precepts eate ye drinke ye but in al respects the cup was deliuered at the same time to the same persons when the bread was So that you must either exclude the people from both which I trust you dare not or admit them to both which is the very point that we presse you with Heare what a man of your side thinketh as well of this consequent as of your halfe communion There be some false catholikes that feare not to stop the reformation of the church what they can These spare no blasphemies least that other part of the Sacrament shoulde bee restoared to the lay people For say they Christ spake drinke ye all of this onely to the Apostles but the words of the Masse be these take and eate ye al of this Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles then must laymen abstaine likewise from the element of bread which to say is an heresie yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemie It is therefore consequēt that both these words eate ye drinke ye were spoken to the whole Church I will not take this aduantage that your owne fellow doth proclaime you for false Catholikes heretikes and horrible blasphemers God giue you grace to see whither you be fallen and whence This for your liues you cannot shifte but these two precepts eate ye drinke ye by the tenor of Christs institution must be referred to the same persons and so both or neither pertaine to the people Surely the wordes which our Sauiour vsed in deliuering the cup are more generall and effectiue than when he gaue the bread Drinke ye all of this and they all dranke of it take it diuide it among you This cup is the newe Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you Now the Lord shed not his blood for the Priest onely but also for the people neither was the new Testament established in the blood of Christ for the Priestes sake but as well for the redemption of the people Then as the fruites and effects of the blood of Christ are common to the people with the Priest so should the cup also which is the communion of his blood shed for the remission of the peoples sins be diuided indifferently betweene the Preist and people There is saieth Chrysostome where the Priest differeth nothing from the people as when wee must receiue the dreadfull mysteries For it is not here as it was in the olde Lawe where the Priest eate one part and the pleople an other neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those thinges which the Priest was but now it is not so but rather one bodie is proposed to all and one cup. Phil. The church then might like that the people shoulde haue the cup as the church after did mislike it for many and weightie causes but how proue you that Christes precept extendeth vnto the people Theo. Wee can haue no better interpreter of Christes speech than his Apostle that was best acquainted with the true meaning of our Sauiour Wee haue sayth he the minde of Christ and that which I deliuered you I receiued of the Lorde So that hee did not correct but onely report the Lordes ordinaunce and in deliuering both kindes to the whole church of Corinth priest and people without exceptiō the teacher of the gentiles did neither swarue frō the first institutiō nor right intentiō of Christ his master The cup of thāksgiuing which we blesse is it not the communion of Christes blood The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord the cup of diuels Ye can not be partakers of the Lordes table and of the table of diuels Can you frame vs a reason out of these wordes of Sainct Paul to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking such things as the Gentile there sacrificed to Idols not confesse that they dranke of the Lords cup It is not possible For this is Sainct Paules argument You can not drinke both the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels the cuppe of thankes giuing which wee blesse and you all drinke of is the communion of the Lordes blood therefore you maie not drinke of the cup of diuels YOV CANNOT DRINKE BOTH inferreth they did and should drinke one which was the Lordes cup not the cup of diuels els Paul should haue said you maie drinke neither not the cup of diuels for they might haue no fellowship with diuels neither the Lordes cup for that is reserued for the Priest by your doctrine but both saith Paul you cannot drinke ergo they must drinke one which was not the cup of diuels Againe the cup which they dranke not could to them be no Communion For nature teacheth vs that to be partaker of a cup is to drinke but the Lordes cup was to them the communion of his blood ergo they dranke of the Lordes cup. My collection is so cleare that the vulgar translation which you are tied to by the Councell of Trent putteth these verie woordes in the text Omnes de vno pane de vno calice participamus we all are partakers of one bread AND OF ONE CVP. Ambrose Hierom Bede Haymo and others found it so consequent to S. Pauls former woords and coherent with his maine reason that they sticke not to keepe this addition de vno calice in their verie terts on which they comment So that out of question Paul taught the Church of Corinth to distribute the Lordes supper to the Christians in both kindes and that as he saith he receiued of the Lorde And who◠that hath anie shame or sense left reading the next Chapter that followeth where Christes institution is fullie proposed and largelie debated by S. Paul will or can doubt but the Lorde at his last Supper ordained both kindes for all the faithfull As often saith Paul to the whole Congregation as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this cup ye shewe the Lordes death till he come Whosoeuer shall eate this bread drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthilie shall be guiltie of the bodie and blood of the Lorde Let a man therefore not speaking of this or that man but of euerie man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. And least you should want a generall affirmatiue to iustifie this our exposition take these woordes of S. Paul and quiet your selfe By one spirit are we all Baptized into one bodie whether we be Iewes or Grecians bond or free and WE ALL HAVE DRVNKE into one spirit Can you looke for directer or plainer woordes All Iewes and Gentiles bond and free not onelie dranke but by drinking were made partakers of one and the same spirite uen as by baptisme they were grafted into one bodie Then if Christ himselfe deliuered both kindes at his last Supper
with a strait and generall charge for the cup drinke yee all of this and Paul receiuing his instructions from Christ his master proposed the same to the Lay men of Corinth no lesse than to the ministers excepting none Iewes nor Gentiles bond nor free from this precept how dare you Philander and your late Conuents restraine the people from drinking of it The Lordes cup is the new couenant which he hath made with all beleeuers do none beleeue but Priests For the remission of sinnes are laie men no sinners as a memoriall of his death maie the people loose that remembrance It is saith Paul THE COMMVNION OF HIS BLOOD and the partaking of his spirite haue the people no right to the blood of Christ that was shed for them or will you claime his spirite as peculiar to Priestes which is common to all the children of God Philand The Church I warraunt you did ponder and consider these reasons when shee tooke this order and finding them vnsufficient shee decreed with vs that the cuppe was not necessarie for the Laie people Theoph. What Church I praie you The primatiue and auncient Church of Christ where catholicisme should beginne Wee can assure you no. They ministred in both kindes to Priest and people men and women without exception DIONYSIVS The breade that was whole being broken into manie partes and ONE CVP DIVIDED AMONG ALL the Bishoppe in these twaine perfiteth the holie Sacrifice The sacred Communion of one and the same breade AND COMMON CVP bindeth Christians to diuine concorde and likenesse of manners as being nourced vp together IGNATIVS There is but one flesh of the Lord Iesu and one blood that was shed for vs there is also but one bread that is broken for all and ONE CVP THAT IS DIVIDED AMONG ALL. ATHANASIVS If those be his expositions which you haue set forth in his name The dreadfull cup was deliuered by the Lorde TO ALL MEN ALIKE CYPRIAN How doe we prepare the people for the cup of martyrdome if we doe not first admit them in the Church to DRINKE THE LORDES CVP BY RIGHT OF COMMVNION AVGVSTINE Not onelie no man is forbidden but rather ALL MEN that seeke for life ARE ENCOVRAGED TO DRINKE And againe speaking to the people simul bibimus quia simul viuimus WE DRINKE TOGETHER at the Lordes table because we liue together CHRYSOSTOME as before One bodie is proposed to al and one cup. GREGORIE The blood of Christ is now not powred into the hands of vnbeleeuers but into the mouthes of the faithfull THEOPHILACT How happeneth thou drinkest alone whereas this dreadfull cup was deliuered to all men indifferentlie HAYMO The cup is called a communion by Paul because all men are partakers of it PASCHASIVS Christ gaue the cup and said Drinke ye all of this as well the Ministers as the rest of the beleeuers Infinite are the places which might be brought to make faith that for a thousand yeares in the Church of God the people were not depriued of the Lordes cup. The master of your sentences who liued verie neare twelue hundred after Christ knewe not this maiming and paring of Christes institution which now raigneth in your churches Therefore is the Sacrament saith he celebrated in two kinds that in Christ the taking of soul and flesh and in vs the redeeming of them both might be signified For the flesh of Christ is offered for our flesh and his soul for our soules It is taken vnder both kindes which profiteth both partes If it shoulde be receiued in one kinde onely that would declare that it auayled for the safegard of one part onely soule or body not for both ioyntly The gloze that followed an hundred yeeres after resteth him-selfe on the same reason with the same wordes and shrinketh not from the communion in both kinds but in the danger of sicknes or point of necessitie Insirmus vel sanus in necessitate potest sumere corpus sine vino a sicke man whome the drinking of wyne might hurt or an whole man in case of necessitie where hee can not choose may receiue the body without the wyne Then in the Church where prouision might soone bee made for all and no necessitie coulde bee pretended it was not as yet counted lawefull for the people to receiue the Sacrament in one kinde Philand But if the Church after vppon good deliberation sawe sufficient cause to chaunge that order who made you controllers of Christes spouse Theoph. That vnshamefast harlot which foureteene hundred yeeres after Christes ascention woulde both alter her husbandes will and defraude his children of that portion which their Lorde and Sauiour had allotted them did prostitute her selfe and bastardize her ofspring as much as lay in her and is no way woorthie to haue the honour of a mother or name of a spouse though shee paint her selfe neuer so freshly with youthfull colours And the reasons which mooued her so to doe were as ridiculous as the fact was impious Durandus sayth Non esset decens tantum sanguinem conficere nec calix capax inueniretur It woulde not bee decent to consecrate so much blood as must serue the people neither can there so bigge a chalice bee gotten Gerson beateth his braines to iustifie that which the councell of Constance did in taking the Lordes cup wholy from the people not yet nyne score yeeres agoe and when hee hath all doone hee commeth in with these toyes THE length of Laymens beardes the lothsomnes to drinke after others the costlynes of so much wyne the difficulties first of getting then of keeping wyne from sowring freezing and breeding of flies the burden in bearing and daunger in spilling it last of all the peoples vnwoorthynes to match Messere magnifico the Priest in the receite of this Sacrament Bee not these valiant inducements for you to chaunge the last Will and Testament of Christ Iesus and abrogate that which was orderly kept in the church for a thousande yeeres and vpward And yet these were the grauest and profoundest considerations that your friendes had to leade them to this attempt and these you knowe bee verie miserable Gerson I graunt shifteth what hee can to bring other proofes that both kindes are not simply needfull but why the councell of Constance tooke the cup cleane from the people which violence before was neuer offered them of this I say Gerson a chiefe agent in that councell labouring purposely to shewe the reason of their doings neither doeth nor could yeelde any better or weightier occasions than these which I nowe repeated and the reader shall find blazed with great confidence in the second part of the foresaid treatise O deintie fathers and sleeke diuines which for long beardes and vnsweete breathes for a litle paynes and no great charges for frostes in winter and flies in sommer thought best to correct Christes institution and not onely to forsake the
proper earthly substance when notwithstanding your selues offer thē to God in your masses for the remissiō of your sins redēption of your soules to profit the quick the dead by that oblation You teach the people that nothing is offred by the priest to god the father for remission of sins but Christ his son Your masse where this should be done conuinceth that you sacrifice not Christ but the creatures of bread wine Be you not more thā blind which see not that the praiers which you daily frequent refute the sacrifice which you falsly pretend Phi. As though the ancient fathers did not also say that Christ himself is daily offred in the church Theo. Not in the substance which is your error but in signification which is their doctrine ours Take their interpretation with their words they make nothing for your local external offring of christ Was not Christ saith Austen once sacrificed in himselfe and yet in a sacrament is he offered for the benefite of the people not euery Paschal feast only but euery day Neither doth he lie that whē the questiō is asked him answereth Christ is offred daily For if Sacraments had not a certain similitude of the things wherof they be sacraments they should be no Sacraments at al. And by reason of this similitude they vsually take the names of the things them-selues Christ is offred daily this is true saith Austen but how The communion is a sacrament of the Lords death sacraments haue the names of the things them selues from a certaine resemblance that is betwene them This doctrine differeth much from yours and yet must Austen stand for a christian and Catholike father when you by your patience shall goe for vpstarts Phi. S. Augustine spake this not of the liuely flesh blood of Christ which we sacrifice to god the father by the priests hands for the sins necessities of mē but of his death passiō represented at our masse by the holy mysteries The. In deed S. Augustin spake of that he knew as for your cōceit of sacrificing the liuely flesh blood of Christ in substance vnder the formes of bread wine by the priests hands neither he nor any good author was euer acquainted with it And to say the truth the very spring roote of your error is this that you seek for a sacrifice in the Lords supper besides the Lords death Marke wel the words of Cyprian The passion of the Lord is the sacrifice which we offer Of Ambrose Our high priest is he that offred on the crosse a sacrifice to clense vs the very same we offer now which being then offred cannot be consumed this Sacrifice is a sāplar of that we offer that very sacrifice for euer Of Eusebius Christ after al things ended offred a wōderful oblation most excellent sacrifice on the crosse for the saluation of vs al gaue vs a memorie therof in stead of a sacrifice we therfore offer the remēbrance of that great sacrifice in the mysteries which he deliuered vs. Of Chrysost. Bringing these mysteries we stop the mouthes of those that aske how we proue that Christ was sacrificed on the crosse For if Iesus were not slaine whose signe and token is this sacrifice Of Austen We sacrifice to God in that only manner in which he commanded we should offer to him at the reuealing of the new Testament the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was yeelded in verie trueth when Christ was put to death after his ascention it is now solemnized by a Sacramēt of memorie The verie elements and actions of the Lordes Supper conuince no lesse The bread which we breake what else doth it represent but the Lordes bodie that was broken for vs The cup which we drinke what els doth it resemble saue the Lordes blood that was shed for our sakes When the host is broken and the blood poured out of the cup into the mouthes of the faithfull what other thing saith Prosper is thereby designed than the offering of the Lordes bodie on the crosse and the shedding of his blood from his side As often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup you shewe forth the Lordes death till he come saith Paul There can be no question of this the spirit of god hath spoken it Then if the death of Christ be the sacrifice which the church offreth it is euident that christ is not only sacrificed at this table but also crucified crucified in that selfe same sort sense that he is sacrificed but no man is so mad as to defēd that christ is really put to death in these mysteries ergo neither is he really sacrificed vnder the formes of bread wine which thing your selues haue lately ventered rashly presumed without al antiquity The catholik fathers I can assure you say christ is offered christ is crucified in the Lords supper indifferently So Ierom Christ is euery day crucified to vs. So Chrysostom The death of christ is here performed So Gregory Christ dieth againe in this mysterie his flesh suffreth for the saluation of the people so to conclude Austen The gētiles now through the whole world tast lick the passion of Christ in the sacraments of his body blood If you can expound this you shall not neede to stagger at the rest The church hath no Sacrifice propiciatorie besides the death of her Sauiour and therefore as she doth kill him so she doth offer him in her mysteries If you can not learne by the direction of your own decrees what doctrin was taught in the primatiue church and euen in your own church for 1300. yeres touching this matter The offering of the Lords flesh by the Priests hands is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ Non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Not in precise truth but in a mystical signification or it your gloze delight you rather In this mysterie Christ dieth that is his death is represented his flesh suffereth that is his passion is represented In this very sense Christ is offred daily Chrysostom Do we not offer euery day we do but a memorial of his death We do not offer an other sacrifice but euer the same or rather we continue the remembrance of that sacrifice Ambrose Because we were deliuered by the Lords death we bearing that in mynd do signifie with eating and drinking the flesh and blood that were offred for vs It is a memorial of our redemption Eusebius Christ offered a wonderful sacrifice for the saluatiō of vs al we haue receiued a memorial of that most sacred oblation to be performed at the Lordes table according to the rule of the new testament Augustin Christ is our high priest after the order of Melchisedec which yeelded himself a slain sacrifice for our sinnes and gaue vs a
naught why should it haue chambers A christian Prince may not pardon or winke at your falshood S. Paul hath put in a caueat against that sleight of permitting which in truth is consenting Elie reproued his sonnes yet was he sharply punished of God for his indulgence which is all one with your conniuence S. Iohn saith he that lodgeth or biddeth an heretike God speede is partaker of his euill works Thē how can the Magistrate beare with your sacrilegious prophaning the Lordes supper or licence the rest of your blasphemies hope to be free from your plagues When Valentinian the yonger was requested to winke at the renewing of an altar for the Pagās in Rome S. Ambrose disswadeth him in these words All mē serue you that be Princes you serue that mighty God He that serueth this God must bring no dissimulation no conniuence but faithful zeale deuotion he must giue no kind of cōsent to the worship of Idols other prophane ceremonies For God will not be deceiued which searcheth all things euen the secrets of our heartes This earnest desire to serue God in hir Princely vocation without any shrinking or wauering hath bin so long plāted is so well setled in hir Maiesties deuoute minde that no possible meanes euer could as you presently finde euer shall as we trust in Gods mercy quench in hir Highnesse that religious affection Phi. This the Apostles confessors did often in the primitiue Church S. Cypriā testifieth that some did in his time S. Athanasius himselfe did with the Catholikes in Antioch Theo. What did they marchandize priuate Masses or feede men with demie Communions Did they mock the simple with praiers not vnderstood or weary them with empty gestures They did no such thing but Priest people ioyned togither to celebrate the Lords supper tasting al of one bread which was broken of one cup which was blessed offred thanks to God with one consent of hart voice for the flesh of Christ that was wounded blood y◠was shed for the remission of their sinnes This was done in prisons whiles persecution lasted in chambers if necessitie forced in those churches which the Christians frequēted Straine Cyprians words at your pleasure yet will they neuer be drawen to make for your vanities He warneth the people not to flock to the prisons in heaps least their resort be noted of Infidels by that meanes all accesse denied he rather aduiseth them that a Priest a Deacon by course should visite the Confessors To what end you shal find at large in a leter of his to Cornelius Let vs not leaue thē naked vnarmed whō we prouoke incite to the skirmish but defend them with the munitiō of the body blood of Christ our Eucharist hauing that vertue to safegard the receiuers How do we prepare thē to take the cup of Martyrdom except we first admit them in the church as cōmunicāts to drink of the Lords cup He that cōcludeth both kinds to be needful for such as were ready to spend their liues in the professiō of Christs name doubtles neuer ment to procure thē a priuate Masse that should keep thē frō receiuing of either Athanasius refusing Leontius the Bishop of Antioch for heresie did cōmunicate in priuat houses with such as fauored Eustathius It skilleth not where but what he did our Sauiour appointed neither time nor place to be respected in his supper but the word elemēts charging vs to do what he did which is to breake giue that all may be partakers of one bread to diuide the cup that all may drincke thereof Do that which he commanded to be done who first ordained this mystery Do that which S. Paul receiued of the Lord deliuered to the Church of Corinth do that I say which the primitiue Church of Christ alwayes did and as for places we wil not greatly striue The rigor of penal statutes searches of temporal officers watchfulnes of poore ministers doth maruelously trouble your spirits I wil not requite you with the flames you kindled in England to burne your brethren to dust with that holy house which your Friers haue planted in Spaine resembling the tortures of Neroes garden with the Massacres of Prouince Piemont and Paris Let passe with silence the cruel executions of your inordinate rages God giue you grace to repent your murders past and soften your vnmercifull harts in time to come you were brought vp in lambes lease belike that you startle thus at the fatherlie chastisement wherewith this Realme seeketh your amendment and sucketh not your blood Compare the penalties which you fret at with the lawes of former Emperours and you shall see that hir Maiesties gracious inclination to shew you fauour aboue your deserts hath eased the burden and tempered the sharpenesse of their auncient edictes which restrained such as forbare to communicate with the Church of Christ from buying selling disposing bequething goods or lands by will or otherwise yea from receiuing any legacies or enioying their fathers inheritance the place where schismaticall seruice was saide chappell or house to be forfaited and the Bishop and Cleargie-man to paie tenne pound weight in gold or to be banished S. Austen when it was expected by reason of the goodnesse of his nature that he should mediate for some part of these penalties to be released gaue this quick stout answere Yea marie what else I should gain-say this constitution that you loose not the things which you call yours you without feare spoile Christ of all his that the Romane lawes should permit you to make your last wils and you with cauelling reuerse that which God bequethed our fathers that in buying and selling your contracts might be good and you share that among you which Christ bought when he was solde that you might freely giue what you list and what the God of Gods hath bestowed on his owne children from East to West should be voide that you should not be banished from the place where your bodies rest and you driue Christ from the kingdom purchased with his blod to reach from sea to sea Nay nay let Princes on Gods name serue Christ in making lawes for Christ. You neede not complaine of rigour so long as our penall statutes be farre more fauourable than these lawes which the Christian Emperours established and the Catholike fathers commended Acquaint the world with the persecution that you suffer in England and your vntrue reports shall soone be conuinced The greatest brunt your friends did beare till this last reuolt which you procured if they ioyned therewithall no traiterous intent was imprisonment where no man was denied the freedom of his goods the comfort of his wife the succor of his friends the basest among them neuer knew what dungeon stocks or Irons ment yet say you They were chased from their houses spoiled of their goods and handled
which you doe not Theo. What you list to do is no care of ours if you can shew vs any thing in Christs institution which we haue not we wil giue you the hearing otherwise to ad your ceremonies to his commandements we mind it not We knowe you crosse the creatures at benedixit and hold your noses â—o néere the bread when you say hoc est corpus meum that the breath of your mouthes euen warmeth the host but our beliefe is that his mightie word not your vnpausing spéech or intentiue lookes performeth the Sacrament And therfore your blowing Christs words vpon the bread is rather a magicall incantation than any effectuall application of them to the elements and if you hold that his word is too weake to endue the visible signe with inuisible grace except it be backed by your blowing and crossing we say you be proud disciples no right appliers of his heauenly word and power Phil. We do not help his words as if they were of themselues weake but we apply them to the elements in this present and actiue maner which you do not for when you recite the words a man cannot tell whether you speake them to trie your memories or to coÌ„secrate the mysteries you be so far from vsing any gestures or action that should import application Theop. The purpose of our hearts wel knowen vnto God and made open vnto men wheÌ„ we call them to the Lords table the praiers which we make before we come to the words of Christ directly and plainely tending to that end the placing of the bread and the cup in our and their sight the mentioning of Christes institution and commandement that we should follow his example and continue that remembrance of him the duetifull and reuerent rehearsing the words which he spake as the holy Ghost did penne them this demonstration and supplication that we receiuing THESE THY creatures of bread and wine according to thy Sonne our Sauiour Iesus Christes institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed bodie and blood vsed immediatly before we repeate the words of Christ the breaking and giuing of the bread and so likewise the cup immediatly after they be sanctified and offering them to each communicant in remembrance of Christes bodie that was broken and blood that was shed to purchase the remission of their sinnes thereby to preserue them body and soule to euerlasting life the praiers I say precedent the preparation euident the direction adherent the distribution consequent are signes enough to hym that hath but eares or eyes that we presently purposely publikely execute Christes institution and other hooking and haling of Christes words to the elements by crossing crouching gaping and blowing on them as your manner is we acknowledge none to be required or expressed in the Lords Supper Philand It is no Sacrament but as Saint Augustine saith when the words come that is to say actiuely and presently be applied to the elements Theoph. We know that to be most true which S. Augustine saith Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum when the word commeth to the element the Sacrament is perfite but what haue your termes actiuely and presently to do with Saint Austens speach yea what place could you choose more repugnant to your fansies than this which you bring The element without the word is a weake and corruptible creature put the word to it and then it becommeth a Sacrament Philand You marke not the force of the verbe Accedit which signifieth the word must come so néere that it must euen touch the element Theoph. Can you tell vs how words may touch elements Philand What else By actiue and present application Theoph. This is your old song which we would haue you turne to some plainer note What kind of application meane you with the breath of your mouths motion of your hands or cogitation of your hearts You may blowe vppon the bread and wyne but there is some difference betwéene the sounde of your voyce and the breath of your loongs if you looke a little but to Aristotles Predicamentes and therefore your breath may touche the elements your woords can not Much lesse can your fingers apply your speach either actiuely or presently to the elements you must runne to the inward intention of the mynd and that may direct your purpose in speaking as it dooth ours but not actiuely apply your spéech to come néerer the elements in your masse than in our communion And so the comming of the word to the element in Saint Austen to perfite a Sacrament helpeth you to prooue your reall and manuall application of Christs words in your Masse as much as chaulke doth to make chéese when curds are wanting Yea rather if you reade on but foure lines you shall find your follies flatly refuted by Saint Augustine and a cleare resolution for vs that not vttering but beleeuing the words of Christ giueth force to the Sacraments In the water of Baptisme saith he it is the word that clenseth Take away the word and what is water but water Then commeth that which you cite Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Put the word to the element and then is it a Sacrament Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat nisi faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Nam in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manens Whence hath the water this vertue to touch the body and wash the soule but by the power of the word not in that it is spoken but in that it is beleeued for in the word it selfe the sound passing is one thing and that little woorth the vertue remaining is another thing If the word of Christ do not worke in that it is spoken much lesse in that it is actiuely or exquisitely spoken with square conueiance and nimble gestures the lacke of which is the greatest fault you can find with our Sacraments Philand This is no small fault but yet not the greatest Theoph. You should haue laid foorth in writing what circumstances are required to your actiue application of Christes words and then you might haue béene answered with more perspicuitie Wheras now your obiecting vnto vs the breach of Christes institution in certaine metaphysicall and supermysticall termes neither opened by your selues nor vnderstood of others is but a Iesuiticall deuise to make a brable about words and to get the simple in the meane time to mistrust some-what in our doctrine and doings though they nor you sée no iust cause to mislike But to be short with you if the repelling of your actiue and slipper gestures and hauiours that we might embrace the will and commandement of the high and mightie God be a fault we haue committed many foule faults in this and all other parts of our profession otherwise in pride and presumption you
your pelting quarelles in the eyes of all men that euer reade the wordes of Christ if your owne Schooles in eyther or any of these thinges which you oppose goe not cleare with vs that they bee no partes of Christes institution wee will yeelde to the fault and correct that ouersight If they doe then let your friends conceiue what truth there is in your mâ—uthes and what credit is to bee giuen to your wrangling obseruations sent vs lately from Rhemes wherein without all shame and care you refute not vs but your selues and your owne conclusions that you might say somewhat against vs before the simple and vnlearned were it otherwise neuer so false or foolish and euen contrary to your own Principles But you did well to beginne first you sawe howe plainely you were to bee taken tardie with many wilfull and ineâ—cusable breaches of Christes institution and therefore you thought it safest to make the salie first on vs that whiles we were occupied in defending our own we should desist from impugning your Masse which is nowe nothing else but an heape of sinnefull deuises and abuses inuented by Satan and broached by Antichrist to deface and frustrate the Lordes supper Phi. Who can abide your blasphemies against the blessed Masse Theo. Call you that blâ—ssed where besides your fruitlesse prayers and superstitious ceremonies your prinâ—â—e halfe commâ—nion subuerteâ—h â—he Lords instâ—tution your sacrifice derogateth from his death and bloodshedding your adoration of bread wine conuinceth you of hainous open Idolatrie Phi. Thâ—se words declare your fury Theo. Those deedes shew foorth your pieâ—â—e Phi. You can not proue so much as one of these things which you obiect Theo. If we moue not euery one of them we will acquite you from them all Phi. That shall you neuer do Theo. So must you say though it bee neuer so plaine but to the point Where learned you thaâ—â—he Priest might celebrate the Lordes Supper openly in the church witâ—â—â—â— any man to communicate with him the people standing by and gasing on hâ—m The Gospell is against you for Christ took bread and when hee had giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue it to the Disciples you breake the bread in your priuate Masse for fashions sake but to whom doe you giue it Giuing is a part of the Lordes supper as wel as breaking If it bee needefull to breake the bread because Christ did so wee conclude it as needfull to giue thâ— bread because he did both and the bread is broken as Augustine affirmeth to be diuided In vaine then is it broken if it be not giuen This the wordes that next insue confirme Accipite edite take ye eate ye The wordes bee plurall ergo they bee neither truly repeated nor dulie followed except others receiue with the Priest For his person and action is wholy singular and so perforce you must either chaunge the wordes of Christs institution which is no way lawfull or increase the number of communicants which euerteth your priuate Masse We are all partakers of one bread saith Paul describing thereby the Lordes Supper and with you no man is partaker besides the Priest When you come togither to eate the Lords supper tarie one for an other that ye come not together vnto condemnation which the Apostle spake of this Sacrament as you hearde out of Augustine To liâ—le purpose stay you for them which shall eate nothing when they come The Lordes supper ought to be common to all because he gaue the Sacramentes equally to all his Disciples that were present and your Masse is priuate to the Priest alone Call you this an imitation of the Lordes Supper or a perfourmance of his will when you frustrate the very wordes which hee spake and neglect the chiefest thing which himselfe did at his table Doe this sayth Christ in remembraunce of mee that is neither omit nor alter you this institution but in all pointes doe that which I did before you which you doe not therefore as yet we see not how you can excuse your selues from a plaine contempt of Christ and his ordinance Phi. Is this all you can say Theo. This is more than you yet haue answered or as I think can for all your crakes Phi. It is answered with a word The. Such a word it may be that it will worke miracles but in the meane time how keepe you Christs institution Phi. All the circumstances of time person and place which in Christes action are noted neede not to bee mitated As that the Sacrament shoulde bee ministred at night to men onely to only twelue after supper and such like because as S. Cyprian epist. 63. nu 7. S. Aug. epist. 118. nu 6 note there were causes of those accidentes in Christ that are not nowe to bee alleadged for vs. Theo. That which you say is true but it serueth not your turn The circumstances of time as whether at night or in the morning of place as whether in church or in chamber of person as whether men or women twelue or any other number these things we grant be wholy in different The reason is The Lord neither in his speech nor in his actions which he commaunded vs to imitate did comprise any of these particulars He tooke bread he gaue thanks he brake it and eate it saieng this is my body The cup likewise he tooke and when he had giuen thanks he gaue it them drinke ye all of this this is my blood of the new Testament Do this in remembraunce of me These things be essential parts of the Lords supper commaunded by him to be followed of vs. These if you neglect you neither obey his precept nor celebrate his supper but prophanely and wickedly thrust his ordinance out at doores that your owne deuises may take place Phi. His words this is my body this is my blood of the new TestameÌ„t c. are essentiall parts of this mystery and so are the elements for in these two consist the matter and forme of the sacrament The. And what are his acâ—ions be not they likewise essential parts of his supper Phi. What actions meane you Theo. Giuing thaÌ„ks breaking giuing eating drinking wtout which it is not the Lords supper Phi. These be certain accidents which our Sauior then vsed they be not of the essence of the sacrament Theo. With what words did he command vs to continue this memoriall of him Phi. Do this for a commemoratioÌ„ of me Theo. Let it be in remeÌ„brance of me or for a coÌ„memoration of mee whether you wil so you take not commemoration for Dirges which Christ needeth not since he liueth raigneth in the glory of God his â—ather the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the remembrance of me but the first part of the sentence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do ye this Phi. It is so what then Theo. He that charged his Apostles
neither denying auoyding defeating nor answering What if not one of these fathers whose works you cite as thick as hops euer spake or heard of your external and real sacrificing the sonne of God afresh for the sinnes of the worlde but they vsing the wordes Sacrifice and oblation to an other purpose you force a priuate and peculiar sense of yours vpon their speaches against their meanings Phi. This is euer your wont when the woordes bee so plaine that you can not deny them to flie to the meaning Theo. In deede this hath beene not the least of Satans sleights in conueying your Religion from steppe to step point by point to keepe the speach and chaunge the sense of the learned and auncient fathers that what with the phrases which were theirs and the forgeries which were not theirs and yet caried their names hee might make the way for Antichrist to set vp his visible Monarchie of error and hypocrisie Phi. This is the way to rid your selues of all obiections Theoph. And the other is the way to drowne your selues in the deapth of all corruption but so long as wee holde their fayth and doctrine which were the lights and lampes of Christes church we can spare you their phrases here and there skattered in their writings you no whit the neerer the trueth of their beliefe Phi. You hold not their fayth in this or any other point of your Religion Theo. The greatest boasters bee not alwaies the greatest conquerours Let it therefore first appeare what they teache touching the Sacrifice of the Lords table and what wee admit and then it will soone bee seene which of vs twaine hath departed from them The fathers with one consent call not your priuate Masse that they neuer knew but the Lordes Supper a Sacrifice which wee both willingly graunt and openly teach so their text not your gloze may preuayle For there besides the sacrifice of praier and thankesgiuing which we must then offer to God for our redemption other his graces bestowed on vs in Christ his sonne besides the dedication of our soules and bodies to be a reasonable quicke and holy sacrifice to serue and please him besides the contribution and almes then giuen in the primatiue Church for the reliefe of the poore and other good vses a Sacrifice no doubt very acceptable to God I say besides these three sundry sortes of offerings incident to the Lordes table the very Supper itselfe is a publike memorial of that great dreadful sacrifice I meane of the death bloodshedding of our sauiour and a most assured application of the merites of his passion for the remission of our sinnes not to the gazers on or standers by but to those that with faith and repentance come to the due receiuing of those mysteries The visible sacrifice of bread and wyne representing the Lords death S. Austen enforceth in these words Hold most firmly neither doubt of this in any case that the only begotten sonne of God taking our flesh offered himselfe a sweet smelling sacrifice to god to whom with the father the holy ghost the Patriarks Prophets Priests vnder the old law sacrificed brute beasts to whoÌ„ now in the time of the new Testament with the same father holy spirite the holy Catholike Church throughout the world doth not cease to ofâ—er the sacrifice of breade and wine in faith charitie In those carnal Sacrifices there was a figuration of the flesh of Christ which he should offer bloud which he should shed for the remissioÌ„ of our sins In this sacrifice there is a thankesgiuing remembrance of the flesh which he hath offered and bloud which the same god hath shed for vs. With him agreeth Ireneus Christ willing his Disciples to offer vnto God the first fruites of his creatures not that god needed them but lest they should be found vnfruiteful or vnthankful toke the creature of bread and gaue thanks saying this is my body And likewise he confessed the cup which is a creature amongst vs to be his bloud teaching the new oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiuing from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the world We must theÌ„ offer to god in al things yeeld thanks to god the maker with a pure mind vnfaigned faith stedfast hope and feruent loue offering the first fruits of his Creatures and this oblation the Church only sacrificeth in purity to the creator offering to God of his creatures with thanksgiuing And this we offer to him not as if he stoode in neede of these presents but rendring him thanks for these his gifts and sanctifieng the creature This oblation of bread wyne for a thankesgiuing to God a memoriall of his sonnes death was so confessed vndoubted a trueth in the church of Christ till your Schoolemen beganne to wrest both Scriptures and Fathers to serue their quiddities that not onely the Liturgies vnder the names of Clemens Basil and Chrysostome do mention it We offer to thee our king and God this bread this cup according to thy sonnes institutioÌ„ tua ex tuis offerimus tibi domine we offer thee O Lord these thy gifts of thine own creatures Which sense Irineus vrgeth against valentine but also the very Missals vsed in your own Churches at this day do confirme the same These be the woordes of your own Offertorie Receiue holy Father God euerlasting this vndefiled host which I thine vnworthy seruant offer to thee my king and true God for my sinnes negligences and offences innumerable for al standers by yea for all faithful christians as wel liuing as departed this life that it may helpe me theÌ„ to attaine eternal life We offer to thee O Lord this cup of saluation intreating thy goodnes that it may be taken vp into thy sight as a sweet smell for the sauing of vs the whole world Receiue blessed Trinitie this oblatioÌ„ which we offer to thee in remeÌ„brance of the passion resurrection asceÌ„tion of Christ Iesus our Lord. We humbly beseech thee most merciful father through Iesus Christ thy son our Lord that thou accept blesse these gifts these preseÌ„ts these holy vndefiled sacrifices which we offer to thee first for thy Church holy and catholike c. For al true belieuers c. For al here present c. For the redemption of their soules and hope of saluation Certainely you speake these words long before you repeate Christs institution your Masse-booke doth apparently prooue that which I report if I mistake the secretes of your masse let the shame bee mine What then offer you in this place Christ or the creatures of bread wine By your own doctrine Christ is not present neither any change made til these wordes This is my body this is my blood be pronounced ergo before consecration the creatures of bread wyne keepe their
earthly cogitations of the mysticall elements and to stir them rather to marke in this Sacrament the wonderfull power and effects of Gods spirit and grace than the base condition and naturall digestion of bread and wine Phi. Would S. Chrysostom haue vs thinke the mysteries to bee consumed vnlesse in deede they were consumed Theo. His directing our cogitations for religion and reuerence rather to the inward force than outward appearance of the mysteries doeth not chaunge the sensible qualities of bread and wine whereof hee spake much lesse the substance alone whereof he spake not but draweth the receiuers from that which their eyes behold to that which by faith they beleeue to the secreter and diuiner part of the Sacrament not abolishing the one but preferring the other as more worthy to be considered and desired by the commers to the Lordes table And in this sense he willeth the people not to thinke that the Priest is a man in the verie next wordes that followe without line or letter betwixt Wherefore approaching to the Lordes table doe not thinke that you receiue the diuine body at the handes of a man but that you take a fierie coale by the Seraphims tongues which Esay sawe in his vision Can this be Chrysostoms meaning that in act and verie deede the Priest is changed into a Seraphim his hand into a paire of tongs the body of Christ into a coale of fire Except you be past your fiue wits you wil say no yet Chrysostom in the same place perswadeth the cōmunicants so to think as he did before that the mysteries were consumed by the substance or presence of Christs body Then if the latter wordes inferre no such chaunge why should the former If you be not so foolish as to mistake the second part of this sentence why be you so wilfull as to peruert the first vttered at the same time to the same purpose with the verie same phrase of speach Chrysostomes intent is no more to transsubstantiate the bread than the priest or the bodie of Christ but with vehement amplifications as his manner is he perswadeth the people to come to the Lordes table with no lesse reuerence than if they were to receiue a fierie coale as Esay did in his vision from one of the glorious Seraphims And to this end also doth he kendle them what he can not to be basely minded and affected toward the mysteries as if they were onely bread and wine in that sort to passe through the bellie with other meates but to prepare their hartes and to lift them vp to God as they promised to doe when the Priest saide lift vp your minds and harts they made answere we lift them vp vnto the Lord. These wordes therefore force no reall mutation in the thinges receiued but leade the receiuers from thinking on the weake creatures which they see to the mighty power of Gods graces which they see not and this is done with a religious cōsideration not with any monsterous transubstantiation or annihilation of the sacred mysteries Phi. S. Cyrill of Ierusalem saith Know you for a suerty that this bread which is seene of vs is not bread though the tast find it to be bread but the body of Christ. And so Theophilact It appeareth to bee bread but it is fleshe Theo. The first authors of this speach were late writers as Theophilact or lately set foorth by your fellowes not without great suspition as Cyrill of Ierusalem and the speech it selfe doth somwhat vary from the stile both of the Scriptures and fathers which acknowledge this mysterie to be bread wine The bread which we breake saith Paul is it not the communion of Christes body We all are partakers of one bread As often as you eate of this bread drink of this cup you shew the Lords death til he come Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drink of this cup. And our Sauiour in the Gospell speaking of the cup I will not drinke hencefoorth of this fruit of the vine Tertul. Christ hath not euen at this day reiected the water of the creator by which he doth wash his nor the bread by the which hee doth represent his verie body Clemens Alexandrinus This is my blood euē the blood of the grape Cyprian We find it was wine which the Lord called his blood The Lord called his body bread kneaded togither of many cornes and his blood wine pressed out of many clusters of grapes Origen The Lords bread according to the materiall partes thereof goeth into the belly and so foorth by the draught Austen As the men of God before vs did expound this the Lord commended his body blood in those things which are made one of many For the first is kneaded of many cornes into one lumpe the other is pressed of many clusters into one liquour That then which you saw is bread which also your eyes can tell you Cyrill of Alexandria To the beleeuing Disciples Christ gaue peeces of breade saying take eate this is my body Hesychius Hee meaneth that mystery which is both breade and fleshe The phrase it selfe therefore It is not bread sauoreth of later ages and writers and crosseth that course of speeche which both Scriptures and Fathers obserued and yet if you suffer them to declare their owne mindes they may soone be reconciled to the rest Theophilact expressing the same point in other wordes saieth Speciem quidem panis vini seruat in virtutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat Christ keepeth the shape or kind of bread and wine but changeth thē into the vertue of his body and blood Cyrill openeth his owne saying more at large The bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost is nowe no more common bread but the bodie of Christ. In the new Law the heauenly bread and cup of saluation sanctifie both soule and bodie As the bread serueth for the bodie so doth the word for the soule Thinke not therefore of the Sacrament as of bare bread and bare wine it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lordes owne wordes And although sense tell thee this that is bare bread and wine yet let faith confirme thee neither iudge them by tast but rather by faith assure thy selfe without all doubt that the body and blood of Christ are giuen vnto thee This assertion we grant is right and good and this intent had hee when hee said the bread which is seene is no bread meaning no common no bare bread In which assertion other ancient Fathers concurre with him Iustinus Wee receiue not these thinges as a common vsual bread or accustomed drink but we be taught that the food blessed by praier of the worde receiued from him is the fleshe and blood of that Iesus which tooke fleshe for our sakes Ireneus
Priesthoode who with his Iron rodde bruseth the pride of Princes that rebell against his Spouse and kingdome in earth like a potters poâ—shard and hath right in his Church ouer all kingdomes to plant and plucke vp to buyld and destroy afore whom al kings shall fall downe and all Nations do him seruice Theo. That the Sonne of God will bruse the pride of those Princes with an Iron rodde which rebell against his Spouse and kingdome in earth like a potters shard and that he hath right both within and without his Church ouer all kingdomes to plant and plucke vp to buyld and destroy afore whom all kings on earth and Angels in heauen shall fall downe and doe him seruice these thinges are vndoubted with vs and brought in by you but onely for a windlace to make the reader cast his eyes on Christ and his kingdome while you closely conuey the Princes Scepter vnder the Popes feete Accursed bee hee that doeth not confesse the supereminent power which the Sonne of God hath ouer all kingdomes ouer all creatures ouer the States and liues bodies and soules of all men Wil you thence inferre the Pope hath the like In sooth masters you must make hard shift before these reasons will bee good Phi. Christs Priestly prerogatiue passing his owne regall dignitie much more excelling all other humane power of the worlde in most ample and exact termes is coÌ„municated to the chiefe Priest and Pastor of our soules and secondarily to the rest of the gouernours of the Church in other manner of clauses than any earthly Princes can shewe for their pretensed spirituall regiment Fie on that secular pride wilfull blind heresie so repugning against Gods expresse ordinaunce and yet is of wicked Sect-masters and flatterers vpholden to the eternall calamitie of themselues and of millions of others Theo. This is stale Rhetorike to come with an outcrie when you should make your conclusion Conclude first and rayle after otherwise you shewe your selues to trust more to the slippernes of your tongues than to the soundnes of your cause Phi. Our illation is euident Christ as a Priest bruseth the pride of Princes with his Iron rodde and hath right ouer all kingdomes to plant and plucke vppe buyld and destroy But Christs Priestly prerogatiue in most ample and exact termes is communicated to the chiefe Priest and Pastor of our soules The chiefe Pastor therefore hath the like right ouer all kingdomes to plant plucke vp buyld and destroy Theo. The power which you mention in your first proposition is attributed to Christ not as a Priest but as a king The wordes of the Psalme are very plaine to that end I haue set my king vpon my holy hill of Sion Aske of mee and I will giue thee the heathen for thine inheritaunce and the endes of the earth for a possession to thee Thou shalt crush them with a scepter of Iron and breake them in pieces like a potters vessell S. Iohn applieth the same place to the royal and not to the Priestly power of Christ. I saw the heauen open and beholde a white horse and hee that sate vpon him was called faithful and true and hee iudgeth and fighteth in righteousnes On his head were many Crownes and out of his mouth went a sharpe sword that with it he should smite the heathen and hee shal rule them with a rod of Iron And hee hath on his garment and on his thigh a name written the King of Kings and Lord of Lordes Howe thinke you His horse his Crowne his robe his traine his sworde his stile described in this place expresse they his Priestly or Princely prerogatiue As a Priest hee sacrificed himselfe on the crosse and had his owne blood shed for the remission of sinnes As a King hee subdueth his enemies and maketh them like dust vnder his feete bee they Princes or others Your Maior is therefore false that to bruse kings with an Iron rod and to breake them in pieces like a potters shard is a priuilege of Christs Priesthoode and not of his Princehoode Your Minor that Christs Priestly prerogatiue is communicated in most ample exact termes to the chiefe Priest and Pastor of the Church hath farre lesse trueth in it than your Maior For al the prerogatiue of Christs Priesthood is not communicated to any other Such an high Priest saith S. Paul it became vs to haue which shoulde be holy vndefiled separated from sinners made higher than the heauens who in the end of the world appeared once to put away sinne by the offering vp of himselfe and after that one sacrifice for sinne is set down for euer at the right hand of God hauing obtained eternal redeÌ„ption for vs and being able perfectly to saue them that come to God by him seeing he euer lyueth to make intercession for them These and many such prerogatiues of his Priesthood I hope you will not empart to the Pope lest wee crie fie on your blasphemous hearts and mouthes which set the man of sinne equall with the sonne of God If you restraine your Minor by confessing that not all but some of the prerogatiues of Christes Priesthoode are communicated to others then your conclusion hath no force both your premisses being meere particulars For though Christ gaue some part of his power honour to his Apostles yet this hee gaue not and therefore his gift to them can doe you no good vnlesse you prooue that hee gaue them this prerogatiue amongst the rest which he bestowed on them Phi. Hee sayd to Peter and his successours Whatsoeuer thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou losest in earth shall bee loosed in heauen Can you require a more ample graunt Theo. Peter and the rest were to bind and lose the sinnes and soules of men by the woord and sacraments not the Scepters and swords of Princes And so Christ himselfe expoundeth his graunt vnto them Whose sinnes soeuer you remit they are remitted vnto them and whose sinnes soeuer yee retaine they are retayned And in this place you leaue out the first part of the graunt which should direct the whole I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen not of the kingdomes on earth Bernard though he were but of late yeeres yet was he not afraid to tel Pope Eugenius ergo in criminibus non in possessionibus potestas vestra quoniam propter illa non propter has accepistis claues regni caelorum Your power concerneth sinnes and not possessions because yee receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen for those thinges and not for these And so Theophilact Vnderstand the keyes which bind and lose to bee the pardoning or punishing of sinnes And so S. Ambrose The right of the holy Ghost consisteth in bynding and losing of sinnes As also Saint Augustine The keyes Christ gaue to his Church that what she loosed in earth should be
citation he refused to come knowing his own wickednes sought to defend himself with armes Alas saith this writer being one of your owne friendes whither is that auncient sanctitie of the Romane Bishoppes vanished whither is that clearnesse of conscience gone which neglecting the threats of Princes built the church not with armes but with the beames of their vertues They refused not Councels but rather frequenting them cleared themselues from such things as they were charged with in full assemblies of their mother the church Behold Iulius who is taken to be the sheepheard giueth no eare to the coÌ„plaint of his sheepe but killeth the weake ones and hee that with his owne blood should purchase them peace doeth what hee can with his curses to increase their trouble And getting the Spaniardes and Venecians to vpholde him sheddeth not teares with Ambrose but displaieth his banners with Iulian whose name he beareth against the church All the Germane Emperours that were depriued by the Pope you haue recited Others perhaps were blasted with his excommunications as Henrie the fifth or not agnised by him for some dislike in their elections as Philip of Sueuia and at his first entraunce Albert of Austria or busied with continuall warres in which the Pope had an oare as Conrade the thirde but iudicially deposed they were not Phi. Philip of Sueuia Otho the fourth that was chosen against him were both deposed by the Pope Theo. Otho the 4. the same which you cal Otho the fifth was rashly aduaunced by the Pope against Philip and as rashly displaced after the death of Philip the right of the Empire being al that while in Friderike the seconde whom the Princes of Almanie by the procurement of Henrie the sixt had chosen to bee their king lying in his cradle and sworne fealtie vnto him and testieth so much vnder their handes and seales to the Emperour his father After whose death when the Princes forgetting their act and oth began to treate of a new election Philip Frederikes vncle fearing least a straunger should be thrust in to the ruine of him-selfe and his nephewe sought to keepe the Empire in his handes during his life or till Frederik came to age This Innocentius the 3. would not suffer but vpbraiding him with the crueltie which his brother father had shewed heaping many absurd some false things against him in his Epistle to Berthold Duke of Zaringia stood on friuolous exceptions to hinder him obiected that he was excoÌ„municated by Celestinus his predecessor whiles he was gouernour in Tuscia yea so great was his malice that he protesteth he wold either take the emperial diademe from Philip or Philip should take the triple crown from him In this rage the Pope caused first Berthold of Zaringia to be chosen king of the Germanes and when he was too weake to incounter Philip he gate Otho the fifth to bee set vp against him whom Philip so long as he liued draue to the wall but being traiterously slaine in his chamber by one that would haue maried his daughter he left Otho in full possession of the Empire in which he continued no long time For two yeares after the Pope fell into sorer hatred of him than euer he had of Philip and after excommunication and depriuation to spite him delt with the Princes of Germany to remember their choice made of Frederike the second when he was but yong and their oth past vnder their seales to Henrie the sixt for the ratifieng of that election and so by the helpe of the French king gate the Germanes to forsake Otho and sticke to Frederike their right and naturall Prince whome in the ende hee pursued with greater disdaine than any of the former in so much that in three and twentie yeares after Frideriks death the Empire was not setled in any lawfull successour The fruites of these stirres as your owne friendes confesse were impietie and all kinde of iniquitie in the Priestes and people flatterie periurie and conspiracie in the Nobles briberie diuision and vnconstancie in the electours onely the Pope vsed them as meanes to increase his wealth augment his pride and procure his ease Then sayeth Vrspergensis beganne euils to bee multiplied on the earth For there sprang discordes deceites treacheries treasons to the destroying and murdering of ech other The spoyling sacking wasting and burning of Countries seditions warres and rapines were openly allowed in so much that euerie man now breaketh his oth and giueth himselfe to these sinnefull mischiefs yea the Priestes are as bad as the people The Princes and Barons of the Land learning the Diuels Art care for no othes violate their faith and confounde all right sometimes forsaking Philip and cleaâ—ing to Otho somtimes contrarie Vpon these tumultes it came to passe that there was skant anie Bishoprike ecclesiasticall dignitie or parish Church which was not litigious and the cause caried to Rome but not with an emptie hande Which made the Abbate then liuing and seeing the whole order of their doinges to crie out Reioyce our mother Rome because the windowes of earthly treasures are opened that euen streames and heapes of mony in great abundaunce may flow vnto thee Be glad for the wickednes of the sons of men thou art well recompensed for their foule enormities Take delight in discord thy best assistant which is issued from the bottomlesse pit to increase thy gaine Thou hast that which thou didst alwaies thirst for sing this song that by the malice of men not any religion of thine thou hast conquered the worlde Neither deuotion nor good conscience draw men to thee but manifold sins and strifes wherein mony beareth the sway And because the Pope would be sure the Emperour should not trouble nor interrupt his excessiue gaine nor pride he would not suffer Charles the fourth to be crowned but on this condition that he neither stay at Rome nor in Italie which Petrarke a man of that time pretily gibeth at All power is impacient to beare an equall whereof if we had not ancient presidents enough I feare our age hath giuen vs a late example and that the Bishop of Rome hath forbidden the Emperour of Rome to abide at Rome which as they say he hath done and not only looketh but commandeth the prince should be content with the bare crowne and title of the Empire and whome hee permitteth to be called Ruler by no meanes will he suffer him to rule And writing to the Emperour him-selfe With a promise I knowe not how and with an oth as it were with a strong wall or high hill you are prohibited to haue accesse to the citie of Rome What pride is this that the Romane prince the author of publike libertie should be depriued of al liberty and that he should not be his owne whose by right all thinges should be Mary the Pope the prince were wel met
personages than those famous and woorthie Pastours that obserued this course in the Church of Christ many hundreths before you were borne and find it most expedient to continue your vnfruitfull manner of praying in a tongue not vnderstoode though the precept of God the Doctrine of the Apostle and the practise of the primatiue Church bee expressely against it O mouthes prepared to sticke at nothing that may any way serue to hoodwinke your hearers In this and many other points of your Religion you runne headlong against the cleare testimonies of the sacred Scriptures and generall consent of the Catholike fathers and yet you will be Catholikes Phi. You be very rife with your reproches Theo. I might iustly giue you some oftener remembrances but that I more respect the seemelynes of the cause which is Gods than the sinnefulnesse of your attempts who neglect Scriptures Fathers Councels Canons Church and all that is to followe the decrees you knowe not of whome and yet will haue it insolencie and madnes in vs to dispute of your actions Philand You doe but slaunder vs. Theoph. Wee haue hitherto slaundered you with matters of trueth if the rest prooue like wee shall doe you no wrong though wee fawne on you lesse Your Masse which this Realme hath nowe reiected what hath it in it either Catholike or Apostolike or any way concordable with Christes insâ—itution Philand You coulde neuer light on a woorse match Of all the rites obseruances and Sacraments which we haue none is more Apostolike more Catholike more conformable to Christes order and example than our Masse and your prophane Supper hath nothing agreeable to the Apostles or Christs institution but all cleane contrary yea your communion is the very table and cup of diuels and your Caluins bread and wine like at length to come to the sacrifice of Ceres and Bacchus Theo. Tie vp your doggish if not diuelish eloquence you shall haue no praise though you take some pride in broching these blasphemies Your poysonfull tongues and vnblushing faces may iniurie the ordinance of God but you can not ouerthrow his trueth If wee had deuised any thing of our owne braines as you haue done the most part of your Religion you would haue kindled I see to some choler that spare vs such speaches for following the very samplar original which Christ did institute as exactly as we possibly might Phi. You follow no part of Christes institution Theo. It is easie for your side to say what you list you were no right Friers if you coulde not speake for your selues but leaue your scoffes vaunts at home bring forth your proofs Phi. I wil beginne with the name and so proceede to the rest of the circumstances You haue smal reason to name the holy sacrament rather the Supper of the Lord than after the maner of the primatiue Church the Eucharist Masse or Liturgie But belike you would bring it to the supper againe or Euening seruice when men be not fasting the rather to take away the olde estimation of the holynes thereof The. If you leaue not so much as the name vntouched I hope you will not conceale any weightie matter of more importance Phi. You may sweare for that and keepe your othe Theo. Then if all your quarrels being discussed you bee found to haue vttered nothing against vs but your sharpe and eger stomackes and notwithstanding your vagaries and resaliries to and fro your Masse bee neither Catholike nor Apostolike deserue you not to beare backe your owne burden and to haue Bacchus Ceres and the rest of your infernall saints to the shrines whence you brought them Phi. When that falleth out which wil be neuer But you delay the time for feare you take the foyle Theo. If your arguments be as quicke as your appetites we shall soone dispatch but bring vs not drippings and say they be deinties Phi. S. Ambrose in hunc locum and most good authors nowe thinke this which the Apostle calleth Dominicam Caenam is not ment of the blessed Sacrament as the circumstances also of the text do giue namelie the reiecting of the poore the riche mens priuate deuouring of all not exspecting one an other gluttonie and drunkennes in the same which cannot agree to the holie Sacrament And therefore you haue small reason as I saide to name the saide holie Sacrament rather the Supper of the Lorde than after the manner of the primatiue Church the Eucharist Masse or Liturgie Theo. Malice bursteth out at your tongues endes when you cannot abide the woordes which wee vse though the Scriptures did first authorize them and the fathers for their partes continue them The Sacrament which the Lorde ordained at his last maundie hath sundrie names that wee finde authenticallie written in the worde of God as the Lordes table the breaking of bread and cup of thanksgiuing the Communion of the bodie and blood of Christ and as we thought till this time the Lordes Supper You beginne to tell vs S. Ambrose is of an other minde and bâ—caâ—se your holde in him was verie small you adde that the most of your selues also doe nowe so thinke A worshipful catch that fifteene hundreth yeres after Christ you come in with your owne verdict in your owne cause and looke to haue it currant Phi. We meane not our selues Theo. You can meane none but your selues or your fellowes For you saie most good Authors now thinke so of our side I am sure you will not agnise that anie be good authors as you call them or that the most of vs are of that opinion and therefore you meane your selues and your owne adherents who were you not partial yet are you too young to bid Augustine Hierome Chrysostome Theodorete and others rise from their chaiers and giue you place Augustine repeating the verie woordes of S. Paul when you come togither this is not to eate the Lords supper saith hanc ipsam acceptionem Eucharistiae Dominicam Caenam vocat the Apostle calleth this verie receiuing of the Eucharist the Lords Supper Hierome commenting vpon the same wordes when you come togither this is not to eate the Lords Supper addeth Now is it not the Lordes Supper as you vse it but mans in as much as you seeme to meete rather to fill your bellies than for the mysterie For the Lordes Supper ought to be common to all because he deliuered the Sacramentes equallie to all his Disciples that were present And a Supper therefore it is called for that the Lord at Supper deliuered the Sacraments Chrysostome affirmeth the same The Apostle toucheth them more dreadfullie with these wordes This is not to eate the Lordes Supper sending them to that night in which Christ deliuered the wonderfull mysteries Therefore he calleth it a Supper for that Supper had all that were present sitting togither in common that is at one time and in one place * As
be occupied and therefore howsoeuer the simple people be deluded by the rehearsall of the same words which Christ vsed yet consecration benediction or sanctification of bread and wine you professe you make none at all Theoph. Christ you say tooke bread into his hands and did blesse the very element What meane you by blessing Philand He vsed power and actiue words vpon it as he did ouer the bread and fishes which he multiplied Theoph. Why walke you thus in cloudes Blessing with vs is the giuing of thanks vnto God with you it is the making of a crosse in the aire with your two forefingers Which of these twaine do you meane Philand That Christ blessed the bread we be very sure that he gaue thanks to the bread you dare not say Theo. Thanks he gaue to God and not to the bread Phil. But he blessed the bread and therefore blessing is not taken in Christes institution for thankes-giuing as you misconster it Theoph. If a man should put you to the new Testament in Gréeke can you spell it Philand Yea Sir and conster it as well as you Theoph. Then I trust your cunning will serue you to know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word the holy Ghost vseth to expresse the Lords action and benediction at his last Supper doth inferre that our Sauiour gaue thanks to God and made no crosse with his hand ouer the bread Philand But S. Marke saith that our Lord brake the bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing first blessed it and Saint Paul doeth not sticke to referre that word to the cup it selfe and not to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chalice of benediction which we blesse is it not the communication of the blood of Christ Theo. Do you think S. Marke reproueth S. Luke S. Matthew or that S. Paul is contrarie to himselfe Phil. No I thinke the one expoundeth the other and all their reportes méete full in one congruence Theoph. And otherwise to say or thinke is apparent blasphemie against the spirit of God who neuer halteth in his tale nor dissenteth from him-selfe in any thing much lesse in a matter of so weightie moment as this is Philand He can be no Christian that doubteth thereof Theop. Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since children in Grammer schooles do know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to giue thanks with words and not to crosse with fingers we conclude that this is a childish error of yours to thinke that Christ gaue not thanks to God but blessed the very element Yea no word plainer conuinceth your puerilitie than that which you haue brought to relieue your selfe For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth more euidently refell your crossing with fingers than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being compounded of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Gréeke importeth speach vttered by month and by no meanes drawing or crossing the fingers Phil. Let the word signifie what you will that which Christ did were it with hand or mouth he did it ouer the bread and vpon the bread and so do not you but let the bread and cup stand aloofe and occupie Christs words by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed to be occupied Theop. This is the right behauiour of your Rhemish translatours to wrangle and trifle about phrases and ambiguities as if they were the precepts and commandements of God Our Sauiour you affirme blessed the very element that is vsed power and actiue words vpon it or ouer it Blessing is a word that is diuersly vsed in the scriptures To blesse God is to praise him and to giue honor to his name and for that cause you shall find both those words ioyned together as words of like force as wheÌ„ S. Luke saith the disciples continued in the temple praising and blessing God To blesse men if it be done by men for of their blessings we speake and not of Gods is to pray for them and to beséech God that he will blesse them that is defend them prosper them and be mercifull vnto them So Isaac blessed Iacob and Iacob the sonnes of Ioseph and so were the Priests appointed by God himselfe to blesse the children of Israel and a forme of praier for that purpose prescribed them We may also blesse the time place and meanes in which or by which God sheweth his fauour towards vs that is we may pronounce them blessed for our sakes and our selues bound to blesse God for them So Dauid sayd to Abigail Blessed be God that sent thee this day to meete me Blessed be thy speach or counsell and blessed be thou which hast kept me this day from going to shed blood where he blesseth God as the author the woman as the meanes her words as the perswasions and occasions that kept him from vsing the bloody reuenge which he determined against Nabal and his familie And so said Salomon blessed is the tree whereby righteousnes commeth So on the contrary Iob and Ieremie cursed the dayes wherein they were borne would not haue them to be blessed We must likewise blesse the meates which we eate the things which we vse for the maintenance of this mortall life that is praier must be made vnto God that they may be healthfull for vs we thankfull for them by which meanes our food al other succors of this life are sanctified to his pleasure our comfort Since then the Scriptures not onely permit but also command that we should blesse one another and so the creatures which nourish our bodies we make no doubt but it is both lawfull néedfull for vs to blesse the sacraments which are the seales of Gods euerlasting promises therfore we readily receiue S. Pauls adiection when he saith the cup of blessing WHICH WE BLESSE is it not the coÌ„munion of Christs blood Mary blessing in that place we take not for crossing or charming the cup with a set number order of signs profers as you vse at your masse but for the making of our ernest huÌ„ble praiers to God that our vnworthines do not hinder the working of his sacraments but that by his goodnes mercy they may take their due effects in vs according â—o his sonnes institutioÌ„ for the pardoning of our sins the incresing of his grace our faith the quikning of our inward man preseruing both body soul to eternal life And this the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the maner of blessing all other things persons directed by the scriptures the very principles of praier pietie do approue coÌ„firm wheras your houering blowing ouer the Chalice your crossing hiding it your rubbing of fingers for feare of crums your first thwarting and then lifting of armes your ioining and vnioining of thumbe and
forefinger with twenty such nicefinities curiosities haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs action nor institution nor to his Apostles doctrine nor doings who knew their masters meaning and continued their masters example with words gestures reuerent sufficient to satisfie his heauenly will and precept for this matter Phi. You doe not so much as vse any words vpon the elements but let the bread and the wine stand aloofe as if you were afraid to touch them Theo. In déede we blesse with our hearts and voices not with our fingers and therefore we make our account that our praiers are as forceable and as effectuall at sixe féete length as at six haires bredth And to deal friendly with you that blessing with mouth taketh no place except the hand be also winding turning the patene and chalice after your maner we can not beléeue it afore we sée some reason for it sorcerers and coniurers haue such circumstances but we hope you be not of their Seminaries Phi. Did not Christ take the bread likewise the cup into his hands Theo. Yes verily He could not BREAK it with his hand vnles it were in his hand neither could he GIVE it out of his hand afore he TOOKE it into his hand Phil. Then Christ TOOKE the bread so the cup into his hands before he did consecrate so you do not Theo. You would say before he did distribute For breking giuing which wer the ends of his taking are parts of distributiō not of cōsecration Phi. What blasphemy haue we heer did Christ distribute before he did cōsecrate the bread Theo. You be so busie about blessing the host and the chalice that you charge the sonne of God in his doings and the euangelists in their writings with blasphemy Phi. Nay we charge you with blasphemie for saying that Christ gaue vnconsecrated bread and wine to his disciples Theoph. Doth not the Scripture say the same Iesus taking bread and giuing thanks brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and saide take ye eate ye this is my bodie And taking the cup and giuing thanks he gaue it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament c. He tooke bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples bidding them take it and eate it before he said this is my body Now if these words this is my bodie be the words of Consecration ergo distribution went before Consecration and when Christ did consecrate the bread was in his disciples and not in his owne hands Phil. But he blessed as we call it or as you terme it he gaue thanks before he brake it Theop. That thanksgiuing or benediction was not consecration as your selues confesse and would séem to prooue by an whole heape of fathers and therfore in spite of all that you do or can say Christ did consecrate by word of mouth whē the disciples had the bread cup in their hands Phi. Would you haue the priest then not at al to touch the elements Theo. When we diuide them we cannot choose but touch them as Christ did Mary they may be sanctified by prayer and made Sacraments by repeating the words of Christ though at that instant we touch them not And therfore your vnsound quidities that Christ blessed the very element and vsed power actiue words vpon the bread and ouer the bread which we doe not but let the bread and wine stand a loofe and occupie the words of Christ by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed these nice and new found quddities I say be méere fooleries since the words of Consecration take their effect not from our fingers or gestures but from Christs mouth and commandement that we should do the like Phil. You neuer apply these words this is my body more than the whole narration of the institution nor recite the whole otherwise than in historical maner and for that cause you make it no Sacrament at al. Theo. Can you tell what you say Phil. Why doubt you that Theo. Because it is a wicked and blasphemous lie for the priest to say this is my bodie otherwise than by way of rehearsall what Christ said And therefore your braines be more than distempered if you would haue vs or any other Christian ministers to say it otherwise than by report what Christ saide and commanded vs to do in remembrance of him Phil. Doe you thinke we meane the priest should say of his owne person this is my bodie Theo. If you do meane it Bedlem is a fitter place for you than either Rhemes or Rome Phil. You may be sure we do not Theo. Why then reprooue you vs for repeating the words of Christ by way of rehearsall what he did and saide Phil. You should apply them to the matter proposed Theo. How By praier precedent and consequent or by glozing and interlacing Christs wordes with ours Phil. You should actiuely and presently apply them to the elements of bread and wine Theo. I must aske you the same question that I did before The wordes were spoken by Christ in his own person and cannot actiuely and presently be pronounced by any priest but by way of report what Christ saide without apparent and horrible blasphemie And therefore the application of them in our words must either go before them or after them and not exactly with them much lesse to be comprised in them Phil. We tell you you doe not apply them actiuely and presently Theo. We tell you you knowe not what you say The words of Christ this is my body this is my blood mauger all the diuels in hell must be pronounced in no mans person but only by way of repetition what Christ at his last supper said in his owne person and your Iesuitical nouelties of actiuely and presently be so far from the soundnes of faith and substance of truth that your selues are not able to expound what you speake Phil. Yes that we are Theo. So it should séeme by the readinesse of your answere What then is the present and actiue application which you striue for or which way is it made By word of mouth or intention of hart The Priest when he saith this is my body cannot iointly with those words vtter any other words of his owne to apply them Intention of heart cannot alter the sense of the spéech but only direct before God the purpose of the speaker And vnlesse the meaning of the Priest be to recite the words of Christ by way of repetition I sée not how you can excuse either the Priests hart or mouth from outragious and monstrous impietie Phil. We haue a present and actiue application of the words which you haue not Theo. What is it Phil. The Priest intendeth to doe as Christ did and therefore vttereth the words distinctly and aduisedly ouer the elements that are in his hands and vnder his eies
mingle your fansies with the precepts of Christ and when we reiect the one as we lawfully may you charge vs with contempt of the other which we exactly follow and this you vtter in such darke and doubtfull speach that it is harder for vs to vnderstand you than refute you Philand Do we not speake plaine enough when we say you imitate not Christ neither in vnleauened bread nor in mingling water with wine as he did Theoph. You deale now plainely if you dealt also truly but that you do not In what bread Christ ministred the Sacrament may perchance be coniectured but no such thing is expressed in the Gospell much lesse prescribed for vs to follow Since the Scripture saith he tooke bread and maketh no distinction what bread he tooke nor limiteth what bread we should take we be left at libertie so we take bread to take either leauened or vnleauened as occasion serueth vs. This conclusion Gregorie the first confesseth to be most true Tam azimum quà m fermentatum dum sumimus vnum corpus Domini saluatoris efficimur Whether it be leauened or vnleauened bread that we take we are made one body of our Lord and Sauiour The whole Church of Rome not yet an 150. yéeres ago cōfessed as much in the councell of Florence Their words are Item in azimo siue fermētato pane triticeo corpus Christi veraciter confici Sacerdotésque in altero ipsum Domini corpus conficere debere vnumquemque scilicet iuxta suae ecclesiae siue Occidentalis siue Orientalis consuetudinem We define the body of Christ to be truly consecrated in wheaten bread whether it be vnleauened or leauened and that the Priests are bound to consecrate the Lords bodie in either of the twaine euery man according to the custome of his Church be it West or East Phil. That custome you breake For where the west Church did alwaies consecrate in vnleauened bread and the East Church in leauened you renounce the order of the west Church in which you liue and to spite the supreme Pastor of the west parts yea rather of the whole world you follow the manner of that Church which is many thousand miles distant from you Theoph. We are reasoning of Christs institution not of customes or Churches and your holy Father himselfe affirmeth that to be no breach of Christs ordinance which you haue noted against vs in your Rhemish obseruations as a transgression of the first and originall institution of the Lords supper And so whiles you egarly and rashly persue vs to trippe vs in somewhat your owne Churches and Councels condemne you for wranglers Phil. In the other part of the Sacrament you contemne Christ and his Church much more impudently and damnably For Christ and all the Apostles and all Catholike churches in the world haue euer mixed their wine with water for great mysterie and signification specially for that water gushed togither with blood out of our Lords side This our Lord did saith S. Cyprian epist. 63. ad Cecilium nu 4.7 and none rightly offereth that followeth not him therein Thus Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. 1. Iustine Apol. 2. in fine and all the fathers testifie the Primatiue church did and in this sort it is done in all the Masses of the Greekes S. Iames S. Basils S. Chrysostomes and yet you pretending to reduce all to Christ will not do as he did and all the Apostles and churches that euer were Theo. Their faces must be well stéeled that are harder than yours the whore of Babylon that hatched both your frierly profession and religion hath taught you long since to leaue off blushing and fall to bragging We mingle not water with the wine which we consecrate this is impudently and damnably done say you You néede more water with your wine your toongs burne so hoat with your impudent lies and damnable lies that an whole streame will skant coole them Phi. Christ and all the apostles all catholike churches in the world haue euer mixed their wine with water you will not of very frowardnes do you not deserue to haue hoate words Theop. We forbid no man to temper his wine with water if he find either himselfe annoied with the vse of méere wine or the wine of it selfe to be headie and strong yea we rather wish all men if the wine prouided for the Lords table be hoat and fuming to delay it that it may be mild and temperate least that which is taken to sanctifie the soule happen to distemper and hurt the body and we greatly commend the wisedome of Christes Church in former ages where the wines were fierie and communions daily as in the noblest and chiefest partes of christendome in those daies for delaying her wine with water that the very element might serue for sobrietie as well as the word for increasing of sanctity But the Christ or his Apostles vsed water with the wine which they hallowed or commanded others to mingle both wine and water in this mysterie or that the Church of Christ euer taught it to be a necessary part of this Sacrament that we deny That if you proue we will acknowledge amend our error which as yet we take to be none by reason we find it a thing lawfull but not néedefull to be done and estéeme it in them as a matter rather of temperance than of conscience Phil. They did it for great mystery and signification as Cyprian in an whole epistle teacheth you and they tooke their paterne from Christ himselfe of whom Cyprian saith This our Lord did and none offereth rightly that followeth not him therein Theop. You peruert Cyprian as you do all things else that come through your hands Cyprian intendeth not in that epistle to prooue that Christ had water in the cup when he deliuered the same to his disciples but he refuteth the Aquarij that ministred the communion in water alone and against them he prooueth that Christ had wine and not water for the Sacrament of his blood and then inferreth to that effect which you alleadge This the Lord did that is he tooke wine to resemble his blood and none offereth rightly that followeth not him therein Phil. Nay Cyprian hath plaine words that Christ mingled wine and water both together His words are At enim non manè sed post coenam mixtum calicem obtulit Dominus Our Lord offered his chalice mingled with water and wine not in the morning but after supper And againe Qua in parte inuenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit By which part of Christes speech we find the chalice that our Lord offered was mingled with wine and water Theop. We doubt not that Cyprian calleth the cup which Christ offered mixtus calix but his meaning we say was to expresse that Christ had wine in the cup which he gaue and therefore if any man minister the Lords cup not mingled with wine he followeth not the Lords
in them all others to do what he did taught them that his actions were essentiall to his Supper as well as words He did not wil them to say this but to doe this in remembrance of him Phi. Do you not thinke the repeating and vsing of his words to be necessarie in the celebration of the Sacrament Theo. Yeas but I adde that his actions are as necessary Phi. There is difference betweene the making of a medicine or the substance and ingredience of it and the taking of it Theo. There is but wheÌ„ the medicine is neuer so well made if it be not ministred to the patient the making of it is vtterly vaine Phi. Yet the making of it is not the ministring of it Theo. The one is the end of the other and therfore without the ministring the making is superfluous Phi. Then taking and eating is not the substance or being or making of the sacrament or sacrifice of Christs body and blood but it is the vse application to the receiuer of the things that were made offered to God before Theo. Neither did I say that eating and drinking were the substantial partes of the sacrament but of the Lords institution Phi. As though the sacrament were not our Lords institution Theo. Christes institution containeth as well the vse as the matter or forme that must be vsed A supper is not only the meate prouided but also the act of eating that which is prouided so the Lords institution or Supper imploieth the vse and action as well as the word and elements Phi. The vse of it is to be a sacrifice as well as a sacrament and in a sacrifice offering is rather required than eating Theo. That is the way to correct the son of God who saide not take this and offer it but take this and eate it Eating which Chrâ—st commaunded you neglect offering which â—e did not commaunde you esteeme and yet you would bee followers of Christ. Phi. Did not Christ say to his Disciples Do this Theo. You knowe we presse you with that saying of his Phâ— Doe this that is offer this Theo. So you say but where saith Christ so Phi. Doubt you whether this bee a sacrifice Theo. We talke not what names the Lordes supper may be called by but what wordes Christ vsed Phi. Hâ— sâ—ide Doe this Theo. To wit that which he did before for so the demonstratiue bindetâ— the sense Phi. And what if Christ sacrificed himselfe as he sate at table Theo. 〈◊〉 must come to that issue or else your sacrificing is cleane without Christs commaunding Phi. Christ himselâ—e seemeth to mention some such thing when hee sayeth This is my body which is not which shal be broken for you And this is my blood which is shed not which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes If this were not a sacrifice wâ—at was it Theo. It was the foreteâ—ling of that which was then at hand presently to ensue Phi. Christ vsed the present and not the future tense Theo. And yet the suffering which hee specified by the breaking of his body and shedding of his blood was not present but the next day on the crosse If you teach that Christs blood was really shed at the table for remâ—ssion of sinnes you must put him twise to death make the later death which was on the crosse to be vtterly idle For where remission of sin is there needeth no more sacrifice for sin If theÌ„ remissioÌ„ of sins were obtained by the actual shedding of Christs blood at his last supper his death crosse the next day were superfluous If forgiuenes were not obtained ouer night but that the Lord the next day was to shed his blood for our sinnes then spake he before hand of that which the next day should follow his speech in the present tense noteth nothing but that hee had euen then giuen him-selfe ouer to death for our sakes which immâ—dâ—atly they should beheld No act of Christes therefore at his last supper importeth any reall sacrifice that he then made but he did institute a Sacrament of thankesgiuing and coâ—maunded vs by eating and drinking to bee partakers of his bodie that was wounded and bloode that was shedde the next daie for the remitting and pardoning of our sinnes So that you must either retayne eating and drinking at the Lordes table or else renounce both the beneâ—it of his passion and memoriall of his death with an open neglect of his last Will and Testament Phi. Wee do retaine it and as you know by our canons we bind all priests that consecrate to communicate in both kindes Theo. Let the decrees of men alone do you bind them to it by the words of Christ Phi. We do though the punishment bee expressed in the canons and not in the Scriptures Theo. It in punishment enough to bee guiltie of the body and bloode of Christ a greater you can not impose make your canons as seuere as you will Phil. Yet you see we binde them to communicate Theophil You should breake Christes institution if you shoulde doe otherwise Philand And therefore wee doe that which I tell you Theophil Then eating and drinking are necessary partes of Christes institution Philand Of his action they are partes but not of the Sacrament Theophil Neither doe I say that they are partes of his bodie blood but of his example and ordinance Philand Wee graunt Theo. And the neglecting of those actions which Christ in his person perfourmed before vs is a breach of his institution as well as the changing or omitting of his wordes Philand In the Priest it is Theo. Of the Priest wee speake for Christ charged him and not women or lay-men to doe as he did Phi. Then wee agree to your last position that if the Priest do not obserue Christes actions as well as Christes wordes he transgresseth Christes institution Theoph. Then your Priestes are all guiltie of violating Christes institution Phi. Doe they not eate and drinke at the Altar as hee did Phi. That Christ himselfe did eate and drinke at the ministration of the Sacrament is not expressed in any part of his institution though some wordes that followe after declare he dranke of the same fruite of the vyne which the rest did but the whole course of his actions speeches stood in deliuering the mysteries vnto others He tooke bread that hee might breake it hee brake it that hee might giue it he gaue it that they should eate and so his wordes declare which are both plurall and spoken to others take ye eate ye not singular or to himselfe Though therefore your Priest take and eate for his part yet since Christ brake the bread that it might bee diuided among others bid them take and eate it is certaine your Priestes neither doe as Christ did nor as hee commaunded his Apostles to do nor as the very wordes of Christ which he repeateth do
specifie For Christ said take ye eate ye which in their priuate Masses your Priestes doe not and for that cause euerie such Masse is a manifest contempt of Christes wordes and deedes confessed and rehearsed by your owne mouthes at the altar as partes of his institution Phi. The Catholike church onely by Christes spirit can tell which thinges are imitable which not in al his actions The. When himself hath appointed what actions of his he will haue to be followed the church is bound to obey not licenced to make her choise But in this case the church of christ hath faithfully done her duty For she alwayes obserued these actions of Christ her Lord and master and verified his wordes till Antichrist with pride and power came to take vp his seat in the middest of her and to proportion all religion to his vnsounde and deceiued affection Phi. Is the catholike church in this point with you Theo. Yea and against you mightily The canons as you terme them Apostolicall prohibit your priuat Masse Whosoeuer of the faithfull enter the church heare the scriptures read if they stay not out praiers receiue the sacred communion let them as peruerters of ecclesiasticall order bee put from the communion Which words the councell of Antioch repeateth and confirmeth as agreeable to Christian discipline in their dayes Reade the church seruice which as you tell vs Iames Basill and Chrysostom coâ—posed you shall finde them publike communions not priuate masses read what Dionysius S. Pauls schâ—ler as you beare men in hand and Iustinus the martyr report of the â—â—â—â—tration of the Lords Sâ—pper in their daies This is the generall and catholike description and order of the diuine mysteries saith Dionysius that first the minister himself receiueth then imparteth the same to others Towards the end of our praiers â—aith Iustinus we salute one an other with a kisse after that bread and a cup of wine delaied with water are brought to him that hath charge ouer his brethren which he taketh and giueth thankes to the father of all through the sonne and holy Ghost his praier and thankes all the people standing by confirme with answering Amen then those which are called with vs Deacons giue euery man that is present of the bread and wine tempered with water and carie the same to such as are absent This I trowe resembleth our communion not your priuat masse this without controuersie was the catholike and Apostelike maner of solemnizing the Lordes Supper in the Primatiue church Yea the church of Rome which you woulde seeme so much to reuerence withstood this your profanation of the Lordes supper a long time with maruelous zeale Consecration ended saith Pope Calixtus let all communicate that will not stand excommunicated for so the Apostles determined and the holy Romane church obserueth The maner of the whole church in Pope Gregories time 600. yeares after Christ was for a Deacon to crie to the people Si quis non communicet det locum he that mindeth not to communicate let him auoide Pope Martine willed him to be cast out of the catholike church which entered the church of God and with held himselfe from the communion of the Sacrament Charles the Emperour 800. yeares after Christ gaue commaundement vt omnes fideles communicent ad Missas perexpectent sine alâ—a depraedicatione that all the faithfull should communicate and looke at masse so to do without other warning What need we farther proofe in a case so manifest your owne fellowes confesse no lesse In the primatiue church saith Durandus all that were present at the celebration of the Masse did euery day coÌ„municate Their oblation was a great loafe sufficient for al which the Grecians are said to continue to this day So that both the wordes of Christs institution the traditioÌ„ of the primatiue church directly refute your priuate Masses and proue the communion now vsed in the church of England to be good and catholike The Lordes supper saith Chrysostom ought to bee common For such thinges as are the Lords belong not to this or to that seruant but are commoÌ„ to all If then it be the Lords as in deed it is thou shouldst not take it as thine owne to thy selfe but propose it to all in common as being the Lordes Thou doest not suffer it to be the Lords wheÌ„ thou doest not suffer it to be coÌ„moÌ„ but eatest it thy selfe Paul calleth it the Lords supper which is receiued in common with one consent of all assembled together for vntill all communicate be partakers of that spiritual food the mysteries once set foorth are not taken away but the priests standing still stay for all yea for the poorest of all So Theodoret The Lords table is equally proposed vnto al meÌ„ of that supper all are partakers alike And Haymo The Sacrament of christs body is called a supper by reason of the communion because it ought to be common to all the faithfull and iust If this doctrine be true as there can be no question of it then are your priuat Masses far from Christs institution as far from the catholike order of Christs church which suffered no man to bee present at the time of the diuine mysteries but such as would did participate sending the rest away that could not be partakers of the Lords table And this the very name of your Masse as I haue proued doth shew signifieng the demising of all such as might not communicate which if you should do in your priuat Masses you should leaue an empty church yea the priests must take paines to serue answere himselfe since no man besides the priest hath any part of that banquet which Christ prouided for all and bequeathed vnto all to bee the monument of his passion and pleadge of their saluation With like rashnes you take from the people when you do admit them once a yeare to their rightes as you call it the cup which should be to them the communion of the Lordes blood Drinke ye all of this sayth our Sauiour and diuide it mongst you These words you repeate for a shew but you falsifie them in sense For you suffer no lay-man to tast of the Lords cup as if one part of this mystery were sufficient the rest superfluous or you might dispence with christs institution at your pleasure Phi. Christ spake that to such as were Priests not vnto the lay people The. Doth your conscience serue you Philander to play the wanton in so great and deepe mysteries of christian religion To whom then were these words spoken take ye eate ye not to the selfesame parties to whom it was said Drinke ye If none may drinke but priests because the disciples which dranke were Priests then by the same logike none should eate but priests because neither time place nor persons were chaunged betweene these two
full consent of all ages and Churches in expounding the same but also to chase the people by terror of secular power and ecclesiasticall curse from the cup of their saluation from the communion of Christs blood and felowship of his holy spirit Such fathers such fansies What is mockerie what is iniurie to God and man if this be Religion or pietie The Church of Rome you will say concluded with them That increaseth her sinnes and excuseth not their follies If an Angel from heauen had conspired with them our duetie bindeth vs to detest both him and them as accursed if they step from that which the primatiue church receiued from Paul and Paul from Christ Howe much more then ought wee to reiect that which the church of Rome presumeth not onely besides but against the sacred scriptures And yet to speake vprightly the auncient church of Rome maketh wholy with vs in this cause For no church euer resisted your mangled communions with greater vehemencie than the church of Rome did till couetousnesse and pride blinded her eyes and hardned her heart against God and his sonne Pope Iulius that lyued vnder Constantine the great made this decree We heare that certaine led with schismaticall ambition against the diuine ordinances and Apostolike directions doe giue TO THE PEOPLE the Eucharist dipped in wyne for a full communion They receiued not this from the Gospell where Christ betooke his body and blood to the Disciples For there is recited the deliuering the bread by it selfe and the cup by it selfe Let therefore all such error and presumption cease least inordinate and peruerse diuises weaken the soundnes of fayth If the communion bee neither perfite nor agreeable to Christes institution and Apostolike prescription except the people receiue both kinds seuerall and asunder the bread from the cup and the cup from the bread as Christ ordayned and the Gospel declareth Ergo your excluding the people cleane from the cup is altogether repugnant to the manifest intent of our Sauiour and right imitation of his Apostles And what if the first authors of your drie communion were the Manichees are you not wise men and well promoted to forsake the precept which Christ gaue you the president which Paul left you the course which the christian world for so many yeeres obserued and followe so pestilent and pernicious a sect of heretikes reprooued and long since condemned by the church of Rome for that very fraude and abuse in the Sacraments which you bee nowe fallen vnto The Manichees sayth Leo to couer their infidelitie venter to bee present at our mysteries and so carie them-selues in the receiuing of the Sacraments for their more safetie that they take the body of Christ with an vnwoorthy mouth but in any wise they shunne to drinke the blood of our redemption Which I would haue your dâ—uoutnes speaking to the people learne for this cause that such men might bee knowen to you by these markes and when their sacrilegious simulation is founde they may bee noted and bewrayed by the Godly that they may bee chased away by the priestly power Against this disorder of Manichees wrate Pope Gelasâ—â— as your friende Master Harding confesseth Wee haue intelligence that certaine men receiuing onely a portion of the sanctified body abstaine from the cup of the sacred blood who for that it appeareth they be entangled with I knowe not what superstition let them either receiue the whole Sacraments or be driuen from the whole because the diuiding and parting of one and the same mysterie can not bee without grieuous sacrilege The sense is plaine To take the Lordes breade and not drinke of the Lordes cup is a seuering and distracting of this mysterie which by the iudgement of these two Popes is open sacrilege ergo neither Catholike or christian What shift nâ—we Philander to saue your selues from sacrilege Spake Gelasius of the Manichees as Master Harding resolueth Graunt it were so Then what was sacrilege in them can it bee catholike in you If that auncient church of Rome condenmed this in the Manichees howe commeth your late Church of Rome not onely to suffer but also to commaund the same Can you turne darkâ—nes to light and sacrilege to Religion That were a marueilous alteration But Siâ—s your minds may change wee knowe Christes institution can not changâ— The contempt thereof in Manichees in Papistes as then so still was and will be sacrilege Spake Gelasius not of the Manichees but of certaine Priestes that receiuing the bread at the Lordes table neglected the cup Yet Leo speaketh of the Manichees by name and â—hose Laymen and mingled with the people and calleth their forbearing the Lords blood a sacrilegious sleight reason were you should prooue that onely Priesâ—es are ment in this place of Gelasius and not suppose what you list at your pleasures as the gloze doeth and others of your side that stand on this answere The woordes are indefinite and touch as well people as Priest but let vs imagine that Gelasius spake of Priestes first then you commit sacrilege in restraining all Priestes from the communion of both kinds except they say Masse themsâ—lues Next if it bee sacrilege in the Priest why not in the people The precept of our Sauiour drinke ye all of this compriseth all both Laymen and Priestes His Apostle extendeth the same to the whole Church of Corinth Chrysostome sayth the Priest differeth nothing from the people in receiuing the mysteries but one cup is proposed to al In Chalice nobiscum vos estis You sayth Austen to the people are in the Lordes cup no lesse than we The cup was deliuered to all men Priest and people with like condition as Theophilact affiâ—meth Drinke yee all of this that is sayth Paschasius as well other beleuers as Ministers Hence wee frame you this argument The cup was by Christ deliuered to Priest and People with like condition and like precept the refusing of the Lordes cup is sacrilege in priests by the position of Gelasius and the confession of your friends it is therefore no lesse than sacrilege for the people to refraine the same What then is it for you to pull the Lordes cuppe out of their handes by rigor and force for so trifling respectes as you pretende but apparent violent and wilfull sacrilege Phi. It was sacrilege then for the people to refuse or refraine the cup because the church was content to admitte them to it But now the church is otherwise resolued it were sacrilege to expect or demand it Theo. What shall the man of sinne and sonne of perdition when he commeth if hee bee not already come and you his supporters to hold vp his seate in the temple of God say more than you now say that you at your lists may breake the commandements of the great and euerlasting God and alter his ordinances and to blame you for
it or recall you backe from your enterprise is sacrilege Woe bee to you that call good euill and euill good which set darkenesse for light and light for darkenesse and put bitter for sweete and sweete for bitter Woe bee to you that are so wise in your owne eyes and so prudent in your owne conceites that you preferre your owne Counsell before the wisedome of God Philand Nay you preferre your wittes before the whole Church of GOD you woulde not other-wise take vppon you to controle your forefathers and teachers in such sort as you doe Theoph. If they forsooke their fathers yea GOD him-selfe why shoulde wee not renounce them rather as parricides than resemblance of their auncestours Philand They were Catholikes and so are wee Theoph. You leaue the steppes both of Christ and his Church and yet you must and will bee catholikes Philand Wee followe them better than you doe Theoph. So it appeareth by your halfe communion which they condemned for sacrilege and you embrace for Religion Phi. Here is such a stirre about eating and drinking as though all consisted therein and in the meane while you neglect and abolish the holy and vnbloody sacrifice which is farre more Catholike than your communion Theo. You neede not make so light of eating and drinking at the Lordes table There depende greater promises and dueties on that than on your vnbloody sacrificing the sonne of God As often as yee shall eate this breade and drinke this cup yee shewe the Lordes death till hee come Without eating and drinking therefore the Lordes death is not shewed The bread which we breake to be eaten is it not the communion of Christes body The cup of blessing which wee blesse that all may drinke of it is it not the communion of Christes blood If wee refuse eating the one or drinking the other can we be partakers of Christ or his spirit Hee that eateth my flesh sayth our sauiour and drinketh my blood dwelleth in mee and I in him and except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you These bee the fruites and effectes of religions and worthie eating and drinking at the Lordes table shewe vs the like for your sacrificing and wee will thinke you had some occasion though no reason to turne the Lords Supper into an offering Philand This one Sacrifice hath succeeded all other and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices and hath the force and vertue of all other to be offered for all persons and causes that the others for the lyuing and the dead for sinnes and for thankesgiuing and for what other necessitie soeuer of body or soule Bee not these as great and good effectes of our Sacrifice as those which you nowe rehearsed for eating and drinking at the Altar Theo. They bee great if you had as good authoritie for the one as wee haue for the other Philand Wee haue better Theo. Wee must giue you leaue to say so but you shall giue vs leaue not to beleeue you Phi. All the fathers with one consent stand on our side for the Sacrifice Theoph. Were it so that yet is many degrees beneath the credite of our conclusion You bring vs the speaches of men wee bring you the woorde of God I trust you will aguise some difference betwixt them Phi. As though wee coulde not bring you Scriptures as well as fathers for the sacrifice of the Masse Melchisedec by his oblation in bread and wyne did properly and most singularly prefigurate this office of Christes eternall Priesthoode and sacrificing himselfe vnder the formes of breadâ— and wyne which shall contynue in the Church throughout all Christian Nations in steede of all the offeringes of Aarons Priesthood as the Prophet Malachie did foretell as Saint Cyprian Saint Iustine Saint Irineus and others the most auncient Doctors and Martyrs doe testifie Cyprian epistola 63. num 2. Iustin. dial cum Trypho post med Iren. libro 4. capit 32. And Saint Augustine libro 17. cap. 20. de ciuitat Dei libro primo contra aduers. leg prophet ca. 18. lib. 3. de baptism ca. 19. S. Leo sermone 8. de passione auouch that this one sacrifice hath succeeded all other and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices c. Yea in S. Pauls epistle to the Church at Corinth the first and tenth chapter We maie obserue that our bread and chalice our table and altar the participation of our host and oblation be compared or resembled point by point in all effectes conditions and properties to the altars hostes sacrifices and immolatious of the Iewes and Gentiles Which the Apostle woulde not or coulde not haue done in this Sacrament of the altar rather than in other Sacraments or seruice of our Religion if it onelie had not beene a Sacrifice and the proper worship of God among the Christians as the other were among the Iewes and heathen And so doe all the fathers acknowledge calling it onelie and continuallie almost by such termes as they doe no other Sacrament or ceremonie of Christes Religion The Lamb of God laide vpon the table Concil Nicen. The vnbloodie seruice of the Sacrifice In Concil Ephesin epist. ad Nestor pag. 605. The sacrifice of sacrifices Dionys. Eccles. Hieronym cap. 3. The quickning holie sacrifice the vnbloodie host and victime Cyril Alex. in Concil Ephes. Anatâ— the propitiatorie sacrifice both for the liuing and the dead Tertul. de cor Milit. Chrys. ho. 41. in 1. Corinth ho. 3. ad Phil. Ho. 66. ad pop Antioch Cypr. epi. 66. decaena Do. nu 1. August Euch. 109. Quaest. 2. ad Dulcit to 4. Ser. 34. de verb. Apost The sacrifice of our mediator the sacrifice of our price the sacrifice of the newe Testament the sacrifice of the Church August li. 9. ca. 13. li. 3. de baptist ca. 19. The one only inconsumptible victime without which there is no Religion Cyprian de caen Do. nu 2. Chrysost. ho. 17. ad Hebr. The pure oblation the newe ofspring of the newe Law the vital and impolluted host the honoâ—râ—ble dreadful Sacrifice the Sacrifice of thankesgiuing or Eucharistical the Sacrifice of Melchisedec This is the Apostles and fathers doctrine God grant you may find mercy to see so euident and inuincible a trueth Theo. You be nowe where you would be and where the fathers seeme to fit your foote But if your sacrifice bee conuinced to bee nothing lesse than catholike or consequent to the Prophets Apostles or Fathers Doctrine what say you then to your vanitie in alleaging if not impietie in abusing so many Fathers and Scriptures to proppe vp your follies Phi. Bee not these places which we bring you for this matter vndeniable vnauoydable indefeatable vnanswerable Theo. In any case lay on loade of termes You haue made vs so many in your late Rhemish testameÌ„t that now you must not seeme to lack But what if all these places neede
is the liuely sacrifice whereof it is written Offer to God the sacrifice of praise your coūtinances hang as did that homicides which slue his brother Phi. This nothing infringeth our assertion Theo. But this declareth the meaning of Malachie Phi. Our oblation is a sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing Theo. Had you kept your selues there and not runne farther to fansies of your owne framing and Uictimes as you call them of your own presuming you might haue offered that cleane sacrifice foretolde by Malachie which nowe you doe not Phi. You will not haue his wordes pertaine to the Eucharist Theo. You will neuer speake trueth so long as you may shift with facing Phi. Confesse you thē that Malachie spake of the Eucharist The. With all our hearts Phi. You bee nowe ouer the shooes in your owne cestern The. But it doeth me no hurt for I feele no wet Phi. You graunt the Eucharist to be a sacrifice which your fellowes will be angrie with you for Theo. Neither they nor I euer denied the Eucharist to be a sacrifice The verie name inforceth it to be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing which is the true and liuely sacrifice of the new Testament Phi. I thought you woulde backe againe Theo. I am nowe as farfoorth as euer I was or as any of these ancient fathers are which haue expounded the wordes of Malachie Phi. Then you must affirme it to be a sacrifice Theo. Leaue this foolish repeating and often inculcating that which neither benefiteth you nor annoyeth vs. The Lordes table in respect of his graces mercies there proposed to vs is an heauenly banquet which we must eate not sacrifice but the duties which he requireth at our handes when wee approch to his table are sacrifices not sacramentes as namely to offer him thankes and praise faith and obedience yea our bodies and soules to bee liuing holy and acceptable sacrifices vnto him which is our reasonable seruing of him Phi. This must bee doone when wee receiue the sacrament but this is no part of the Sacrament Theoph. These bee the conditions without which God will not haue vs come to his Table and for these respects the Eucharist hath his name thereby to put vs in minde of our duties Phi. Wee do not deny these sacrifices to bee good and holy and then most requisite when wee drawe neerest vnto God as at his table but we adde that the very sacrament it selfe is a sacrifice and the celebration thereof is a continuance of that oblation which Christ made in his owne person on the Altar of the crosse Theo. This wee graunt to bee most true in that sense which Sainct Augustine and other auncient and Catholike Fathers doe auouch it that is because Sacramentes haue the names of those thinges whose Sacramentes they are And since this is the Sacrament of the Lords death and a passion we do not sticke to say that Christ is dayly crucified and sacrificed for the sinnes of the world mary not really or corporally but by way of a mysterie that is his crosse and bloodshedding are proclaymed and confirmed in the eyes of all the faithfull by these signes of his death and seales of his truth by which hee first witnessed that his bodie should bee broken and his blood shed for the remission of our sinnes Philand Why then refuse you the fathers expressing their opinion of this sacrifice Theo. Nay why doe you abuse their wordes to support your errors and wheresoeuer you find the names of sacrifice and oblation in them referred to the Lordes supper why alleadge you the places with such confidence as if the fathers were at your commaundement to meane nothing but your reall sacrificing the sonne of God vnder the formes of bread and wine Phi. What other meaning could they haue Theo. I haue already shewed you by their owne writinges what other meaning they had Phi. You say they call it a sacrifice because it is a signe and memoriall of his death on the crosse Theo. That is sufficient to shew their meaning Phi. But their words are so weightie that a cold and naked signification doth not answere the force of them The Lambe of God laide vpon the table conc Nice The quickning holy sacrifice the vnbloody host and victime Cyril Alex. in conc Ephes. Anath 11. The onely inconsumptible victime without which there is no religion Cypr. de caen Dom. nu 2. Chrys. hom 17 ad Heb. The sacrifice of our price Aug. confess lib. 9. cap. 13. Theo. What a patching you keepe to no purpose Phi. Dare you attribute these speeches to the creatures of bread and wine Theo. Dare you attribute them to the Priestes externall gestures Is his act the lambe of God or the price of our ransome or the holy and quickning sacrifice Phi. No but the fleshe and blood of Christ are which the Priest offereth as wee say to God for the sinnes of the people Theo. To what ende then alleadge you these places for the Priests act which shewe the worthinesse of Christes sacrifice and the power of his death Phil. Our sacrifice worketh those effectes Theo. And so doth ours Phi. Then you bee of our opinion Theo. As though we did resist you touching the thing that is offered and not touching the manner of offering That Christ is the lamb of God laid on the Lordes table before the eyes of our mindes that his flesh wounded and bloud shed for our sinnes are an holy quickning and euer during sacrifice and the most sufficient price of our redemption we vrge this against you you neede not vrge it against vs wee fully and faithfully teach it The question betweene vs is howe this sacrifice once made on the Crosse is daily renued in our mysteries You will haue a reall corporall and local profering of Christs fleshe to God the father vnder the formes of bread and wine made by the Priestes externall actions and gestures for the sinnes of such as he lift this is we say a wicked and blasphemous mockerie His passion is the true oblation of the church his flesh wounded and blood shedde are the only sacrifices for sinne which oblation that it might be alwayes in our hearts and sights he hath commaunded vs to continue in his church by a memoriall of his owne erecting and to applie the same to our selues by a stedfast hope in his mercies humble prayer vnto his holynes as often as wee approach to his table to bee partakes of his death merites And therefore the Priestes act can no way bee auailable for those that stand by looke on and neither communicate with him in praier or in the participation of the mysteries And your alleadging four and twentie places of the fathers for this kinde of sacrifice of which they neuer thought sheweth what fidelitie and sinceritie you haue vsed in the rest of your Rhemish obseruations which you sent ouer but to occupy mens
of Iewes and Gentiles Phi. In S. Paul Theophil I see no such thing Philand You wil not for feare you should be driuen to confesse that S. Paul calleth our host a Sacrifice Theo. Let vs then examine S. Pauls purpose that we may see both what he saieth and to what end he saith it The christians at Corinth in respect of aquaintaunce or alliaunce with others that were Heathens in that citie did not sticke if they were inuited to goe to the banquetes and feastes of the Pagans which they kept in the Temples of their Gods when they did sacrifice vnto them and at which they spent such cates and wines as they had then offered to their Idols The preteÌ„ce which the christians had for their resorting to the Pagans feastes was this that they knewe the idoll was nothing and therefore giuing thankes to God for his creatures they did eate of all things without scruple of conscience howsoeuer it had beene vsed or to whomsoeuer it had beene offered This Sainct Paul reproueth them for and sheweth that though the Idoll in it selfe bee nothing yet since the Gentiles did offer those thinges which were at their idols feastes not to God but to diuels the christians could not sit at the same tables with the Pagans reioycing triumphing and feasting in the names of their idolles but they must needes bee partakers of their idolatrie Nowe howe that could stand with their comming to the Lords table where they professed to serue him and none but him hee wisheth them to consider The reason which hee draweth from the Lordes table you call it a comparison point by point in all effectes conditions and proprieties to the altars hostes and sacrifices of the Heathen may bee eyther a comparison or an opposition but liker of the twaine to bee rather an opposition than a comparison For so Sainct Paul knitteth vp his argument You can not drink both the Lordes cup and the cup of diuelles you can not bee partakers or eate of the Lords table and of the table of diuels The one you are partakers of as you know For the cup of thanksgiuing which we blesse is it not the coÌ„munion or participatioÌ„ of Christs blood The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body You cannot there fore haue any fellowship with the table or cup of diuels but God will surely reuenge it as the forsaking of himselfe and seruing of his enimie This may the whole drift of S. Paul stand good and his reason forcible without your point by point or your effectes conditions and proprieties of altars hostes or Sacrifices If any list to make it a comparison he may for me yet that way I see no cause why you should so proportion Christes mysteries to the diuels sacrifices that point by point they must answere one an other in all effectes conditions and proprieties of Altars hostes and immolations For this sufficeth S. Pauls inteâ—t that where the christians thought it a matter indifferent and lawfull to eate drink in the temples and at the tables of Heathen Idols he by examples both of christian and Iewish religion sheweth them that though they did not sacrifice and so tooke themselues to be free from Idolatrie yet seeing they reioyced and feasted with the men and meates that were addicted and consecrated vnto Idols they were partakers of their wickednesse And therefore the thing which S. Paul vrgeth in this comparison of Christian Iewish and heathâ—nish religion is not offering or sacrificing but in plaine words eating drinking at the same table with men of any profession where their rites and ceremonies be they good or bad are vsed as well as their offeringes and immolations and in that sense the conclusion holdeth on either side though the thinges be not really sacrificed vnto God or the diuell but dedicated or consecrated to either of them or frequented in either of their names For as he that eateth and drinketh at the Lordes table partaketh with him and his so he that doth the like at the diuels table linketh himselfe in the like fellowship with the diuell and his adherentes though the meates that are set on the table bee not first solemnly sacrificed to the diuell but blessed either in his name or with his ceremonies who being a wicked spirit affecteth to be honored in like sort and equal â—tate with the true and mighty God Phi. S. Paul sayth the Gentiles did sacrifice their meates to the diuel Theo. So much the worse for those Christians that did eat them yet that doeth not inferre that the creatures at the Lords table were point by point in all effects and conditions vsed and sacrificed to him as the heathens cates were to their Idoles And to draw your argument from the diuels table to proue that the bread and wine at the Lordes table be sacrificed is a strange kinde of diuinitie if it bee not worse Certainly not the sacrifice but the Sacrament ordained by Christ to be taken and eaten from his table doeth make vs members of Christ and ioyneth vs all in one fellowship of his mysticall body the Priestes sacificing of Christes flesh doth not helpe the matter for ought that we know or you proue but by such sleeuelesse I wil not say witlesse conceites as these be And yet your owne comparison ouerthroweth your owne oblation For if in Pagan Iewish and euen in Christian religion as you say they which eate of the Sacrifice be partakers of the sacrifice we infer that in your priuate masses where the Priest alone â—ateth and no man eateth with him the people haue no part in that sacrifice so your oblation if it be any auaileth no man but your selues because no man eateth of it besides your selues which is more against your profit than the name of sacrifice would do you good if you could â—uince it by S. Paul Phi. God helpe you masters ye be so addicted to the bellie that you thinke of nothing â—ut of eating drinking The sacrifice you admit not the sacrameÌ„t you adore not but if you may eate and drinke then are you safe Theo. This diuinity will better become the diuels table whence you lately fet your sacrifice than the Lordes sacramentes or the seruauntes of Christ. To eate drinke at his table is not our inuention but his institution and therefore no point of gluttonie as you leuâ—ly surmise but of pietie which you skant beleeue as appeareth by your abolishing that order which Christ left and deuising an other of your owne without any warrant from him For where Christ said take ye eate ye you like not that but haue chaunged it into Looke ye adore ye telling the people they do God good seruice when they giue his diuine honour to dead â—â—slesse creatures Phi. No Sir we teach them to adore Christ and not the creatures of bread and wine Theo. You first imagine the creatures to be
name than the body and blood of Christ not that in earthly matter or essence they be really conuerted into those diuine things as you falsely gather but for that remaining in their former vsual both nature and substance they haue in them cary with them the fruite effect and force of Christs flesh wounded blood shed for the remission of our sinnes And because the people shoulde regarde not the creatures which they see but the graces which they beleeue therefore the Fathers euery where without exception call the elements by the names of the inwarde and heauenly vertues that are annexed to them and conferred with them by the trueth of his word power of his spirit This is the first rule which you should haue obserued The next is that whensoeuer they teach and propose the dignitie proprietie or efficacie of the Sacrament they meane not the creatures which our eies and tasts doe better iudge of than their tongues or wittes can teach vs but that other diuine lyfe-giuing and soule-sauing part of the sacrament which our heartes by fayth take holde on and possesse more really and effectually than if it were chammed in our mouthes or buried in our stomackes as you grossely conceiue of those thinges which bee most high and heauenly These two Rules remembred a very meane scholer may soone discharge the burden of all your allegations For either you mistake the one part for the other supposing that to bee corporall which in deede is spirituall or else you vrge the name which the signe beareth for similitude as â—arnâ—stily to all intents as 〈◊〉 were were the thing it selfe which causeth you to 〈◊〉 so many texâ—es and to straie so farre from trueth that no sound can recall you Phi. Away with your new found obseruations The catholike church hath the spirit of trueth promised for her direction and therefore the wil none of your wise inuentions to qualifie the fathers speeches Learne you rather at her handes to beleeue the wordes of Christ who first appointed this Sacrament and pronounced it to be himselfe without signe or figure when he saide this is my body and this is my blood not spirituall or metaphoricall but the same body which was broken and the same blood which was shed for remissioâ— of sinnes and that I trust you will confesse was his naturall and locall hath body and blood Theo. The question is not whether that were his naturall body which suffered on the crosse but when hee saide of the bread this is my bodie whether he substantially changed the dead element into himselfe made the creature become the creator or whether he annexed his trueth to the signe and grace to the Sacrament which required both the word of Christ to make the promise and his power to perfourme the speech And therefore we beleeue and acknowledge the wordes of our Sauiour to bee very needeful in ordaining this Sacrament euen in such manner and order as they were spoken that the signes might haue the fruites and effectes of his body and blood But that hee chaunged substances with the bread and wine or deified the creatures that his speech doth not inferre and that as yet we doe not beleeue except you can shewe vs howe the fleshe of Christ which was first made of a woman is nowe become to be made of bread and a dead and senslesse creature exalted to bee the son of God Phi. We do not say the bread is substantially conuerted into Christ or made the sonne of God but the bread is abolished in the place thereof commeth the glorious flesh of our Lord and Sauiour who is the Sonne of God And in that sense we hold the creator is now where the creature was but the dead element is not made the Sonne of God you woulde faine catch vs at such an aduantage Theo. How you can auoide it I yet perceiue not for if the bread bee nowe Christ which before it was not ergo the bread is made Christ and by consequent a dead element is nowe become or made the Sonne of God which I thinke will hardly stand with the very first groundes of Christian religion Phi. You presse the letter against both reason and trueth For the one is sayd to be conuerted or chaunged into the other because the one displaceth and succeedeth the other so is it a chaunge rather of the one for the other than a conuersion of the one into the other if you take conuersion properly as the Philosophers do Theo. Christ dâ—eth not say where the bread was there is nowe my body but this bread is my body And since before consecration it was not his body and now by repeating the wordes is become his body the conclusion is euident that by your opinion the bread is made Christ and so become the sonne of God Phi. You thinke to snare vs with schoole-trickes but setting your sophismes aside we plainly beleeue the Sacrament is Christ. Theo. You must beleeue the bread is Christ which as yet the Articles of our Creede will not suffer vs to doe I meane not to thinke that a dead and dumbe creature may bee God Phi. Do we say the bread is God Theo. You must auerre it if you stick to the letter of Christs words for he said of the bread as you inforce it this is my selfe now he was God Phi. I thought I should be euen with you at Landes end Christ did not say this bread is my bodie but this is my bodie where now is the force of your argument Theo. Euen where it was Phi. Why Christ sayd this is not meaning bread or any other creature Theo. That this must be somwhat else nothing was the body of Christ so you loose not only the bread but also the body Phi. Nay he said this is and that must needs be somwhat it can not be nothing Theo. It is well you haue found it I said so before you Then this is my body What this Was it bread that he spake of or somthing else Phi. He spake of that which he had in his hands Theo. You meane not long before Phi. In deede you say he had at that present when he spake the wordes nothing in his handes and so you would haue nothing to be his body Theo. Hinder not our course with matter impertinent to this place The demonstratiue THIS noteth that which Christ then gaue to his Disciples as wel as that which you thinke he then held in his hands Choose whether you wil of force the thing must be all one For that which hee helde that he gaue and of that which he first helde and after gaue hee saide this is my body Phi. He did so Theo. What was it Phi. Somwhat it was whatsoeuer it was Theo. What somwhat do you say it was Phi. What if I cannot tell Theo. Then must you seeke farther for your chaunging of substances The words of
Christ if you know not whereof he spake proue no conuersion of the bread into his body For vnlesse THIS be taken to import the bread the bread by those wordes can not be changed and if not by these then surely by none Phi. I see your drift you fet about to force me to confesse that by the strict coherence of our Sauiours wordes the bread is Christ since that propositioÌ„ in precise speech is vntrue you would come in with your figures Theo. And your drift is as open that hauing deuised a reall and carnall presence to your selues by colour of Christes wordes and perceiuing the same to bee no way consequent to the letter which you pretend least you shoulde bee disproued to your faces you will not admit the perfect and plaine context of Christes wordes but stand houering about other sophisticall illusions which will not helpe you For we haue the ful confession of scriptures fathers against you that the pronoune THIS in Christes words must bee restrained to the bread and to nothing else The Lord tooke breade and when hee had giuen thankes he brake no doubt the bread that he tooke and gaue to the Disciples the selfesame that he brake saying take ye eate ye this that I giue you This is my bodie What THIS could our Sauiour mean but THIS that he gaue THIS that he brake THIS that he tooke which by the witnesse of the Scripture it selfe was bread If you suppose that he tooke bread but brake it not or brake it but gaue it not or gaue it his Disciples to eate but told them not this which he gaue them but some other thing besides that was his body you make the Lords supper a merry iest where the later end starteth from the beginning and the middle from the both The pronoune THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore except you name the bread which Christ pointed vnto when he spake these wordes you coÌ„firme not the faithes but amase the wits of your followers S. Paul proposing the Lordes Supper to the church of Corinth expresseth that very word which we say the circumstances of the Gospel import As often as ye shall eate saith he This bread and drinke this cuppe you shew foorth the Lords death till he come The bread which he brake is it not the communion of Christs body Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cup for whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guilty of the body blood of the Lord. So that as wel by the cohereÌ„ce of the former words in the description of the Lords supper as by the manifest adiectioÌ„ which S. Paul putteth to the demoÌ„stratiue we conclude our sauior pronouÌ„ced of the bread that it was his body The referring of THIS to the bread all the catholik fathers that euer wrate with pen in the church of God acknowledge with one consent Iustinus Wee be taught that the sanctified foode which nourisheth our fleshe and our blood is the fleshe and blood of that Iesu. Tertullian So Christ taught vs calling bread his bodie and discussing the wordes of the supper Why saith he doth Christ there call bread his bodie Austen That which your faith requireth to be taught the bread is the body of Christ and the cup his blood Cyprian Our Lord at his table gaue to the Disciples with his own handes bread and wine on the crosse hee yeelded his body to the souldiers handes to be wounded that his Apostles might teach all Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood Ireneus How shall it appeare to them that the bread on which they giue thankes is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood if they graunt not Christ to be the sonne of the creator of the world How did the Lord rightly if an other were his father taking bread of this condition that is vsuall amongst vs confesse it to bee his body Hierom Let vs learn that the bread which the Lord brake gaue to his disciples is the Lords body himself saying to theÌ„ take ye eate ye this is my body Athan. or at lest the coÌ„mentary that is extaÌ„t in his name What is the bread the body of Christ. Epiphan Of that which is round in figure sensles in power the Lord would say by grace this is my body Cyrill Christ thus auoucheth and saith of the bread this is my body Theodorete In the verie giuing of the misteries he called bread his body And of all others your selues may not shrink from this resolution of Christs wordes the surest holde of your reall presence though it bee not much standeth onely on this settle For what wordes haue you besides thâ—se to proue that the breade is chaunged from his former substaunce Uerily none Then if in these wordes which should worke the change there be no mention at all of bread how can that which is no way comprised in them bee chaunged by them So miraculous a change can not be wrought by silence but rather if any such be by the power of Christes words and in those words must the thing at least be named that shall be changed Againe the demonstratiue THIS must needes note that which was there present on the Lordes table before the words of consecration were wholy repeated and the flesh of Christ coulde not be present vnder the likenesse of bread without or before Consecration ergo the pronoune inferreth not Christ but the bread which by your owne positions is not abolished but in vltimo instanti prolationis verboruÌ„ in the very last end instant of vttering these wordes And therefore remaine in his owne nature wheÌ„ the first word was pronounced Which some not the meanest men of your side foresaw very well howsoeuer you since haue taken other counsel and therefore they say Dicendum est quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panis We must behold saith Gerson that the pronoune THIS doeth demonstrate the substaunce of bread and Steuen Gardiner Christus ait euidenter hoc est corpus meum demonstrans panem Christ sayeth plainly this is my body pointing to the bread Notwithstanding afterward he changed his minde in this as in many other thinges came to Indiuiduum vagum as if Christ had saide THIS what is it I can not tell but it must needes be somwhat is my body Occam and other profound fellowes of your side bethinking themselues how your opinion might best agree with the wordes of Christ say the pronoune THIS must be referred to the bodie of Christ as if our Sauiour had said this my body is my body To make all cocksure the coronell of your scholmen I meane the gloze resolueth the doubt on this wife Solet quaeri quid demonstretur per pronomen
hoc It is a common question what is ment by the pronoune THIS whether bread or the body of Christ Not bread for that is not the body of Christ nor yet the body of Christ for it appeareth not that there is any transubstantiation till the wordes be all pronounced To this demaund I say that by the word THIS nothing is ment but it is there put materially without anie signification at all Thus you turned and tossed the wordes of Christ so long till you brought all that the Lord did and saide at his last supper to plaine NOTHING With such vnchristian toyes were your scholes fraughted and the worlde deceiued such monsters you hatched when once you left the direction of the Scriptures and Fathers and fell to broaching your owne gesses But you must either admit our explication this breade is my body for the right ordering and perfitting of Christes wordes or else dissent from the manifest Scriptures from al the catholike Fathers and with shame enough from your owne fellowes and fansies Phi. Wee sticke not so much at the filling vp of the wordes which Christ spake as at the constering and expounding of them You delude them with tropes and significations as if Christ had beene speaking parables and not ordaining sacramentes Wee say there must be a reall truth and actiue force in them to perfourme the letter as it lieth For in Scripture so long as the letter may possibly be true we may not fly to figures Theo. In that you say right We must imbrace the sense which is occurant in the letter before all others if it agree with faith and good maners but if it crosse either of them we must beware the letter lest it kill and seeke for an other and deeper sense which must needes be figuratiue That direction S. Augustine giueth to al men when they read the Scriptures Iste omnino modus est locutionis inueniendae propriáne an figurata sit vt quicquid in sermone diuino neque ad morum honestatem nec ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest figuratum esse cognoscas This is the perfect way to discerne whether a speech be proper or figuratiue that whatsoeuer in the word of God can not be properly referred either to integritie of maners or verity of faith thou resolue thy selfe it is figuratiue Phi. That prescription is very sound but it furthereth not your figuratiue sense For the letter of these wordes which we stand for is neither against faith nor good manners Theo. The literall acception of these words as they lie this bread is my body is first impossible by your owne confession next blasphemous by the plaine leuell of our Creede and lastly barbarous by the verie touch and instinct of mans nature Phi. Charge you Christ with so manie foule ouersightes in speaking the wordes Theo. The wordes which Christ spake be gratious and religious we know but where there may be brought a double construction of them a carnall or a spirituall a literall or a SacrameÌ„tall the literall construction which you will needes defend to deface the other is we say reproued as no part of our Sauiours meaning by those three barres which we proposed Phi. You propose much but you proue litle Theo. I should proue euen as much as you do if I should proue nothing but that which I proposed shall not want proofe The first your owne friendes will helpe me to proue Your Lawe saieth Hoc tamen est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi Yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Why striue you then for that which your selues grant is not possible to be true Why forsake you the mysticall interpretation which is possible what greater vanitie can you shewe than to cleaue to that sense which you see can not stande If it be bread how can it be Christ If it be Christ how can it be bread The second is as cleare For if breade in proper and precise speech bee the flesh of Christ ergo bread is also the feede of Dauid ergo breade was fastned to the crosse for our sinnes ergo bread was buried rose the third day from death and now sitteth in heauen at the right hand of God the Father nay no questioÌ„ if bread be Christ then is bread the Sonne of God and second person in the sacred Trinitie which how wel your stomaks can digest we know not in truth our harts tremble to heare an earthly dead and corruptible creature by your literall carnall deuotion aduaunced to the Lord of life grace the maker of heauen and earth yea the liuing and euerlasting God and yet if bread be truely and properly Christ these monsterous impieties you can not auoide Thirdly what could you deuise more iniurious and odious to christian mildnesse maners than the letter of these words eate you this is my flesh drinke you this is my blood Had you bin willed in as plain termes to cruciâ—ie Christ as you bee willed to eate his fleshe you woulde not I trust haue presently banded your selues with the Iewes to put him to death but rather haue staggered at the letter and sought for some farther and other meaning Yee be now willed to eate his flesh drinke his blood which is a precept far more hainous horrible in christian behauiour and religion if you follow the letter as AusteÌ„ affirmeth It appeareth more horrible to eate mans flesh than to kill it to drinke mans blood than to shed it And againe The Capernites were more excusable that coulde not abide the wordes of Christ which they vnderstood not being in deede horrible in that they were spoken as a blessing not as a cursing They thought saith Cyrill Christ had inuited them to eate the raw flesh of a man and drinke blood which thinges be horrible to the verie eares Why then presse you the letter which is hainous forget that the speech can not be religious except it be figuratiue Uerily S. Austen concludeth the speech to be figuratiue for this only reason If the scripture seeme to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue Except ye eate the fleshe of the son of man and drinke his blood you shall haue no life in you facinus velflagitium videtur iubere Christ seemeth to command a wicked sinfull act figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion sweetly profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified wouÌ„ded for vs. If then the real eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes and actuall drinking of his blood with our lips be wicked and hainous why presse you the letter of these wordes eate you this is my body drinke you this is my blood against truth against faith against nature neither possibility nor christianity nor coÌ„mon honestie suffering your exposition to be good S.
Austen in plaine termes concluding It is therfore a figure of speech Phi. Sir you bee misconstered all this while The verbe which coupleth both partes of the proposition togither doeth not here signifie this to bee simply that but this to be really changed in that as if our Lord had said THIS breade is now become my body that is substantially changed into my body Theo. Sir you shuffle the words of Christ to serue your dreames yet you scape not the rockes which you thought to shunne If the bread must be changed in substance that is become no bread afore it be the body of Christ ergo breade is not the body of Christ and so your construction is a plaine contradiction to the letter which you would interprete For Christ said this bread is my body that cannot be true say you vnlesse the bread loose first his substance and ceaâ—e in deede to be breade and so where Christ saide this bread is my body you expound his wordes in this sort that it must first be no bread afore it can be his body Besides in absurdity there is no difference whether you say bead is Christ or bread is made Christ changed into Christ. For that which is made Christ without all question is Christ so the same blasphemies are consequent to this exposition that were dependant on the former Phi. Well yet the bread may be abolished and Christs body succeede in the place where the bread was without any of these inconueniences Theo. Thither are you faine to flie when you be hardly pressed with the sequeles of the literall sense but in the meane time you forget that you be cleane gone from the wordes of Christ which you pretended to folow He said this is my body you to expouÌ„d his speach say THIS must first vanish away and then my body shall succeede in the same place and be couered with the same accidents though THIS neither in shew nor substance be my body Phi. This is sophistry which the catholike fathers were neuer acquainted with Theo. If it be any it is yours not ours you first forsooke the exposition of Christs words which the learned and godly fathers with one accord witnessed deliuered then stuÌ„bling at the letter you hatched your carnal local presence against Scriptures and fathers and when the wordes of Christ would not sit your fansies you racked wrenched them til you brought both them to nothing and your selues to a maze that you knew not what you said where as if you had continued their interpretation you had cleared the wordes of Christ from all perplexities inioyed the fruites of the Lords table without perill of Idolatrie or impietie eased your selues of those absurdities which you be now plunged in vp hard to the eares Phi. What interpretation meane you Theo. That which the Fathers generally beleeued publikly taught in the church of Christ. Phi. And what exposition was that but the same which we now vrge you resist The. Shew but one ancient father that euer affirmed the wordes of Christ at his last Supper were properly spoken or literally to be taken and wee will receiue your sense Phi. What you will not Theo. What neede you repeate it when you heare vs offer it Phi. Not a father that euer auouched these words of Christ this is my body to be properly spoken or literally taken Theo. Not a father that is ancient Phi. How would you lie if you might be let alone I can name you presently a good number of them that in exquisite termes shal affirme the words of Christ to be literall Theo. Shal they be auncient Phi. I can not tel what you mean by auncient you would haue them belike before Christ was borne Theo. As though there were not difference both in the ages and credites of those writers that haue gone before vs in the church of Christ. Phi. They shall bee auncient Theo. Damascene perhaps Theophilact Phi. Yea Epiphanius Euthymius and many others The. Many others is a note aboue ela These foure affirme that Christ did not say this is the image or figure of my body but this is my body which we confesse was needefull for the first ordayner and institutor of the Sacrament to say Mary by those wordes our Sauiour did not meane to abolish the substance of breade or wine but to vnite the force and fruite of his flesh crucified and blood shed for our sinnes to the elementes that receiuing the one we might through faith bee partakers of the other by the working of his spirite and power of the word which he then spake much lesse did these later writers the eldest of them being more thaÌ„ 700 yeres after Christ intend to gainesay the fathers that were before them of greater iudgement and deeper knowledge howsoeuer in shew they seeme loth that Christes wordes should be recalled to a bare and naked figure which for our parts we do not Phi. A bare figure nay they will haue no figure in the wordes of Christ to that ende they vrge the very letter as excluding all tropes figures which you now take vp in a spleene to frustrate our proofes Theo. Did the Fathers meane to frustrate your proofes when they tooke vppe this doctrine many hundrethes before you or your reall presence were hearde of Philand Do they teache the wordes of Christ eate this is my bodie to bee figuratiue Theo. I haue shewed you causes sufficient to fray the godly from the letter which doth rather kill than quicken the carnal interpreters yet am I content to forgo them all if in expounding the wordes of Christ figuratiuely the catholike and ancient fathers do not make expressely with vs and against you directly Tertullian The bread which was taken and giuen to the Disciples Christ made his body by saying this is my body that is the figure of my bodie Why doth Christ call bread his bodie Marcion vnderstandeth not this was an old figure of the body of Christ speaking by Ieremie they laide their handes togither against mee saying come let vs cast wood on his bread that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightner of antiquities in calling the bread his bodie fully declared what he would then at his last Supper haue the bread to signifie Augustine discussing the wordes of Moses the soule of all flesh is his blood The thing saith he that doth signifie commonly taketh the name of the thing that is thereby signified as it is written the seuen eares of corne which Pharao dreampt of bee seuen yeres he said not they signifie seuen yeres the seuen kine be seuen yeres many such speeches So was it saide by Paul the rocke was Christ hee sayde not the rocke did signifie Christ but as if it had beene the selfesame thing which by substance it was not but by signification Euen so the blood because it signifieth the soule is
after the manner of Sacramentes called the soule I can interprete this precept to consist of a signe or figure for the Lord did not sticke to say this is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie And speaking in Christes person he sayeth This bodie which you see you shal not eate neither shal you drinke the blood which they that crucifie me shall shed I haue commended a Sacrament vnto you that Sacrament spiritually vnderstood shal quicken you It is therefore as you hearde before out of the same Father a figure of speech commaunding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion For the Lord at his supper saith he commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood Cypriā The Lord at his last supper gaue bread and wine with his own hands on the crosse he gaue his body to be wounded by the souldiers handes that syncere truth secretly printed in his Apostles might teach the Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood and how the causes agreed with their effectes and different names and kindes might be reduced to one essence and the signes signifieng and the thinges signified might be called by the same names Origen There is in the very Gospell a letter that doth kill not onely in the old Testament is there a deadly letter found but in the new Testament there is a letter that doth kill him which doeth not spiritually conceiue the thinges that be spoken For if you take this saying except yee eate my flesh and drinke my blood according to the letter this letter killeth And againe Not the matter of bread but the word recited ouer it doth profit the worthy receiuer This I speake of the typical and figuratiue body Ambrose It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried this therefore is the Sacrament of that true fleshe The Lord Iesus himselfe sayth this is my body Before the blessing of these heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing after consecration the body of Christ is thereby signified In eating and drinking at the Lords table We signifie the body and blood of Christ that were offered for vs. The new Testament is confirmed by blood in a figure of which blood We reciue the mysticall cup. The priest in the church seruice faith Make this oblation ascribed reasonable and acceptable for vs which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Hierom When the Pascal lambe was eaten Iesus taketh bread which strengthneth the heart of man and goeth to the true sacrament of the passouer that as Melchisedec had done offering bread wine in a profiguratiō of him so he likewise might represent the truth of his body blood For Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it transfiguring his body into the breade Chrysostom This table hath he prepared for his seruants that hee might euery day for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ shew foorth in a Sacramēt vnto vs bread and wine after the maner of Meschisedec Before it be sanctified we cal it bread but the diuine grace once sanctifieng the same by the ministerie of the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread coūted worthy to be called the Lordes body though the nature of bread continew there still So that in the sanctified vessel there is not the true body of Christ but a mystery of his body is there contained Nazianzene Let vs bee partakers of the passeouer figuratiuely notwithstanding as yet though this Passeouer bee more manifest than the former Theodoret. Our Sauiour in deed changed the names called his bodie by the name of the signe and the signe by the name of his body The reason whereof is manifest to those that are acquainted with the diuine mysteries He would haue the receiuers of these heauenly mysteries not looke to the nature of the things which are seen but hearing the alteration of names beleeue the chāge which is there made by grace For he that called his natural body wheat bread named himself a vine the same Lord honored the signes elements of bread wine which we see with the name of his body blood not changing the nature of the signes but casting grace vnto nature Prosper The diuine breade which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the body of Christ being in deed but the sacramēt of Christs bodie Which words your own law thus expoundeth The diuine bread which truly representeth the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly wherfore it is said after a sort which is non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in exactnes of truth but in a mysterie of signification So that this is the meaning it is called the body of Christ that is the body of Christ is thereby signified Bede The solemnities of the old Passeouer being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the church is desirous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in steede of the flesh and blood of a lamb he substituting the sacrament or sacred signe of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to be the same to whome the Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedec Druthmarus The Lord gaue his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sinnes that being mindfull of his deede they might alwaies in a figure do that which he was to do for thē not forget his loue This is my body that is in a sacrament Wine maketh glad increaseth blood and for that cause the blood of Chirst is aptly figured thereby Bertram That bread wine is figuratiuely the body and blood of christ the maner thereof is in a figure representation in mysterio non veritate in a mysterie not in truth plaine speech Phi. You thinke to winne the spurres but you may chance to loose bootes and all These places which you bring haue a shew before the simple but there is no pith nor substance in them and with one puffe wee can blowe them all away Theo. It must be such a puffe then as wherwith you first blew away christ and his gospel and brought in your own decrees to ouerrule both God and man with the breath of your mouthes Phi. You scoffe my meaning is that I can crosse them all with one answere Theo. If they were sprites you might driue them away with crossing but being ancient and godly fathers they will tell on their tales to your reproofe crosse you what you will or can in their wayes Phi. I will not crosse it in their way but in yours Theo. When you will wherefore serue my feete but to tosse it out of the way or at lest to step ouer it that it hinder not
doubt arise not touching the creatures of breade and wine but touching the fleshe and blood of Christ which are the Principall partes of this mystery the solution and explication of euery such doubt must be fet from the place where the Lord first reuealed this secret rebuked the Capernites for the misconstruction of his words and taught his Disciples how they should be both fruitfull partakers of his flesh rightful interpreters of his speech Phi. You woulde faine haue it so but wee meane to barre you that chaâ—ce Theo. You cannot bar vs but you must bar Chrysostom Cyprian Cyrill Austen and others that confesse the same trueth before vs. How chanced saieth Chrysostome the Disciples were not troubled when they heard this take eate this is my body Because their master had debated the same matter largely and profoundly before For at first when he spake of these thinges many were offended at the very words So Cyprian To the sonnes of Abraham doing the workes of Abraham the high Priest bringeth foorth bread and wine saying this is my body There arose before this as we reade in the Gospell of Iohn a question touching the nouelty of this speech and at the doctrine of this mysterie the hearers were amazed So Cyrill The Capernites before they beleeue question busily with him Therefore the Lord did not tell them how that might be but exhorteth them to seeke for it with faith mary to the beleeuing disciples he gaue peeces of breade saying take yee eate ye this is my body Likewise the cuppe hee deliuered round saying drinke yee all of this Thou seest that to those which asked without faith hee did not open the maner of this mysterie but to those which beleeued yea when they did not aske hee declared the same And Augustine When Christ spake of the Sacrament of his body and bloode they saide this speech is hard Who can heare it You see by the constant opinion of these Fathers that our Sauiour in the sixt of Iohn taught his Disciples what manner of eating his flesh and drinking his blood they should expect at his last Supper and that they therefore started not at these words this is my body because they learned of him before what to looke for and well remembred his interpretation of himselfe when the Capernites staggered at the like speech Then perforce what sense the wordes of Christ in the sixt of Iohn doe beare the same must the wordes of the supper retaine but there Christ teacheth the spirituall eating of his fleshe by faith his wordes bee figuratiue ergo the Lordes supper doeth not import any corporal eating of his flesh nor literall exposition of his wordes And why The performance may no way differ from the promise The promise made by Christ in the sixt of Iohn the bread which I will giue is my flesh was figuratiue The wordes then of the Supper THIS which I now giue is my body perfourming the same must likewise be figuratiue For Seales doe not alter or infringe but strengthen and confirme that which was promised The creatures of bread and wine Christ ordained at his last Supper to bee Sacramentes and Seales of his former promises vttered in the sixth of Iohn ergo they change not his meaning expressed before That was spiritual figuratiue therefore the wordes of the Supper can not be corporall nor literall And the wordes of Origen expounding the sixt of Iohn are a iust proofe that if in the wordes of the Supper you follow the letter that letter killeth Phi. This can not be Christ in the sixth of Iohn you say teacheth a spirituall and figuratiue kinde of eating his fleshe and in deliuering the Sacrament we be sure he spake of a corporall not of a spirituall eating his body For when our Lord saide take eate this is my body did hee not meane they should take it with their handes and eate it with their mouthes And therefore either the one place doth not serue to expound the other or else in both places is prescribed a reall and corporall eating the flesh of Christ drinking his blood which we rather imbrace as the likeliest Theo. In those wordes take and eate spoken at the last Supper hee ment no doubt the corporall taking and eating of that creature which hee gaue them and when hee added this is my body which hee tolde them before they must eate if they would haue any life in them he recalled to their mindes as Chrysostom noteth the doctrine hee had taught them of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in which because they were wel instructed by the Capernites error and their masters declaration of himselfe that the wordes which he spake were spirite and life they neither started nor stumbled at his speech but presently perceiued the Lord was ordayning a Sacrament to confirme their faith and not hiding his fleshe vnder accidentes or any other couerts to enter their mouthes for which grossenes the Capernits were before reproued Christes exposition therefore in the sixt of Iohn was purposely made to confute the carnal Iewes who when they heard of eating mans flesh and drinking blood dreampt of no kind of eating and drinking but with their bodily iawes lips and for that cause murmured as if they had beene inuited to some barbarous brutish act next to teach the disciples that indured his words in what sort they should looke for a diuiner purer kind of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood by beleeuing hoping and reioycing in his fleshe that was wounded and blood that was shed for their sinnes This he assured and ratified vnto them by ordaining afterward a Sacrament which they shoulde visibly see but inuisibly vnderstand corporally receiue but spiritually interprete in beleeuing the same by the power of his worde and spirit to haue in it cary with it the fulnes of his trueth mercy openly sealed with those pledges of his promises instruments of his grace lest their faith should faint by reason of his departure absence from theÌ„ or their harts faile them as if they were destitute of his protection fauor amidst so many troubles as should inclose them Phi. If you will needes haue the sixt of S. Iohn to pertaine to the Sacrament then is there say we a reall corporall kind of eating established in that chapter For Christ in plaine speech saith my flesh is meate in deede and my blood is drinke in deede Theo. It is well that you bethinke your selfe at last you were about to dissent both froÌ„ the fathers from your own felowes For the fathers as I haue shewed you confesse that the Disciples were by the words of Christ in this place instructed how they should eate his flesh drinke his blood euen in the sacrament that made theÌ„ vnderstand him when he said take eate this is my body drink ye al
on his flesh and that they might thenceforth learne that the flesh of which he spake was celestiall foode from heauen and spirituall nourishment which hee giueth Augustine Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy bellie BELEEVE AND THOV HAST EATEN To beleeue in him this is to eat the liuing bread HE THAT BELEEVETH EATETH He is inuisibly fedde because hee is inuisibly regenerated He is inwardly a babe inwardly new In what part he is renewed in that part is he nourished Bernard that in respect of antiquitie liued but yesterday can teach you the meaning of this place When they heard him say except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud they saide this is an hard speach and departed from him And what is to eate his flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and imitate that conuersation which he ledde here in flesh The text it selfe doth in sight conuince so much The Lord often times expoundeth his owne wordes purposly to this effect Worke not for the meate which perisheth but for the meate which dureth to eternall life and this is the worke of God that you beleeue in him whom he hath sent I am that bread of life he that commeth to me not by walking but by beleeuing shal not hunger he that beleeueth in me shal neuer thirst Hunger and thirst are no way quenched but with eating and drinking Then how can the beleeuer but still hunger and still thirst except we graunt that he which beleeueth both eateth and drinketh Verily verily I say vnto you except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you He then which hath life per consequence eateth the flesh of christ and drinketh his bloud but he that beleeueth hath eternall life as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place with no lesse vehemencie Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life ergo he that beleeueth eateth the flesh and drinketh the bloud of Christ. For if eating and drinking in this place were referred to the mouth and teeth how could Iudas or any other of the wicked that is once partaker of the Lordes table perish The wordes of Christ be plaine Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and are dead If any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life But the wicked notwithstanding the corporal chamming of this Sacrament die the death of sinners ergo they neither eat the â—lesh of Christ nor drink his bloud not because their teeth or iawes faile them but by reason they want faith which is the right and proper instrument of spiritual eating Since then man beleeueth with his heart vnto righteousnes as Paul teacheth not with his iawes nor lippes ergo the soul of man which only beleeueth only doth eate the flesh of Christ and our bodies which haue no meanes to beleeue can neither eate nor drinke in that sort and sense that our Sauiour there speaketh of You cannot with honestie steppe from so manifest both Scriptures and Fathers as these bee that I haue brought or if you can dally with so good and graue witnesses in so weightie matters I trust the Godly will bee fully resolued that the manner of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloud which the Lord himselfe first proposed in the sixt of Iohn was not LITERALL NOR CORPORALL as the Capernites vnderstand him and were deceiued but ALLEGORICALL AND SPIRITVALL ALLEGORICALL in respect of the words which be not there precisely taken in their vsuall signification for grinding with the teeth and straining downe the throate but figuratiuely spoken and import as much as confessing imbracing with hart and inward affectioÌ„ SPIRITVAL because not our mouths but our minds not our bellies but our spirites are nourished with the flesh and bloud of Christ and that not by chewing or swallowing but by remembring and beleeuing that his bodie was wounded and his bloud shedde for our perfect and eternall redemption Now the Lords Supper is correspondent not contrarie to the first of Iohn as we saw before by the verdit of the fathers confession of your selues therefore the Lords table teacheth no literall nor carnal but a spirituall mysticall eating of the â—lesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud which you cannot obserue so long as you presse the letter of these wordes Take eat this is my body For taking and eating in the Supper bee corporall actions euen as breaking the bread and deliuering the cup are Then if the wordes this is my bodie bee literall the consequent is ineuitable that the flesh of Christ is really taken with hands actually brused with teeth corporally lodged in the belly But this error the Lorde in his own person confuted and the Catholike fathers refell as impious irreligious and haynous ergo the wordes of the Supper this is my body bee not literall but rather aunswerable to the doctrine proposed in the sixt of Iohn which is nothing lesse than literal Phi. You make but a double manner of eating Christes flesh where you should make a triple A carnal spirituall and Sacramentall A carnal which the capernites dreampt of when they supposed they should haue eaten raw flesh to sight and tast as they did other meates A spirituall by faith and vnderstanding in which sort euery good man may eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud at any time without the mysteries A Sacramentall as when wee eate the flesh of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine though we neither see nor â—ast flesh or blood Of these three sortes the sixt of S. Iohns Gospell refelleth onely the carnall which the Capernites grossely fell to when they heard our Sauiour speake of the Sacrament Theo. I blame you not if you bee loath to be counted Capernites They were reproued by our Sauiour as grosse mistakers of his speach and lewde forsakers of his fellowship but would God you were as willing to leaue their error as you be to refuse their name Phi. Wee be farder than you from their opinion And you be rather Capernites that aske how can he giue vs his flesh to eate and will not beleeue any eating of Christes bodie with the mouth except your eyes and tongues maie first discerne and tast the same Theo. We aske not him how he can doe anie thing that he will but wee aske you how you know that both his will and his worde are changed since he rebuked the Capernites for their grossenes Phi. We doe not say that either his will or his word are chaunged Theo. Then the doctrine of eating his flesh and drinking his blood which he delâ—uered in the sixt of Iohn remaineth in the same force and strength that it did at first when he reuealed it to his disciples Philand It doth
would conâ—uâ—e my selâ—e Theo. No the clearenes of trueth was such that you could not shadowe the beames of it and therefore in a brauerie you did admit it though now you would to your owlelight againe Phi. This is counsell to me I know not what you mean Theo. Dâ—d you not confesse it to bee very true thâ—t in this sacrament the signes after consecration did carie the names and effects of the things themselues Phi. Yeas I did Theo. Recaâ—t you that Phi. I doe not Theo. Then are the places which you brought for the reâ—l eating of Christs fleshe with your mouthes and teeth returned backe without your conclusiâ—n For the signes which are called after consecration by the names of â—hrists bodie and blood do enter our mouthes and passe our throates the true flâ—sh bloud of christ do not but â—re eaten at the Lords table only of the inward maÌ„ by faithful deuâ—tion and affâ—ctiâ—n preparing the hart that Christ may lodge there dwâ—ll there where hee dâ—lightâ—th and not in the mouthes and â—awes of men which is no place for him that sitâ—eth in heauâ—n whither we must flie with the spirituall wings of our soules and spirites before we can be paâ—takers of him Phi. You shall not so delâ—de me The Rule â— granted was veâ—y true but how proue you that these speeches muâ—t be so constâ—â—ed In other cases it may be true though not in this Theo. If the Rule which I laide downe be very true then your places can inâ—erre nothing â—or so much as the wordes which you brought may be spoken as well of the signes as of the things themselues and in that case the promises receiuing a double consâ—â—uction by your own confessâ—on how can your conclusion stand goâ—d importing that sense which is not only most doubted and least proued but â—laâ—ly denied by the same fathers in other places as I haue shewed Phi. Tutâ—e I will not be mocked wiâ—h such iâ—stes you shall answer thâ—m place by place as I cite them or els I wil not speake one word more Theo. You importune mee to spende time which nowe waxeth short but it will be the worse for your selfe your egernes without trueth will be your owne discredit and the more paâ—ticularly the more plainly it will appeare Phi. I haue aduantages in their wordes against your euasion which I will not omit Theo. In Augustine Chrysostome and Tertullian you haue vtterly none Austen saith that in honour of so great a Sacrament as this is it hath pleased the holie Ghost that the sacred and sanctified bread which after a sort is called the Lords bodie though indeed it be the signe Sacrament of his bodieâ— should enter the mouth before other meats that sâ—â—ue onely to feed nourish ouâ— fleshâ— Chrysostome saith It is no small honour that our mouth hath gotten by receiuing the sanctified bread after consecration countâ—d worthy to be called the Lords body though the nature of bread still remainâ— And indeed so is it no small both comfort and honour that God hath vouâ—saâ—ed to confirme and â—eale his mercies vnto vs with these elements that are câ—nuerted into our fâ—â—sh to shew vs that we are as reallie inuâ—sted strengthned with his grace and â—rueth as our bodies are nourisâ—ed and encreased with the sâ—gnâ—s and Sacraments of his grace And to that end Tertullian saith Our flâ—sh seedeth on the bread which Christ called his bodie and hath in it the â—ffâ—cts of his body that our soules might be replenished with God Phi. These be your corrections oâ— their speaches they be not their intentions Theo. Looke better to them and you shall finde that I haue added no wordes but such as them selues in other places haue delâ—uered to declare their owne both meaning and speaking Phi. The rest doe make for vs. Theo. Cyril saith nothing but that as the soul hath faith and grace to clense it and prepare it to eternall life so it was needfull that our rude and â—arthlie bodie should be brought to immortalitie by corporal and earthlie food that our bodies touching tasting and feeding on creatures like themselues might take them as pledges of our resurrection Gregorie comparing the two Passeouers the Iewes and ours and alluding to the storie of theirs â—aith The blood of our Passeouer is sprinckled on both Posts when it is drunke not onelie with the mouth of the bodie as the cup is which after the manner of Sacramentes is the Communion of Christes bloode but also with the mouth of the hart which is the true drinking of Christes blood Phi. We will none of that by your leaue you must graunt that in strict and precise speach according to the woordes the blood of Christ is drunke by the mouth of the bodie as well as by the mouth of the soule Theophil Hath the soule a mouth in strict and precise speach or hath shee lips to drinke according to the letter Phi. Would you make me such a foole as so to thinke Theo. Then if one part of the sentence be figuratiue why not the other If that which hee doth most vrge be not literall why shal the letter be eracted in the harder and vnlikelier part of the comparison If the whole be but an allusion whie eract you that strictnes and precisenes of the speach in either part It is not possible that one and the same thing should be reallie drunke by the mouth of the bodie and the mouth of the soul. If it be corporall how can it enter the soul If it be spirituall how can it enter the mouth And if those be Gregories wordes which your ownâ— Lawe assigneth to him in the verie same homilie his exposition shaketh your real presence more than all the authorities you can bring shall settle it Quidam non improbabiliter exponunt hoc loco carnis sanguinis veritatem ipsam eorundem efficientiam id est peccatorum remissionem Some not amisse doe expound the trueth of Christes flesh and blood in this place to be the verie efficience of the same things that is the remission of sins Take this construction with you bring out of Greg. or Leo what you can it wil not help the tight of a barely corne Phi. S. Leo saith You ought so to communicate at the sacred table that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the bodie and blood of christ Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur For that is receiued with the mouth which is beleeued by our faith and in vaine doe they answer Amen which dispute against the thing that themselues receiue O noble Lion and such as all the heretikes in Europe will neuer encounter Theo. You speake like a Lion but the spite is your eares are too long to be taken for a beast of that metal You foolishly
the thinges themselues whose signes those are Philand It were Theophil Why then since corporall eating serueth only for corporall nourishing and hath a continuall and naturall coherence with it doe you confesse the trueth in the later and not as well in the former part of that action why doe you not expound them both alike Philand To say the immortall fleshe of Christ is conuerted and turned into the quantitie and substaunce of our mortall flesh is an horrible heresie Theophil And so say that his fleshe is eaten with our mouthes and â—awes lâ—â—th in our stomacks is the verie pathway right introduction to that heresie or at least to as brutish and grosse an erour as that is Philand The Fathers affirme that his body is eaten with our mouthes Theophil And so they affirme that his bodie and blood doe increase and augment the substaunce of our mortall and sinnefull bodies Philand But that can not bee Theophil No more can the other Philand Howe shall our bodies rise at the last day if Christes body bee not in them Theophil Our resurrection dependeth not on the act of eating his flesh but of nourishing our fleshe with his as Ireneus telleth vs and the thinges which wee eate are not the causes but as the great Nicene councell admonisheth the pledges of our resurrection Their words be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must beleeue these to bee the signes or pledges of our resurrection Philand S. Chrysostom earnestly inforceth the eating of Christs flesh And sayth wee doe not onely eate it but euen * fasten our teeth in his fleshe Theo. In deede hee saith so but if you did not auert both your eyes and eares from the trueth you would perceiue by that verie sentence both the maner of his other Fathers speeches of that Sacrament and the right intent of their Doctrine in those cases His wordes are Non se tantum videri permittens desiderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desiderio sui omnes impleri Christ suffering himselfe not only to bee seene of those that are desirous but to bee touched and eaten and our teeth to bee fastned in his flesh and all to be satisfied of their longing after him Phi. Lord me thinketh these words be verie plain words He suffereth our teeth to bee fastned in his fleshe Theo. Uerie plaine they bee but very false also vnlesse you either take the flesh of Christ for the signe called by that name or else referre teeth and biting to the soule and faith of the â—â—ward man aâ— wel as you do the eyes hands wherewith we see him touch him Phi. Look what an â—â—â—sion you haue since gotten Theo. Nay looke what a subuersion of all truth and saith you be since fallen to Phi. Doth not this Father say wee fasten our teeth in his flesh Theo. Doeth hee not also say We see him with our eyes touch him with our handes Phi. That is referred to our faith as S. Ambrose teacheth Fide Christus videtur side Christus tangitur By faith Christ is seene by fayth Christ is touched Theoph. And why shall not the next which is more vnlikely to bee true bee referred to faith as well as the former Sainct Ambrose likewise saying Comedat te cor meuÌ„ panis sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee O holy bread O liuing bread O pure-bread come into my heart enter into my soule and Cyprian calling it the proper norishment of the spirite besides infinite others that for a thowsande yeares taught that doctrine in the church of God not your gutturall eating of Christ with teeth and iawes Phi. Was your maner of eating Christes fleshe which you defende in the sacrament taught in the church for a thowsande yeares Theop. Euen ours was and when yours came first to be proposed your schoolemen ran euery man his way fighting and scratching one an other â—ho should fal fastest and farthest from the truth Philand Blush you not to auouch two such monsterous lies Theop. A lyar will easily suspect any man as knowing him-selfe to delight in lies but GOD bee thanked that lyes with you bee truethes with vs and with all that haue any knowlegde of GOD or care of his truth The things which I affirmed be manifest truethes and such as you will blush at for verie shame if you be not sworne to your holie Father against Christ as well as you bee against your Prince Origen commenting vppon these wordes of the Supper this is my bodie this is my blood this breade sayeth hee which Christ confesseth to bee his bodie is the worde that nourisheth our soules and this drinke which hee confesseth to bee his blood is the worde that moysteneth and passinglie cheereth the heartes of such as drinke it Thou which art come vnto Christ sticke not in the blood of his fleshe but rather learne the blood of his worde and heare him saying to thee this is my blood which shall bee shedde for the remission of your sinnes Hee that is partaker of the mysteries knoweth the flesh and blood of the worde of God For the bread is the word of righteousnesse which our soules eating are nourished with and the drink is the worde of the knowledge of Christ according to the mysterie of his birth and death The blood of the Testament is poured into our heartes for the remission of our sinnes Athanasius Howe fewe men woulde his bodie haue sufficed that this shoulde bee the foode of the whole worlde Yea therefore doeth bee warne them of his ascension into heauen that he might drawe him from thinking on his bodie and they thereby learne that the flesh which he spake of was celestiall meate from aboue and spirituall nourishment to bee giuen by him The wordes which I spake to you are spirite and life which is as much as if hee had sayde this bodie which is in your sight and delyuered to death for the worlde shall bee giuen you for meate that it may bee spiritually distributed in euery one of you and be an assuraunce and preseruatiue to raise you to eternall life Cyprian writing of the Lordes Supper Eating and drinking saieth hee bee referred to the one and same end with the which as the substance of our bodies is increased and preserued so the life of the spirite is maintained with his proper nourishment What foode is to the fleshe that faith is to the soule what meate is to the body that the worde is to the spirite working euerlastingly with a more excellent vertue that which bodily meates doe for a time and vntill a season Ambrose approaching to the sacred communion which you intitle a prayer preparing to Masse amongest other thinges speaketh thus to Christ himselfe Thou Lord saydst with thine holy and blessed mouth the bread
The bread hauing the inuocation of God is nowe no common bread but an Eucharist or thankesgiuing consisting of two things a terrestriall a celestiall So Ambrose The Sacrament is not that which nature hath framed but that which blessing hath halowed They do not auouch the Sacrament to bee simply no bread they teach it to bee no naturall nor vsuall bread because the vertue power and force of Christes flesh is vnited to it and receiued with it though to sight and taâ—â— it keepe the shewe of nothing else but bread Phi. What is species panis which the Fathers speake of but the vtter appearance of bread when the substaunce is altered Theo. Doeth species signifie a â—hape without substaunce Philand It signifieth the shape and not the substaunce Theo. Euerie creature hath his substaunce ioyned with his sensible shape and forme and therefore though the one doe not signifie the other yet the one inferreth the other by the verie necessitie of nature neyther hath GOD giuen vs any perfecter triall of substaunce than by sight and sense which is sure enough because shewes without substaunce are no creatures Philand But this in the Sacrament is miraculous and that is the reason why species in the Fathers doeth signifie a shewe without substaunce or as our Schooles rather like to say for perspicuities sake accidentes without a subiect Theophil Your Schooles were perspicuous as the Lande of Aegypt was light-some when it was couered with palpable darkenesse but where doeth any Father speaking of the Saâ—rament take species for a shewe without substaunce Philand That is â—uerie where the meaning of the word when they applie it to the Sacrament Theo. How proue you that Phi. It needeth no proofe the very word doeth â—o signifie Theophil The worde species doeth no more exclude the subâ—taunce of breade and wine in the Sacrament than species humana the shew shape and forme of a man which you haue doth take from you the â—ubstance truth of mans nature Which if you thinke it doeth looke what answere you will make to him that shall aske what lieth vnder the shape of a man in you it must be the substance of a man or some worse thing And if you can keepe both the shape and substaunce of man why may not the bread and wine do the like for all the word species which is verified of men and other creatures aswel as of the bread and wine in the mysteries Phi. The comparison is not like For the bread is changed and so am not I. Theophil Doe you not often change both the inward and outward man I meane the state of body and soule Phi. I change as others doe Theo. You can be no christian if you be not changed from the state in which you were born You were born the child of Gods wrath and seruant of sinne if you be renewed and freed from that then are you wholy changed Phi. This is no substantiall change such as we affirme to be in the bread Theo. If you would proue that which you affirme you might happen to conclude that which now you can not Phi. That is soone prooued Theo. I maruell then you stay long before you doe it and faint so often when you begin it You auouch that the word species in the Fathers signifieth your shewes without substance and accidents without subiect and when the very shew of men which you beare about you conuinceth that follie you presume a substantiall change to be in the bread to helpe foorth the vse of the word which you imagine against all learning reason was their meaning For the worde species though it bee diuersely vsed among the Fathers and often iterated in this matter of the Sacrament yet shall you neuer bring vs any one place where it is taken for a shew without substance and therefore by that worde you can hardly inferre the bread to be changed in substaunce and nothing to be left besides the accidentes Sainct Ambrose sayeth it importeth as much as an euident sight and trueth Speciem pro veritate accipiendam legimus Specie inuentus vt homo Wee read this word species to bee taken for the verie trueth of a thing As Christ was found not in shew but in trueth like a man And of the Lordes cuppe Perhaps thou wilt say speciem sanguinis non video sed habet similitudinem I see not the trueth of blood but it hath the resemblance Which obiection Ambrose repeateth shortly after in these words Similitudinem video non video sanguinis veritatem I see the resemblance I see not the truth of blood Where note that species is not onely contrary to the onely likenesse and appearance of any thing but equiualent with the trueth and nature of euery thing Then are shewes without substaunce your fansies without iudgement you neuer receiued any such doctrine from the Catholike Fathers your selues haue deuised it of late since barbarisme preuailed in your Schooles and Antichrist was exalted in your churches Philand So species is nowe and then vsed but doeth that inferre that this is the generall signification of the word wheresoeuer we finde it Theo. This sufficeth to exclude your shewes without substaunce vnlesse you can bring some better inforcement than the very word which you can not And yet Sainct Ambrose giueth an other vse of the worde and that treating of the Sacramentes which vtterly subuerteth your accidental shewes Creaturae non potest esse veritas sed species quae facile soluitur at que mutatur No creature can bee said to be a trueth but a shew or appearance which is soone dissolued and abolished In this sense species is all one with any creature or substaunce which soone decaieth as euerie mortall thing doth and the learned Fathers writing of the Sacrament continually vse the worde to signifie the nature and kinde of euerie creature and not the naked shewes or accidentes Sainct Ambrose Ante benedictionem alia species nominatur before it be blessed it is called an other not shewe but kinde Grauior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The kinde or nature of Iron not the shewe of yron is weightier than the liquor of water If the word of Elias were able to fet fire from heauen non valebit Christi sermo vt species mutet elementorum shall not the word of Christ be of strength to change the kindes not the shapes of these elementes So doeth Augustine likewise Non sic habendam esse speciem benedictione consecratam quemadmodum habetur in vsu quolibet the kinde or element consecrated with blessing must not be so reckoned of as it is in common vse Idem cibus illorum qui noster sed significatione idem non specie the Fathers of the old Testament had the same food which we haue but the same in signification not in external kinde Aliud illi aliud nos sed
the meate is performed by those wordes but the vse end of the supper is directed by the other The precept that Christ gaue vs to follow him preciselie concerneth his actions The Rhemish Test. fol. 452. nu 24. take eate To what end is meate if it be not eaten The Rhe. Test. Ibidem Eating and drinking are not essentiall parts of the Sacrament but of the supper they are The Iesuites neglect â—hat â—â—ich Christ 〈◊〉 and busie 〈…〉 which he did 〈◊〉 * Aâ—â— that is 〈◊〉 by the Poet Viâ—gil câ—m faciam vitula * 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26. * Oâ—ige in Matt. tract 35. Chrys. in 1. Cor. ho. 27. read the very words of Christ in the future tense a Hebr. 10. Christ ordained a Sacrament to be diuided not a sacrifice to be offered * De consecrat dist 2. § Relatum est They binde the Priest to coÌ„municate The Priest charged to do as Christ did The words of Christ rather binde him to distribute thaÌ„ him selfe to coÌ„municate The Priest in euerie priuate Masse doth make a mock of these words take ye eate ye The Rhemish Test. fol. 451. nu 23. in the night The Church must not choose what she will follow but rather obey that which Christ commanded The primatiue Church knewe not what Priuate Masse ment a Apostol can 9. b Contil. Antioâ— caâ—on 2. a Dionys. ecclesi hiâ—rarch cap. 3. b Iusti. Apol. 2. They delaied their wine with water lest meere and strong wine should annoie anie of the communicaÌ„ts c De cons. dist 2. § peracta d Greg. Dialog lib. 2. cap 23. e De cons. dist 2. ¶ Si quis f â—eg Franciae lib. 1. cap. 132. g Rationaìe diâ—â—no officio lib. 4. cap. 53. No priuate Masse in the primatiue Church by their owne confession h Chry. hom 27. in 1. Cor. i Idem hom in dictum Pauli oportâ—t haereses esse k Theod. in 1 Cor. 11. l Haym in 1. Cor. 11. The verie name of the Masse as all auncient writers vse it impugneth their priuate Masse The Lordes cup rasâ—ly taken from the people Mat. 26. Luk. 22. The cup was deliuered at the same time to the same persons with the bread ergo both or neither pertaine to the people Gâ—râ—rd Lorich de missa publica â—râ—rogâ—nda If your owne â—â—mpanions 〈◊〉 tell you 〈…〉 take 〈◊〉 to your 〈◊〉 consciences m Mat. 26. n Mark 14. o Luk. 22. The blood of Christ was shedde for the people as well as for the Priest the cup therefore belongeth to the one as wel as to the other p Chrys. hom 18. in 2. Cor. One cup proposed to all both people and Priest q 1. Cor. 2. r 1. Cor. 11. s 1. Cor. 10. S. Paul extendeth Christes words drinke you al of this to the whole Church The people of Corinth by S. Pauls instruction receiued from Christ himselfe were partakers of the Lords cup. * In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fathers receiued those wordes we all are partakers of one cup into S. pauls text * In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fathers receiued those wordes we all are partakers of one cup into S. pauls text * In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fathers receiued those wordes we all are partakers of one cup into S. pauls text * In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fathers receiued those wordes we all are partakers of one cup into S. pauls text 1. Cor. 11. Did S. Paul speake these wordes to the Priests alone or to the people also 1. Cor. 12. We all as well the people as the pastours The Iesuites cannot take the cup from the people without subuerting these maine places of Scripture and parts of Christs institution The Catholike Church ministred the communion to the people in both kinds a Dionys. eccles hierarch ca. 3. b Ignat. ad Philadelphâ—ens c Athanas. in 1. Cor. 11. d Cyprian lib. 1. epis .2 e August quaest super Leuiticum li. 3. cap. 57. f De conse dist 2. ¶ quia passus g Chrysost. hom 18. in 2. Cor. h De cons. dist 2. ¶ quid sit sanguis i Theoph. in 1. Cor. 11. k Hay in 1. Cor. cap 10. l Paschas de corpo saâ—gui Dom. cap. 43. Their halfe communion is so Catholik that the master of their sentences 1200. â—eres after Christ knewe it not m Sentent lib. 4. dist 1â— De consâ—â—ist 2. ¶ comp Glosâ— sa ibidem 1300 yeares after Christ there was no communion in one kinde but in case of necessitie As though the Church could haue cause or power to chaunge Christes ordinance Rationale diuinor officio lib. 4. cap. 42. Two weightie reasons for their communion in one kinde Gerson tract contra haeresin de communione Laicorum sub viraque specie The Catholik considerations for which the the Church of Rome abolished Christes institution To followe Christes institution is adiudged to be heresie and accursed with our late Romanists What the ancient Church of Rome thought of this mangling the communion De cons. dist 2. § Cum omne The people must haue the bread and the cup deliuered them seuerallie and asunder in both kindes Leo serm 4. de quadragessima The Manâ—châ—es the first authâ—â—s of the 〈…〉 〈…〉 in them as 〈◊〉 â—â— cons. dist 2. § Coâ—perimus To â—nstaine fâ—om the Lords cup is sacrilege Artic. 2. contra I pâ—sâ— Sarâ—â— To forbeare the Lords cup is sacrilege in all persons and ages as well as it was then in the Manichees Leo speaketh of Lor◠〈◊〉 though Gelasâ—us diâ—â—â—nt and calleth it sacrilege in them to reframe the Lords cup. Mat. 26. * 1. Cor. 11. a Chrysâ—st â—â—mi 18. in 2. Coâ— b De câ—â— dist 2. §. quâ—a passus c Theâ—phil in 1. Cor. cap. 11. d Paschas de â—â—rpore saâ—g Dom. cap. 43. If it be sacrilege in the Priest it is no lesse in the people They woulde haue it to be sacrilege to withstaÌ„d their fansies and to follow Christs commaundement Esa. 5. We maie wel forsake them that forsooke both God and their fathers before them The Iesuites can not heare of eating and drinking at the Lordes table on the peoples behalfe because they haue discharged them froÌ„ both 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10. Ioan. 6. The Rhe. Test. fol. 447. nâ— 21. â—you can not drinke The sacrifice of the Masse The Rhe. Test. fol. 447. Ibidem Their proofeâ— for the Sacrifice of the Masse The Rhe. Test. Ibidem They wil proue their sacrifice by S. paul himselfe God graunt you may haue eyes to see your follies Not one of all these scriptures or fathers maketh for the Sacrifice of their Masse The generall order of the Romish Religion is to keep the fathers phrases and to chaunge their faith How the Lordes supper maie truelie be called an oblation and a Sacrifice There are four kindes of Sacrifices in the Lords supper and not one of them is the popish Sacrifice There are four kindes of Sacrifices in the Lords supper and not one
of them is the popish Sacrifice August de side ad Peâ—â— cap. 19. The Catholike Church offeâ—eth bread and wine to God for a thankesgiuing in remembrance of his sonnes death Our Sacrifice is the giuing of thankes and remembring of his death b Irineus lib. 4. cap. 32. c Ibidem cap. 34. The Church offereth to God of his creatures with thanksgiuing sanctifying that which the faithfull receiue at the Lords table d Clemens Apost constitutio lib. 8. cap. 17. e Liturg. Chrys. Basil. f Lib. 4. cap. 34. g Offertorium Missae Their owne Masse-booke is against the sacrifice which they defend to be in their masse h Ibidem i Ibidem k Ibidem By their owne bookes it is euident that they doe not sacrifice Christ but the creatuâ—es of bread and wine Marke this contradiction in their masse-booke to the sacrifice which the Iesuits pretend l Aug. ad Bonif. epist. 23. Christ is offered not in substance but in a Sacrament or representation of his death Christ slaine for our sinnes is the true sacrifice of the Lords table a Cypr. li. 2. ep 3. b Ambros. in 10. ca. epist. ad Heb. c Euseb. de demonst Euang. lib. 1. cap. 10. d Chrys. in Mat. hom 83. e Aug. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 21. The actions and elements of the supper resemble his death f De cons. dist 2. § cum frangitur g 1. Cor. cap. 11. As Christ is crucified in the mysticall supper euen so is he offered h Hier. in ps 95. i Chrysost. in acta Apost hom 21. k De cons. dist 2. § quid sit sanguis l Aug. Euang. quaest l. 2. ca. 38. m De cons. dist 2. § hoc est quod alâ—imus n Glossa de cons. dist 2. § quid sit sanguis o Chrysost. in 10. cap. episâ—â—d Hebr. p Ambr. in 11. ca. epist. 1. ad Cor. q Eusebale demonstra Euangelic lib. 1. ca. 10. r August 83. quaest cap 61. Christ is offered at the table that is a sacrament similitude of his death is celebrated s De cons dist 2. § quia corpus This is Christian comfortable doctrine Theod. in cap. 8. ad Hebr. Theoph. in 10. cap. ad Hebrâ—os What sacrifice the fathers taught and offered * Canon Missae supra § propitio ac sereno vultu a Liturgia Basilij b Cypr. li. 2. epist. 3. August 83. quaest ca. 3. c Dionys. eccles hierach cap. 3. d Paschal de cons. dist 2. § iteratur The true exposition of the Sacrifice at the Lordes table How long the Church was without their kind of sacrifice Sententiarum lib. dist 12. The master of the sentences is against the Iesuits in the sacrifice of their Masse f Glossa de cons. dist 2. ¶ semel g § in Christo. h § Iteratur Thom. part 3. quâ—est 83. art 1. * The latter schoolemen since Thomas mistaking the former turned these words to opus operatum and taught the Priests act to be the right meane to applie Christes death to the quick and the dead Can their doctrine be Catholike that so latelie was vnknowen to their own fellowes 24. places cited by the Iesuits in their testament to no purpose and so 14. by the maker of their Apologie Their reall actuall sacrifice must needes be made with handes and so the gestures of the Priests hands is all the sacrifice the Iesuites haue What Sacrifice it is that God regardeth The Rhemish Test. fol. 447. Malac. 1. The prophesy of Malachie discussed 1. Pet. 2. What sacrifices the newe testament teacheth vs to offer vnto God a Hebr. 13. The Sacrifice of praise Of mercie b Phil. 4. c Rom. 12. Of our selues d Psal. 115. Eccles. 35. Psal. 50. These be the sacrifices of the new testament which God requireth at our handes and of which Malachie speaketh The Iesuites in alledging the fathers vse such cunning that a man caÌ„ hardlie perceiue to what end they name them Three fathers abused by the Iesuits to peruert the words of Malachie Cyprian in that place which they cite doth not so much as speake of Malachie Cyp. ad QuirinuÌ„ lib. 1. cap. 16. Iustinâ—â—n Dial. cum Tryphone aduers. Iudaeos Iustinus restraineth the words of Malachie to praiers and thankes other sacrifice he acknowledgeth none in the Lords supper Irenae li. 4. ca. 33 * Ibidem cap. 34 Ireneus expoundeth Malachies wordes of praier obedience and thankesgiuing as we doe Iren. lib. 4. ca. 34 Ireneus teacheth not the offering of Christ to his father but of creatures for a signe of thaÌ„kfulnes Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34 The rest of the fathers interprete Malachies wordes after the same manner a Tertul. aduer lud eos b Tertul. aduer Marc. lib. 4. c Euseb. de demonst Euang. lib. 1. cap. 6. d Cyril contra Iuliaâ—â—m â—i 10. e Hie. in Zachariam lib. 2. ca. 8. f August contr liter Petilia li 2. cap. 86. We striue not for the worde sacrifice which the Iesuites verie diligentlie prooue but for their kinde of sacrifice which they cannot proue by the testimonie of any one father In what sense the Lords supper is both a Sacrament a Sacrifice Our duties to God are our sacrifices FroÌ„ these sacrifices the Eucharist hath his name This sacrameÌ„t hath the similitude and therefore the name of Christs death and passion The Iesuits are verie plentifull in heaping impertinent allegations The Rhe. Test pag. 447. All these fathers speake of Christs bodie broken and blood shed on the cross which are resembled in this sacrament The power of Christs death the Iesuits attribute to the Priests act The Iesuites sacrifice How the death of Christ is both offered and applied Your feate was to prepare the peoplâ— against a daie A man maie soone peâ—uerâ— the fathers by skores as the Iesuits haue done in their Testament What sacrifice it is the Iesuits woulde establish They produce the name of sacrifice vsed by the fathers and vnderstand thereby their owne fansies The reason whie we doe not vse the worde sacrifice so often as the fathers doe The fathers phrases beguiled the Iesuits whiles they were too eger on them The name of sacrifice hath no warrant in the Scripture The Rhe. Test fol. 447. Heb. 7. A man shall finde manie thinges in the Rhemish obseruations which are not the text of the Scripture The Rhe. Test. fol. 447. The Iesuites would prooue if they could tell how that S. Paul calleth the lords Supper a Sacrifice * This point by point is not worth a blew point Their misconstering of S. Paul examined The faulte which the Apostle reprooueth in the Corinthians This was partaking with Idols and dishonoring of God S. Pauls reason against it by waie of comparison or opposition Though Saint Pauls reason be â—ramed by waie of comparâ—son yet the Iesuits illation is not necessary Eating of thinges consecrated vnto Idols is fellowship with diuâ—lâ— though they be not sole â—â—elie sacrificed vnto them The Iesuites prooue by the