus Martyr 300. Arnobius 300. Lactantius 303. Concilium Sinuessanum supposititium 310. Concilium Eliberinum seu Illiberitanum 325. Concilium Romanum sub Silvestro supposititium 325. Concilium Nicaenum univâ—rsale I. 325. Macarius Hierosolymitanus 330. Eusebius Caesareensis 330. Juvencus 340. Eusebius Emesenus 340. Athanasius Alexandrinus 350. Eustathius Antiochenus 350. Julius Firmicus Maternus 350. Acacius Caesareensis 359. Conciliabula Arrianorum Nicaen Constantinop Sirmiens Ariminens 360. Didymus 360. Hilarius Pictaviensis 360. Titus Bostrensis 364. Concilium Laodicenum 370. Macarius Aegyptius 370. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus 370. Asterius Amaseae episc 370. Optatus 370. Ambrosius Mediolanensis episc 370. Basilius Caesareensis 370. Gregorius Nazianzenus 370. Aerius haereticus 380. Caesarius 380. Gregorius Nyssenus 380. Nectarius 380. Pacianus 380. Prudentius 380. Philastrius 380. Euagrius Ponticus 380. Amphilochius 381. Concilium Constantinopolitanum universale II. 390. Hieronymus 390. Paula Eustochium apud eund 390. Epiphanius 390. Ruffinus 390. Coelius Sedulius 390. Paulinus Mediolanensis 400. Io. Chrysostomus cujus epistolam ad Caesarium monachum quam in quaestionem vocant pontificij citatam invenio in Collectaneis contra Severianos quae ex Fr. Turriani versione habentur in 4. tomo Antiquae lectionis Henr. Canisij pag. 238. in fine libri Io. Damasceni contra Acephalos ibid. pag. 211. ubi postrema verba testimonij á nobis citati pag. 64.65 Turrianus ita transtulit Sic etiam hÃc divinâ naturâ in ipso insidente unum Filium unam Personam utrumque constituit 400. Marcus eremita 400. Polychronius 400. Hesychius presbyter 410. Palladius Lausiacae histostoriae author 410. Pelagius haereticus 410. Augustinus 410. Philo Carpathius 410. Synesius 414. Theodorus Daphnopatus by Henr. Oraeus referred to this yeere I know not by what warrant 418. Concilium Africanum universale Carthagine habitum contra Pelagium 420. Maximus Taurinensis 424. Hilarius Arelatensis 430. Io. Cassianus 430. Vincentius Lirinensis 430. Author Operis imperfecti in Matthaeum 430. Cyrillus Alexandrinus 430. Synodus Alexandrina contra Nestorium 430. Theodoretus 430. Proclus Cyzicenus 431. Concilium Ephesinum universale III. 440. Prosper Aquitanicus 440. Socrates historicus 440. Sozomenus 440. Eucherius Lugdunensis 440. Petrus Câ—rysologus 450. Leo. I. 450. Primasius 451. Concilium Chalcedonense universale IIII. 460. Basilius Seleuciensis 460. Victor Antiochenus 460 Salvianus Massiliensis 476. Gelasius Cyzicenus 490. Faustus Regiensis seu Reiensis 490. Gennadius Massiliensis 490. Gelasius Papa I. 494. Concilium Romanum I. sub Gelasio 500. Paschasius Romanae ecclesiae diaconus 500. Olympiodorus 500. Andreas Caesareensis Stephanus Gobarus haereticus 507. Laurentius Novariensis 510. Ennodius Ticinensis 520. Aurelius Cassiodorus 520. Eusebius Gallicanus 520. Caesariâ—s Arelatensis 520. Fulgentius Ruspensis episc 520. Iohannes Maxentius 527. Ephraem Antiochenus 527. Agapetus diaconus 529. Concilium Arausican II. 530. Fulgentius Ferrandus 530. Dionysius Exiguus 530. Benedictus Monachus 530. Procopius Gazaeus 540. Arator 553. Concilium Constantinopolitanum universale V. 560. Andreas Hierosolymitanus Cretensis archiepisc 560. Dracontius 570. Cresconius 580. Venantius Fortunatus 580. Iohannes Climacus 589. Concil Toletan III. 600. Gregorius I. 600. Iohan. Nesteuta Agapius Manichaeus 610. Eustratius Constantinopolitanus 630. Isidorus Hispalensis 633. ConciliuÌ„ ToletanuÌ„ IIII. 640. Maximus Monachus 640. Ionas 640. Anastasius