deserueth with no other then equal disdaine and contempt For it hath abundantly beene manifested to the world that as in the goodnesse of our cause wee are every way superiour vnto you so in all kinde of learning both Humane and Divine wee are no way inferiour to the best of you Howbeit seeing I am put in good hope by some of your best friends that you carry a minde prepared to imbrace the truth if at any time it shall bee discouered vnto you and your selfe haue freely professed vnto mee that your meaning is not any way to contest with me but only to be instructed by me I am content laying aside all advantages whatsoever to enter the lists with you by framing vp a short yet full answere to endeauour your best satisfaction God grant that as it is intended so it may redound first to his glory and then to the reducing of your straying soule from the servitude of Babylon into the liberty of Ierusalem which is from aboue and the right Mother of all true Beleeuers N. N. Catholike grounds for the Article of the Real Presence I. D. This title prefixed vnto your Writing intimateth that you craue resolution in the article as you terme it of the Real Presence and the Grounds thereof For the better performance whereof and to cleare the way of all rubs before vs you may be pleased to know that we denie not either the Presence or the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Not the Presence For seeing therein his Body is delivered receaued eaten as the Scriptures testifie and that can no way be deliuered receaued eaten which is every way absent we cannot but beleeue with the heart confesse with the mouth that Christ is present Nor the Reall presence For seeing Eating betokeneth our Vnion and Incorporation with Christ whereby we are so closely joyned and joynted vnto him that wee are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones certainely vnlesse wee will question either the power of Faith or whether God be able to worke such an effect we cannot well doubt but that the Presence is True and Real not Imaginarie and Fained According herevnto S. Chrysostome Christ offereth himselfe vnto vs in these Mysteries not onely to bee seene but also to be touched and felt And S. Augustin We cannot with our hand feele Christ sitting in heauen but by Faith we may touch him Agreeing therefore in the Thing that there is a Real Presence wherein lies the difference betwixt vs It lies partly in the Manner of Presence and partly in the kinde of Change whereby the Presence is wrought As touching the Manner of Presence wee acknowledge it to bee double the one Sacramentall the other Spirituall The sacramentall is a Relatiue Presence of the thing signified vnto the signes partly for that they are significatiue represent Christ vnto vs even as the word spoken vnto the eare represents the thing signified thereby vnto the minde and partly because they are Exhibitiue God in them offering vs his Sonne vpon condition of Faith And in regard hereof it may also well be called a Pactionall presence The spirituall is a presence of Christ vnto the Faith of the Receauer or which is all one vnto the Receauer by Faith whereby we seeke him not here on earth in with or vnder the Accidents of bread but aloft in heauen where hee sitteth at the right hand of his father For where the carcase is thither saith Christ will the Eagles resort Whence S. Chrysostome He must climbe vp on high whosoeuer commeth to this Body And S. Augustine How shall I convay my hand into heauen that I may hold him sitting there Send thy faith thither and thou holdest him Now if any farther demand how this sacramentall and spirituall presence is wrought I answere it is done by a Change in the Elements of Bread and Wine By a change I say yet not of their Nature and Substance but of their Vse and Vertue For they are now no longer common but consecrated Bread and Wine ordained by Christ to bee effectuall symbols and Pledges of our Vnion and Communion with his Flesh and Bloud So saith Theodoret The visible symbols hath hee honoured with the name of his Body and Bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature And so the rest of the Fathers But all this little contents you except withall we yeeld you a Corporall and Locall Presence of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread and Wine and that by way of Transubstantiation Transubstantiation a terme as lately devised so also inconvenient Lately deuised for it is but foure hundred yeares old or thereabouts bâ—ing forged in the Lateran councell vnder Innocent the third Inconvenient for properly it imports a Productiue kinde of Conversion by which one Substance is produced out of another or whereby one Substance is turned into another such as was the turning of Water into Wine by the power of Christ at Cana in Galilee But you vnderstand thereby an Adductiue kinde of Conversion by which as Bellarmine defineth it the Body of Christ which before was only in heaven is now also vnder the Accidents of Bread So that more fitly it might haue beene tearmed Cession or Succession or Substitution or Translocation or some such like rather then Transubstantiation the meaning you giue vnto it being no other then a succeeding of Christs Body into the roome of Bread vpon the abolishing of the Substance thereof Yet is it not so much the Newnesse and Inconvenience of the terme as the Impietie of the Doctrine intended thereby which we condemne For it crosseth the truth of Scripture ouerturneth the Articles of Faith destroyeth the Nature of a Sacrament gainesayeth the perpetuall consent of antiquity and implieth in it innumerable contradictions all which God willing shall in due place be demonstrated In the meane season hauing thus briefly stated the Question I come now to examine the particulars of your Writing and whether the passages you quote in such abundance reach home to that Corporall and Locall Presence which you hold or passe no farther then that Sacramentall and Spirituall Presence which we maintaine N. N. The first ground that Catholike men haue for these and all their mysteries of Christian Faith that are aboue the reach of common sense and reason is the Authority of the Catholike Church by which they were taught the same as Points of Faith revealed from God I. D. If by the first Ground you vnderstand the first introduction vnto Faith I grant the Authority of the Catholike Church to be the first ground that by it wee are taught the same But if thereby you meane as vndoubtedly you doe that highest Principle into which all the Mysteries of Faith are finally resolued and by which the Mind is staied and freed from farther doubting I deny the Catholike Church so to be the first ground For as Bellarmine truly writeth Faith beginneth from
Sacramentaries imagine this Sacrament to be only the creatures of Bread and Wine I would faine knowe whom you vnderstand by these Sacramentaries If the Church of England it is a loud vntruth For we acknowledge that the Sacrament consisteth of two things the one Earthly the other Heavenly as Irenaeus speaketh that is of the outward Elements and the Lords Body If there be any other who imagin as you say spare them not let them hardly be called Sacramentaries But know withall that we detest both them you them for retaining no more then the signes you for excluding them and establishing nothing but Shewes Accidents insteed of them In regard whereof they may iustly requite you with the name of Accidentaries N. N. And if Protestants will say for an evasion as they doe that their Bread is not Common Bread but such Bread being eaten and receaued by Faith worketh the effect of Christs Body in them and bringeth them his Grace Catholikes answer that so did the Figures and Sacraments also of the old Testament being receaued by Faith in Christ to come as the ancient Fathers and Preachers receaued thē And forasmuch as Protestants doe farther hold that there is no difference betweene the vertue and efficacie of those old Sacraments and ours which Catholikes deny it must needs follow that both Catholikes and Protestants agree that the Fathers of the old Testament beleeued in the same Christ to come that we doe now being come their Figures and Shadowes must be as good as our truth in the Sacrament that was prefigured if it remaine Bread still after Christs institution and Consecration I. D. Here least wee should escape your hands by some one Evasion or other you endeavor very diligently to block vp the passage against vs. For whereas your Argument was that vnlesse Christ be really present in the Sacrament the Iewish Figures are as good as our truth you bring vs in answering thereto that our Bread is not Common Bread but such as being eaten by Faith worketh the Effect of Christs Body and bringeth Grace Indeed we say that our Sacramentall Bread is not Common Bread and we farther confesse that whosoeuer receaueth the same worthily eateth withall the Body of Christ and receaueth Grace But we neuer say it in answer to your Objectiō neither cā we with any reason For wee are not ignorant that the signes also in the old Sacraments were not Common or Profane things but sanctified and set apart to holy vses and that being receaued by Faith they were thereby partakers of Christ and all his benefits as well as we The right answer wee giue is by denying the consequence our Sacraments as wee haue shewed many waies excelling those of the old Testament though there be no Transubstantiation at all So that this is not an Evasion as you say of ours but rather a fiction and device of yours to the end you may seeme to prevaile in something being not able to gainesay the true Answer But Catholikes you say deny the old Sacraments that Vertue and efficacie which they grant to the new I know they doe For they hold that the new Sacraments justifie and conferre Grace by the very work done without any respect to the merit or Faith of the receauer which the old Sacraments did not But hereby you vtterly overthrow your owne Argument For how doth this follow vnlesse there be a Real Presence our sacraments excell not seeing in your owne opinion they are farre more Vertuous and Effectual then those of the old Covenant Howbeit this Tenent of yours is too palpably absurd for it giueth vnto the creature a divine vertue of percing into the soul and cleansing the sinnes thereof which is proper vnto God And if the word preached profit vs nothing vnlesse it be mingled with Faith no nor the Flesh of Christ it selfe except it be eaten by Faith how can it be imagined that Water or Bread or any other Sacramentall Element should availe vnto Iustification without any respect vnto Faith at all Herevnto agree the Fathers S. Hierom Man only applyeth water but God the holy spirit by whom ou◠filthinesse is cleansed the sinnes of bloud are purged And S. Augustine Without this sanctification of invisible grace what doe the visible sacraments availe That visible Baptisme which wanted invisible sanctification nothing profited Simon Magus And againe Water clenseth the heart the word effecting it not because it is spoken but beleeued But of this enough N. N. But Catholike Fathers did vnderstand the matters far otherwise And to allege one for all for that hee spake in the sense of all in those daies S. Hierom talking of one of those foresaid Figures to wit of the shew-Bread and comparing it with the thing figured and by Christ exhibited saith thus There is so much difference betweene the Shew-bread and the body of Christ prefigured thereby as there is difference betweene the shadow and the Body whose shadow it is and betweene an image and the truth which the image representeth and betweene certaine shapes of things to come and the things themselues prefigured by those shapes And thus of Figures and presignifications of the old Testament I. D. To what end this passage of St Hierom To proue our Sacraments to be of greater vertue efficacy then those of old This indeed should be your conclusion but St Hieroms words inferre it not For hee compareth the Shew-bread not with the bread in the Eucharist but with Christs body betwixt which I confesse there is as maine a difference as there is betwixt the Shaddow and the Body But I beseech you is there not as great a difference betweene water in Baptisme and the Blood of Christ or bread in the Eucharist and the Body of Christ Doubtlesse there is for they are all but figures of the same Verity namely Christ. Whereas therefore you argue thus Hierom preferreth the body of Christ vnto Shew-bread as farre as the substance exceedeth the shadow Ergo our Sacraments are more vertuous then those of old or if you will for indeed I know not well what you would conclude Ergo the body of Christ is really present by transubstantiation it is a miserable non sequitur and without either rime or reason For vpon the same ground I may aswell inferre the contrary thus Christs body excells Eucharisticall Bread as much as the substance doth the shadow Ergo Shew-bread and the old Sacraments are more vertuous then ours The maine error is that you tye the Body of Christ vnto our new Sacraments if not vnto the Eucharist only whereas indeede he is the Truth of all Sacraments both old and new and therefore is alike present and powerfull in them all to all that beleeue as contrarily to the incredulous and vnbeleeuers his Grace is alike vneffectuall And thus much of your first Argument N. N. The opinion of the ancient Fathers grounded vpon the Scriptures as vpon those speeches of our Saviour This is
my body that shall bee giuen for you My flesh is truly meat and my blood is truly drinke the bread that I shall giue you is my flesh for the life of the world and other like sentences of our Savioâ—r I. D. Your second Argument is drawne from the opinion of the ancient Fathers grounded vpon the Scriptures An invincible and irrefragable Argument if you bee able to make it good For who is hee that dares withstand so great Authority as is that of the Fathers backt with Scripture But bragge is a good dogge as they say and it behooueth you to cracke and boast of much least otherwise you be thought to be destitute of all For I will be bold to affirme that neither you nor your author shall ever be able to proue any one of the ancient Fathers whether with Scripture or without to bee of your side in this present point Those that you pretend to make for you wee shall examine as they offer themselues in order And as for grounding their opinion vpon Scripture neither could they doe so seeing they never dreamed of your Reall presence neither doe the particular places by you vouched import any such thing The first place This is my body shall hereafter at large be vnfolded the rest as is already demonstrated speake not a word of the Sacrament but only of Spirituall eating If the Fathers either in their Homilies or Commentaries alledge these words discoursing of the Eucharist it maketh nothing against vs. For seeing Christ is Spiritually eaten not only out of the Sacrament but in it also and Spirituall eating cannot well be expressed but by tearmes borrowed from Bodily eating no marvell if the ancient Fathers speaking of the Sacrament accomodate these words and the rest in the sixt of Iohn thereunto N. N. The Fathers doe not only vrge all the circumstances here specified or signified to proue it to be the true naturall Body of Christ as that it was to be giuen for vs the next day after Christs words were spoken that it was to bee given for the life of the whole world and that it was truly meat and truly Christs flesh but doe adde also divers other circumstances of much efficacy to confirme the same affirming the same more in particular that it is the very Body which was borne of the blessed Virgin the very same Body that suffered on the Crosse. The selfe-same body saith St Chrysostome that was nailed beaten crucified blouded wounded with a speare is receiued by vs in a Sacrament Whereunto St Augustine addeth this particularity that it is the selfe-same that walked here among vs vpon earth As he walked here in earth saith he among vs so the very selfe-same flesh doth he giue to bee eaten and therefore no man eateth that flesh but first adoreth it And Hesychius addeth that hee gaue the selfe-same Body whereof the Angell Gabriel said to the Virgin Mary that it should be conceiued of the Holy Ghost And yet farther It is the same body saith St Chrysostom that the Major or learned men did adore in the manger but thou doest see him saith he not in the manger but on the Altar not in the armes of a woman but in the hands of a Priest The very selfe-same flesh saith St Augustine againe that â—ate at the table in the last supper washed his Disciples feete the very same I say did Christ giue with his owne hands to his Disciples when he said Take eate this is my body c. and so did he beare himselfe in his owne hands which was prophecied of David but fulfilled only by Christ in that supper These are the particularities vsed by the Fathers to declare what Body they meane and can there be any more effectuall Speeches then these I. D. Pliny in one of his Epistles adviseth him that would be a Writer oftentimes to looke backe vnto the title of his Booke and to consider what his drift and purpose is least ere he be aware he step aside and fall vpon things impertinent Which wise and prudent counsell of his had you duly regarded I perswade my selfe you would not haue spoken so little to the purpose as in this section you haue done For out of all these sayings of the Fathers you conclude no more but this that the true naturall flesh of Christ which was borne of the blessed virgin conversed among vs here on earth and suffered on the crosse c. is present in the Sacrament which who denies Certainly none of our side for wee all freely confesse the same together with you So that the difference betwixt you and vs lies not in the thing it selfe but in the Manner nor whether Christ be present but how and in what sort hee is present Two waies say wee he is present Sacramentally Spiritually as is aboue already declared And this Presence wee affirme to be so strait and neere that wee are thereby bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh But the Presence that you maintaine is a Corporalland Locall Presence of the Flesh of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread and Wine and that by way of Transubstantiation And this is the point which you haue vndertaken to proue out of the Fathers and to which you ought to speake but in this place you performe it not For how doth this follow The Fathers say that true Christ is present Ergo they say he is present Corporally Locally and by way of Transubstantiation Certainly not at all for hee may otherwise be Present namely Sacramentally as wee hold and Spiritually Neither shall your Author with all his wit and skill ever bee able to make good this or the like consequence from the thing to the manner And thus much for answere in generall Particularly St Chrysostome saith the selfe-same Body which was crucified c. is receaued by vs. But how In a Sacrament that is Sacramentally and by Faith Even as in Baptisme we are made partakers of the Blood of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost not by a Reall presence or Transubstantiation of Water into them but only as St Chrysostome here speaketh in a Sacrament The which comparison I vse the rather because it is the Fathers own who elsewhere saith that it is in the Lords supper as it is in Baptisme wherein by the sensible element of water the gift is bestowed and that which is intelligible to wit regeneration and renovation is performed The Reddition whereof must needs be this that in like manner by the sensible creatures of Bread and Wine the gift is giuen we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ to the Spirituall nourishment of our soules By which proportion it seemeth that as the one is effected without Transubstantiation so is the other also Your next Author is Saint Augustine who saith that the same Flesh which walked here among vs doth he giue to be eaten True but to bee eaten by Faith not by the mouth For
they were only manuscript and knowne but to a few learned men Since which time they haue beene published in print and perhaps to winne more authority vnto them mis-fathered vpon Cyril of Hierusalem For if wee may beleeue Gesner or Simler or your owne Gretzer a Iesuit sundry written copies entitle them to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem one who liued well neere eight hundred yeares after Christ even then when the quarrell about Images and relicks was on foot Whence happily proceeded that overlashing speech that the wood of the Crosse was so multiplied as the whole world was now full of it Howsoever seeing they are come to our hands from no better places then Trent the Popes Vatican and Cardinal Perrons Library you cannot blame vs if we vehemently suspect that they haue passed through Purgatory and suffered much addition and substraction For wee are not ignorant of your Pious fraudes and holy couznages in purging of bookes not permitting them to speake what their Authors wrote but what maketh most for your owne advantage But let it be supposed for the present that your author is the right Cyril of Hierusalem and free from all corruption and if you will also that he wrote his Catechismes in his elder yeares what then is the testimonie that begiueth for Transubstantiation Forsooth that which seemeth to be Bread is not Bread but Christs body though the tast iudge it Bread And againe Vnder the shew of bread and Wine the Body and Bloud of Christ is giuen Wherevnto I answer and first to the former that the common Latine Translation reads it otherwise thus This bread which wee see is not bread so denying it to be Bread that yet hee affirmeth we see Bread Which seeming contradiction is easily accorded by Cyril himselfe where hee saith it is not simple or naked or common bread as if hee should say Bread it is yet not only bread but something else besides Even as when we deny Christ to be meere man we meane not that he is no man but that he is Man and besides that God also It is not then bread that is Prophane or Vnsanctified bread but the Body of Christ that is bread sanctified to bee a Type or Sacrament of Christs Body And although our tast iudge it to bee no more then bread yet Faith teacheth vs not to stay on bread but to mount higher even vnto the Body of Christ. I beseech you when Pachymeres saith The holy oyle is no longer called oyle for the oyle is Christ doth he meane it hath lost its nature and is transubstantiated into Christ I trow no. In like manner might Cyril say The bread we see is not bread but Christs body and yet neuer dreame of your Real Presence For in his opinion there is the like reason of both Even as saith he the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so also this holy ointment is no more bare or common ointment after it is now consecrated but a grace which worketh the Presence of Christ and the holy Ghost To the second passage I answere that your Author whosoeuer hee bee hath rendred it captiously vnder the forme or shew or shape of Bread and Wine as if hee had meant your Accidents without substance whereas indeed Cyrils owne words are in the Type or Figure of Bread and Wine And this wee acknowledge to bee most true For in the receauing of the Bread and Wine which typically are the body and bloud of Christ wee truly and really after a spirituall manner receaue his very body and bloud also In regard whereof as he calleth bread winetypes so he maketh the body bloud of Christ their Anti-types They are commanded saith he to tast not of bread and wine but of the Anti-type the body and bloud of Christ. The body therefore and the bloud is in the bread and in the wine as the Anti-type is the type or the thing figured in the figure which I hope may be done without any Transubstantiation Certainely if wheresoeuer you read of Formes shewes or shapes you by and by conceaue of nothing but Accidents without substance it cannot be avoided but you must needs fall into dangerous errours When Saint Paul saith that Christ being in the forme of God counted it no rapine to be equall with God Neverthelesse emptied himselfe taking the forme of a servant made after the similitude of men and being found in figure as a man humbled himselfe c. What will you conclude hence that Christ is onely shew without substance and neither true God nor true Man I knowe you will not And seeing you dare not doe it in this I would advise you to beware how you coÌ„clude so in the like As for the testimonie of S. Chrysostome I answere vnto it breefly We must not beleeue our senses saith he True for they discerne nothing else but bare bread and Wine and are not capable of the mystery signified and exhibited by them To apprehend that belongeth vnto Faith and not sense Yet is not sense every way to bee discredited for we beleeue it is Whitenesse which we see and sauour which we tast yea we may safely beleeue it is bread which we take and eat Wherein then may we not beleeue sense That it is meere bread For it perceaueth not that it is sanctified and sacramentall bread But of this more hereafter Againe We must saith he simply and without all ambiguity beleeue the words of Christ saying This is my body Questionlesse we must and hee that beleeueth them not is an infidell But seeing as your selues confesse bread in proper signification is not the body of Christ neither was it Christs meaning we should beleeue it to be so To beleeue Christs words then is to beleeue them in Christs meaning which because it is not literall as we haue said it must needs be Figuratiue thus This bread sacramentally is my body But of this also more hereafter Lastly saith he He giueth himselfe not only to bee seene but also to bee touched handled and eaten This is sufficiently answered already whether to avoid tautologie I referre my selfe Only I adde that if properly we see touch tast Christ theÌ„ may we beleeue our senses contrary to that which Chrysostome saith But if we may not beleeue them then neither doe we see nor touch nor tast him properly but as himselfe interpreteth himselfe after a manner that is in a sacrament spiritually and by Faith which importeth not your Real Presence N. N. Nor only doe the Fathers affirme so asseverantly that it is the true naturall Body of Christ though it appeare to bee Bread in forme and shape and that we must not beleeue our Senâ—es herein but doe deny expresly that it is Bread after the words of Consecration as appeareth out of S. Ambrose in his booke de Sacramentis Imetandis Before the words of consecration
be the body of Christ. Now if bread neither tropically nor literally be Christs Body then doe not Papists beleeue Christ who according to Cyril saith of the bread This is my body Yea but Cyril farther saith Christ hath changed wine into his blood I grant but every change is not Transubstantiation Whatsoever the holy Ghost toucheth is sanctified and changed saith Cyril So is Water in Baptisme changed and so is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist yet neither by substraction of substance but addition of Grace as saith Theodoret. To Saint Hilary I answere that in the place by you quoted he speaketh not of the Eucharist and that therefore those words in the Sacrament inserted by way of Parenthesis into the text are but a Glosse not expounding but corrupting it Had he meant it of the Sacrament hee would never haue said No man shall be in him but he only in whom himselfe is hauing only taken his flesh into him who hath taken his What No man to be in him but hee only in whom himselfe is by the Sacrament God forbid for then all are out of Christ that receiue not the Eucharist and your selues hold not such an absolute necessity thereof Of the Mysticall Vnion therefore betweene Christ and vs doth he speake as also of the Spirituall eating of his Flesh and Drinking of his Blood whereby it is wrought and which as you know is as well done out of the Sacrament as in it Lastly to your Eusebius Emissenus I answere that if it be that ancient Bishop of Emesa in Syria mentioned by Saint Hierom in his Catalogue hee who florished vnder the Emperour Constantius and wrote many short Homilies vpon the Gospels then is his authority of no value For your owne Bellarmine and Possevin haue observed out of Hierom that he was a ring-leader of the Arian faction But indeed it is not the same Emissenus as the foresaid Bellarmine and Possevin together with Baronius and Canisius testify For the one wrote in Greeke the other in Latine the one died a good time before the Pelagian heresie sprang vp the other writeth against it If it be not he who is it then It is vncertaine saith Bellarmine Some Latine writer saith Sixtus Senensis who stitched these Rapsodies together out of the Latine Fathers and whose stile savoureth of Bede or Rabanus or some one like vnto them A Frenchman saith Canisius and Possevin and others yet can they not finde either in France or any part of Europe a place whence he should be called Emissenus One suspecteth him to be Faustus Rhegiensis another Caesaries Bishop of Arles a third ascribeth some of his Homilies to Eucherius some to Maximus and some to others Frier Walden citeth this very Homily here by you quoted vnder three severall names Isidore Eusebius Emisenus Anselme All which are but meere coniectures and there is no certainty either of his name or the time when he liued So that for ought wee know he may be some Monke or Frier who finding Emissenus to be an ancient writer thought good for the gracing of his doings to set them forth in his name a practise not vnusuall among them Howbeit be he never so Orthodox never so ancient that which he saith is little to your purpose For all he saith is but this wee may not doubt that Christs flesh is truly meat and his blood truly drinke forasmuch as himselfe affirmeth it So saith Ambrose so Leo so Epiphanius and it is already answered in the generall to which I referre you N. N. And the Fathers farther affirming that not by Faith only or in figure or image or spiritually alone the flesh of Christ is to be eaten by vs but really substantially and corporally Not only by Faith saith Chrysostome but in very deed he maketh vs his Body reduceing vs as it were into one masse or substance with himselfe And Saint Cyril not only by faith and Charity be wee spiritually conioyned vnto Christ by his Flesh in the Sacrament but corporally also by communication of the same flesh And Saint Chrysostome againe Not only by loue but in very deed are wee converted into his flesh by eating the same And Saint Cyril againe wee receauing in the Sacrament corporally and substantially the Sonne of God vnited naturally vnto his Father wee are clarified and glorified thereby and made partakers of his supreame nature Thus they I. D. That which you would or should proue is that Christs body is in the Sacrament after a corporall manner and by way of Transubstantiation That where by you endeavour to proue it is the testimony of those Fathers who affirme that Christs flesh is really substantially and corporally conioyned vnto vs by the Sacrament But betweene these two there is great distance neither doth that any way follow vpon this Wee all saith the Apostle S. Paul are by one spirit baptized into one body Wherevpon Saint Augustine baptisme availeth to this that they which are baptized be incorporated into Christ. And Leo he that is receaued of Christ and receaueth Christ is not the same after washing that he was before baptisme but the body of the regenerate man is made the flesh of him that was crucified In regard whereof the foresaid Apostle sticketh not to say wee are Christ. And accordingly Saint Augustine Let vs reioyce and giue thankes that wee are made not only Christians but Christ. By all which it is evident that we are as really substantially and corporally vnited vnto Christ in Baptisme as we are in the Lords Supper And yet I hope you will not therevpon inferre a Reall presence in Baptisme If not why should you presume to doe it in the Lords Supper For there is no more reason for the one Sacrament then for the other Certainly if the only way of vniting vs really vnto Christ be by receauing this Sacrament then woe vnto all those who being Baptized dyed before they could receaue it For it is impossible for any man to be saued by Christ vnlesse first he be really made one with him But let vs breefely examine your witnesses Saint Chrysostome saith Not by faith only but indeed he maketh vs his body and Not only by loue but indeed are we converted into his flesh What literally and in proper signification so as wee are reduced into one masse or lumpe with him Or that by receauing the Communion wee are really substantially and corporally transubstantiated into the very Body of Christ I know you cannot conceaue so rudely and grosly of him and least you should he himselfe qualifieth and tempereth the vehemence of his speech with an as it were reducing vs as it were into one masse In which words alluding to that of the Apostle we are one loafe and one body and explicating the same What speake I saith he of communication wee are that selfe-same body For what is bread The body of Christ. And what are they made
for the Transformation of Bread into Flesh which he speakes of though still it seeme Bread it is plaine hee meanes not that of Transubstantiation for in this Bread ceaseth to be but in that he confesseth it still to remaine and that it is Bread which is eaten by vs in the Mysteries Which yet he more plainly expresseth where hee saith God in mercy condescending to our infirmity preserueth the Species or Nature of Bread and wine but trans-elementeth or changeth it into the vertue of his flesh blood where it is farther to be obserued that hee saith not into flesh and blood but into the vertue thereof intimating a Change not of Substance but of Operation and Efficacy Your next witnesse is Magnetes an author to me vtterly vnknowne saue that Gesner in his Bibliotheca reporteth that he was very ancient and that about thirteene hundred yeares since hee wrote in the Greeke tongue certaine bookes in defence of the Gospell vnto Theosthenes against the Gentiles that flandered it and that he is quoted by Fr. Turrian By which words it seemes that hee never yet saw the Presse and what is alledged out of him is warranted only by Turrians testimony But Turrian is one that deserues no credit at our hands as being a Iesuite and knowne to haue plaid many foule tricks this way Yet if to make your author agree with the rest of the Fathers you will giue the same construction to his words that aboue is giuen vnto Theophilact you may Otherwise his authority is as easily reiected as alledged N. N. St Hilary vseth this kind of argument If the word of God were truly made flesh then doe wee truly receiue his flesh in the Lords supper and thereby he is to bee esteemed to dwell in vs naturally St Cyril proueth not only a Spirituall but also a Naturall and Bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eating his flesh in the Sacrament I. D. That Hilary speaketh of the Lords Supper or of our Coniunction with Christ by Eating thereof I thinke it will hardly be proved Had he so meant how cometh it to passe that he never alledgeh those words of the Sacrament This is my body which would haue made more for his purpose but ever voucheth the sixt of Iohn which maketh little to the Sacrament Howbeit if you will needs vnderstand him so I will not striue Know then that in those bookes St Hilary disputes against the Arians To them he obiected that saying The Father and the Sonne are one One answered they as wee are with Christ by Will not by Nature wherevnto he replied that wee are even by Nature one with Christ. And this he proues first because both in Christ and vs there is the same Humane nature by the Incarnation of the Sonne of God which hee calls the Sacrament of perfect vnion Secondly because the Faithfull are ioyned vnto him by his Spirit dwelling in them which regenerateth quickneth sanctifieth them and not only conformeth them vnto him but also transformeth them into him And for proofes hereof hee alledgeth divers passages of St Iohns Gospell such as your selues confesse no way to belong vnto the Sacrament Thirdly for that by Baptisme we are ioyned vnto Christ and that not only by consent of will but naturally according to that of Saint Paul As many as are baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. Whereunto lastly if you please you may adde for that also in the Lords Supper wee are vnited vnto him by Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood All these waies saith Hilary are wee Naturally ioyned vnto Christ. If so then not only by the Eucharist And if for the establishing of the other meanes there needeth no Transubstantiation at all as of the Sonne of God into Man of Faith into the Spirit of Christ or of Baptismall water into the Bloud of Christ neither is it necessarie for this that bread be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. Or if to bring Christ into vs and our mouth you will needs transubstantiate the bread into his body I wonder what Transubstantiation you will devise to bring vs into him and his mouth For Hilary affirmeth that by the same Mysticall coniunction not only is Christ in vs but also wee are Naturally in him The same Answere may serue for Cyril also wherevnto for farther explication of the word Naturally and Naturall so often vsed both by Cyril and Hilary I adde that in them Naturally signifieth Truly Naturall True if wee may beleeue him who best knew their meaning even Cyril himselfe For thus he Not according to naturall vnity that is true vnity By nature wee are the children of wrath where by nature we are to vnderstand truth So that Naturall vnion is true vnion and naturally to be vnited is truly to be vnited which I hope may bee without Transubstantiation N. N. Theodoret doth proue that Christ tooke Flesh of the blessed virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwise hee could not giue vs his true Flesh to eat if his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carried vp and retaineth in heauen I. D. I marvell much not one of the Fathers being more expresse against Transubstantiation then Theodoret that yet you durst to praise him in the maintenance thereof Evē for this cause doth the Preface to the Roman Edition goe about to weaken his authority and Gregorie of Valentia flatly condemneth him It is no wonder saith he if one or two or more of the Ancients haue thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly Adde herevnto that Theodoret was noted by the Councell of Ephesus for some other errours besides But how much Theodoret maketh against Transubstantiation you shall heare hereafter Now you may be pleased to knowe that in the place by you cited he disputeth against an Eutychian Hereticke who held that the Humanitie of Christ was abolished and absorpted by his Deitie This hee would proue by the Eucharist that as the Symbols before Consecration are one thing but after it are changed and become another even so the Body of Christ after the Assumption thereof is chāged into the Divine Substance Now if Theodoret had beene Transubstantiator hee had beene finely taken for Transubstantiation abolisheth the substance of Bread and turneth it into the substance of Christs Body But hee taketh the Heretike in his owne nets affirming the Mysticall signes after their sanctification doe not depart from their nature and that therefore Christ after the Assumption thereof retaineth his Humanity still Whereby you may see that although it be yeelded that Christ giueth vs his true Flesh in the Sacrament yet in the iudgement of Theodoret he so giueth it that the Mysticall signes retaine their Nature still which vtterly overturnes your Transubstantiation N. N. S. Irenaeus S. Iustin and S.
Chrysostome doe proue not only this but the Resurrection also of our Bodies by the truth of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament for that our Flesh ioyning with his Flesh which is immortall shall bee immortall also I. D. The truth of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament and the Coniunction of our Flesh with his Flesh neither is nor ever was by vs denied And therefore to heap vp Fathers for the proofe thereof is but to spend your labour to no purpose That you should proue is the Presence of Christ by Transubstantiation Which hitherto you haue but little aymed at In the Sacrament say these Fathers our Flesh is ioyned to Christs Flesh Ergo our Flesh shall rise againe The Antecedent is true and the sequele is good But what ioyning doe they meane The taking of Christs flesh into the mouth They neuer dreamt of it And if it were so it would follow that all they that eat Christ Sacramentally among whom how many Reprobates are there shall rise againe vnto life everlasting For I hope you will not say that the sacred Flesh of Christ doth quicken any vnto everlasting death How then is it By eating him not only Sacramentally but also spiritually and by Faith For by this meanes Christ becomes the food of our soules which redounding vpon the Flesh by making it the Temple of the Holy Ghost and an instrument of righteousnes fitteth and prepareth it to a glorious Resurrection Hence our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath life everlasting and I will raise him vp at the last day And the Apostle S. Paul If Christ bee in you the Body indeed is dead because of sinne but the spirit is life because of righteousnesse But if the spirit of him that raised vp Iesus Christ from the dead dwell in you hee that raised vp Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortall bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you And that this is the meaning of the Fathers appeares by that they say Our bodies come not into corruption but partake of life by being nourished with the body bloud of the Lord. For that our bodies in litterall sense should be nourished with Christs body is to make it the food of the belly not of the minde then which saith Bellarmine nothing can bee deuised more absurd And what I pray you is Nourishment properly Only to take meat into the mouth No but the alteration and conversion of the substance thereof into the substance of that which is nourished which to affirme of the Body of Christ is horrible impiety Of force therefore must the Fathers be vnderstood to speake of such a Nourishment by the body of Christ as is spirituall Now if the Nourishment be spirituall such is the Eating also and it is as absurd to say that the soule is nourished by bodily eating as that the body is nourished by spirituall eating Will you haue all in a word The things that wee eat with our mouth in the Sacramēt are not the causes but the pledges of our Resurrection So saith the great Councell of Nice We must beleeue these things to be the symbols or pledges of our Resurrection N. N. And the same S. Irenaeus doth proue farther that the great God of the old Testament Creator of heauen earth was Christs Father For proofe whereof hee alleageth this reason that Christ in the Sacrament did fulfill the Figures of the old Testament and that in particular wherein bread was a figure of his Flesh which he fulfilled saith Irenaeus making it his Flesh indeed I. D. The Marcionites whom Irenaeus confuteth taught that the God of the old Testament was not the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ and that the Creator was knowne but the Father of Christ was vnknowne Against this hee endeauoureth to proue that the Father of our Lord was he who created the world That this he intendeth manifestly appeareth by those words where hee saith Others saying that another besides the creator is his Father and offering vnto him those creatures that are here amongst vs shew that he is greedy and covetous of that which is anothers And among other arguments this he vseth for one Bread and Wine are the creatures of the Creator of the world which creatures Iesus Christ vseth in the Sacrament the one to be his Body and the other to be his Bloud and therein are they offered to his Father Ergo the Creator is his Father Were he not his Father he would never haue takē that which belongs vnto another or whervnto he had no right and convert it to his owne vse So that here your Author hath notably deceaued you For Irenaeus proueth Christ to bee the sonne of the Creator not by his omnipotence in turning Bread and Wine into his Flesh and Bloud a thing that neuer came into his thought but from his right and title to the Creatures which maketh nothing for Transubstantiation Touching the Figures of the old Testament and how they prefigured our Sacraments we haue spoken enough already N. N. What is so sacrilegious saith Optatus Milevitanus as to breake downe scrape and remoue the altars of God on which your selues haue sometimes offered and the members of Christ haue beene borne c. What is an altar but the Seat of the Body and Bloud of Christ And this monstrous villanie of yours is doubled for that you haue brokē also the chalice which did beare the Bloud of Christ himselfe When the mixed chalice and the Bread broken taketh the word of God the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ is made Bread receauing the calling of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one earthly another heavenly the earthly thing is the old forme of bread the heavenly is the body of Christ newly made vnder that forme Let vs now consider also the persons to whom this Commandement was giuen they were those twelue Apostles whom Christ at his last Supper taught the new Oblation of the new Testament giuing them authority by this precept to consecrate to make present and to offer to God his body and bloud I. D. Where little or nothing is objected the answer is soone made Optatus saith that the altar is the seat of Christs body and bloud and that the chalice beareth his bloud Irenaeus saith that after consecration the Eucharist of the body and bloud is made that in it there is a heavenly thing and the Apostles had authority to make present the body of Christ. Ergo the body and bloud of Christ is really corporally locally and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament A poore and silly consequence which all the wity our author hath wil neuer be able to make good For those words of the Fathers may be salued and verified if Christ be Present any other way And Present hee is Sacramentally to the signes and spiritually to the Faith of
the worthy receauer Neither are the Fathers alwaies literally to be vnderstood when they vse the names of the Body and Bloud of Christ. For it is the common practise of them all writing of the Sacraments specially of the Lords Supper to call the signe by the name of the thing signified following therein the custome of Scripture and the example of our Saviour who as Theodoret saith changed the names and called the signe by the name of his Body So that when they say the Body is on the altar the Bloud is in the Chalice and so of the rest the meaning by this rule is the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud is there or the Body and Bloud is there Sacramentally But in vouching Irenaeus what is the reason you curtal one place and adde vnto another Meant you to play the Giant Procrustes and to shorten the one because it was too long for your bed and to stretch out the other because it was too short For whereas to those words the Eucharist of the Bloud and Body of Christ is made Irenaeus addeth immediatly by which the substance of our flesh is augmented and consisteth this you thought good to omit because it maketh directly against you For it is not the naturall Flesh and Bloud of Christ whereby our Bodies are nourished and increased Yet in the Sacrament by his Body Bloud they waxe and grow Ergo by his Symbolicall Body and Bloud the Bread and Wine still remaining Againe whereas Irenaeus saith The Eucharist consisteth of two things one earthly another heavenly you adde the earthly thing is the old forme of bread the heauenly is the body of Christ newly made vnder that forme But this is your owne Glosse and no part of the Text and such a Glosse as corrupteth the Text. For Irenaeus neuer dreamt of your Formes and Accidents without substance and his plaine meaning is that whereas before Consecration there was but one thing and that earthly namely Bread now it is made the Eucharist consisting of two things the one Earthly namely Bread the other Heauenly to wit the Body of Christ. N. N. For we doe not take these as common Bread Wine but like as Iesus Christ our Saviour incarnated by the word of God had Flesh and Bloud for our salvation eveÌ„ so we be taught that the food wherewith our Flesh and Bloud be nourished by alteration when it is consecrated by the prayer of his word to bee the Flesh and Bloud of the same Iesus Christ incarnated I. D. It is not common bread saith Iustin. What of that For hee that denies it to be common bread doth not deny it to be bread nay he confesseth it to be so though not only so by vertue of the addition of Grace vnto it If every thing that ceaseth to be common loose its nature and cease to be what it was then whosoever comes to Rome must not beleeue his eyes but thinke he is in Fairy land where things are not what they seeme to bee For there doubtlesse all things are hallowed nothing Common Iustin saith farther As the word became flesh so is bread made the body What after the same manner Then farewell Transubstantiation For the Word became Flesh by vniting it vnto himselfe hypostatically not by Transubstantiating himselfe into it In like manner therefore is bread made Body not by a substantiall change of Bread into body but by a Sacramentall vnion of the body with bread Nay saith hee but the same powerfull Word that wrought the one worketh also the other Yet this enforceth no Transubstantiation For no power is able to make a Sacrament by earthly creatures to convay vnto vs heavenly Graces saue only that which is Divine But would you see a prety tricke of legerdemaine and how your author juggles with you The words of Iustin runne not in the same order as they are set downe but thus Even so are wee taught that the food blessed by the prayer of the word of God whereby our flesh by conversion is changed c. Then which nothing maketh more against that which you intend For the consecrated Food as Iustin saies nourisheth our Flesh and Blood But the Body of Christ nourisheth them not neither to that end is converted into our substance Wherefore of necessity it must bee Bread and if bread after Consecration what is become of your new found Transubstantiation N. N. Neither hath Moyses giuen vs the true Bread but our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe the Feaster and the Feast himselfe the Eater and hee that is eaten I. D. Christ indeede is the Feast and is eaten but eaten as he is the Feast not of the Body but the Soule eaten therefore is he by the mouth of the Soule not of the body For a Spirituall meat must spiritually be receiued And more then this Saint Hierom vnderstands not For as for that he saith Manna was not the true bread it cannot be denied For our Saviour affirmeth it and in it selfe it was no more then the food of the belly Yet was it made a Sacrament both Significatiue and Exhibitiue of Christ though generally to the Iewes it was fruitlesse because they considered it carnally and vnderstood not the mystery thereof So all the Fathers Heare one Augusâ—â—â— for them all The ancients saith he while as yet the true sacrifice which the faithfull know was foreshewed in Figures did celebrate the figures of the thing figured some of them with knowledge but more ignorantly And againe Your Fathers did eat Manna in the Wildernesse and are dead for they vnderstood not that which they did eat Therefore not vnderstanding they receiued nothing else but corporall meat And yet againe The same meat the same drinke but to them that vnderstand and beleeue but to those that vnderstand not only Manna only water Neither can wee conceiue of this otherwise vnlesse wee will leaue Christ and Saint Paul at variance the one denying that Moyses giuing Manna gaue the true bread the other affirmâ—â—g that they all ate the same spirituall meat Which being so it seemes strange to mee how you can hammer your Reall Presence from hence For to reason thus is very ridiculous Moyses gaue not the body of Christ Ergo bread in the Eucharist is transubstantiated into Christs body Yet this is all I can see and vntill you shew mee better reason farther answere you may not looke from mee N. N. If you aske how it is made it is enough for thee to heare that it is made by the Holy Ghost even as our Lord made for himselfe a Body out of the Virgin mother of God and wee know no more but that the word of God is true strengthfull and almighty And againe Not as the Body of Christ came downe from heaven but because the Bread and Wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. I. D. This Damascen lived vpward of seauen hundred years after Christ and hath not yeares
enough to be numbred among the ancient Fathers In regard whereof as also because of those many shamefull errors and fabulous narrations every where appearing in his writings hee is one of little or no authority in the Church of God He was the first that removed the bounds of the ancient Doctors in this matter bringing in sundry new strange terms never heard of in former times the misvnderstanding of which by little and little prepared a way to that deformed monster of Transubstantiation Neverthelesse it is certaine that howsoever many of his speeches may seeme harsh and inconvenient and great advantage hath beene taken of them that way yet himselfe was cleane of another mind Let vs therefore heare what hee saith It is made saith hee by the Holy Ghost even as our Lord made for himselfe a body out of the Virgin mother If so then is it not made by Transubstantiation for Christ assuming a body turned not his Deity into it Yet was the worke of the Holy Ghost necessary for he alone is able to sanctify the Naturall element and to invest them with Supernaturall graces The same saith he of Baptisme He hath ioyned the Grace of the Holy Ghost to oile and water and hath made it the washing of Regeneration And Leo yet more fully vsing the selfe-same comparison Christ gave vnto water that which he gaue vnto his mother for the power of the most high and over shaddowing of the holy Ghost which made that Mary brought forth the Saviour hath made water to regenerate the beleeuer Whereby you see that the same power of Gods Spirit by which the blessed Virgin conceived may be emploied in a Sacrament without that change and conversion that you imagine of And that Damascen though hee aknowledged a change of the Bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ yet was not acquainted with your change may appeare by these words Because it is the manner of men to eat bread and to drinke wine with water he hath conioyned his divinity with them and made them his body and blood that by vsuall things and which are according to nature we might be setled in these things that are aboue nature Here you see hee conioyneth the Divinity with bread and wine Now coniunction is only of those things that are and haue a being Bread and Wine therefore still are If they be then are they not abolished And if they be not abolished then is Transubstantiation gone Adde herevnto that Accidents without Substance are not Vsuall things nor according to Nature and therefore not they but true bread and true Wine are the things which in Damascens judgement raise vs vp to those things that are aboue Nature But of him enough N. N. The perishing meat and pleasures of this world please me not I long for Gods Bread the heauenly Bread the bread of life which thing is the flesh of Christ the Sonne of God I. D. That Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Romans both Eusebius and Hierom testify and that this which now passeth vnder that title may be the right Epistle I deny not Howbeit it is confessed of all that those Epistles which are granted to be his are not come vnto our hands perfect For some passages are cited out of them by some of the ancients as Hierom Theodoret and others which now are not found in them and some are manifestly corrupted and depraved as appeareth So that if Baronius and Bellarmine might challenge them of corruption in those places which make for Saint Pauls marriage and against halfe Communions I hope I haue as much liberty to challenge the place by you alleaged if it made any thing against vs. But it needs not for Ignatius speaketh not there of the Sacrament and therefore it maketh nothing to the purpose Neither doth it follow The bread is flesh Ergo by Transubstantiation N. N. We ought so to communicate with our Lords table that wee doubt nothing of the verity of his Body and Bloud seeing he said Except yee eat the Flesh of the Son of man c. I. D. Leo disputeth in this place against the Eutychians who denied the truth of Christs body and thus he argueth The Eucharist is a symboll of the body of Christ Ergo Christ hath a true body and whosoever will rightly communicate must nothing doubt thereof So reasoneth also Theodoret. For Orthodoxus demanding whether Bread and Wine were Symbols of the true body blood of Christ or no and being answered yea he thus concludes If the divine mysteries be samplars of the true body then the body of the Lord is now also true and not changed into the nature of the Divinity Hence may you see the weaknesse of your Argument Communicants may not doubt that Christ hath a true body or if you will that the true body of Christ is in the Eucharist Ergo bread is transubstantiated into body Ridiculous N. N. As therefore our Baptisme is made by reall washing with water and reall renewing of the Holy Ghost so now in the Supper of Christ it behooueth wee bee really fed with the fruit of the tree of life which is none other thing besides the flesh of Christ. I. D. If we yeelded Euthymius vnto you the matter were not great For he liued vpward of eleven hundred yeares after Christ and your owne Chronologers place him after Gratian and Peter Lombard Yet what saith hee It behooueth that in the supper wee be really fed with the flesh of Christ. Really fed Who doubteth of it But you are to know that Reall doth not necessarily import your Carnall manner For Spirituall is also Reall vnlesse you will say a spirit is no thing N. N. It is a remembrance of Christs death by the presence of the body which died It is the Body and Bloud of Christ covered from our eyes revealed to our Faith feeding presently our body and soule to everlasting life I. D. This Nicephorus also liued eleauen hundred yeares after Christ and therefore is none of the Fathers nor of any great authority Neither doth that which hee saith conclude your purpose For Christs Body may bee and is present Sacramentally and to our faith and presently feed both soules and bodies to everlasting life and yet Bread and Wine remaine still in the Sacrament Else where hee calleth the outward Elements symbolls and signes of the Passion of Christ. If symbolls and signes then not the Body it selfe N. N. They receiue not the fruit of Saluation in the eating of the healthfull sacrifice They eat the healthfull Sacrifice which surely is nothing else but the naturall body of Christ but the frute they receiue not As many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies bee evill affected it proueth not healthfull to them I. D. Thus you reason The healthfull Sacrifice is the naturall body of Christ Ergo Bread by Transubstantiation is made the body of Christ. How
Conversion Mutation and the like I. D. Had you attentiuely read my Answer you would never haue said I excepted to two or three Passages only For I excepted to all the passages of Ignatius Cyril of Hierusalem in his Catechismes Ambrose de Sacramentis and Mysterijs initiandis Eusebius Emissenus Cyprian de caena Domini the Canon of the Nicen counsell and Magnetes as suspected by your owne Rabbies not to be the men whose names they beare Againe of Damascen Theophylact Euthymius Nicephorus and Rupertus as being Punies and too young to be Fathers besides those many Passages which are miserably either curtald or rackt or falsely alleaged Neither are their words so plain for you as you pretend For I haue made it to appeare that some of them say nothing at all for you some speak rather against you then for you and to those that seeme to say any thing I haue opposed a whole grand Iury speaking farre more plainely on our side For what words can be more plaine then these This is my body that is the figure of my Body that Christ said This bread is my body which your owne men grant cannot bee true vnlesse figuratiuely vnderstood that Bread and Wine still are what they were that the Nature of bread continues that the nature of bread and wine cease not to be but continue in the propriety of their nature that the signes after consecration depart not from their proper nature but remaine in their former substance figure and forme and suchlike many But perhaps your Fathers speake as plainely Let vs try that They say that the Body flesh and bloud of Christ is truly in the Sacrament Ergo a Reall Presence Who denies it Transubstantiation is that which you should proue which Reall Presence inferres not This you say you vnderstand not The more is your dulnesse For Really and Corporally are not all one and that which is Spiritually present is Really present vnlesse you will say that a spirit is Nothing Is not the Bloud of Christ really present in Baptisme to the washing away of sinne Is hee not Really also present to the Faith of every true beleever even out of the Sacrament Doubtlesse he is and none will deny it but he that never felt the vertue and efficacy thereof What should let then but the Flesh of Christ may bee present in the Eucharist Really and yet not after the Corporall manner Nay what if I should yeeld you a corporall presence Would that necessarily inferre a Transubstantiation Nothing lesse For it may be by consubstantiation the flesh being there together with the Bread without turning the Bread into Flesh. Neither may you deny this to be possible vnlesse you will deny the Omnipotency of God and your Transubstantiation withall for therevpon doe you build it Transubstantiation therefore and the Reall presence are not all one Yea but the Fathers vse the tearmes of Conversion Mutation What then Ergo Transubstantiation A pittifull consequence For this is to argue from the Generall to Speciall as if you should say It is a colour therefore it is blacke there being many colours besides blacke Learne then that Change is a generall word and there are divers kindes thereof of Substance by Generation and corruption of Quality by Alteration of Quantity by Augmentation and Diminution of Place by Lation Now he that affirmeth a Change doth not presently affirme Change of Substance for it may be some other either of Quality or Quantity or Quantity or Place The Fathers therefore speaking of a Change in the Sacrament may as well meane a Change of Alteration in the Vse and Uertue of the Elements as of Substance by way of Transubstantiation And so for ought the Fathers say Transubstantiation may still be a brat of the Lateran Councells disputed of perhaps before but neuer beleeved as an Article of Faith till then N. N. I allow no authority after 600. yeares Ergo I acknowledge the next 1000. to be contrary in this and all other controversies betwixt vs. I. D. To speake plainely I allow no Authority at all as Infallible but only that of Christ and his Apostles Those that afterwards succeeded were all of them subiect vnto errour and cannot be the ground of our Faith as I haue elsewhere answerably demonstrated Howbeit those of the first 600 yeares wee reverence more and rather admit then those of the 1000 following because they were freer from errour as liuing neerer the Apostles times and before the first discouery of Antichrist which was about the yeare 607. when Boniface the third purchased of that bloudy tyrant Phocas the title of Vniversall Bishop and with it the supremacy over all Churches Whereof his predecessor Gregory the great seemed to prophecy when writing against Iohn B. of Constantinople for vsurping that title he gathereth from thence that the times of Antichrist are at hand After which discouery although errours every day crept in apace yet wee yeeld you not that all your opinions instantly and at once leapt into the Church For as Rome it selfe was not built in a day so neither was that huge heape of Romanish impieties raised in one age It was a good while after this before Transubstantiation began to appeare Damascen in the East not contenting himselfe with the old language of the Church fell a coyning of new Phrases yet reached not home to Transubstantiation A hundred yeares after Amalarius in the west maintained in plaine tearms that the simple nature of Bread and wine is turned into a reasonable nature to wit of the body and bloud of Christ. And herein was he seconded by Paschasius Radbertus and others Yet could they not carry it so clearly but that they were mightily opposed by the most famous writers in their times whose names you haue in mine Answer But specially by Bertram vnder Carolus Calvus of whom Turrian the Iesuit thus to cite Bertram what is it other then to say the heresie of Calvin is not new And a good time afterwards againe by Berengarius on whose side many disputed both by word and writing and those not of one nation only but English French and Italians as Mathew of Westminster saith But all these Antichrist who was now in his height bare downe and at length anno 1215. vnder Innocent the third in the Lateran Councel was the Idol set vpon its base and adored So lately with so much adoe was your doctrine of Transubstantiation brought in and established N. N. For 900. yeares was no outward face of a Church in England but the Catholike In which it were vncharitable to say that none knewe the meaning of Scriptures and Fathers as well as we or all liued in ignorance till the true light came in with Luther Yet in this last age England hath yeelded many learned men among others an vnkle of yours and Master of Arts who left all his hopes for his conscience and would not bee perswaded to returne to his great possibilities which
much strengthens and confirmes you I. D. By Catholike you still meane Roman for Catholike Roman are now growne convertible tearmes a mystery that the Primitiue Church never so much as dreamed of But what No outward face in England for so many hundred yeares together but Roman What face then I pray was it which it bare some 650 yeares since when the Saxon Homilie of Aâ—lfrick Abbot of Malmsbury not only agreeing with Bertram in this matter of the Sacrament but also for sundry passages expresly translated out of him was publikely appointed to be read vnto the people vpon Easter day before they receaued the Communion Or when the Bishops at their Synods deliuered vnto their Clergie the same doctrine out of two other writings of the same Aelfrick the one whereof saith thus That housel is Christs body not bodily but spiritually Not the body which hee suffered in but the body of which hee spake when he blessed the bread 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 c. The other likewise saith thus The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering and saith that the bread was his owne body and the wine was truely his bloud halloweth dayly by the hand of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in spirituall mystery as we read in bookes And yet notwithstanding that liuely bread is not bodily so nor the selfe-same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy wine is the Saviours bloud which was shed for vs in bodily thing but in spirituall vnderstanding Both bee truely that bread his body and that wine also his blood as was the heavenly bread which we call Manna that fed forty yeares Gods people and the cleare water which did then run from the stone in the wildernesse was truly his blood as Paul wrot in one of his Epistles Thus he Tell mee now good Sir was the face of the English Church Roman when such doctrine so crosse vnto Transubstantiation was by publike authority deliuered to the Clergie and commanded to be read vnto the people or was it at that time other then a Roman face truely Catholike and Orthodoxe You haue heard I suppose of those Christians whom anciently they tearmed Wâ—ldenses and Leonists Your Ranerius saith of them that they had beene of very long continuance even from Pope Sylvesters time or as some say ever since the Apostles so Vniversall also that there was scarce any country wherein they abounded not finally that where other Sects most fearefully blaspheamed God these made faire shew of religion liued honestly among men beleeued all things rightly touching God and all the Articles contained in the Creed onely they blaspheamed hated the Church of Rome What Was the face of this Church also Roman How so being so opposite vnto it Certainely it was rather the face of our Church For as your Poplinerius testifieth they differed very little from vs and in this point of the Sacrament they perfectly agreed with vs. It is true they were charged with many foule opinions but enviously and maliciously as appeareth by the publike Confessions of their Faith and by the testimonie of Cardinal Sadolet others who by commission were commanded to examin it It is true also that they were most barbarously and bloudily persecuted by the Roman Synagogue But what saith Michael Cesaenas who flourished some 250. yeares since There are two Churches the one of the wicked flourishing in which the Pope doth raigne the other of the godly afflicted Whence it plainely appeareth that there hath heretofore beene another face of the Church besides Roman if not visibly glorious yet at leastwise visibly persecuted You adde it is vncharitable to thinke that all this time there was no knowledge of the meaning of Scriptures and Fathers vntil Luther brought in the true light True neither is there any man that saith so Neverthelesse bee it spoken to the glory of God and the honour of the present times the meaning both of Scriptures and Fathers was never better knowne shall I say never so well knowne as now This I haue elsewhere proued both by the causes thereof and the testimonie of your owne men As for your nine hundred yeares questionles they were not the learned'st times The knowledge of languages quickly decayed and blindnesse and barbarisme crept in apace insomuch as by the testimonie of Genebrard Bellarmine Baronius there was never age more Vnlearned and vnhappy then the ninth Century wherein were no men famous either for wit or learning and whosoever studied the Mathematicks or Philosophie was presently counted a Magician Neither were some of the after times over much amended when the chiefest of their Schooles scarce knewe whether Saint Paul wrote in Greeke or in Latine as Ludovicus Vives saith and to haue skill in Greek was suspicious but in Hebrew almost heretical as Espencaeus But blessed be God who in the midst of these blindest times hath still preserued the light of his truth and though envy burst and split at it blessed be his holy name for that greater light of his Gospel which we haue receaued both by Luther and since Luther Hee was a noble champion of Christ Iesus and gat so much ground of the Papacie as I hope will never be recouered againe vntill by the brightnesse of our Lords comming it be vtterly destroyed If England in these latter times haue yeelded such learned men of your side you may be pleased to knowe that it hath afforded on our side also as learned Clarks in the knowledge of tongues all kind of literature whatsoever as any in your Church wheresoeuer if not excelling them Yea but yours were content to forgoe all their meanes and hopes for their conscience And did not ours trow you doe so also in Q. Maries daies Nay did not Archbishop Cranmer and sundry other Bishops to speake nothing of those of inferiour ranke chuse rather to loose their present honours and estates and themselues cruelly to be martyred in the fire then to perish their coÌ„sciences by subscribing vnto the Romish Apostacy As for your vnkle whose domestical example so much confirmes you I thinke hee was a man of no great note sure I am of no great fame either at home or abroad Yet were his deserts far greater I am not vnprovided of a domesticall example able every way to match him yea and over-match him too My mothers Brother I mean that vnvaluable Iewel whose name is renowned throughout all the Churches Who being Fellow of Corpus Christi Colledge in Oxford and Bachelour in Divinitie possessed also of a Benefice neere the Vniversitie and by reason of his eminence in learning as likely to rise as any yet hee readily forsooke Fellowship Friends Benefice Hopes and all for Christs sake and put himselfe into a voluntary exile all the raigne of Q. Mary
tradition of the Fathers was no more but Memoriam facite keepe the memory as we may see evidently in Cyprian Nothing of all which I trow maketh any whit for your meaning N. N. Dr Morton citeth out of Bibliander that it was a most common opinion among the Iews that at the comming of the Messias all the legall sacrifices should cease but the sacrifice of Thoda in Bread and Wine should not cease Wherevpon he is forced against Mason and his directors to say The Protestants acknowledge in the Eâ—charist a sacrifice Eucharisticall He might as well haue acknowledged with those of Basil Frankford and Stancarus what this Sacrifice should be For they cite these words of the Rabbins the sacrifice that shall be made of wine shall not only be changed into the Substance of the bloud of the Messias but also into the substance of his Body And in the sacrifice that shall be made of bread notwithstanding it be white as milke the substance shall be turned into the Substance of the body of the Messias Thus R. Cahana who liued long before Christ and so R. Iuda R. Simeon and others whose testimonies saith Dr Morton are so direct for Transubstantiation as no Romish Doctor for a 1000 yeares after Christ is so expresse yea they are more pregnant then the sayings of Transubstantiaâ—ors themselues I. D. I am very sory that I haue not Dr Mortons booke now at hand by me For I am very confident that where your Author found his Obiection there I should also meete with a full solution In the meane season till I haue procured it which I hope will be ere long briefly thus First the Passage cited out of Bibliander maketh against you not vs. For if it be Bread and Wine which is sacrificed then they remaine after Consecration which overthroweth Transubstantiation If they doe not remaine and the Body and Bloud of Christ only be offered then were those Iewes false Prophets and foretold nothing but lies Secondly the Doctor acknowledging an Eucharisticall Sacrifice neither is forced therevnto by any such testimony nor is against Mason or any other Protestant for they all acknowledge the same together with him But I thinke you knew not that Eucharist signifieth Thankesgiuing or else you would never haue thought it strange he should acknowledge a Sacrifice of Thanksgiuing Lastly I am strongly perswaded that when these testimonies of R. Cahana R. Iuda R. Simeon and the rest shall come to the ripping they will proue Hippocentaurs and meere fictions For supposing you are in the right is it likely that such fellowes as these should either know or speake more clearly of the mysteries of our Faith then any of the ancient Prophets inspired of the holy Ghost and sent of purpose to foretell to them Or is it probable that your greatest Rabbins and among them Cardinall Bellarmine searching curiously into every corner to find witnesses of all sorts would yet carelesly omit these if they were so plaine and pregnant for you as you pretend Verily when the Doctor saith that no Doctor for a 1000 yeares after Christ no nor Transubstantiator almost ever spake more plainely it is a meere flout and argues how lightly he esteemes of the authority But of this enough vntill I bee more certainly informed Only thus to alleage Iewes is not to approue your sense of the Fathers N. N. The now Archb. of Canterbury saith and with him Midleton agreeth that Berengarius was called into question for denying Transubstantiation and he yeelded once or twice to recant and abiure the Doctrine he held Ergo hee assureth vs Transubstantiation was the Doctrine of the Church constant and generall hundreds of yeares before the Lateran councell defined it yea farther hee assureth vs that to deny it was Heresy to be recanted I. D. Had not your Author wanted or forehead or braine or both he would never haue made such a shamelesse senselesse inference If he had said Ergo many beleeued Transubstantiation before the Lateran councell hee had kept his tongue within compasse but saying Ergo it was the constant and generall doctrine for hundred of yeares before his mouth overfloweth it is a lye with a latchet For be it knowne vnto you the Church of England held it not as I haue already proued out of the Homily of Abbat Aelfrick Neither did the Waldenses hold it whose number yet was very great and they dispersed through all the countries of Christendome And if you thinke that Berengarius stood single by himselfe in this point you are much deceaued for hee had as many for him as were against him and it was nothing but the tyranny of the B. of Rome that bare him down Howbeit the French Churches still resisted both him and his Synods divers meeting together in Anjow and Turon resolue against him and subscribe vnto Berengarius But to put the matter out of all doubt it is reported of Pope Hildebrand that he appointed a Fast of three daies together with a solemn Procession to entreat of God some signe from heaven whereby he might be assured what he was to determine in this businesse If at that time the head of the Church himselfe staggered and doubted which way to resolue is it credible that the rest of the body could bee so setled therein as generally constantly for hundreds of yeares to maintaine it Apellas the Iew may beleeue it if hee list not I. Breefly Transubstantiation might well be disputed of some while before the Lateran Councell but held for an Article of Faith it was not vntill then as I haue elsewhere shewed out of Tonstal and Scotus N. N. The same Bishop and Dr Field tell vs that the Greeke Church is a true Church Yet their Patriarch Ieremie saith It is the iudgement of the Church that in the holy supper after consecration and benediction the bread passeth and is changed into his Body and the Wine into his Bloud I. D. Yet the same Bishop and Doctor tell you also that a true Church may erre so that Transubstantiation might be an errour though the Grecians held it But the truth is that the Greeke Church never held it as I haue aboue shewed out of the same Ieremie the Councell of Florence which you are bound to beleeue For though the Patriarch say Bread is changed into Body yet hee addeth by and by the flesh of the Lord which he carried about him was not giuen to the Apostles to eat nor his bloud to drinke nor is now in the divine celebration of those mysteries which directly overturneth your Change by Transubstantiation But of this see more aboue And thus much in answer vnto your first reason which before I passe vnto the next I must craue leaue to retort vpon you If you may not yeeld vnto the sense I giue the Fathers because some Protestants allow your sense neither may I yeeld to the sense you giue because many Papists allow mine For there is the same law
say that he brought forth Bread and Wine and not to God as an Oblation but to Abraham for his refection If he had offered vp Bread Wine as a Sacrifice to God how commeth it to passe that the Apostle comparing the Priesthood of Christ and Melchizedeck so particularly maketh no mention at all thereof For certainly the point being so materiall and the place so fit it must needs bee great ignorance or negligence to omit it To say nothing that if your owne reason be good the Sacrifice of Melchizedeck shall be inferiour to that of Aaron Bread and Wine being of lesse value and not so evidently representing the death of Christ as the slaying of Beasts doth Secondly you say that the true Flesh of Christ is contained in this Sacrament and that the ancient Fathers with one consent testifie the same which in your sense and meaning is vtterly false For neither is the Flesh of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread by Transubstantiation neither doth any of the ancient Fathers testifie it as in the sequele God willing shall more plainely appeare Thirdly where you say and many others as my Author setteth downe it seemeth that in this point you beleeue but by an Attornie pinning your Faith vnto the credit of I knowe not whom The true flesh of Christ say you is contained in the Sacrament How knowe you that By the ioint consent of Fathers And how know you they consent therein My Author tells me so And what may he be Peter or Paul or one of them vpon whom clouen tongues descended I trow no but some equivocating Priest or Iesuite A sure rock I promise you to stay your faith vpon You say lastly that the Bloud of the Testament described Exod. 24. Heb. 9. was fulfilled when Christ said This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud False For then hee did but institute the Sacrament of his death and fulfilled it the day following when really hee suffered death vpon the Crosse. And what reason haue you to thinke it was performed in a Commemoratiue sacrifice wherein your selues confesse there is no effusion of Bloud rather then in the true Sacrifice vpon the Crosse wherein the pretious bloud of the sonne of God was plentifully shed N. N. Out of all which Figures is inferred that for so much as there must bee great difference betwixt the Figure and the thing prefigured no lesse if we beleeue S. Paul then betweene the Shadow and the Body whose Shadow it is it cannot be imagined by any probability that this Sacrament exhibited by Christ in performance of the Figures should be only creatures of Bread and Wine as Sacramentaries doe imagine for then should the Figure be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured it selfe For who will not confesse but that Elias his Bread made by the Angell that gaue him strength to walke fortie daies vpon the vertue thereof was equall to our English Communion Bread and that the Manna was much better I. D. The Antecedent being as we haue shewed vntrue it is no matter what Consequence soeuer you deduce from it Neverthelesse let vs for the present suppose it to be true What inferre you therevpon The Real Presence and Transubstantiation How so I pray you Because otherwise the Figure would be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured which is absurd and contrary to the rule of S. Paul This indeed I confesse would bee absurd but how doe you shew it to be so in this particular By a double instance of Elias his bread and Manna whereof you say the one was equall the other more excellent then our English Communion Bread But still I deny the consequence the weaknesse whereof if you see not in this I hope you will in the like Argument The Cloud the Red sea and Circumcision were all as you say Figures of Baptisme and the Figure is euer inferiour to the thing Figured If therefore Baptisme be only Water and suffer no Transubstantiation at all the Figure is equall or more excellent then the thing Figured For the Water of the Cloud the Red sea was equall to the Water of Baptisme and the Foreskin in Circumcision is much better as being part of the Flesh of man What say you now Doth this Argument follow yea or no If yea then haue wee a Real Presence also in Baptisme by Transubstantiation of Water which I suppose you will not admit If no then neither doth it follow in the Eucharist for the reason is exactly the same in both Would you yet more plainely see your errour It is this your Disiunction is not sufficient either there is a Real Presence or the Iewish Figures equall our Sacraments For there are diuers other waies wherein our Sacraments excell theirs although there be no such Presence at all What waies will you say Verily not in the worth or value of the outward Elements for therein they may be exceeded nor in the thing signified for it is one the same in both even Christ Iesus Wherein then Even in these particulars First their Sacraments respected Christ yet to be exhibited in the flesh our Christ alredy exhibited Now as the Faith of things future is ever more languid and faint then of things past so is the adumbration and shadowing of them vnto Faith more obscure also Secondly although Flesh may perhaps seeme better to expresse Christs body then Bread the killing of the sacrifice his death then the breaking of Bread yet in regard of the word annexed vnto ours plainly declaring what they are to what end instituted and what proportion there is betweene the signe and the thing signified ours must needs be more evident and cleare then theirs Even as a Picture to vse S. Chysostomes similitude when it is perfected and set forth with liuely colours better representeth the person of the Prince then when no more but the first lineaments thereof are drawne or it is yet but darkly coloured Thirdly in the Eucharist are figured two things the Death of Christ our Communion with him That without this availes no more to our soules health then the sight of meat without touching it to the nourishment of our bodies That is shadowed by the breaking of Bread and powring out of Wine Not so expresly will you say as by the Leviticall sacrifices Suppose it though in regard of the Sacramentall words the cleare knowledge we haue of this mysterie it is far otherwise Yet this I meane our Communion with Christ is as exactly represented by the Eating of Bread and Drinking of Wine as nothing can be more Finally seeiâ—g the Iewes were strictly commanded to abstaine from Bloud and we on the other side are charged Sacramentally in the Wine to drinke Bloud and in the Bread to eate Flesh our Sacrament even in regard of the externall ceremonie is to bee preferred to the Iewish And thus you see wherein our Sacraments excell theirs Now where you affirme that
so doth Saint Augustine expound himselfe elsewhere Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly Beleeue and thou hast eaten Wherevnto St Cyprian also accordeth calling the blessed Body of Christ the food of the mind and not of the belly But St Augustine farther addeth No man eateth that flesh but first adoreth it Adoreth I grant that flesh which is hypostatically and inseparably vnited to the Deity but not the mysticall signes in the Sacrament for that were foule idolatry Now if to eat the flesh of Christ be to beleeue in him as the fame St Augustine oftentimes affirmeth and none adoreth but he that beleeueth it necessarily followeth that neither Iudas nor any other Hypocrite partaking of the Sacrament eat the flesh of Christ because they neither beleeue in him nor adore him which maketh strongly against Transubstantiation The third Author you alledge is Hesychius who saith no more but this that he gaue the selfe-same body which should be conceaued of the Holy Ghost which wee readily yeeld vnto you For the selfe-same Flesh is in the Sacrament truly offered and giuen vnto our Faith But that Hesychius never dreamed of your Reall Presence may appeare by these words His flesh saith he which before his passion was vnfit to be eaten for who desireth to eat the Lords flesh hath he after his passion made fit for meat For if he had not beene crucified wee had not eaten the sacrifice of his body but now wee eat that meat receiuing it in memory of his Passion From Hesychius you returne vnto Saint Chrysostome againe where he saith that Christ is seene on the altar and in the hands of a Priest What literally and with the eye of the body I trow no. For though Transubstantiation were granted you yet is it not the Body of Christ but the Accidents only of Bread and Wine which wee see How then Surely as your owne Sixtus Senensis obserueth Saint Chrysostome is full of hyperbolicall speeches which if they be rigorously interpreted cannot possibly bee true Such is this here and such are those other of touching Christ and feeling him with the hand of fastning our teeth in his flesh of making our tongues red with his bloud that we receiue not the body of God from a man but from the Seraphims themselues taking vp fire with their tongues such as Esaias saw and the like All which Phrases how they are to be vnderstood Saint Chrysostome himselfe teacheth vs oftentimes adding an as it were vnto them As hauing said The spirituall blood floweth on the table within a few lines after he saith Thinke that the saving blood issueth as it were out of the divine and vnpolluted side and that thou doest as it were sucke it from his side In like manner doth Theophilact his Abridger interpret him For whereas Chrysostome saith Wee are in this Sacrament mingled with Christ Theophylact for explanation addeth after a certaine manner Whereby it is manifest that the meanin of your author in this passage also is as if hee had said Thou seest him as it were on the Altar and as it were in the hands of the Priest that is Sacramentally and by Faith for with other eyes then those of the spirit he is not there to be discerned But if wee come with faith according to that which elsewhere he saith Without doubt wee shall see him lying in the cratch for this table is vnto vs insteed of the cratch Lastly you vouch Saint Augustine the second time where he saith that Christ in his last supper bare himselfe in his owne hands Wherevnto I might answere that Saint Augustine whether misled by a wrong translation or vpon some other mistake was much overseene to alledge that for Scripture and to make it his ground which is no where to be found in Scripture For the text intended by him hath it farre otherwise then so The vulgar Bible saith Hee fell downe or reeled betweene their hands Saint Basil He was carried by the hands of the servants The Originall He plaid the foole or madman in their hand or while he was in their power All which is much differing from that of Saint Augustine He was carried in his owne hands And no marvaile if a fained text which hee vnderstood not drew from him such a violent interpretation To say nothing how carelesse hee is of the letter in his Enarrations vpon the Psalmes and how hardly it beareth his Mysticall constructions But this notwithstanding Saint Augustine you will say plainely deliuereth his judgement touching the Sacrament when hee saith Christ therein was carried in his owne hands Not so plainely for your purpose if Saint Augustine who knew his owne meaning best may be his owne interpreter For thus doth he expound himselfe How was he carried in his owne hands Because when hee commended his very Body and blood he tooke into his hands that which the faithfull know and after a sort carried himselfe when he said This is my Body He saith not Really or Substantially or Corporally but after a sort even as elsewhere also The Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine manner the body of Christ that is to say Sacramentally Significatiuely For if he had meant properly and litterally hee would never haue said after a sort but speaking in that manner it is evident he meant improperly and figuratiuely He carried himselfe that is the Sacrament or Symbole of himselfe N. N. But yet farther Thou must knowe and hold for most certaine saith S. Cyril that this which seemeth to bee Bread is not Bread but Christs body though the tast doth iudge it Bread And againe in the same Father Vnder the forme or shew of Bread is giuen to thee the Body of Christ and vnder the forme or shape of Wine is giuen to thee the Bloud of Christ. And S. Chrysostome to the same effect We must not beleeue our senses easie to bee beguiled c. We must simply and without all ambiguitie beleeue the words of Christ This is my Body c. How many say now alwaies I would see him I would behold his visage his vestments c. But hee doth more then this for he giueth himselfe not only to be seene but to be touched also handled and eaten by thee I. D. First what if I should except against this Cyril as an vnsufficient witnesse For perhaps he deserueth it and so doing I shall not at all wrong him That there was an ancient Father of that name Bishop of Hierusalem I confesse that he wrote Catechismes is testified by S. Hierom but withall that he wrote them in his youth and long before he was Bishop which much elevateth the weight of his testimonie Howbeit you are father to knowe that those Catecheticall bookes now entitled vnto him are but of a very late edition For your owne Harding acknowledgeth that in his time namely about sixtie yeares since
it is bread saith he but after consecration of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. And againe before the words of Christ be vttered in the consecration the Chalice is full of Wine and Water but when the words of Christ haue wrought their effect there is made the bloud that redeemed the People I. D. Whether those bookes of the Sacraments here cited by you vnder the name of Ambrose be his or no is not agreed vpon by all Possevine the Iesuite affirming that all almost together with Cardinal Bellarmine hold them to be legitimate plainely insinuates by the word almost that some are of another minde Their reasons are first because the stile much differeth from that of Ambrose his being cleare perspicuous florid and elaborate this oftentimes negligent harsh rude savouring of Monkish barbarisme Secondly because no writer before Lanfrank Guitmund who liued six hundred yeares after Ambrose quote them which were strange if they be his especially considering the matter of these bookes and how commonly the rest of his writings were alleaged Lastly because repeating the Lords Prayer hee deliuereth the sixt Petition in these words And suffer vs not to bee led into temptation whereas the words of Christ are And lead vs not into temptation which it is not to bee thought that S. Ambrose either was ignorant of or meant to amend As touching the other booke de Imitandis you should say de mysterijs initiandis the same iudgement haue they as of the former But if you will let them bee Saint Ambroses For I meane not to be peremptory herein What would you conclude out of him That hee denies it expresly to bee bread after consecration Certainely in expresse tearmes he doth not All he saith is that after consecration bread is made flesh and wine bloud out of which it followeth not that it ceaseth to be bread and wine for S. Ambrose himselfe affirmeth that this notwithstāding they still remaine what they were If saith he there bee so great power in the word of the Lord Iesus that they should beginne to bee that which they were not how much more effectuall is it that they be what they were yet be changed into another thing But how may this be will you say that it should remaine bread and yet be made flesh Let S. Chrysostome resolue you The grace of God saith he sanctifying the bread it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the name of the Lords body Yea and S. Ambrose himselfe also The Lord Iesus himselfe saith he cryeth this is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly words it is named another kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He saith his Bloud Before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud Where by the way I cannot but marvel at the fore-head of your Cardinall Bellarmine who vouching this place changeth that clause the body of Christ is signified into this it is the body of Christ. Happily he did not brooke the word signifie because it cleareth this point of the Real Presence more then willingly he would But hereby it is evident how bread may be made flesh and yet still remaine bread namely because it is made so only typically and in a signifying mystery N. N. Whereas Christ hath said of the Bread This is my Body who will dare to doubt thereof And whereas hee hath said of the Wine This is my Bloud who will doubt or say it is not his Bloud He once turned Water into Wine in Cana of Galilee by his owne will which Wine is like vnto Bloud And shall we not thinke him worthy to bee beleeued when he saith he hath changed Wine into his Blood Our Lord Iesus Christ doth testifie vnto vs that we receiued his Body and Bloud and may we doubt of his credit or testimonie Those things that are written let vs read and what we read let vs vnderstand so shall we perfectly performe the duty of Faith for that these points which wee affirme of the naturall verity of Christs being in vs except we learne thē of Christ himselfe we affirme them wickedly and foolishly c. Wherefore whereas he saith My Flesh is truly Meat and my blood truly drinke there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of Christs body and blood for that both by the affirmation of Christ himselfe and our owne beleefe there is in the Sacrament the flesh truly and the blood truly of our Saviour Eusebius bringeth in Christ our Saviour speaking in these words For so much as my flesh is truly meat and my Blood truly drinke let all doubtfulnesse of infidelity depart for so much as he who is the author of the gift is witnesse also of the truth thereof And Saint Leo to the same effect Nothing at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and those doe in vaine answere Amen when they receaue it if they dispute against that which is affirmed And finally St Epiphanius concludeth thus Hee that beleeueth it not to bee the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament is fallen from grace and Salvation I. D. Your Argument Christ saith This is my Body This is my Blood True no man denieth it The Fathers say He is worthy to be beleeued and wee may not doubt of his testimonie True also and he is an infidel whosoever questioneth any thing he saith What then Ergo by the judgement of the Fathers the flesh of Christ is Really and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament It followeth not For Christ saith not so and his Flesh without Transubstantiation may be present Sacramentally and Spiritually Saint Paul expresly saith The rocke was Christ and he is worthy to be beleeued neither may wee doubt of his credit Yet I hope you will not inferre thereupon Ergo in S. Pauls iudgement the Rocke was transubstantiated into Christ. No more can you conclude the like Change out of Christs words for the case is exactly the same In a word to argue from the Thing to the Manner It is Ergo it is so or so is meerely ridiculous With this generall answere might I at once quit all your authorities but to three of them I haue somewhat more to say in particular Christ saith Cyril hath said of the bread This is my Body and who will dare to doubt thereof Verily no true beleever Yet Papists dare For that Bread should bee Christs Body tropically figuratiuely they iest flout at and that it should be so literally and properly they flatly deny It is impossible saith your law that Bread should be the Body of Christ. And Bellarmine which sentence this is my body either must be vnderstood tropically that bread is the body of Christ significatiuely or it is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot be that bread should
that receaue it The body of Christ not many Bodies but one Body Whence I argue as wee by receauing the Sacrament are made Christs Body so is the Bread But wee are not made his Body corporally by way of Transubstantiation Ergo neither is the Bread nay much lesse is the Bread But Saint Chrysostome saith Not by faith only but in very deed True Yet not as if he that is ioyned to Christ by Faith were not indeed ioyned for as Saint Augustine saith The Apostle deceiueth vs not who saith that Christ dwelleth in our harts by faith He is in thee because faith is in thee Nor as if he would exclude Faith and that a man might be vnited vnto Christ by some other meanes without Faith How then His meaning plainly is this that wee are ioyned vnto Christ by Faith and by charity and that this coniunction is not only imaginary as some may foolishly conceiue by the apprehension of the mind and phantasy or by participation of the spirituall gifts and graces of Christ but true and Reall by communication of his very Flesh vnto vs. Of which more in the next testimony Saint Cyril saith that wee are conioyned vnto Christ corporally by communication of his flesh and againe that in the Sacrament wee corporally and substantially receiue the Sonne of God Wherevnto I answere that Saint Cyril disputeth against a certaine Heretike who held that wee are one with Christ by Faith in his Deity and not by coniuction with his Flesh and to this purpose wrested that saying of our Saviour wherein he calleth himselfe a Vine vs the branches and his Father the Husbandman To refute this he endeavoureth to shew that wee are ioyned vnto him not only by that Faith whereby wee beleeue him to be the Sonne of God and that Charity whereby wee loue him and spiritually embrace him but also in our Flesh to his very Flesh and that therefore Christ not only in regard of Deity is the Vine and wee his Branches but also in respect of his Body May it not saith hee conveniently be said that his humanity is the vine and wee the Branches by reason of the identity of nature And to proue this he drawes his argument from this Sacrament for that by it not only the gifts and graces of his Deity but also his true reall Body is after an inscrutable and vnspeakable manner communicated vnto vs. True it is he vseth the word corporally but he saith also by the participation of the same flesh Whereby he insinuateth that hee intendeth not by that word to expresse the Manner how we are vnited but the Thing wherevnto wee are vnited after a Bodily manner but vnto the Body Else this absurdity will follow that wee by the Sacrament are after a Bodily manner in Christ as well as Christ is in vs for Saint Cyril affirmeth both that wee are corporally in Christ and Christ corporally in vs. Whereas therefore Cyril saith not only by Faith and charity but also corporally he doth not exclude the one but admitteth both as appeareth by that he saith both spiritually and corporally are wee the Branches and Christ the Vine And the plaine meaning is that not only in regard of the Spirit or Deity of Christ and our faith charity but also in respect of his very Flesh are wee truly ioyned vnto him More briefly wee are vnited not to his Divinity or Humanity alone but vnto both N. N. Wherevnto for more explication addeth Theophilact When Christ said this is my Body hee shewed that it was his very Body indeede and not any Figure correspondent therevnto for he said not This is the figure of my body but this is my body By which words the bread is transformed by an vnspeakable operation though to vs it seeme still bread And againe in another place Behold that the Bread which is eaten by vs in the mysteries is not only a figuration of Christs flesh but the very flesh indeed for that the Bread is transformed by secret words into the flesh And another Father more ancient then he aboue twelue hundred yeares past handled these words of Christ This is my Body saith It is not the figure of Christs Body and Blood as some blockish minds haue trifled but it is truly the Body and Blood of our Saviour indeed I. D. The testimonies of Theophilact I might safely if I would passe over in silence for that hee liued some nine hundred yeares after Christ and therefore is too young to be reckoned among the ancient Fathers Neverthelesse let vs heare what he brings Christ saith not This is the figure of my body but this is my body True neither was it fit to speake otherwise For in the institution of a Sacrament what forme can be more fit then that which is proper to a Sacrament That forme is to giue vnto the signe the name of that whereof it is a signe Hence is circumcision called the covenant and the Lamb the Passeover and Baptisme our Death and Buriall with Christ. The reason because of the resemblance that is betweene the Sacraments and those things whereof they are Sacraments as Saint Augustine saith As also to raise our thoughts from setling on that which is earthly and elementall in them to the contemplation of that heauenly grace which is signified and exhibited by them as Theodoret saith But of this what doth he collect That it is his very body indeed and not any figure thereof Not any Figure Those that are both his ancestors and betters say otherwise Tertullian The bread that was taken and given to the Disciples Christ made his body saying This is my body that is the Figure of my body Augustine The Lord did not sticke to say This is my body when hee gaue the signe of his body And againe The Lord at his supper commended and deliuered to his Disciples the figure of his body and blood Amhrose The new Testament is confirmed by blood in a Figure of which blood wee receiue the mysticall cup. Hierom Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it transfiguring his body into the bread Finally for it would be infinite to alledge all what more frequent in the writings of the Fathers then Signes Sacraments Figures Symbols Types Anti-types Mysteries Samplars Images Similitudes Remembrances and the like Against all whose yea Theophilacts Nay is not worth a straw Yet for all this if you will giue him leaue to interpret himselfe I see not but his Nay may easily bee reconciled to their Yea. For in the next passage by you vouched he faith It is not only a Figuration as if hee should say A figure it is but it is not only so not a bare and naked Figure but a Figure endued from on high with the efficacy of the Spirit according to that of St Cyprian The truth is present to the signe and the spirit to the Sacrament As
Heavenly Corruptible and Immortall to bee all one neither shall you ever be able to make the signe and the Thing signified in any Sacrament to be the same Adde herevnto that the Fathers not only say that Bread is a Figure of Christs body but also that when wee are commanded to eat his Body or drinke his Bloud the speech is Figuratiue For as Saint Augustine saith Hee seemeth to command an evill and wicked act it is a figure therefore instructing vs to communicate with his passion c. Now to vnderstand a Figuratiue speech literally is very dangerous for the letter killeth and it is the Death of the soule If therefore Figuratiue and Proper cannot bee the same and in Sacraments when the thing signified is affirmed of the signe the speech be Sacramentall that is Figuratiue it followeth necessarily that the signe and the thing signified are not the same And if not the same then haue you wronged the Fathers saying they are so to bee vnderstood as if they were the same N. N. I will now conclude with two authorities more The first Counsel of Nice one of the foure Counsells allowed by Protestants for sound The words of the Counsell are these Let vs faithfully beleeue with an exalted mind that there lyeth on the holy table the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world which is sacrificed by the Priests I. D. This Canon here by you alleaged came but very lately to light for it is found neither in Ruffin nor in Balsamon nor any of the Tomes of the Counsells heretofore published except those of the newest impression And in them it is set forth in a different letter signifying that it was but newly found and that in the Popes Vatican Library vnder the name of one Gelasius Cyzicenus All which cannot but breed great suspicion and much weaken the authority thereof But what saith the Canon There lyeth on the Table the Lamb of God What Corporally and Really No but Symbolically and Sacramentally Neither doth it say as you translate Let vs faithfully beleeue with an exalted mind that the Lamb of God lyeth on the table But thus Let vs not basely attend the Bread and the Cup set before vs but lifting vp our mind by Faith vnderstand the Lamb of God vpon the table which rather maketh against Transubstantiation then for it For first he plainely telleth vs it is Bread that is there then secondly it commandeth vs to lift vp our mind which needed not if Christ himselfe were there Really on the table where obserue by the way that it is a table not an altar And thirdly that wee are to conceiue Christ Sacramentally to be on the table though Really hee bee there whether wee are to advance our thoughts The last clause of the passage is cut off by the wast and mangled by you I thinke to intimate that the Masse is a Sacrifice truly and properly so called But the words at full are these which is sacrificed by the Priests without being sacrificed manifestly insinuating that it is not Properly a Sacrifice but Representiuely and by way of commemoration Not much vnlike to these words is that of Saint Chrysostome which may serue insteed of a commentarie vnto them teach you that all which the Fathers say speaking of this Sacrament is not alwaies litterally to bee vnderstood What doest thou o man saith he at the houre of the mysticall table Didst thou not promise to the Priest who said lift vp your hearts saying wee lift them vp vnto the Lord And fearest thou not nor blushest that in that very houre thou art found a Lyar The table is furnished with mysteries and the Lamb of God is sacrificed for thee the Priest is troubled for thee a spirituall fire flowes from the sacred table the Seraphins stand by couering their faces with sixe wings all the incorporeall vertues together with the Priest make intercession for thee a spirituall fire comes downe from Heaven the Bloud in the cup is drawne out of the immaculate side for thy purification Thus he N. N. Saint Cyril saith that in this mystery wee should not so much as aske how it can bee done for it is a Iewish word and cause of everlasting torment From which good Lord deliuer vs. I. D. In this mystery wee may not inquire How What of that Ergo Christ is present by Transubstantiation Indeed if the doubt had beene how Bread might be made the body of Christ or how the substance of bread might be turned into substance of his body and then resoluing that it is so Cyril had advised in any case not to inquire How as being derogatory to Gods omnipotence here you had a pregnant testimony for Transubstantiation But Cyril handling those words The bread which I will giue is my Flesh exagitateth the Iewes for demanding How hee could giue his flesh to eat For seeing Christ by his miracles had demonstrated himselfe to be God it was their duty simply to beleeue his words and to know that hee who had spoken them was able to find a meanes by which to make them good and that without such immanity and anthropophagy as they imagined Now if in these Mysteries wee may not be so sawcie malapert as to demand How how cometh it about that your selues take vpon you so magistrally to define it that it is done after an Orall manner and by way of Transubstantiation Your Cutbert Tonstall saith Perhaps it had beene better as touching the manner how it is done to haue left every one that would be curious to his owne coniecture even as it was free before the counsell of Laterane Yet I must doe you to wit that the Question how is not alwaies evill and forbidden The blessed virgin her selfe demanded of the Angell How may this be seeing I know not man And Saint Ambrose This therefore wee say How can that which is bread be Christs body Saint Augustine some may thinke with himselfe how is bread his body Neither did they offend in asking How because firmely beleeuing the thing it was only out of admiration or desire of learning that they moued that Question That How Which is forbidden is that which is demanded ouâ— of Incredulity Such as was this of the Iewes who beleeued not Christ but reiected his saying as requiring some savage or inhumane thing to be done Hence Cyril It had beene meet that they had first set the roots of Faith in their minds and then to haue enquired those things that are to bee â—uquired but they before they beleeued enquired out of season For this cause our Lord did not expound how that thing might be brought to passe but exhorteth that it be sought by faith By all which you may perceiue that these words of Cyril are obiected to little purpose For your words are not Christs words neither hath he taught vs any such Reall Presence by Transubstantiation His words wee stedfastly
it is said in expresse words that he tooke Bread and what he tooke he blessed what he blessed he brake and what he brake he gaâ—e to his Disciples and what he gaue he bid them take and eat of what they tooke and eat he said This is my body Of bread therefore he said it there being nothing before spoken of nor nothing else present whereof it could be spoken but only Bread And if our Saviour himselfe made no scruple at all to call his Body bread why should you think it strange if he vouchsafe also to call bread by the name of his body Adde herevnto the testimony of the Fathers Iustin Martyr We be taught that the sanctified food which nourisheth our flesh and bloud and what is that but Bread is the flesh and bloud of that Iesu. Irenaeus How shall it appeare to them that the bread on which they giue thankes is the body of their Lord and the cup his bloud if they grant not Christ to be the sonne of the Creator of the world Tertullian So Christ taught vs calling bread his body And againe Why doth Christ there call bread his body Cyprian Christ called bread made of many graines his body and Wine prest out of many grapes his blood Hierom Let vs learne that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his Disciples is the Lords body himselfe saying to them Take yee eat yee this is my body Athanasius or the Comment vnder his name What is the bread The body of Christ. Epiphanius Of that which is oblong or roule figure and senselesse in power the Lord would say by grace this is my body Cyril Christ thus avoucheth and saith of bread this is my body Theodoret In the very giuing of the mysteries he called bread his body Thus the Fathers To whom I may adde some of your owne men also as Gerson Wee must say that the article This doth demonstrate the substance of bread And Stephen Gardiner Christ manifestly saith This is my body demonstrating bread And the Canon Qui manducat bread is the body of Christ. This being so I assume but bread properly and without Figure is not Christs body The reason because Disparates cannot bee so predicated or affirmed one of another An egge is not a stone nor a stone an egg Besides if Bread properly be Christs body then is it of the seed of David conceaued of the Holy Ghost and borne of the blessed Virgin then was it also crucified and died it was buried and descended into hell it rose againe and ascended into heauen and now sitteth at the right hand of God for all these things are truely affirmed of Christ. The grosse absurdity or rather horrible impietie whereof your men well perceauing they are driuen of force to grant vs our Assumption For saith your Canon Law It is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Thomas of Aquin It cannot properly be said that of bread the body of Christ is made And Bellarmine It is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot bee that bread should be the Body of Christ. Out of which Premisses thus I argue That which Christ saith is vndoubtedly true But Christ saith Bread is his body as wee haue shewed Ergo it is vndoubtedly true But it is not literally and in proper signification true as wee haue also demonstrated Ergo after some other manner What manner Let Bellarmine himselfe tell you Either saith hee it is to be vnderstood tropically that Bread is the Body of Christ significatiuely or it is altogether absurd and impossible Now certainly it is absurd and impossible that bread literally should be Christs body Ergo it is so Tropically and Significatiuely And this may yet farther appeare by that which Christ immediatly added This is my body which is broken for you Whence I thus reason As Christs body is broken in the Sacrament so is bread his body But Christs body is broken therein Sacramentally not literally Ergo so is bread Christs body It is farther added Doe this in remembrance of me If the Breaking of Bread be the Remembrance of Christ of his Death then is not bread properly Christ himselfe for nothing is the Remembrance of it selfe Figuratiuely therefore Herevnto the Fathers agree Tertullian Augustine Ambrose Hierome as is already declared With whom I could easily joyne many others but that it is needlesse seeing your selfe confesse that the Fathers call the Sacrament a Figure Signe Representation Similitude of Christs Body If any yet demand why our Saviour then did not rather chuse to say This signifieth my body I answere two things First the language in which he spake knoweth not the word Signifie but alwaies insteed of it vseth the word is as appeareth by these places The seauen fat kine and the seaven full eares of corne are seauen yeares of plenty The seaven leane kine and the seaven empty eares are seven yeares of Famine These bones are the whole house of Israell It is thou o King that art the head of Gold The tree which thou sawest is thou o King The foure great beasts are foure Kings The ten hornes are ten Kings The Ramme with two hornes are the Kings of Media Persia. The goat is the King of Grecia The like Hebraisins haue wee also in the new Testament The Rocke was Christ. Agar and Sara are two Covenants The seaven Heads are seaven hills The woman is the great citty Secondly being about to institute a Sacrament Sacramentall speech was best in which it is vsuall to call the signe by the name of the thing signified as is aboue declared To summe vp all the Article This either demonstrateth bread or doth not If not then can you not hence proue Transubstantiation thereof for that only is Transubstantiated whereof he spake If yea then is the speech Figuratiue and Bread remaines For if it be Sacramentally Christs body then it is and being it is not abolished by Transubstantiation I conclude with the determination of your owne law The Heauenly Sacrament which truly representeth the flesh of Christ is called his Body but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery Secondly it overturneth the Articles of Faith particularly the verity of Christs Humanity A point so materiall Fundamentall that the razing thereof draweth with it the ruine of the whole Christian Religion For this is the only ground of that great mystery of godlinesse God manifested in the flesh And if Christ be not as well true Man as true God then hath hee not suffered for vs nor redeemed vs then are wee yet in our sinnes and stand liable vnto the eternall wrath of his Father Wherefore according to the counsell of Saint Augustine Wee must carefully beware that wee doe not so maintaine the Divinity of the man Christ as to take from him the truth of his
and vnheard of vntill this time and example whereof you cannot find in any writer Neither finally is the body of Christ it For that is the thing signified and by your rule the signe and the thing signified must be two differing and distinct things not the same Which also perfectly agreeth with right reason For seeing nothing is opposite vnto it selfe the signe and the thing signified are opposed one vnto another by way of Relation they being Relatiue tearmes it cannot bee that the thing signified should bee one and the same with the signe and consequently that Christs body should be a signe of it selfe The conclusion of all is that if neither bread nor the Accidents of bread nor the body of Christ be the signe in the Eucharist then there is no signe at all therein and if no signe then is the Nature of the Sacrament destroyed a signe being necessary to the constitution thereof Secondly the signe as you say ought to be visible and sensible which is very true For the Sacrament being a Representation of the Death of Christ it can no more be expressed by Insensible signes then a Picture be drawne with Invisible colours But in the Eucharist there is no sensible signe Not the bread for ceasing to be it ceaseth also to bee visible Not the Accidents of bread for though they be visible yet are they not signes as we haue shewed but only of their proper subiect Nor the body of Christ for that being covered from our sight vnder the Accidents of bread cannot be seene of vs. What Seraphicall and piercing eyes some of your Illuminates may haue I knowne not but sure I am ordinary men see it not and what they see seemes to them rather bread then flesh Your owne men confesse so much and therefore the more shame against their owne rule to make it a signe that I say which is Invisible and cannot be seene so that which is visible and may be seene Thirdly lastly you acknowledge that in every Sacrament there ought to be a Proportion and agreement betweene the signe and the 2 signified 1 thing But in the Eucharist as you order it there is no such Proportion For there is nothing that resembleth vnto vs either the Passion of Christ or the nourishment of our soules by his Flesh and Bloud or our mutuall Vnion and Coniunction in his mysticall body Wherein the Analogie and agreement principally standeth Bread indeed would every way be answerable therevnto if according to Christs institution you would suffer it to bee there For the Breaking of the one resembleth the Suffering of the other and the nourishing of our bodies by the one the nourishment of our Soules by the other and our Participation of one Bread our Vnion and Communion in the same mysticall body But you haue banisht it out of the Sacrament and therefore this Analogie also together with it Besides it there remaineth nothing but Christs body and the Accidents of bread Christs body is one and the same for he assumed not more Bodies And to seeke a similitude in an Identitie or betweene the same thing and it owne selfe is meere phrenzie It resteth therefore to make vp the Proportion that the Accidents be broken that they be composed of divers graines and grapes and that they are able to feed and nourish our Bodies or else neither is Christs passion nor our mysticall coniunction nor the spirituall nourishment of our soules by his body resembled by them But this is a foule heresie in Philosophy and whosoever affirmes it deserues to haue his braine purged with a good quantity of Hellebore For if Accidents nourish then are they turned into our substance and if so then haue wee here a stranger Transubstantiation then of bread into Christs body for that is of one substance into another this of Accidents into substance If your Monks for tryall hereof might for a while be fed with nothing else but Accidents I thinke the swaging of their fat paunches would soone put an end to the controversie and force them to confesse that nothing but substance can keepe them from staruing It may be you will say though the Accidents of bread feed not yet they seeme to feed which is sufficient Wherevnto I answere that God vseth not to mocke his Church with vaine shewes and illusions but as he truly and really feedeth our soules with the body and bloud of his Sonne so hath hee ordained true and reall Symbols and resemblances thereof Thus haue wee learned Christ and no otherwise Fourthly it gainesayeth the perpetuall consent of Antiquity And here to avoide tautology I omit all those passages of the Fathers already quoted wherein is affirmed either that bread is the body of Christ or that it is the Figure of his Body Out of both which as wee haue shewed it necessarily followes that bread remaines and that the words of Institution This is my body are to bee vnderstood not literally but tropically Neither will I alleage such frivolous broken and impertinent sentences as your Author furnished you with for your Reall Presence and Transubstantiation But among many I will select a few choice ones such as shall be pregnant and direct to the purpose For I desire to be breefe and to beare you downe not so much with the number as the weight of them Iustin Martyr affirmeth that by the sanctified foode of the Eucharist our Flesh and bloud is nourished by the change thereof and Irenaeus that the substance of our flesh is nourished and augmented thereby It is bread therefore for the true bread of Cstrist neither nourisheth our bodies nor is converted into them The same Irenaeus saith that the Eucharist consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heavenly Take away bread and there remaineth no Earthly thing therein vnlesse you will say that the Accidents are Earthly Clemens of Alexandria proueth against the Encratites who abhorred wine that our Saviour himselfe dranke it because he dranke of the blessed cup. But the argument followes not if there were only bloud in the cup and no Wine Tertullian What then he would haue bread to signify he sufficiently declared calling bread his body If bread signifies his body then is it not his body Origen That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer as touching the materiall part thereof goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught This cannot possibly be vnderstood of the Accidents for they are not materiall nor of the Body of Christ for that were too vnworthy of bread therefore which in the same place hee calleth the Typicall and Symbolicall Body of Christ distinguishing it from his true Body Cyprian The Lord offered Bread and the cup mixt with Wine That which is offered is Consecrated Ergo after Consecration it is Bread and Wine Againe Wee finde it was a mixt cup which the Lord did offer and that it was wine which he
called his bloud What words can bee more plaine And yet againe the Bloud of Christ cannot seeme to be in the cup when wine is wanting to the cup whereby the bloud of Christ is declared Athanasius He distinguished the spirit from the flesh that wee might learne that the things hee spake are not carnall but Spirituall For how many men would his Body haue sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world But therefore hee made mention of his ascension into heaven that hee might draw them from corporall vnderstanding and then might vnderstand his flesh whereof he spake to be meate from aboue the Heavenly and spirituall food which he would giue Here expresly he reiecteth the Corporall eating of Christs Body and acknowledgeth none other but that which is spirituall Eusebius Bishop of Cesaâ—ia Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that haue followed in all nations celebrating the spirituall divine service according to the ordinances of the Church signifie vnto vs by the Bread and Wine the mysteries of his body and bloud If they signify them they are not the same Macarius They knew not that in the Church Bread and Wine was to be offered as the anti-type of his flesh and bloud and that those who partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord. A knot of arguments Bread Wine are offered they are Anti-types of Christs Flesh and Bloud they are receiued of vs and the eating of Christs flesh is spirituall Your Cyril of Hierusalem As the Bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so this holy ointment is no more bare and common ointment after it is consecrated but the gift of Christ. Not common bread saith hee yet bread and the body as the Ointment is the Grace of Christ. But Grace it is not by conversion into it for it remaineth ointment still but by accession of Grace vnto it Ambrose speaking of the miracles of the Prophets who changed the Nature of things and comparing therewith that which is done in the Sacrament as being nothing lesse at length concludeth It is no lesse to giue new natures vnto things then to change their natures plainely intimating that in the Sacrament Nature is not changed but some thing is added aboue Neture Wherefore else where hee saith in expresse tearmes If there bee so great force in the word of the Lord that they should beginne to bee what they were not how much more operatiue are they that they bee what they were and yet be changed into another thing Lo bread and Wine are changed yet remaine what they were changed therefore not in substance but in vse and signification Saint Basil in his Liturgy for him you make the author thereof He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of thy Maiesty on high who shall also come to render vnto every one according to his workes But hee hath left these Memorialls or monuments of his healthfull passion which wee set forth according to his commandement Hee is gone and hath left vs Memorialls of himselfe Ergo himselfe is not here For remembrance is of things past not present Gregory Nazianzen Now we shall bee partakers of the Passeouer but as yet in a figure though more cleare then in the old Law for the passeouer of the Law I will not be a fraid to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure The Passeouer therefore in proper speech is not a figure of the Lords Supper but both of them are Figures of the death of Christ. Gregory Nyssen declaring the change of Water in Baptisme expresseth it by three similitudes of an Altar which being dedicated vnto Gods Worship of a common stone is made a holy table of Bread in the Eucharist which by Consecration is no longer common bread but the Body of Christ and of a Priest who of a vulgar and ordinary man is by the blessing made a teacher Prelate of divine mysteries Bread therefore is no more transubstantiated then Water in Baptisme the stone of the Altar or the Priest Cyril of Alexandria Doest thou say that our Sacrament is the eating of a man and doest thou Vrge our minde vnto the grosse thoughts that beleeued so and doest thou attempt with humane thoughts to handle those things which cannot bee receiued but only with a pure and exquisite faith The Flesh of Christ therefore is not eaten with the mouth for that were to eate a man but only with a pure Faith Epiphanius After he had given thankes he said This of mee is that and wee see that it is not equall nor like neither to the incarnate image nor the invisible Deity nor to the lineaments of his members For this is oblong or of roule fashion senselesse as concerning power If it bee vnequall to Christ and void of Sence then is it not Christ. Saint Chrysostome before consecration wee call it bread but Divine grace through the ministry of the Priest sanctifying it it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the appellation of the Lords body although the nature of bread continue in it Behold the nature of bread remaineth after Consecration and yet it is called the Body of Christ. And againe If therefore it be dangerous to convert vnto private vses these sanctified vessels in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of Christs body is contained how much more the vessels of our body which God hath prepared to be an habitation for himselfe ought wee not to giue way vnto the Divell to doe in theÌ„ what he pleaseth Not the Body but the mysteries are contained in the vessels if so what becomes of your Reall presence Hierom The wicked nor eate the flesh of Iesus nor drinke his bloud But they eat and drinke the Eucharist Ergo it is not the Flesh and Bloud of Christ. Againe Wee may eate of that Sacrifice which is wonderfully made in commemoration of Christ but of that which Christ offered vpon the Altar of the Crosse no man may eate The Sacrifice then of the Sacrament is not that of the Crosse and the Body offered on the Crosse is not eaten in the Sacrament Saint Augustine The Apostles ate the Bread the Lord Iudas the bread of the Lord against the Lord. Againe He that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth the Flesh of Christ nor drinketh his Bloud although he daily receiue the Sacrament of so great a thing to iudgement Obserue the Bread of the Lord not that which is the Lord and the Sacrament of Christs Flesh and Bloud not his Flesh and Bloud So againe you shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that bloud which my crucifiers shall shed I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament which spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you And yet againe
As the heavenly bread which is the Flesh of Christ after its manner is called the Body of Christ being in truth the Sacramentâ— of Christs Body Marke that which is called Body is not so in truth but only in signe and after a manner Pope Leo Christ being lifted vp into heaven set an end to his Bodily Presence being to abide at the right hand of his Father vntill the times appointed by God for the multiplying of the Sonnes of the Church be accomplished If till then he haue set an end to his Bodily presence then till that time he is no more here Fulgentius the holy Catholike Church throughout the whole world ceaseth not to offer vnto Christ the sacrifice of Bread and Wine in Faith and Charity If a Sacrifice of bread and wine then is it bread and wine after consecration Pope Gelasius certainly the Sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which wee receiue is a divine thing wherefore by them are wee made partakers of the divine nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine cease not to bee And verily the image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ are celebrated in these mysteries And They passe by the worke of the holy Ghost into a divine substance continuing notwithstanding in the propriety of their nature Lo the Substance and Nature of bread remaine and the Sacrament is but an image and Similitude of Christs body What can be more plaine Theodoret Himselfe hath honoured the Visible Symbols with the name of his body and bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature And againe disputing against an Eutychian Heretike who to overthrow the Humanity of Christ had thus argued that as the signes in the Eucharist are after Consecration changed so the body of our Lord after the assumption thereof was changed into the Divine substance hee bringeth in Orthodaxus thus answering Thou art taken in thine owne nets for the mysticall signes after consecration depart not from their proper nature For they remaine in their former substance and figure and forme and are visible and tangible as formerly they were but are vnderstood to bee thee things they are made and beleeued and are honoured as being the things they are beleeued These passages of Gelasius and Theodoret are the very racke gibbet of you Papists wherevnto the best of you know not what to answere but only that by substance Accident is meant An incredible obstinacy and madnesse and needing rather a Physitian to cure it then a disputer to confute it For with as good reason may you say that by white blacke is meant and by Heaven Hell and any thing by whatsoever Lastly Gregory the Great proueth the truth of Christs body against Eutychius by those words of our Saviour Handle mee and see Can you proue the truth of Christs body in the Sacrament by the same argument Verily if that which is neither felt nor seene be not Flesh Bone neither is the Flesh of Christ in the Sacrament for it is neither felt nor sâ—ene And if bread bee transubstantiated only by vertue of those words This is my body then in the Apostles time there was no Transubstantiation at all For as Gregory saith The manner of the Apostles was only by the Lords prayer to consecrate the host of the Oblation And thus haue you a full grand Iury of the ancient Fathers all of them liuing within sixe hundred yeares after Christ and with joynt consent crossing your new vpstart fiction of the Reall Presence To these I might easily adde a long list of those who succeeded in after times as Bede Rabanus Maurus Walafridus Strabo Bertram Waleram Bishop of Medburg Druthmarus and others not one of them in their times taxed for errour in this point But I will only relate what the Doctrine of the Church of England was about seauen hundred yeares after Christ as appeareth by those Homilies that then were publikely read vnto the people The holy Font water that is called the well-spring of life is like in shape to other waters and is subiect to corruption but the holy Ghosts might cometh to the water through the Priests blessing and it can after wash the body and soule from all sin through Ghostly might Behold now wee see two things in this one creature After true nature that water is corruptible water and after ghostly mystery hath hollowing might So also if wee behold that holy housel after bodily vnderstanding then see wee that it is a creature corruptible and mutable if we acknowledge therein ghostly might then vnderstand wee that life is therein and that it giueth immortality to them that eate it with beleefe Much is betwixt the invisible might of the holy housel the visible shape of his proper nature It is naturally corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine is by might of Gods word truly Christs Body and his bloud not so notwithstanding bodily but Ghostly Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housel The body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud and with bone with skinne and with sinews with humane limmes with a reasonable soule liuing and his Ghostly body which we call the housel is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without limme without Soule And therefore nothing is to bee vnderstood therein bodily but all is Ghostly to be vnderstood Thus the Homily and thus much thereof haue I thought good here at large to set downe to the end you may know that our Ancestors in this Iland notwithstanding your loud craks to the contrary haue not alwaies at leastwise in this point beene Papists Besides these testimonies of antiquity wee haue their customes also against you St Hierom reporteth that in the Primitiue times after the holy Communion was ended they were wont to feast together in the Church and to spend the residue of the Eucharist that remained Hesychius saith that it was the custome not to reserue till the morrow as your manner now adaies is but to burne what fragments soeuer remained of the consecrated Elements Evagrius and Nicephorus both doe testifie that the ancient custome of the Church of Constantinople was to send for little children from the schoole such as otherwise were barred from the Communion to giue the remainders of the Sacrament to them Had the Church in those daies verily beleeued that it had been the true and Real body of Christ doe you thinke they would so haue profaned it by feasting vpon it and bestowing it on children Or that they would with such impietie and sacrilege haue burned and consumed it in the fire It is altogether incredible As incredible therefore that they held it to be the Lords Body But of Antiquity enough Fiftly and lastly it implieth in it innumerable contradictions which according to the rule of Logick cannot
vntill Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory being advanced to the Crowne hee returned into England where hee was according to his worth soone after preferred to the Bishoprick of Salisbury Now if so obscure a man as your vnkle liuing but as a serving Priest beyond seas doe so much strengthen you I hope the example of so profound a Clarke and so reverend a Bishop and Confessour as my vnkle may much more confirme and settle me But it is high time to heare the reasons why you cannot beleeue the Fathers meaning to be as I say N. N. Your first reason some of our writers giue the same sense to the Fathers that you doe as Mason Perkins Field Covel Sir Edwin Sands Midleton Morton the now Archbishop of Canterbury I. D. Suppose all this were true yet seeing the sense I giue I haue by sundry plaine arguments demonstrated to bee the right sense the bare saying of others cannot be a sufficient reason why you should forbeare assent But what Doe all these indeed interpret the Fathers as you doe A vast vntruth vtterly incredible saue only to those whom the Romish Circe hath turned out of their wits For would any man thinke that they who so confidently alleage the Fathers against Transubstantiation should notwithstanding in their writings acknowledge that their meaning is cleane contrary to that they alleage thē for Were it not that you haue bound your Faith absolutely to beleeue what every Popish shaueling tell◠you how vnlikely soeuer it be and never to beleeue vs with what strength of reason soever we speake so absurd a thought as this could never haue entred into your mind Let vs yet examine the Particulars N. N. Mason is forced to these Words St Ambrose testifieth that imposition of hands is certaine mysticall words whereby he that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed receiving authority his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may be bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lords steed S. Chrysostome saith in many places there is offered not many Christs but one Christ every where being full and perfect S. Augustine saith that Christ commanded the Leper to offer sacrifice according to the law of Moses because this sacrifice the holy of holies which is his Body was not yet instituted And elsewhere what can be offered or accepted more gratefully then the Body of our Priest being made the flesh of our sacrifice And Cyril Leo Fulgentius and other Fathers haue commonly the like I. D. First these words are altogether impertinent to the matter of Transubstantiation being vouched for the Sacrifice of the Masse and therefore no way opening the meaning of the Fathers for you in that point Secondly these are not the words of Mason but the Obiection of a Papist For you are to knowe that this booke of Mason is written Dialogue-wise as a conference betweene Philodoxus the Papist and Orthodoxus the Protestant Now these words are by Mason put into the mouth of Philodoxus and are indeed obiected to vs by Bellarmin whom he calling himselfe Orthodoxus vndertaketh in that place to answere Whereby you may easily perceaue what credit is to be giuen vnto such cheating companions as your Author is who beare you in hand that the Objection of a Papist is the resolution of a Protestant Which that it may yet more plainely appeare take Masons Answer also S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe saying What therefore doe we Doe we not offer daily Truly we offer but so that wee make a remembrance of his death And againe We offer him alwaies or rather we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place We offer him or rather we work a remembrance of the sacrifice What S. Augustines meaning was let himself declare Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe And yet he is offered in a Sacrament not only at all the solemnities at Easter but every day to the people Neither doth he lye that being asked doth answere that he is offered For if Sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not be sacraments at all And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues Therefore as after a certaine manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of Faith is Faith And else-where The flesh and bloud of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before he came was performed intruth and indeed when he suffered is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascended Thus he Whereof nothing maketh for your sense but every thing rather for the contrarie N. N. Mr Perkins writeth thus the ancients when they speak of the supper haue many formes of speech which shew a conversion S. Ambrose vseth the name of conversion and mutation S. Cyprian saith it is changed not in shape but in nature Origen saith that bread is made the body Gaudentius saith Christs body is made of bread and his bloud of wine Eusebius Emissenus that the Priest by secret power changeth the visible creatures into the substance of Christs body and bloud and that the bread doth passe into the nature of our Lords body I. D. Here Mr Perkins only reporteth the words of the Fathers but declareth not the sense of them That hee doth by and by in the words following The ancient Doctors saith he when they speake of the conversion and changing of bread vnderstand the change of vse and condition not substance In the reading of them therefore the Sacramentall change in signification and obsignation is to bee distinguished from substantiall And we are to know that for 800 yeares at least they knew not Transubstantiation but condemned it rather And all this he proues by the sayings of Cyprian Ambrose Theodoret Gelasius and others which I forbeare here to set downe because you haue them already in my answere Now if your meaning accord with this of M. Perkins I am the gladder If not it was too great boldnesse to say he vnderstood the Fathers in the same sense you doe N. N. D. Morton the Centuriators and others are plentifull in such citations and so manifest for the verity that D. Field writeth thus that the Primitiue Church thought the sanctified and consecrated Elements to bee the body of Christ. D Covel saith the Omnipotency of God maketh it his Body I. D. Quote the sayings of the Fathers they may and that plentifully But Transubstantiation or your sence they doe not nor cannot find in them for they never dreamed of it The words of Dr Field are these The manner of the Primitiue Church was as Rhenanus testifieth if any parts of the consecrated Elements remained so long as to bee musty and vnfit for vse to consume them with fire which I thinke they would not haue done to the
there and how many battles haue there beene fought betweene the Iesuits and Dominicans about no meaner matters then Gods free Grace and mans free will To be breefe there is scarce any thing wherein you dissent from vs that you agree in amongst your selues as our Divines haue at large proved Hugo de sancto victore Richardus de sancto Victore Petrus Cluniacensis Liranus Dionisius Carthâ—sianus Hugo Cardinalis Thomas Aquinas Waldensis Richardus Armachanus Picus Mirandula Caietan and others reiect all those bookes as Apocryphall which wee doe Scotus Gerson Occam Cameracensis and Waldensis affirme the Scriptures to be sufficient in all matters of Faith Stapleton confesseth that the infallibility of the Popes judgement is yet no matter of Faith but of opinion only because so many famous and renowned Divines haue held the contrary as Gerson Almaine Occam almost all the Parisians with â—undry others The same Divines together with Adrian the sixt Durandus Alfonsus à Castro and many besides hold that a Councell is aboue the Pope That a man 〈◊〉 not iustified by any inherent quality but only by faith in the merits of Christ. Gerson Contarenus Albertus Pighius the Canons of Cullen the authors of the booke offered by Cesar to the Protestant Collocutors at the assembly of Ratisbon Stapulensis Peraldus Ferus and others doe justifie That wee may be assured we are in the state of Grace Alexander of Hales Iohn Bacon Ambrose Catharin Andreas Vega with others doe clearly testify That all sins are in their owne nature Mortall Gerson Almaine and Fisher B. of Rochester even by the testimony of Bellarmine doe confesse That there is any merit of Condignity Scotus Cameracensis Arminiensis and Waldensis vtterly deny That Matrimony is no Sacrament Durandus affirmes Alexander of Hales saith there are no more but foure Sacraments That one body should be locally in more places then one at once implyeth contradiction saith Thomas of Aquin. and with him agreeth Aegidius Godfrey de Font Alanus and Henricus The conversion of bread wine into Christs body bloud all of vs saith Caietan doe teach in words but in deed many deny it thinking nothing lesse Finally Peter Lombard Thomas and the other Schoolemen hold not a reall and proper Sacrifice in the Masse as now you doe as your owne Bellarmine is forced to acknowledge It were easy for me to instance in diverse points besides but this may suffice for the present to stop your mouth and to teach you this lesson that you be not so busy to vpbraid others with their warts or freckles your selues meane-while being so full of vlcers and botches For it is fowle indiscretion to obiect that to another whereof our selues are more deepely guilty as here you haue done to vs taxing vs for our petty quarrels while your selues like Amalekits are nothing but stabbing and killing one the other N. N. Your third reason D. Field saith the Church of Rome hath continued a true Church even till our time held a saving profession of truth by it converted nations and divers of that Church even learned are saved D. Covel they of Dome were and are the Church and they that liue and die in it may be saved Willet Kings and Queenes of the Roman faith are Saints in Heauen Yea saith your author Many Kings and Queenes of Great Brittaine haue forsaken their Crownes and Kingdomes to become Monkes and Nunnes I. D. That which you obiect out of D. Field D. Field him selfe hath long since at large answered I will contract it as briefly as I can The Summe is the Roman Church is not now the same it was before Luther His reasons First the then Church was the whole number of Christians subiect to the Papal tyranny of whom many desired to be free of the yoke and as soone as Luther began to oppose shooke it off but the now Church is the multitude of those that adore the plenitude of Papal power or are content to be vnder the yoke still Secondly the Roman Church then consisted of men not hauing meanes of information and so not erring pertinaciously but the now Church consisteth of those who obstinately resist the truth or at least consent in outward communion with them So that they might be saued in their simplicity and these perish in their contradiction Thirdly the Roman Church then had in it the same abuses superstitions it hath now and those that erred the same errours but it had also those that disliked them and thought right in those points wherein the rest erred These were true liuing members of the Church those a faction in the Church In regard of those it was truly a Church that is a multitude of men professing Christ and baptized in regard of these a true Church that is a multitude of men holding a sauing profession of Christ. Lastly the errours then taught in the Church were not the Doctrines of the Church but now they are the Doctrines of that Church That they were not then the Doctrines of the Church appeareth thus The Doctrines then taught were either those which all consented vnto such as are the Articles of the Creed or those errors which many then taught or the contrary truths opposed to those errors The first were absolutly the Churches Doctrine So were the third though all received them not because they were theirs who were so in the Church that they were the Church But the second were not because they were taught by the faction in the Church and not consented vnto by them that were the Church Thus farre the Doctor who at length concludeth that whatsoever it hath beene the present Romish Church is not that true Church of God whose communion wee must embrace whose directions we must follow and in whose judgement we must rest Yea but D. Covell in the name of all the rest affirmeth that it is still a true Church and Salvation may be had in it In the name of all the rest Why who gaue him that commission and how comes hee to be the mouth of vs all more then any other of his brethren Certainly your Author much wrongs the Church of England and abuses his reader to make the private sayings of this man or that man to be the common voice of all If he haue spoken more largely then can be justified hee must answere for it himselfe no reason the whole Church should bee charged with it You will not endure it amongst your selues and why should you then obtrude it vpon vs To the words themselues I answere with D. Field Some will say is the Roman Church at this day no part of the Church of God Surely as Augustine noteth that the Societies of Hereticks in that they retaine the profession of many parts of heavenly truth and the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptisme are so farre forth still conioyned with the Catholike Church of God and the Catholike Church in and by them bringeth forth children vnto God so
the bookes de Sacramentis was wont to say thus If there bee so great force in the speech of our Lord Iesus that the things which were not began to be how much more operatiue is it that things still be what they were and yet bee changed into another things But now because that clause that things still bee what they were make sore against Transubstantiation in the Roman Edition and that of Paris an 1603. that clause is cleane left out and S. Ambrose must no longer say so S. Chrysostom or the Author of the imperfect worke vpoÌ„ Mathew was wont to haue these words If it be so dangerous to transferre vnto private vses those holy vessels in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained how much more c. But what is become of them now In the edition printed at Antwerp by Ioannes Steelsius anno 1537. at Paris by Ioannes Roigny 1543. and by Audoenus Parvus 1557. not a syllable of those words in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained appeares Why Because they make so strongly against your Reall Presence So likewise where he vsed in the elder impressions to say the sacrifice of bread and wine now in these latter editions hee is forced to change his language and to say the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. More examples I might easily produce but these are sufficient to shew that Vincentius Lirinensis had good reason when hee gaue this Caveat But neither alwaies nor all kind of heresies are to bee impugned after this manner but such only as are new and late when they first arise while by straightnesse of time it selfe they be hindred from falsifying the rules of the ancient Faith and before that their poison spreading farther they attempt to corrupt the writings of the Ancient But farre spread and inveterate heresies are not to be set on this way forasmuch as by long continuance of time a long occasion hath layne open vnto them to steale away the truth But returne we againe to the matter from which we haue a little digrest The Fathers say you differed not in points essentiall True Neither doe we as is aboue shewed yet by your leaue their differences were not alwaies in petty matters vnlesse Rebaptization Communicating of infants the Popes vniversall iurisdiction and the like bee of small consequence with you Their differences were not so bitter as ours No were When they proceeded not only to curse one another but to fire bloudshed and banishment also And when casting off the rule of pietie they did nothing but increase strife threats envy and quaâ—rels every man with all tyranny pursuing his ambition whereby as S. Basil saith the Church of God was vnmercifully drawne in sunder and his flock troubled without all care or pittie Lastly say you they differed in matters vndecided by a generall Councell What then No danger No danger Then belike a man may safely beleeue all he lists before a Councell determine it The very high way to Atheisme For so the very Articles of the Creed during the first three hundred yeares after Christ should be but disputable points and not necessary For vntill Constantine the great there were no generall Councels By the same reason your Adoration of Images was no matter of Faith till the second Councel of Nice about 800 yeares after Christ nor Transubstantiation till the Councell of Lateran some 1200 yeares nor Merit nor Iustification by workes nor the most of your Tenents till the Trent Councell aboue foureteene hundred yeares after Christ. If they were I require you to shew what generall Councell had before determined them If you cannot then are you but novellers and hold not the ancient Faith The truth is Councells cannot make that an Article which was not but whether they decree or not decree whatsoever God affirmeth in his word as soone as it commeth to our knowledge is absolutely and vpon paine of damnation to be beleeued And it is horrible sacriledge and impiety to thinke that it is not necessary to beleeue God vnlesse a Councell of the Pope say Amen vnto it Yea but say you we nor haue nor can haue generall Councels No more can you nor any Church in Christendome without the generall consent of Christian Princes Synods of our owne Churches we may haue and haue had by the indulgence of our Princes More then this you cannot haue For you are but a handful of the Christian world and the greatest part thereof neither is nor will bee subject vnto you When you can get the Greek Church and that in Prester Iohns countrey with the Armenians and others to submit themselues vnto the Popes omnipotent and vbiquitaâ—y power then may you peradventure haue hope to call a generall Councell But that I think will be at the Greek Kalends that is in plaine English at Nevermasse Howsoever say you if you may not relie on the Fathers because of their differences neither may you on vs because of ours If this be a sound reason as I confesse it is neither may you rely on the Church of Rome because of theirs But you mistake the matter much if you thinke wee require men to relie on our bare authoritie That privilege belongs vnto Christ only and vnder him to those holy Pen-men of the Bible that wrote by inspiration To vs appertaineth to proue what we say by their authoritie and when wee haue so done to require assent and not before If Scripture and sound deduction from it according to the art of reasoning together with the proofe of the sense thereof by the circumstances of the place and the analogie of Faith will not moue you we can but pittie your wilfulnesse and leaue you vnto God till he turne your heart and haue mercy vpon you For certainely miserable is the case of that man who knowing the Scriptures to be Gods word and hauing the vse of right reason shall refuse triall both by the one and the other preferring therevnto the authoritie of man which may erre it selfe and lead others into errour N. N. Your conclusion is you meane not to forsake the religion taught in that Church which is descended from Christ and his Apostles by succession but with Litinensis to preferre it before all things That you will follow vniversality Antiquitie and consent in your beleefe that faith which hath beene held from time to time in all places in all seasons by all or the most Doctors of Christianity That Church which as S. Augustine saith had her beginning by the entring of nations got authority by miracles was increased by charity and established by continuance and hath had succession from S. Peters chaire to our time That church which is knowne by the name of Catholike both to friends and foes even Heretikes tearming her so calling themselues for distinctions sake Reformers Illuminates Vnspotted brethren In
of Instruction also For if he that is both God and man disdained not to pray it may well become vs that are but dust and ashes to humble our selues to God in Prayer Christs actions are our examples Often had he by Preaching exhorted vnto Prayer But exhortation prevaileth not so much as example vnto precept therefore he addeth his owne practice Hence praying at the graue of Lazarus because saith he of the people that stand by I said it And St Agustine Ita se Patri voluit exhibere Precatorem vt meminisset se nostrum esse Doctorem he so exhibited himselfe an intercessor vnto his Father as he remembred himselfe to bee our Doctor Hearest thou then thy Master pray Learne thy selfe to pray Ad hoc enim oravit vt doceret orare hee prayed to this end to teach thee to pray The practice of other Saints should much moue thee but the example of him who is the sanctifier of the Saints should moue thee much more But most of all vs that are the Priests of God For as he being a Priest makes intercession for his Church vnto his Father so should wee vnto God for the people committed vnto our charge and that not privately only but publikely also and in the face of the congregation A duty now adaies too much sleighted of many causing in the people a generall disesteeme of the publike Prayers and blessings of Gods Ministers The Lord perswade those that are in authority betimes both to looke vnto it and to reforme it And thus much of the Orator who prayes The next circumstance is Quando when hee prayes it was after he had spoken these things These things spake Iesus and lift vp his eyes and said So that first hee spake these things and then lifted vp his eyes and said He spake these things What things If it shall please you to reflect a little vpon the three former Chapters you shall readily vnderstand what they are Our Saviour hauing a little before his passion celebrated the Passeover with his Disciples and immediatly vpon it instituted the blessed Sacrament of his Body and Blood knowing that the time of his departure was neere at hand out of the abundance of his loue towards them he holds them together and in the meane season delivers vnto them matters of wondrous consequence both for their edification and consolation For hauing acquainted them with his departure as also the great sorrowes and afflictions that would attend them after his ascention he telleth them that this notwithstanding they ought rather to reioyce then bee dismaied For he goes to prepare a mansion for them in his Fathers house that he will not leaue them as Orphans but send the Comforter vnto them who shall abide with them for ever that he will leaue his Peace with them and whatsoever they shall aske the Father in his name shall bee granted vnto them Meane while that they continue in his loue and testifie the same by keeping his commandements abiding in him louing one another As for him he will see them again replenish their hearts with everlasting ioy And albeit by the imminent tempest or tentation they may for a time be scattered yet let them not be ouermuch discomforted for he hath overcome the world and after a while he will returne againe and take them home vnto himselfe for ' evermore These things spake Iesus Things as you see for the Matter most heavenly and divine and you need not doubt but the Manner was every way sutable to the Matter full of grace and gravitie Whereby wee that are the Embassadors of Christ are exampled both what we are to speake and how Not what we list or as we list but these things and thus this Matter and thus for the Manner But alas how much wee faile too many to vs either in the one or in the other or in both For some of vs Nihil agimus speake nothing at all or but very seldome drowning our abilities in the depth of silence and digging our talent into the earth without any employment thereof to the advantage of Gods treasurie little remembring that dreadfull sentence of the Apostle St Paul Woe vnto me if I preach not the Gospell Others againe aliud agunt say indeed somewhat but not these things fictions and dreames of their owne braine frivolous and impertinent matters perhaps also Pelagianisme or Popery or such like stuffe forgetting that other as fearfull sentence of the same Apostle Though wee or an Angell from heauen preach any other Gospell vnto you then that which wee haue preached vnto you let him be accursed Others yet againe malè agunt speake haply some of these things but not with due gravity and discretion in this manner little regarding that weighty charge of the Apostle St Peter If any man speake let him speake as the oracles of God Forsome whether out of affectation or for want of better breeding I knowe not vtterly neglect all care of elocutioÌ„ vsing a barbarous kind of rudenesse rusticitie in delivering their mindes enforcing what they say with no other then lowd clamours and vociferation That they hope will bee counted plaine Preaching this powerfull Preaching as if there were no distance betweene plainesse and rudenesse or that Powerfulnesse lay in such hoobubs and outcries and not rather in the strength of arguments and reasons to perswade As these by their slovenlinesse defile and deforme the puritie and beauty of Gods words so there are others who thinke to set a better grace vpon it then euer the Holy Ghost himselfe did For distasting the language of Canaan sanctified by Christ and his holy Apostles they hunt after I knowe not what new fangled and quaint phrases and as they tearme them strong lines as if the stile of the Scripture and those Primitiue Preachers were too low and meane for their transcendent Divinity But to what end are these curious webs And why in weauing them doe they like Spiders thus vnbowell themselues Is it to convert a sinner or to saue a soule No verily but only to catch an Eugè or a Bellè or some such flie of popular acclamation or applause If divers Patients sick of severall diseases as the Megrim Pleurisie Gout Dropsie and the like should repaire vnto the Physitian for counsell and the Physitian should forthwith take vp a peece of Galen or Hippocrates and read a neat and curious Lecture vnto them and so dismisse theÌ„ one hanging the head another holding his sides a third halting and every one with the same disease hee brought with him spectatum admissi risum tenâ—atis could you forbeare laughter at so ridiculous an act As ridiculous or rather because it is in a matter more serious more ridiculous is it in a Minister neglecting his maine end to seek his owne praise by pleasing the itching eares of vaine meÌ„ rather then to cute their sick soules and to procure vnto them everlasting saluation But I
only vpon misprision as some worthy divines haue obserued not well distinguishing betweene Essence and Subsistence whereof that is finite this infinite For Christs humanity though according to its essence or Naturall being it bee not every where but determined vnto one place yet in respect of his Subsistence or Personall being it is every where and circumscribed in no place For proper Subsistence of its owne and in it selfe it hath none only the Subsistence of the Sonne of God is communicated vnto it which is infinite vnlimited Secondly if this Power of Christ though finite yet be incommunicable and cannot passe from him to any other what presumption what arrogance is it in him who not being Christ yet dares say with Christ Data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo in terrâ all power is given me both in heaven and in earth Who therevpon takes vpon him to forge new Articles of Faith and to obtrude them vpon the Church vnder paine of damnation who also takes authority vnto him to make lawes equally binding the conscience with Gods lawes that without any relation vnto divine law at all Who finally for to reckon vp all the blasphemies of this sort would bee infinite pretends a power to dispence with the law of God to grant indulgences for sin to free men from the punishment inflicted by God vpon them for sinne Certainly whosoever challengeth these things to himselfe can be no lesse then Christi aemulus even Antichrist himselfe whose proud vsurpations vpon the power of Christ shall one day bee recompenced with equall shame and confusion The rather because thirdly whereas the power of Christ is not secular but spirituall hee claymeth both and so assumeth to himselfe more then euer Christ did Ecce in potestate nostrâ imperium vt demus illud cui volumus Lo saith Pope Adrian the empire is in our power to bestow it where we please And hence I suppose it is that insteed of the old style Vicarius Christi the Vicar of Christ they now begin to stile him Vicedeum the Vicar of God for that by this they may perhaps wrench in his temporall power which by the other they could not inasmuch as Christ neuer had it Lastly therefore seeing Christ contented himselfe with his spirituall power only reiecting that which is secular let not vs looke after outward pomp or state in his kingdome nor iudge of the Church by such deceitfull notes Rather let vs iudge of it by the lawes thereof and by the rule of Faith professed therein As the power of Christ is Spirituall so is his kingdome also and therefore by spirituall markes and notes to be discerned But to proceed The second point is in quos ouer whom or how farre his authority extendeth It is saith my text Over all flesh This word Flesh is diuersly vsed in Scripture Among other significations vsually it is put for Mankinde As where it is said that God saw all flesh had corrupted his way vpon earth that is all men And againe All flesh is grasse and all the goodlinesse thereof is as the flower in the field And yet againe Except those daies should bee shortned no flesh that is no man should be saued And so is it to bee vnderstood in this place Christ hath power ouer all flesh that is ouer all mankinde Now he that saith all excepts none All men therefore of what age sexe degree condition or qualitie soeuer are vnder the power and iurisdiction of Christ. And as touching the Saints and those that are members of his mysticall body it is questionlesse For to them he is Caput a head to rule and governe them a Husband to order and direct them a Shepheard to feed and ouersee them Hee hath bought them with his most pretious blood he hath conquered them out of the hands of Satan and all that hated them hee rules by the scepter of his word and guides them by the manuduction of his blessed spirit And as he hath many waies made himselfe Lord ouer them and testified his authority and power by his mighty operations in them so haue they freely and voluntarily submitted and resigned themselues vnto him Power therefore hath he over these as over his obedient and louing subiects But question may be made touching reprobate and wicked men whether hee haue any authority and power over them yea or no. For as the Psalmist saith They band themselues and take counsell together against the Lord and against his anointed saying let vs breake their bands asunder and cast their cords from vs. And our Saviour in the parable Nolumus hunc regnare super nos we will not haue this man raigne ouer vs. But notwithstanding all this reluctation and resistance yet power and authority hath he ouer them still Rebellious subiects they may be yet subiects they are Will they nil they Dominabitur in medio hostium hee shall raigne in the midst of his enimies If they will not submit vnto the gentle scepter of his word he hath an yron rod in his hand wherewith to breake and dash them in peeces like a potters vessell And those his enimies that would not hee should raigne ouer them bring them hither will he say and slay them here before me Authority then he hath though they acknowledge it not and ouerrule them he will resist they neuer so much Overrule them I say either to their salvation by converting them or to their confusion by delivering them vp vnto their owne lusts In a word whether they be good or evill how high or low soeuer they be he is Lord of them all Rex regum dominus dominantium King of Kings and Lord of Lords yea Dominus tum mortuorum tum vivorum Lord both of quicke and dead But what Hath he power only of men and not of other things Yes questionlesse For saith David Omnia subiecisti pedibus eius thou hast put all things vnder his feet And the Apostle applying it vnto Christ addeth In that he put all in subiection vnder him hee left nothing that is not put vnder him Our Saviour Christ also himselfe affirmeth that all things are deliuered him of his Father yea that al power is giuen him both in heauen earth Particularly in heauen ouer the blessed Angels For saith S. Peter he is gone into heauen and is on the right hand of God Angels and authorities and powers being made subiect vnto him Hee is vnto them a Head and Mediator though not of Redemption as vnto man yet of Confirmation in the state of grace and though not to deliuer out of misery yet to preuent their falling into misery Hence it is that they are reckoned in the number of those that pertaine vnto the Church that they minister both to the Head thereof and it also reioycing at the conversion of a sinner and desiring throughly to
the Church may be without them So was it for some while after Christs Ascention for then neither was the Christian Church so Eminent as that of the Iewes nor was it Vniversall as being confined within Iudea nor great in number as consisting but of a very few nor in Possession of the name Catholike it being a word of a latter date and such as could not well be giuen it vntill it was growne Catholike So will it be also if wee may beleeue your owne writers in the time of Antichrist For then the Church shall bee darkned all externall communion with it shall cease there shall be no Sacrament in publike places all the glory and dignity of Ecclesiasticall order shall lye buried none shall come vnto the solemnity of the Lambe an innumerable multitude shall cleaâ—e vnto Antichrist even all besides the elect and those whose names are written in the booke of life But lastly whether these things be Markes or no is not now much materiall for it makes little to the purpose wee haue sufficiently proued that the Church is not the last Resolution of Faith As touching the second point that the Church may be beleeved securely for that shee can neither deceiue nor bee deceiued I demand what you meane by the Church If the company of all true Beleeuers that now are and heretofore haue beene including the holy Apostles together with them then I grant it For these were so lead by the Spirit into all truth that they could not possibly erre in any matter of Faith that was either to be taught by them or knowne by vs. But if you meane the Present Church in every age successiuely after the Apostles as here Saint Austin doth referring his friend Honoratus therevnto then I distinguish Either you must vnderstand thereby the whole number of true beleeuers who for the present life in the world or the Society and Fellowship of those that in their time rule and sway most in the Church If you take it in the former sense I grant what you say to be true in Fundamentall points but not in such as are not absolutely necessary nor preiudice the Foundation of Faith If in the latter then I affirme that the Church may both deceiue and be deceiued even in Doctrines of highest consequence neither can with such security bee beleeued Witnesse the time when the whole world groaned vnder Arianisme and the greatest part of the Prelates together with Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed therevnto Neither doth the passage you alledge out of Saint Austin inferre the contrary For although the surest course to put an end to all labours and turmoiles be to follow the way of Catholike discipline which hath flowne downe to vs from Christ by his Apostles yet the Authority that swayeth most in the Present Church doth not alwaies either follow this way her selfe or direct others vnto it as for example it did not in the time aboue mentioned of the Arian heresy And thus much in answere vnto your generall ground N. N. Now I will shew first out of the old Testament how it was prefigured and prophecied and in the new both promised againe exhibited and confirmed by the intendment interpretation of the gravest and most ancient Fathers that haue lived in the Church of God from age to age who vnderstand so the said Figures and foreshewing of the old Testament As for example the Bread and Wine mysteriously offered vnto almighty God by Melchizedek King and Priest who bare the type of our Saviour The shew-bread among the Iewes that only could bee eaten of them that were sanctified And the Bread sent miraculously by an Angell to Elias whereby he was so strengthned as hee travelled forty daies by vertue only of that Bread These three sorts of bread to haue beene expresse Figures of this Sacrament of the true flesh of Christ therein contained doe testify by one consent the ancient Fathers as Cyprian â—lemens Alexandrinus Ambrose Hierom Chrysostom Augustine Cyrill Arnobius Euseb. many others as my author fetâ—eh downe Three other figures not expressed in the forme of Bread but other things more excellent then Bread as the Paschal Lamb the blood of the testament described in Exodus and to the Hebrues and fulfilled by Christ when he said This cup is the new testament in my blood and againe this is my blood of the new testament The Manna also sent by God from heaven was an expresse figure of this Sacrament as appeareth by the words of our Saviour and of the Apostle I. D. This Argument seemeth to be of great esteeme among you for who almost vrgeth it not and that with great confidence It standeth thus Melchizedecks Bread and Wine the Shew-bread Elias his Bread the Paschal-Lambe the Bloud of the Testament and Manna bee Figureâ— of our Sacrament Ergo Christ is corporally and locally present therein by way of Transubstantiation The consequence you maintaine in the next Section the Antecedent in this Wherevnto I answer first that the Legall sacraments and ceremonies if we may beleeue Scripture directly respected Christ So saith S. Paul They are a shadow of things to come but the Body is of Christ. And again Sacrifice and offerings thou wouldest not but a Body hast thou prepared me And hence is it that he doubteth not to call Christ our Passeouer or 〈◊〉 Lambâ— and to affirm that the Rock whereof the Israelites dranke in the â—â—ldernesse was Christ. Yea our Saviour himselfe plainly professeth that the Brasen serpent did prefigure him and that he was the Bread or Manna that came downe from heauen But that those Sacraments and Ceremonies are Types Figures of ours otherwise then by representing the same Substance together with ours I suppose if you searched every corner of Scripture neuer so narrowly you should never finde it therein Adde herevnto that our SacrameÌ„ts are themselues Figures being as S Augustine saith one thing and signifying another Whence it would follow that the old Sacraments being Figures of the New they should be Figures of Figures and Sacraments of Sacraments which standeth not greatly with reason For thus the Circumcision of the foreâ—kinne should figure the Water of Baptisme and water Christ and curious heads might runne on infinitely and as Irenaeus sometime obiected vnto the Heretikes of his time might ever bee devising of types vpon types and figures vpon figures Lastly if the Sacraments of the old Testament were but Signes of ours it would follow that they were ordained rather for the benefit of the Christian then the Iewish Church which is absurd For of our Sacraments which you say is the thing signified by theirs benefit they never reaped any as neuer being partakers of them and to leaue vnto them no more but bare signes that is emptie shels without the kernell how it might availe them I cannot conceaue Certainely all Sacraments
these things hang together for my part I cannot see Would to God your selfe had taken the paines to shew it But this is your solemne fault you quote the sayings of the Fathers and leaue mee to gather your Conclusions I may well thinke because you saw no great force or strength in them And whether Gregory did favor Transubstantiation or no let it be tried by these words As the Divinity of the word of God is one which filleth all the world so although that body bee consecrated in many places at innumerable times yet are there not many bodies of Christ nor many cups but one body of Christ and one bloud with that which he tooke in the wombe of the Virgin and which he gaue to the Apostles For the Divinity of the word filleth that which is every where and conioyneth and maketh that as it is one so it bee ioyned to the body of Christ and his body be in truth one Here according to Gregory the body of Christ doth not succeed and fill vp the roome of bread after the substance thereof is abolished but the fulnesse and vertue of the Divinity which filleth the bread maketh it â—o passe into the body of Christ and so to be one body of Christ. Which how it can stand with your Transubstantiation iudge you N. N. These Hereticks admit not the Eucharists and oblations because they will not confesse that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Iesus Christ which hath suffered for our sins which the Father hath raised vp againe by his goodnesse These words alleaged by Theodoret are reported by him to be the words of St. Ignatius the Apostles scholler written in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses and therefore of greater antiquitie I. D. These words are not found in that Epistle ad Smyrnenses which is now extant Whereby you may perceaue it is true that I said the Epistles of Ignatius are not come perfect to our hands Of this Epistle saith Eusebius Ignatius when he wrote to them of Smyrna vsed words I knowe not whence taken And Hierome If you vse not his testimonies for authoritie at least vse them for antiquity And the Abbot of Spanheâ—m reckons it not among the rest of his Epistles as being doubtfull Yet for all this the credit of this Epistle shall not be questioned by mee I answere therefore the Heretikes which Ignatius meanes were Menander and the Disciples of Simon These denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and consequently that hee had Flesh. Wherevpon they reiected the Eucharist also least thereby they should be constrained to confesse that he had true Flesh. For granting the signe of a body you must also grant a true body Figure and Truth being Correlatiues whose Relation is to figure and to be figured And thus they added aloes vnto wormwood one error vnto another first denying the truth of Christs body and then that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of his body or that it was Sacramentally his body More then this cannot bee meant For I presume Theodoret would not alleage this to crosse himselfe who holdeth that Bread and Wine still remaine and argueth from them for the verity of Christs body because they are symbols of his body as is aboue declared N. N. Doth not the Evangelist Iohn say in the Apocalyps If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke and if any man shall minish of these words of the booke of this Prophecie God shall take away his part out of the booke of life and out of the holy City and the things which are written in this booke Is this malediction or curse lesse to be feared here that we diminish not or put any thing to the words of him that said This is my body which shall be delivered for you this is my bloud of the New Testament which shall be shed for many in the remission of sinnes For when he saith This is my body wee shall put to an vnderstanding saying a Figuratiue Body or that it is spoken by a similitude when I say he saith this is my Body we shal say this signifieth my Body is it not much that we put to his words or by an evill change take from them and make a sense which so great an author God man in no place hath spoken nor at any time did ascend into his heart This man especially with many of the rest answereth M. Downe and all Protestants fully I. D. In this Authority I cannot but greatly pitty you to see how miserably you are gulled and beguiled by your Author For what was this Rupertus but a man of yesterday one that liued towards twelue hundred after Christ and a very Heretike in this point of the Sacrament For he maintained that the Eucharisticall Bread is hypostatically assumed by the Word iust after the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by the same Word This he expresseth in words as cleare as the noone day For expounding that of our Saviour The Bread which I will giue is my Flesh he saith That the eternall word by incarnation was made man not destroying or changing but personally assuming the humanitie and after the same manner by consecration of the Eucharist the same word is made Bread not destroying or changing but personally assuming Bread This he declareth elsewhere very largely shewing that Bread is made the Body of Christ not by turning it into his Flesh but because it is assumed by the Word Whence it followeth that Bread is the Body of Christ yet not his Humane or Carnall but Bready Body much differing from that which he tooke of the Virgin That yet these two bodies may be said to be One because the Person is but one or Christ is one who assumed them both so that the same Christ aboue that is in heauen is in the Flesh and beneath that is on the Altar is in Bread This grosse errour Algerus who liued in the same time with Rupertus confuâ—ed calling it as it iustly deserued a new and most absurd heresie What say you now to this good sir Is this the man who especially among the rest fully answereth Mrâ— Downe and all Protestants Doth he not as fully answere you Papists who cleane contrary to his Tenet destroy and change the bread to make it Christs body Yea but we adde vnto the Text vnderstanding it to be a Figuratiue body That is a shamelesse slander for wee place no Figure in the word bodie but litterally interpret it of Christs naturall body At least we say bread signifieth his body So wee say indeed and so say the Fathers also And to giue the true sense vnto a Text is not to adde vnto it Neither can I conceaue why it should be counted addition in vs to say This is my body Sacramentally or by way of signification more then in you to say it is so by way of Transubstantiation or
retaining the forme of bodily substance by invisible working proueth the Presence of Gods power to be there would you from hence conclude Transubstantiation I knowe you would not No more can you from this And indeed the word species which you translate Forme yea and outward Forme too though the word outward be not in the text doth not signifie shew without substance or Accident without subiect but in the writings of the Fathers vsually it signifieth the truth nature or kinde of a thing So Ambrose I see not speciem the truth of bloud speaking of the Lords Cup but it hath the resemblance which afterward repeating I see the resemblance saith he but I see not veritatē the truth of bloud Again the word of Christ changeth the species of the Elements What is that The Formes or Accidents of the Elements No for they you say remaine What then but the Elements or things thēselues And St Augustin Their meat was the same with ours but the same in signification not in specie that is in kinde So that when your Author saith it keepeth the species of bodily substance it is not necessary to render it by Forme that is Accident or Shew void of substance for you may as well turne it thus it still retaineth the nature or truth of its bodily substance N. N. This graue Father and Martyr doth plainely shew how Mr Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For the Popes and the Doctors of the Church did agree alwaies in matters of Faith notwithstanding the great shew M. Downe hath made to the contrary For here S. Cyprian sheweth you that this food of immortality keepeth the outward forme of the Bodily Substance but prouing that there is present a divine power which is confessed by Gelasius And therefore when Gelasius saith the nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not to be his meaning is the outward forme of the corporall Substance And with this agree many of the Fathers which are also wrested from their true meaning as appeareth manifestly by the manifold plaine places of the Fathers by me here set downe I. D. If to neglect the Premisses and to contradict the Conclusion by the right way of answering arguments then haue you taken the right course and made vp my mouth for ever replying vpon you For whereas M. Downe as you say hath made a great shew to proue that the Fathers disagree among themselues in some points you passing by all the proofes thinke it sufficient to affirme the contrary that the Popes and Doctors of the Church doe agree Wherevpon you farther inferre that M. Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For although hee haue proued by the expresse words of Gelasius that the Bread is not transubstantiated because the substance thereof stil remaineth yet is the conclusion false For Popes and Doctors Gelasius and Cyprian must needs agree But questionlesse if Cyprian for for the present wee will suppose him to bee the right Cyprian doe by Forme of bodily substance vnderstand nothing else but shew without Substance it is impossible to make him agree with Gelasius For Gelasius saith The Substance or nature of Bread and wine cease not to be and Substance cannot possibly be shew without substance So to interpret is to expound white by blacke and light by darknesse and would argue extreame either stubbornesse against the truth or brutishnesse But Cyprian by Forme vnderstandeth not as wee haue shewed Accidents miraculously subsisting without Subiect but them together with the Subiect or the verity and truth of the thing And so hee perfectly agrees with Gelasius and the rest of the Fathers and all of them against Transubstantiation For as for those manifold plaine places by you here set downe I hope by this time they appeare not so plaine vnto you but are all of them fully answered and that without wresting any one of them from his true meaning N. N. Therefore though the Fathers doe sometimes call the Sacrament a Figure or Signe Representation or Similitude of Christs Body death passion and bloud they are to bee vnderstood in the like sense as those places of St Paul are wherein Christ is called by him a Figure the substance of the Father and againe an image of God and farther yet appearing in the likenesse of man all which places as they doe not take away from Christ that he was the true substance of his Father or true God or true man indeed though out of every one of those places some heresies haue beene framed by ancient heretiks against his Divinity or Humanity so doe not the foresaid Phrases sometime vsed by the ancient Fathers calling the Sacrament a Signe Figure Representation or Similitude of Christs Body exclude the truth or Reality thereof I. D. That the Sacraments by the Fathers are called Signes Figures Representations Similitudes and the like is so cleare that you cannot deny it and I feare it greeueth you much to read it in them because it maketh so directly against you Wherefore to salue all some pretty shift or colour must be devised those tearms must bee vnderstood as St Paul meaneth when he saith Christ is the Figure of his Father the Image of God and appeared in the likenesse of man For as here they deny not either the Godhead or Man-hood of Christ so neither in the Fathers doe they exclude the Body or Blood of Christ from the Sacrament And doe they not indeed Why then when Cyprian ere while said Retaining the forme of Corporall Substance did you so hastily exclud Substance and fancy to your selfe shewes subsisting of themselues without it But let vs examine this a little farther A Symbole saith Maximus is some sensible thing assumed insteed of that which is intelligible as Bread and Wine for immateriall and divine nourishment and refection And againe These are Symbols not the truth Sacraments saith Augustine are signes of things being one thing and signifying another It were no figure saith Chrysostome if all things incident to the truth were found in it And Saint Augustine againe If Sacraments haue not a resemblance or Similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they are not Sacraments These sayings of the Fathers plainely shew that in Sacraments they never conceiued the Figure and the Truth to be one and the same thing but that the signe is one thing and the thing signified cleane another And herevpon in expresse tearms they affirme that they are two not one The Eucharist saith Irenaeus consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly And Saint Augustine The sacrifice of the Church is made of two and consisteth of two things the sacrament or sacred signe and the thing of the Sacrament And it is to be noted that they speake generally of all Sacraments so as in the Lords Supper the Figure is no more the same with the Truth then it is in Baptisme And indeed vnlesse you can make Sensible and Insensible Corporall and Spirituall Earthly and
possibly be true at once For truth evermore agreeth with truth and never crosseth it and whatsoeuer resisteth or contradicteth truth is Falshood Hence the rule and the infallible rule of your owne Schoole that God cannot doe those things that imply contradiction For contradiction is not in the bosome of God seeing he is essentially Truth it selfe And being not yea and nay but yea and Amen hee cannot say yea is nay or nay is yea And if hee cannot say it neither can he will it to be so If he cannot will it neither can it be so For what God cannot will cannot bee done Neither doe we herein derogate from the Power of God for whatsoeuer is against his Truth is against his Power and therefore as St Augustine saith Powerfully hee cannot doe it Which being so let vs see whether this Doctrine of yours imply such contradictions or no. First you say that Bread is made the Body of Christ and yet that the Body of Christ was before Bread was made his Body Now if to vnmake that which never was imply contradiction by the same proportion to make that which already is implies it also That which is not made as yet is not and that which is already made is and is and is not be direct contradictories Is it possible to kill a dead man Or to beget the child that is already borne As impossible is it to make him of Bread who was long before he is pretended to be made Secondly to be locally in a place and not locally in a place is a contradiction But that Christs Body is locally in heauen you all confesse and that at the same time he is not locally in the Sacrament you likewise acknowledge Can you reconcile this contradiction Besides what confusion of speech is this Christ is in a place but not locally or as in a place As if a man should say such a one is reasonable but not reasonably or as reasonable and learned but not learnedly or as learned How then Certes as vnreasonable and vnlearned Thirdly I hope you will not deny vnto Christ as much power as you grant to every pettie Masse-Priest But you grant power vnto them to reserue the consecrated Hoste vntill the next day yea vntill it beginne to corrupt and putrify If then our Saviour instituting his supper the even before his Passion had deliuered vnto his Apostles any part of the Eucharist to be kept vnto the end of the next day I demand whether the Body in the Pixe should haue beene scourged crucified thrust through and slaine together with that which was fastned to the Crosse If no as your Church concludeth then haue we here another contradiction Christs Body is at the same time scourged and not scourged crucified and not crucified thrust through and not thrust through slaine and not slaine Fourthly you say that the Body of Christ is contained vnder the Accidents of Bread yea that the whole Body is in every the least crum of the Hoste Yet you say it is much greater then that which containeth it and elsewhere besides the Accidents You say also that Christ at his last supper ate himselfe and swallowed downe his owne body into his stomacke so that his stomacke containing himselfe hee was both within and without himselfe Which in effect is a meere contradiction the Accidents the stomacke containeth and not containeth Christs Body is contained not contained Fiftly you confesse that the Body of Christ then when hee celebrated his Supper did see and heare and moue and breath was weake and passible and subiect vnto death Yet you say that the same time the Body of Christ in the Eucharist could neither see not heare nor moue nor breath but was vtterly insensible impassible and without infirmitie And is not this a manifest contradiction If you say he is passible in the Sacrament but after an impassible manner you shall pardon vs if we answer it with no other then laughter For it is as if you should say the crow is blacke after a white manner or that the world is square after a round manner Sixtly before Transubstantiation was invented it went for currant in Philosophie that the very essence and being of an Accident is to be in the subiect Yet you say that in the sacrament the Accidents of Bread are in no subiect But for an Accident to be and not to be is a contradiction for not to be in is not to be As well may you say a substance subsisteth not or the shining shineth not or the liuing liueth not as that the Accident doth not accidere or befall the subiect Seauenthly every creature is measured by time and place If therefore it bee a contradiction to say such a thing is and yet is in no time it is as cleare a contradiction to say such a thing is and yet it is limited in no place Neverthelesse you say that the body of Christ in the Sacrament occupieth no place Againe if it be a contradiction to say that a man at the same instant of time liueth in the fifteenth and sixteenth hundred yeare of Christ because there is a great distance betweene them and they are not the same number as palpable a contradiction is it to say the Body of Christ is at once both in Heauen and Earth seeing earth is not heauen nor heauen earth and there is such a vast space betwixt them Eightly Aristotle maintaineth that vacuity or emptinesse is impossible if you should grant it infinite contradictions would follow But your doctrine establisheth it For what is vacuitie but a space vnfilled by a Body I aske then when the Cup is consecrated wherewith is it filled With wine So indeed it seemeth but after consecration you say it is not Wine that which is not there filleth it not With bloud then Nor that For that which filleth the Cup must every way be as large as the hollow surface of the Cup. But the bloud is not so for it wanteth Dimensive quantitie Unlesse therefore the Accidents help and they cannot being no Bodies the Cup must needs bee empty and void which cannot but imply contradiction For voidnesse as the Philosopher saith is the root of infinite contradictions Ninthly and lastly if one and the same Body may be in mo places then one at once why not in a thousand And if in a thousand why not in a thousand thousand millions If so then a little point or droppe continuing still in the same Quantitie may occupie as much space as the greatest mountaine or the whole Ocean For so many may the severall places be that all put together may make a greater space then which what plainer contradiction Vnto these few I might easily adde six hundred other as grosse absurdities as that Christ at the same time is to himselfe both neere and farre off aboue beneath within and without before and behind at his right and at his left hand that he is also elder and younger sooner and
Body of Christ. This sheweth they thought the Sanctified Elements to be Christs Body no longer then they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithfull by partaking in them Here wee haue a plaine argument against Reservation and that the Fathers thought not the Elements properly to bee Christs body For had they so thought they would never haue burnt them He intimateth indeed that they thought the Elements to be the Body neither doth any deny it For as I haue shewed in my Answer they all vnderstood Christ as if he had said This bread is my Body But Bread in proper sense is not Christs Body nor cannot be as your owne Bellarmine confesseth How then Tropically only as Circumcision is the Covenant and Water in Baptisme Regeneration And so as St Augustine saith the Sacrament of Christs body is after a manner Christs body to wit Sacramentally the outward signe putting on the name of the thing Signified And whereas Dr Covel addeth that Gods Omnipotency maketh it his Body neither doth this import Transubstantiation For as you might haue learned out of my Answere no power is able to make a Sacrament and by earthly Creatures to convay vnto vs heavenly graces saue only that which is Omnipotent and Divine N. N. Sir Edwin Sands With Rome the Greeke Churches concurre in the opinion of Transubstantiation and generally in the Service and whole body of the Masse in offering of sacrifice and prayer for the dead their liturgies be the same that in the old time namely S. Basils S. Chrysostoms S. Gregories translated And another among all these nations Greece Asia Africa Ethiopia Armenia c. all places are full of Masses there be seaven Sacraments c. I. D. Ergo what That the Knight vnderstands the Fathers as you doe Ridiculous For the now Grecians are not the ancient Fathers Or thus therefore you are in the right Absurd for they are in your opinion but Schismaticks and Hereticks Yet saith the Knight they hold Transubstantiation He saith so indeed but by his leaue I much doubt thereof For the Patriarch Ieremy expresly saith that when our Saviour said take eat this is my body and my bloud the flesh of the Lord which he carried about him was not given to the Apostles to eat nor his bloud to drinke nor is now in the divine celebration of those mysteries What then Surely an extraordinary bread which yet is his Body but how saith hee a thousand tongues are not sufficient to vtter As farre as I can conceaue this they hold that the matter of the Bread still remaineth and the Body of Christ still continueth in Heaven but yet the forme or hidden qualities and properties of his body are after an vnspeakable manner derived to the Bread And because as the same Patriarch saith the better things haue the preeminence therefore is it not from thence Bread but Body And even as Iron vnited with fire becometh fire and yet the matter of Iron remaineth and Christs Body vnited with vs changeth vs into it not it into vs our nature still continuing so the secret properties of Christs flesh being imparted to the Bread by putting on this new forme it becometh Flesh and yet still retaineth the matter of Bread This in my shallow vnderstanding is the meaning of the Greeke Church in this point which as you see no way sutes with Transubstantiation But to put the matter out of all doubt the Councell of Florence held some two hundred yeares after that of Lateran plainely declareth that that Church flatly refused to yeeld vnto them therein And if so then neither doe they admit of your Sacrifice which hath no other ground then Transubstantiation Prayer also for the reliefe of soules tormented in Purgatory how can they hold not beleeuing that there is a Purgatory The rest that followeth is little to the purpose and your other author is so misnamed both in your text and margent that I cannot imagine whom you should meane Transeat Ergo. N. N. Midleton witnesseth that the Dead were prayed for in the publike Liturgies of Basil Chrysostome and Epiphanius that the Sacrifice of the Altar and vnbloudy Sacrifice were vsed in the Primitiue Church that to pray make doles and offer Sacrifice at the Altar for the Dead was a tradition of the Apostles and Fathers I. D. Still you wander out of the way For how doth it appeare from hence that Protestants vnderstand the Fathers in point of Transubstantiation as you doe But as you lead so must I follow There are two Liturgies that passe vnder the name of St Basil the one in Greeke the other lately translated out of Syriake by Andreas Masius Betweene which there is such difference that they seeme not both to haue had one Father Of these the Greeke is the prolixer and as the said Masius censureth neither doth Possevin the Iesuite mentioning it disproue thereof hath suffered much change by many alterations and additions and those superstitious too so that whosoeuer be the Author it is not now the same it was at first That which goes vnder the name of St Choysostome either is supposititious or in processe of time much corrupted In it Prayers are made for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius whereof the one liued almost fiue hundred the other about seaven hundred yeares after Chrysostome And that many things are added your Claudius Espencaeus freely doth confesse So that these Liturgies cannot be of any great authority For as for Epiphanius I cannot yet find that ever he composed any But what saith Midleton of them That the Dead were praied for in them What dead Patriarks Prophets Apostles Evangelists Confessors Bishops Anachorits and the blessed Virgin Mother And for what Not to releeue them but to glorifie God in his Servants and to profit the Church by commemoration of their vertues Thus hee which I trow is not according to your meaning He saith farther the sacrifice of the Altar and vnbloudy sacrifice were vsed in the Primitive Church Suppose so yet hee saith withall that the sacrifice of the Altar hurts vs no more then the Sacrifice of the Table doth you and the Vnbloudy sacrifice hurts you more then vs. For in your Sacrifice Bloud is offered and there is no more reason why you should call it Vnbloudy then Vnfleshy If you say because Bloud is not shed therein I say neither is Flesh broken therein Lastly he saith that Prayers Doles and Sacrifices at the altar for the Dead is a tradition of the Apostles and ancient Fathers But here your author overlasheth for he saith expresly from the Fathers not from the Apostles And addeth yet notwithstanding prayer was then made not after the Popish fashion to ease the dead of the paines and torments of Purgatory but to perswade the liuing that they are not vanished into nothing but liue and haue their being with the Lord which knocks out the braines of Purgatory And by and by This