figuratiuely meant as where he saith that Christ suffereth that in the Sacrament that he did not suffer vpon the Crosse to wit the breaking euen of his bones which there he did not that the altar is bloodied with Christs blood as hee saith else-where that the people are all died red with it that the bread is Christs bodie which in propriety of sense saith Bellarmine is impossible and that by taking it we are not onely vniâ—ed to Christs body and become one body with Christ or Christs body and all of vs one body but that wee our selues are that selfe same bodie that we take Not vnlike that which Haimo hath that Christs naturall bodie and the Eucharisticallbread and the Communicants themselues are all but one and the same body Yea that he is to be vnderstood figuratiuely appeareth as by that that hee addeth there that like Eagles we must soâ—re aloft vp to heauen and not flagge downeward nor creepe below vpon the ground if wee will come at Christs body so by that which hee saith elsewhere that it was wine that Christ deliuered when hee deliuered this mystery that which hee prooueth also by the wordes of our Sauiour himselfe in the place before discussed I will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine Chrysostome saith that the Altar is bloodied with Christs blood and his body suffereth that there which really it doth not as the Apostle faith that Christ was crucified in the sight of the Galatians who in likely hood many of them neuer saw peece of his Crosse and as August saith he lies not that saith that Christ is immolated on Easter-day in regard of the similitude that that Sacrament hath of his passion that that day is celebrated and in like manner may it very well be vnderstood when hee saith that Christs blood is in the Cup. Nor hindreth it but that this speech of Chrysostome may be taken tropically because he saith That that flowed out of Christs side as Augustine also though no friend to Transubst antiation is reported to say the same no more then it would haue hindered but that the Apostles words might haue bin takeÌ„ figuratiuely as Caietan also well obserueth hough of the Rocke hee should haue said That Rocke was that Christ that was crucified and died and rose againe from the dead § 10. In the next wordes hee commeth to prooue a Sacrifice there The very manner saith hee of Christs speeches Quod pro vobis datur quod pro vobis effundetur which is giuen for you which shall bee shed for you import plainly a Sacrifice which he hath as all that euer he hath almost out of Bellarmine As if those wordes had not a manifest relation to his passion which is a true Sacrifice indeed and a most perfect yea the full complement of all other that which their owne vulgar Translation also plainely importeth yeelding the wordes as they are also in the very Canon of the Masse by the future tense Tradetur effundetur shall be giuen shall be shed as hauing an eye to the passion then neere at hand wherein his body was to bee giuen and his blood to be shed So Gregorie of Ualence That is or shall be giuen or broken that is that shall bee offered by me for you being slaine or sacrificed on the Crosse as saith hee the Apostle himselfe also expoundeth it So Cardinall Hugh h He tooke bread and brake it thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Crosse and that hee did himselfe expose it to be so broken and crucified And when he said that shall bee shed he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue Yea so Card. Caietan who addeth also not vnfitly that Christs body is said then to be giuen and his blood to be shed because his passion was then in a manner begun l a plot being now laid for his life and his bodie and blood already bought and sold by them And to omit that Christs words concerning his bodie do no more intimate a present act of deliuering it then those wordes of his the like else-where n I lay downe my life for my sheepe Let him but shew vs how Christs blood is shed in this Sacrifice For as for Bellarmines bold assertion that bread is said to be broken when it is giuen by whole loaues and wine is said to bee poured out when it is giuen by whole hogs-heads or rundlets at least not by pots or pitchers full onely it is most senselesse and abfurd But why doth not this eager disputer vrge rather that which many of them doe that Christ bad them r Doe this that is as they senselesly expound it Sacrifice this For that is a maine pillar that they pitch much vpon Which expositioÌ„ yet as Bellarmine is almost ashamed of and blameth Caluin wrongfully as if he had wronged them therein by charging them with such expositions and arguments as they make not nor alleadge so Iansenius acknowledging ingenuously that some did so argue as indeede not a few doe yet confesseth that that is but a weake argument and granteth in effect that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be prooued that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice And is faine therefore to runne to tradition for it and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would haue it to be For Irenaeus saith he that liued neere the Apostles times calleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offred as types of Christs body and blood as also in regard of the thankesgiuing therein offred as well for the worke of our Creation as for the worke also of our redemption And howsoeuer this doughty Doctor say that our Sauiours words so plainly import it yet is their graund Champion Bellarmine where at large he debateth this businesse euill troubled to finde it out either in Christs Institution or in their owne Masse booke or to shew wherein it consisteth Where it is not indeede hee can easily tell vs but he cannot so easily tell vs where it is It is not he saith he in the oblation that goeth before Consecration for then not Christs body but bare bread should be sacrificed It is not in the Consecration for therein appeareth no oblation nor no sensible immutation which is needfull in an externall sacrifice It is not in the Oblation that commeth after Consecration for that oblation neither Christ nor his Apostles at first vsed It is not in the breaking for that is sometime â—mitted nor doe we saith vse such breaking as Christ did now adaies It is not in the peoples communication for then the
For Commenting on the storie of the Institution of this Sacrament The old Paschall solemnity saith hee being ended which was celebrated in memorie of the deliuerance out of Egypt Christ passeth to a new one which hee would haue the Church vse in memory of redemption by him instead of the flesh and blood of a Lambe substituting a Sacrament of his body and blood in a figure of bread and wine c. And hee breaketh himselfe the bread that he deliuereth to shew that the breaking of his bodie to come was by his owne will and procurement And againe because bread strengtheneth the flesh and wine breedeth blood the one is mystically referred to Christs body and the wine vnto his blood Where is any tittle here that may stand well with their Transubstantiation much lesse that soundeth ought that way A Sacrament of his body and blood a memoriall of his redemption bread broken and giuen and both bread and wine hauing a mysticall reference to the body and blood of Christ. It was well and aduisedly therefore done by Bellarmine to leaue Bede cleane out of the Catalogue of his Authors though a writer of the greatest note in those times because he could finde nothing in him that might seeme but to looke that way which if he could we should be sure to haue heard of Yea that long after Augustines time the same beleefe of the Sacrament that we at this day hold was commonly taught and professed publikely in this Iland notwithstanding the manifold monuments by that Popish faction suppressed appeareth by some of them in ancient Manuscripts yet extant and of late published also in print Among others of this kinde are the Epistles and Sermons written in the Saxon tongue of one Aelfricke a man of great note for learning that liued about the yeere 990. wherein the same doctrine is taught concerning the Sacrament that we hold at this day and the contrary Popish doctrine is impugned In an Epistle of his written for Wulfsine then Bishop of Shyrburn to his Clerks bearing title of a Sacerdotall Synode he saith that The holy Housell is Christs bodie not bodily but ghostly Not the body that he suffered in but the body of which he spake when hee blessed bread and wine to housell and said by the blessed bread This is my body and by the holy wine This is my blood And that the Lord that then turned that bread to his body doth still by the Priests hands blesse bread and wine to his ghostly body and his ghostly blood And in another Epistle to Wulstane Archbishop of Yorke that The Lord halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery And yet notwithstanding that liuely bread is not bodily so nor the selfe same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy wine is the Sauiours blood which was shed for vs in bodily thing but in ghostly vnderstanding And that that bread is his body and that wine his blood as the heauenly bread which we call Manna was his body and the cleere water which did then run from the stone in the wildernes was truely his blood as S. Paul saith And that stone was Christ. And in the Paschall Homily by him translated out of Latine and read commonly then on Easter-day Men saith hee haue often searched and doe as yet search how bread that is gathered of corne and through fires heat baked may be turned to Christs body or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords blood To which he there answereth that it is so by signification as Christ is said to be Bread a Rocke a Lamb a Lion not after truth of nature And againe hauing demanded Why is that holy housell then called Christs body and his blood if it be not truely that that it is called Hee answereth It is so truely in a ghostly mysterie And then explicating further the manner of this change As saith he an heathen childe when hee is Christened yet hee altereth not his shape without though hee be changed within and as the holy water in Baptisme after true nature is corruptible water but after ghostly mystery hath spirituall vertue And so saith he The holy Housell is naturally corruptible bread corruptible wine but is by might of Gods word truely Christs body and blood yet not bodily but ghostly And afterward hee setteth downe diuerse differences betweene Christs naturall body and it Much is betwixt the body that Christ suffered in and the body that he hallowed to housell 1. The body that hee suffered in was bred of the flesh of Mary with blood and bone and skin and sinewes in humane limmes and a liuing Soule His ghostly body which we call the housell is gathered of many cornes without blood and bone limme and soule And it is therefore called a mystery because therein is one thing seen and another thing vnderstood 2. Christs body that he suffred in and rose from death neuer dieth henceforth but is eternall and impassible That housel is temporall not eternall corruptible and dealed into sundry parts chewed betweene the teeth and sent into the belly 3. This mysterie is a pledge and figure Christs body is truth it selfe This pledge doe we keepe mystically vntill we come vnto the truth it selfe and then is this pledge ended Truly it is as we said Christs body and blood not bodily but ghostly And yet further he addeth that As the Stone in the wildernesse from whence the water ran was not bodily Christ but did signifie Christ though the Apostle say That stone was Christ so that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeeres and that water that gushed from the Stone had signification of Christs body and blood and was the same that wee now offer not bodily but ghostly And that As Christ turned by inuisible might the bread to his body and the wine to his blood before he suffred so he did in the wildernesse turne the heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water to his owne blood before hee was borne That when our Sauiour said Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life He bad them not eate the body wherewith he was enclosed nor to drinke that blood which hee shed for vs but he ment that holy housel which is ghostly his body and his blood and hee that tasteth it with beleeuing heart hath euerlasting life That As the sacrifices had a sore-signification of Christs body which he offered to his Father in Sacrifice So the housell that wee hallaw at Gods Altar is a remembrance of Christs body which he offered for vs and of his blood which he shed for vs which suffering once done by him is daily renewed in a mystery of holy housell Lastly that This holy housell is both Christs body and the bodie of all faithfull men after ghostly mysterie and so
not therefore inferre any corporall feeding 2. That this whole Discourse of our Sauiour is not to bee vnderstood of any Sacramentall or corporall but of spirituall eating onely it is likewise apparent For 1. None are saued but such as so feede on Christ as is there spoken of Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man saith our Sauiour and drinke his blood you haue no life in you He hath not therefore life eternall saith Augustine that eateth not this bread and drinketh not this blood For temporall life men may haue without it but eternall life without it in no wise can they haue But many are and shall be saued by Christ that neuer Sacramentally fed on Christ in the Eucharist yea that neuer eate at all of the Eucharist or saw it or knew of it as not onely the ancient Fathers that liued before Christs Incarnation who yet as Augustine well obserueth did eate the flesh of Christ spiritually as well as we doe now and were saued by the death and passion of Christ which as Bernard speaketh was effectuall euen before it was actuall and the Thiefe on the Crosse that passed thence to Paradise the same day that he dyed but many Infants also that die ere they come to yeeres of discretion as the Councel of Trent acknowledgeth accursing all those that hold mis-expounding the words of Christ in that place that all Infants are damned that receiue not Christs body and blood in the Eucharist Which yet one of their owne Popes sometime held and maintained and which would necessarily follow if that place were to be vnderstood of the Sacramentall eating of Christ in the Eucharist It is not therefore the Sacramentall eating of Christ in the Eucharist that is there spoken of 2. All that feede on Christ so as is there spoken of are sure eternally to bee saued For so our Sauiour himselfe saith If any man eate of this bread he shall neuer dye but liue for euer And whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day And He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And As I liue by the Father se He that eateth me shall liue by me It is not saith Augustine with this meate as with our bodily foode That vnlesse a man take he cannot liue but take it he may and yet not liue he may die after he hath taken it But in this foode of our Lords body and blood it is not so For both he that taketh it not can not liue and he that taketh it liueth eternally For As if one poure melted waxe vpon other waxe the one is wholy mixed with the other so it must needs be saith Cyril that if any man take Christs body and blood he be so ioyned with him that he be found in Christ and Christ in him and consequently that he be saued by Christ. But many feede vpon that that is giuen in the Eucharist that yet are eternally damned Many take it and die saith Augustine yea many die in the taking of it He eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe saith the Apostle And was not the morsel that Christ gaue Iudas poison to Iudas that tooke it And againe The Sacrament hereof is taken at the Lords Table by some to saluation by others to destruction Whereas the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is taken to saluation by euery one that is partaker thereof to destruction by none If all be saued then that eate of Christs flesh in that manner that Christ speaketh of in that place But all are not saued that eate corporally what is offred them in the Eucharist it must needs follow that Christ speaketh not of any corporall eating of him in the Eucharist in that place But we neede not insist longer vpon the proofe hereof For that our Sauiours whole discourse in that place is not to be vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of feeding on Christ spiritually is confessed and acknowledged not by one or two only but by many Popish writers of great note Cardinals Schoolemen Canonists Professors Iesuites and others as by name by Cardinal Cusane Cardinal Cajetan Gabriel Biel a great Schooleman Astesanus a Canonist Ruard Tapper and Iohn Hessels Professors of Diuinitie at Louaine and Cornelius Iohnson a great Iesuite the most of them by Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe alleadged and acknowledged to hold as we doe that those words of our Sauiour speake onely of a spirituall eating and not of any corporall yea or sacramentall either According whereunto it is acknowledged not by Augustine onely but by Iohnson the Iesuite who at large disputeth and confirmeth that which we say both grounding vpon the words of our Sauiour himselfe that to eate Christs flesh in the manner there spoken of is nothing else but to beleeue in Christ. Since then the places produced to prooue this corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament are by our Aduersaries their owne confession such as either doe not necessarily prooue the point or are otherwise to be vnderstood we haue little reason to yeeld vnto them therein Hitherto we haue shewed that no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue as those of the Romish Church hold concerning the reall conuersion of the outward Elements in the Eucharist into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ and a corporall presence of either necessarily flowing there from Now 2. that the Bread and Wine remaine in substance and nature still the same and are not so conuerted into the very Flesh and Blood of Christ we further thus prooue 1. We reason from the very course of the Context in the Story of the Institution Iesuâ— tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and said Take eate This is my Body Whence I thus reason Looke what our Sauiour tooke that he blessed what he blessed that he brake what he brake he deliuered to the Disciples what he deliuered to them of that he said This is my Body But it was Bread that he tooke the Euangelist so saith and Bread therefore that he blessed bread that he brake bread that he deliuered and bread consequently of which he said This is my Body And hence are those speeches so frequent in the Auncient Fathers The Bread that hath beene blessed saith Irenaeus is its owne Lords body God in the Gospel saith Tertullian calleth bread his Body The Bread saith Augustine is the Body of Christ. The Bread saith Hicrome that the Lord brake and gaue his Disciples is the Lords body And if we aske how Bread is or can be Christs body as we may well doe and v it is no new Question It was long since asked by the Auncients and answered by them The Author of that worke in Cyprian of Christs
the praier added to it and the word spoken of it that maketh it profitable to the worthy receiuer But to say so or to thinke so of Christs blessed and glorious Body were most hideous most horrible Well therefore saith Ambrose It is not this Bread that goeth into the belly but the Bread of eternall life that sustaineth the substance of our soules And Augustine expressely telleth vs that We are not to eate that body that the Iewes saw nor drinke that blood which they shed that crucified Christ but there is a Sacrament commended vnto vs which being spiritually vnderstood will put life into vs. There can nothing be imagined more absurd saith Bellarmine himselfe then to thinke that Christs Body should nourish the mortall substance of mens bodies and so should be the foode not of the minde but of the belly But by the Popish doctrine this it must needs doe and worse then this the Popish doctrine therefore is most absurd Lastly what can be more horrible then to imagine that Christs body or any part of it should be not in the belly of a man but in the belly of a beast Christian eares saith Benauenture abhorre to heare that Christs body should be in the draught or in a mouses maw Yet by this Popish doctrine both the one the other too must needs be if a mouse chance as he may to meete with a consecrated Hoast Nor doe the Popish writers ordinarily make daintie of it to acknowledge as much If a pigge or a dogge saith Alexander of Hales should swallow downe an whole consecrated hoast I see not why or how Christs body should not passe into its belly And Thomas Aquinas A brute beast may by accident eate Christs body And Though a Mouse or a Dog eate a consecrated Hoast yet the substance of Christs body ceaseth not to be there no more then it doth if the Hoast be cast into the durt If it be said saith the Glosser that a mouse eateth Christs Body there is no great inconuenience in it since that the most wicked men that are receiue it Nene eateth Christs flesh saith Augustine but hee that first worshippeth it And I doubt much whether any of these dogs pigs or mice euer adored it howsoeuer Cardinal Bellarmine and some others tell vs either of an Horse or an Asse that worshipped the Hoast But let them and their brutish miracles and imaginations goe together Yet so necessarily doth this follow vpon their doctrine of the Eucharist that whereas some of their Doctors seeme to doubt what the mouse eateth when she meeteth with an Hoast and maketh a good meale of it And the great Master of the Sentences saith God knoweth for he knoweth not but he enclineth rather to thinke that the mouse eateth not Christs body though shee seeme so to doe whereupon the Masters of Paris giue him a wipe for it by the way and said the Master is out here And others of them to salue the matter would coine vs a new miracle and say that so soone as the mouses mouth commeth at it or her lips kisse it Christs Body conueigheth it selfe away and the bread miraculously commeth againe in the roome of it and this say they is the commoner and the honester opinion Here is miracle vpon miracle such as they are Yet Thomas Aquinas their chiefe Schooleman and one that could not be deceiued herein for they say that his doctrine of the Sacrament was confirmed by Miracle a woodden Crucifix miraculously saluting him with these words Thou hast written well of me Thomas telleth vs peremptorily that it cannot be otherwise if Christs body be in the Eucharist but that Mice and Rats must eate it when they meete with the Hoast and make meate of it Some say saith he that so soone as the Sacrament is touched by a dogge or a mouse Christs Body ceaseth to be there But this opinion derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament Thus you may see what hideous horride and horrible conclusions this carnall and Capernaiticall conceite of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist hath bred and brought forth and must needs breede and bring forth with all those that vphold it The Summe of all that hath beene said 1. THat there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may not be figuratiuely vnderstood is by Cardinal Caietan confessed 2. That our Sauiours words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be vnderstood not corporally but spiritually is acknowledged by many Popish writers of great note and is beside other Reasons by a Rule giuen by Augustine euidently prooued 3. That the Elements in the Sacrament remaine in Substance the same and are not really transubstantiated into Christs Body and Blood is euinced by diuers Arguments 1. From the Course of the Context which plainely sheweth that Christ brake and deliuered no other then he tooke and blessed 2. From the expresse words of Scripture that calleth the one Bread and the other Wine euen after consecration 3. From the Nature of Signes whose propertie it is to be one thing and to signifie another thing 4. From the Nature of Christs Body that hath flesh blood and bones which the Eucharisticall bread hath not that which our taste our sight and our sense informeth vs by which our Sauiour himselfe hath taught vs to discerne his body 5. From the nature of euery true Body such as Christs is which cannot be in many places at once nor haue any part of it greater then the whole 6. From the qualitie of the Communicants good and bad promiscuously feeding on the Elements in the Eucharist whereas none but the faithfull can feede vpon Christ. 7. From these infirme and vnseemely yea foule and filthy things that doe vsually or may befall the Elements in the Eucharist which no Christian eare can endure to heare that they should befall Christs blessed and glorious body Whence I conclude that since this Corporall presence such as the Church of Rome maintaineth hath no warrant from Gods word as their owne Cardinal confesseth and is besides contrary to Scripture to nature to sight to sense to reason to religion we haue little reason to receiue it as a truth of Christ or a principle of Christianitie great reason to reiect it as a figment of a mans braine yea as a doctrine of the diuell inuented to wrong Christ and Christianitie It is the Rule of a Schooleman We ought not to adde more difficultie vnto the difficulties of Christian beliefe But rather according to that which the Scripture teacheth we should endeauour to cleere that that is obscure And therefore since that the one manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist is cleerely possible and intelligible whereas the other is not intelligible yea nor possible neither it seemeth probable that that manner of his presence that is
same Or doth not Baptisme the like you may be pleased to consider what out of their owne Ambrose was before said of it as also out of Gregorie Nyssene is here after related For it is nothing to the purpose that Bellarmine obiecteth that no man would say that the water of Baptisme consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heauenly For neither doth Irenaeus say that the bread of the Eucharist but the Eucharist it selfe of such two things consisteth But I would faine know how the Eucharist according to their doctrine should when the bread is once consecrated consist at all of any earthly thing when the substance thereof is as they say thereby vtterly abolished Sure Irenaeus his Eucharist consisting of matter in part earthly and theirs hauing none at all such are not one and the same Thirdly Irenaeus saith that our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are no more now corruptible in regard of hope and expectation he meaneth of their future resurrection which thereby they are assured of and sealed vp vnto for otherwise who seeth not that they are not yet incorruptible as he afterward expoundeth himselfe And what is said more here of the Lords Supper then Tertullian and others say of Baptisme to wit that by it the Flesh also hath its assurance of resurrection to life eternall yea let them looke backe but a line or two and they shall soone see how little Irenaeus fauoureth their cause How saith he say they that the flesh perisheth and liueth not euerlastingly that is nourished with the body and blood of Christ He affirmeth our flesh to be nourished with that which hee calleth the body and blood of Christ. And else-where more plainely When the Cup mixed and the bread broken receiueth the word of God it becommeth the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ of which the substance of our bodies groweth and consisteth Now how deny they the flesh to be capable of life eternall that is nourished with Christs body and blood And againe That part of man that consisteth of flesh sinewes and bones is nourished by the cup that is his blood and groweth or is encreased by the bread that is his body The same with that which out of Iustine wee shall hereafter further consider of that our flesh and blood are nourished by the Eucharisticall foode by a change thereof that is it being changed and turned into them But to say so of the very body and blood of Christ is by these mens owne grants most absurd That in the Eucharist therefore that Irenaeus and before him Iustine speake thus of is not the very flesh and blood of Christ it selfe but the creature sanctified as he himselfe tearmeth it or the first-fruits of Gods creatures which in way of thankefulnesse with thankesgiuing he saith they offer vnto God why so tearmed is out of Augustine and others shewed else-where The third allegation is as he saith out of the voices of the Fathers in the first Nicene Councel Where I might well out of Cardinal Baeronius except that there are noâ— Acts of that first Nicene Councel now extant and that the worke out of which this allegation is taken is no record of those Acts but a story onely of that Councell written by one that liued long after it whom they themselues account to be but a sorry obscure fellow and one of no great credite But let the Author or the Relator rather passe and let vs heare his relation Those holy Confessors saith hee will vs at the diuine Table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed but to eleuate our minde by faith and be holde on the holy Table the Lambe of God c. by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to be symboles and pledges of our resurrection Heere is nothing at all that any way hurteth our cause First they acknowledge bread to be and abide in the Euchaerist which these men vtterly deny Secondly they will vs not basely to regard therein the bread and cup or the elements onely And the very same in the same place of Baptisme they say that wee must not so much regard in it the water that wee see as the power of God accompanying it of which wee shall speake more vpon another the like occasion hereafter Thirdly they will vs to lift vp our minde and by faith to consider for so their words are the Lambe of God lying on the Table And by faith we grant that hee is not seene and considered onely but receiued also in the Eucharist Fourthly they say not as this man translateth it that hee is vnbloodily there sacrificed but that hee is without sacrificing there sacrificed that is not really but mystically and symbolically sacrisiced or not in truth of the thing but in a mystery signifying the same as out of Pope Pascasius and Augustine in their Canons themselues speake Fiftly they say that wee receiue his bodie and blood in the Encharist yea they are reported to say which hee omitteth here that wee doe truely receiue them which that we doe truely also and effectually according to our doctrine though spiritually and not corporally hath already beene shewen and shall in his due place againe bee further confirmed And lastly that these are symboles or pledges of our resurrection which how they was are was before shewed out of Tertullian who from those Sacraments and sacred rites and exercises in generall as well other as these that the body partaketh in draweth Arguments to confirme the faith of the resurrection of it The next allegation is out of S. Ephrem whose both praises and speeches he hath borrowed from Bellarmine which Bellarmine when hee hath cited addeth withall in a brauery as if the proofes were so pregnant that there were no gainesaying of them To this testimonie our aduersaries neither doe answer nor indeede can answer ought That none had then answered was not much to be maruelled as Harding saith of their Cyrill few had yet the sight of him One of that name indeed wrote many things in the Syriacke tongue long since hauing no skill at all in the Greeke And vnder his name our Popish Fatherbreeders haue of late set out a many of Sermons and Treaeises that haue no testimonie at all from antiquity the most of them translated as they tell vs out of Greeke which hee good man neuer spake quoting some of them Greeke Authors at large whom hee neuer vnderstood wanting all of them that subtilty and sublimitie of wit that Ierome commendeth in Ephrems workes and appeared euen in the trarslations of them as both hee and others affirm of them very sorry and silly things a great part of them not free from grosse vntruths and contradictions yea and ridiculous too if not impious
Cups but allegorising the wordes as their manner is to doe many times letting the literall sense alone expound the vine to be the people of the Iewes and so the fruit of the vine the legall obseruances c. And what is all this to the literall sense of the words that this trifler is troubled with and cannot tell how to auoyd Let him produce if he can any one Father who denieth that Christ spake those wordes of the Eucharisticall Cup and of the liquor therein contained I alleadged Clemens of Alexandria Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine and might adde many others that affirme it Yea not onely Iansenius ingenuously acknowledgeth that it can be meant of no other then the Eucharisticall Cuppe which onely Matthew and Marke mention But Maldonate the Iesuite also freely confesseth that Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Epiphanius Ierome Augustine Bede Euthymius and Theophylact doe all expound those wordes of it howbeit himselfe saith that Christ spake there not of his blood but of wine Where first obserue we that Ierome and Bede cleane contrary to this fablers assertion by the Iesuites confession expound it of the Eucharist And secondly conclude wee from the Iesuites owne grants It was of that that was in the Eucharisticall Cup that our Sauiour spake those wordes as the ancient Fathers generally and ioyntly affirme But our Sauiour spake them not of his blood but of wine saith the Iesuite It was not his blood therefore but wine that was drunke in the Eucharist 2. Wee obiect the words of our Sauiour Doe this in remembrance of me not as this shamelesse lyer saith therby to prooue the Sacrament to be a bare memorie of Christs body and blood somewhat like the lye he told before that his Adversarie should affirme it to bee nothing but bare bread and wine but to prooue that Christ is not there corporally present For what needeth a memoriall of him when we haue him in our eye when if we may beleeue Bellarmine he is visibly present with vs When we see him and touch him as this fellow telleth vs else-where Or who would be so absurd as to say I giue you my selfe to be a memoriall of my selfe It is as if a man when hee dieth saith Primasius or when he goeth to trauell saith one that goeth for Ierome should leaue a pledge or a token with one that hee loueth to put him in minde of him in his absence and of the good turnes he hath done him which the partie if hee loue him entirely cannot looke on without teares And who would be so senselesse as deliuering his friend a ring on his death bed to say I deliuer you this ring to bee a pledge of this ringe or to be a pledge of it selfe But let vs heare I pray you his Answer Saint Paul saith hee interpreteth these wordes of our Sauiour when he saith So oft as you doe this you represent Christs death till hee come Would any man that had either braines in his head or wit in his braine answer in this manner or reason on this wise Christs death is represented in the Lords Supper Ergo Christs very body and blood must needs bee there present Yea or thus either In the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs death Ergò it is not a memoriall of it As if representation were not ordinarily of things absent or memorials represented not the things that they commemorate He wanted his Bellarmine heere to helpe him out who where Tertullian saith that Christ represented his body in bread saith that to represent there signifieth to make a thing really present But it is well that the word vsed by the Apostle here will not beare any such sense else it may be we might haue had it Meane while hee should haue done well as his vsuall manner is else-where to haue snipt off or concealed at least the last clause Till I come For after hee is come saith Theodoret we shall haue no neede of signes or symbols of his body any more when his body it selfe shall appeare He were scarce in his wits I thinke that would leaue a thing with his Friends at his departure from them to bee remembred by in his absence till hee returned againe to them that should lie lockt vp and kept out of their sight and should neuer come in their view but when himselfe should come personally in presence to shew it them or should bid them by such a thing remember him till hee came againe to them a twelue-moneth after when as euery weeke or moneth in the meane space hee meant to returne to them as oft as euer they desired to remember him in it But mine Adversary thought belike that none but such silly sots should reade what hee writ as would marke nothing but what he would haue them LAstly S. Paul literally declaring the institution of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. to the end that the Corinthians might vnderstand the excellency thereof maketh the sinne of such as vnworthily receiue it to consist in this that they discerne not that bread to be the body of Christ and his words read alone without hereticall glosses expresse plainely Catholicke doctrine And in the Chapter before hee mentioneth benediction or consecration of the Chalice then vsed saying Calix benedictionis The Chalice of benediction which wee blesse is it not the communication of Christs blood and the bread which we breake is it not the communication of Christs body c. Of which words saith S. Chrysostome this is the meaning That which is in the Chalice is that which floweth out of Christs side and wee are made partakers thereof Which is out of the Greeke text of S. Luke plainely to be gathered And the very manner of Christs speeches Quod pro vobis datur quod pro vobis effundetur Which is giuen for you which shall be effused for you import plainely a Sacrifice of his body and blood wherein the one is offered not to vs but for vs the other was to be not infused as wine but effused as blood for vs c. § 9. AT last remembring himselfe wherein he failed at the first hee will prooue out of S. Paul hee saith that Christs words are literally to be vnderstood This had beene more seasonable where it was questioned at first But better at last we say then neuer 1. The Apostle maketh saith hee this the sinne of those that vnworthily receiued the Sacrament that they discerned not the Lords body 2. Hee saith the bread broken is the communication of the body of Christ and the blessed Chalice of his blood Stout Arguments and fit for such a Champion as he is For the former how followeth it Men sinne in not discerning the Lords body when they come vnreuerētly to the Lords board Ergò our Sauiours words This is my body are to bee vnderstood properly Let him
easily be reiected as it is auerred And Of that saith Tertullian there is no certaintie that the Scripture hath not But that Christ is present corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by vertue of any such Transubstantiation or reall conversion of the Creatures into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue Nor are we therefore bound to beleeue it That no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue it shall appeare by examination of those places that are alleadged commonly to prooue it The places vsually produced are principally two The former place is out of the Institution it selfe those words of our Sauiour This is my Body Matth. 26. 26. Marke 14. vers 22. Luke 22. vers 19. 1. Corinth 11. vers 24. That these words enforce vs not to beleeue any such thing is thus prooued If these words may well be taken figuratiuely as well as some other speeches of the like kinde in Scripture and other the like phrases vsuall in ordinary speech then these words enforce vs not to beleeue any such thing But these words This is my Body may well be taken figuratiuely as well as other speeches of the like kinde in Scripture to wit The seauen kine and the seauen eares are seauen yeeres The ten hornes are ten Kings The Rocke was Christ and as other phrases vsuall in ordinary speech as when pointing to the pictures of Alexander Caesar William the Conquerour Virgil Liuie and the like we say This is Alexander that conquered Asia This is Caesar that conquered France This is King William that conquered England This is Virgil that wrote of Aeneas This is Liuie that wrote the Romane storie and the like These words therefore enforce vs not to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament by vertue of any such Transubstantiation The truth hereof is acknowledged euen by our Aduersaries themselues Cardinal Bellarmine granteth that these words This is my Body may imply either such a reall change of the Bread as the Catholikes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold but will not beare that sense that the Lutherans giue them And Cardinal Caietan acknowledgeth and freely confesseth that there appeareth not any thing out of the Gospel that may enforce vs to vnderstand those words properly This is my body And he addeth that nothing in the text hindreth but that those words This is my body may as well be taken in a metaphoricall sense as those words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ and that the words of either proposition may well be true though the thing there spoken be not vnderstood in a proper sense but in a metaphorical sense onely And I finde alleadged out of Bishop Fisher in a worke of his against Luther for the booke I haue not these words There is not one word in S. Mathewes Gospel from which the true presence of Christs flesh blood in our Masse may be prooued Out of Scripture it cannot be prooued Thus by the Confession of our Aduersaries themselues our Sauiours words may well beare that meaning that we giue them and there is nothing in the Text that may enforce vs to expound or vnderstand them otherwise It is absurd therefore for any to reason thus as many yet are wont to doe Christ saith This is my Body and we are bound to beleeue Christ and therefore we must needs beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament Since that the words of Christ by our Aduersaries their owne confession may be most true and yet no such thing at all be meant by them or intended in them And the same may well be shewed as Caietan pointeth vs to it by the like For must we not beleeue the Apostle as well as Christ or must we not beleeue Christ as well in one place as in an other But the Apostle saith that The Rocke was Christ And yet no man beleeueth therefore that the rocke was turned into Christ though he beleeue the Apostles words in that place Yea our Sauiour himselfe saith This Cup is the new Testament and This Cup is my Blood And yet is no man so senselesse as therefore to beleeue that the Cuppe which our Sauiour then held was turned either into the New Testament or into Christs blood As well therefore may a man prooue that the Rocke was turned into Christ because the Apostle saith not The Rocke signified Christ but expressely The Rocke was Christ or that the communicants themselues are turned into bread because the Apostle saith We are all one Bread or that the Cup was turned either into the New Testament or into Blood because our Sauiour saith This Cup is the New Testament and This Cup is my Blood as that the bread is turned into the Body of Christ because our Sauiour saith of it This is my Body The Rocke was Christ onely symbolically and sacramentally by representation and resemblance and the Cup that is the wine in the Cup for so our Sauiour saith it was the fruite of the vine was the New Testament as Circumcision the Couenant as a signe and a seale of it And in like manner is the bread said to be the Body of Christ as the Paschal Lambe is called the Passeouer not really or essentially but typically and sacramentally as a type and signe of the same Yea so the Ancient Fathers expound the words The Bread saith Tertullian that Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his Body saying This is my Body that is a figure of my Body And The Lord saith Augustine doubted not to say This is my Body when he deliuered the signe of his Body And he giueth else-where a reason of such manner of speech to wit because Signes are wont to be called by the names of the things by them signified and Sacraments by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments in regard of the similitude that they haue of them And so saith he the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some sort the Body of Christ and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ. Yea you shall finde that which wee herein maintaine euidently confessed and confirmed by the Glosse vpon Augustine in the Popes owne Canons Augustines words inserted into the Corps of the Canon Law are these As the heauenly Bread which is the Flesh of Christ is in it owne manner called the bodie of Christ when as in deede and truth it is a sacrament of that body of Christ which being visible palpable and mortall was placed on the Crosse and that immolation of Christs flesh which is done with the Priests hands is called Christs passion death and crucifying not in the truth of the thing but in a mystery signifying it so the Sacrament of faith whereby we vnderstand Baptisme is faith And the Popish Glosse vpon that
place thus speaketh The heauenly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which truly representeth the slesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly and therefore is it said In it owne manner but not in the truth of the thing but in a significant mystery So that the meaning is It is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth the body of Christ. Thus word for word the Glosse Thus you see what our very Aduersaries themselues graunt vs concerning the exposition of these words This is my body and that which may be gathered from them The wordes of Christ prooue not necessarily saith the Romish Cardinall that the bread is turned into Christs body And when the bread is called Christs body the meaning is saith the Popish Canonist that it signifieth Christs body And what is this but the very same that we say To conclude as Augustine well obserueth Christ saith Iohn is Elias and Iohn himselfe saith I am not Elias and yet neither of them crosse the other because Iohn spake properly and Christ figuratiuely So Christ saith This bread is my body in one sense and we in another sense that it is not his body and yet wee crosse not Christ because wee speake properly hee figuratiuely as the Glosse it selfe confesseth And on the other side they were false witnesses though they alledged Christs owne words mis-expounded of the materiall Temple which hee meant of the mysticall Temple his humanity And so may others be though they alleadge Christs owne wordes of the bread being his body vrging that as spoken properly that by him was figuratiuely spoken If it be obiected that by this our deniall of Transubstantiation and of Christs corporall presence we make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread I answer that notwithstanding such Transubstantiation and corporall presence bee denied yet it maketh the Sacrament no more to be but bare bread then it maketh the water in Baptisme to be but bare water because all deny any such conuersion or corporall presence in it A piece of waxe annexed as a seale to the Princes Patent of pardon or other like deed is of farre other vse and farre greater efficâ—cy and excellency then other ordinary waxe is though it be the very same in nature and substance with it and with that which it was it selfe before it was taken vnto that vse And so is the bread in the Lords Supper being a seale of Gods couenant and of Christs last will and Testament of faire other vse and of farre greater efficacie and excellencie then any other ordinary bread is though it be the same still in nature and substance with it and the same with that for substanse that it was before it was so consecrated That which Pope Gelasius and Theodoret both expresly anouch Surely the Sacraments saith Gelasius which wee take of Christs body and blood are a diuine thing and thereby therefore are we made partakers of the diuine Nature and yet ceaseth there not to be there the nature or substance of bread and wine but they abide still in the propriety of their owne Nature And certainely an image and similitude of Christs body and blood is celebrated in those mysteries And The mysticall signes saith Theodonet after the sanctification doe not forgoe their owne nature but retaine still their former substance and figure and forme And againe the same Theodoret He that called that which is by nature his body wheat and bread and againe named himselfe a vine he hath honoured the symbols and signes which we see with the titles of his bodie and blood not changing the nature of them but adding grace to it Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood nothing but bare bread and wine The latter place vsually alledged to this purpose is that large Discourse our Sauiour hath concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Ioh. 6. 51-58 True it is indeed that if the bread and wine in the Eucharist be transubstantiated into the naturall body and blood of Christ and there bee such a corporall presence as Papists imagine it must needs follow that Christs very flesh is eaten and his very blood it selfe is corporally drunke in the Sacrament And to this purpose also Pope Nicholas in that solemne forme of recantation that hee enioyned Berengarius inserted into the body of the Canon auoweth that the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands and torne in pieces with mens teeth not sacramentally only but sensually and that all that hold the contrary deserue to be eternally damned A sensuall indeed and a senslesse assertion yea an horrible and an hideous speech full fraught I may well say though it proceeded from a Pope who they say cannot erre with extreame impiety and blasphemy and such as Christian eâ—res cannot but abhor to hear In so much that their owne Glosser vpon the place well warneth vs to take heed how we trust him Lest 〈…〉 fall into a worse heresie then Berengarius euer held But thus one monstrous opinion breedeth and begetteth another And this indeed must needs follow vpon the former The corporall presence of Christ in the thing eaten must needs inferre and enforce a corporall eating of him and to prooue the same they presse commonly our Sauiours words in that place of eating his flesh and drinking his blood Which as with some of the Ancients indeed they vnderstand of the Eucharist so they expound though without their consent therein of a corporall and carnall eating of Christs flesh But neither are those words of our Sauiour to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking nor doth Christ at all in that whole Discourse speake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was not then as yet instituted but of feeding on him spiritually by faith which is done not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also And first that the place is not to bee vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking it is aparent For it is a good and a sure Rule that Augustine giueth If in any precept some hainous or flagitious thing seeme to be enioyned you may thereby know it to be a figuratiue speech I need not apply this generall Rule to the point in hand Augustine doth it for mee Hee instanceth in that very particular that wee now treate of Vnlesse you eate saith he the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you It seemeth to enioyne an hainous and flagitious thing It is a figuratiue speech therefore commanding vs to communicate with Christs passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. So that this place by Augustines Rule and his owne application of it is to be vnderstood figuratiuely and doth
principall workes to passe by all others Our Lord saith he at the Table in his last Supper gaue Bread and Wine with his owne hands and on the Crosse he gaue vp his body to be wounded with the Souldiers hands Marke bread at the Table his Body on the Crosse that the sincere truth and true sinceritie more secretly imprinted in his Apostles might expound to the Nations how Bread and Wine were Flesh and Blood and by what meanes the causes agreed with their effects and diuers names or kinds were reduced to one essence and the things signifying and signified were called by the same names In which last words he most euidently sheweth how Bread is said to be Christs Body to wit because signes and the things by them signified are wont to haue the same titles giuen them The Bread is Christs Body as Christ himselfe is bread Christ giuing saith Theodoret the name of the signe to his Body and the name of his body to the Signe Or The Bread is Christ as the Rocke was Christ as Augustine well obserueth Yea that the Bread is said to be Christs Body is apparent and that it can in no other sense so be said Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe confesseth This sentence saith he This Bread is my Body either must be taken figuratiuely that the Bread be Christs body significatiuely that is by signification onely or else it is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot be that the Bread should be the Body of Christ he meaneth essentially or otherwise then by signification or representation So that The Bread is said to be Christs body the course of the Text sheweth it and the Auncients commonly acknowledge it but it cannot so be saith Bellarmine but figuratiuely In no other sense therfore are our Sauiours words to be vnderstood 2. We reason from the expresse words of Scripture wherein after Consecration there is said to be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament The Bread which we breake saith the Apostle is it not the Communion of Christs Body It is apparent by the Story of the Institution that Consecration goeth before fraction The Bread is blessed that is consecrated for the Benediction is in truth the Consecration before it be broken But it is bread saith the Apostle euen when it is broken It is bread therefore still euen after it is consecrated Yea is it bread when it is broken and is it not bread when it is eaten Yes if the Apostle may be credited euen when it is eaten 100. For as ost saith he as you eate this bread and Whosoeuer shall eate this bread vnworthily And Let a man therefore examine himselfe and so eate of this bread It is not so oft called Christs Body but it is called bread as oft euen after it is consecrated and by consecration made Symbolically and Sacramentally Christs body The Apostle then telleth vs of the one Element that it is bread euen after it is consecrated and of the other our Sauiour himselfe saith that it is wine For after that he had deliuered them the Consecrated Cup he telleth them that He will drinke no more of this Fruite of the Vine c. Now the fruit of the vine what is it but wine There was wine saith Augustine in the mysterie of our redemption when our Sauiour said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine And yet was that after consecration that he spake it And if it be wine still then sure it is not essentially Christs blood howsoeuer it may well be symbolically as we say So Origen In the first place he gaue his Disciples bread Yea He gaue them saith Cyril pieces of bread And Cyprian saith It was wine that hee called his blood And He deliuered wine saith Chrysostome when hee deliuered this mysterie which he prooueth also by those words of our Sauiour Of this fruite of the vine And here let me debate the matter with those that vse to presse vs with Christs words which yet we thinke not much to be pressed with if they be vnderstood as they ought Christ saith This is my Body And shall wee not beleeue what he saith The Apostle saith it is bread that is broken and that is eaten in the Eucharist and our Sauiour himselfe saith it was the fruite of the vine that he gaue them in the Cup. And will they not beleeue what the Apostle saith or what Christ saith Or shall we beleeue those that tell vs contrary to the expresse words of either that the one is not bread though the Apostle say it is or the other was not wine albeit our Sauiour say it was For how our Sauiours words may be true in the one place though the bread be not essentially but symbolically Christs body we can easily shew and themselues see and acknowledge as hath formerly beene shewen But how the Apostles and Christs words should be true or beare fit sense in the other places vnlesse there be bread and wine in the Eucharist after consecration I suppose they will not easily shew If they will say it is called bread because it was bread before as Aarons rod is called a rod after it was turned into a serpent I answer The reason is not alike For 1. The Serpent was made of that Rod but it is absord to say that Christs body is made of bread Yea the Papists themselues are at a stand here and cannot well tell what to say For they say indeede commonly that the Bread is turned into Christs Body and they say sometime also that Christs body is made of bread and that the Priest maketh Christs body of bread Yea Bellarmine sticketh not to say that That body of Christ which was crucified was truly or verily made of bread They may beleeue him that lift And yet they deny that Christs Body is made by the Priest He maketh Christs body of bread and yet Christs body is not made by him or that the body of Christ is produced of bread but doth succeede onely in the roome of bread But it is absurd to say a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth or is turned into that that succeedeth onely in the roome of it or to call a thing seriously for in mockery indeed sometime we doe by the name of some other thing onely because it is now in the place where that thing before was vnlesse it be in some Magicall action wherein that seemeth to be done that indeede is not and so the speech is not according to the truth of the thing but according to that that seemeth to be In a word we may truly say of that Serpent that it was once a Rod but we cannot truly say of Christs body that euer it was bread 2. The Serpent there though tearmed a Rod because it so had beene and should againe so be yet appeared euidently to be
a Serpent in so much that Moses himselfe at the first sight was afraid of it And so we shall finde it to haue beene euer in all miraculous conuersions that the change wrought in them was apparent to the outward sense to the sight as in the water turned into blood to the taste as in the water turned into wine Whereas in the Sacrament there is no such matter We see no flesh there we taste no blood there Nay we see euidently the contrary to that these men affirme For we see Bread and Wine there and we finde the true taste of either And we haue no reason vpon their bare words to distrust either sense and beleeue the contrary to that that we see and taste onely because they say it That which you see saith Augustine is bread and a cup that which our eyes also informe vs that which your faith requireth you to be informed of is that the bread is Christs body and the cup his blood which they cannot be but figuratiuely as Bellarmine before confessed A mysterie we acknowledge we deny a miracle they may be honoured saith Augustine as religious things not wondred at as strange miracles saue in regard of the supernaturall effects of them in regard whereof there is a miraculous worke as well in Baptisme as in the Eucharist And yet no such miraculous transubstantiation in either It is a rule saith the Schooleman that where we can salue Scriptures by that which we see naturally we should not haue recourse to a miracle or to what God can doe 3. We reason from the nature of Signes and Sacraments That which the Apostle saith of one Sacrament to wit Circumcision is true of all for there is one generall nature of all Sacraments are Signes A Sacrament saith Augustine that is a sacred Signe And Signes appertaining to diuine things are called sacraments Now this is the Nature of Signes that they are one thing and signifie another thing that they signifie some other thing beside themselues or diuers from themselues And in like manner saith Augustine Sacraments being Signes of things they are one thing and they signifie some other thing But the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are Signes of Christs body and blood as hath beene before shewed and the Auncients generally auow And therefore are they not essentially either They signifie Christs body and blood and what they signifie they are not And It is a miserable seruitude as Augustine wel saith for men to take the Signes for the things themselues by them signified 4. Wee reason from the nature of Christs Body euen after his Passion and Resurrection Christs naturall Body hath flesh blood and bones the limmes and lineaments of an humane body such as may be felt and seene to be such This appeareth plainely by that which he said to his Disciples after he was risen from the dead when they misdoubted some delusion Behold mine hands and my feete for it is I my selfe Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue But that which is deliuered handled and eaten in the Eucharist hath no such thing It is not in any wise saith Epiphanius equall or like vnto Christ either his humanitie that is clad with flesh or his Deitie that is inuisible or to the lineaments of his limmes For it is round senselesse and liuelesse as Christ himselfe is not It is not therefore the naturall body of Christ. Our sight and sense euidently enforme vs the contrary howsoeuer Bellarmine boldly sticketh not to tell vs that Christs body is verily and visibly vpon the boord after that the words of Consecration be once vttered they thinke belike they may make men beleeue any thing And our Sauiour himselfe teacheth vs by sight and sense to iudge of his Body As if to this day saith Pope Lee he spake still to each one that sticketh and staggereth as he spake there to his Apostles Why sticketh our vnderstanding where our sight is our Teacher I may well say here as Augustine in somewhat the like case I feare least we seeme to wrong our sâ—â—ser in seeking to prooue or perswade that by speech wherein the euidence of truth exceedeth all that can be said 5. We reason from the Nature of all true Bodies Christs body is in Heauen from whence wee looke for him And there is to abide till the end of the world Now a true naturall body as Christs still is cannot be in two much lesse in twentie or rather in twentie hundred places at once which yet Christs body must needs be if that be true that they say Augustine questioned by one Dardanus how Christ could be both in Paradise and in heauen at once supposing Heauen and Paradise to be two seuerall places howsoeuer with the Apostle Paul they are not maketh answer that he could not as he was man or in his humanitie his body and his soule though he might as he was God or in his Deitie that is euery where And he addeth The same Iesus Christ is euery wherein his Deitîe but in heauen in his humanitie And further in his discourse hereof saith he Take spaces and places from bodies and they will be no where and because they will be no where they will not be Take bodies from qualities and wanting wherein to subsist they must needs cease to be and yet in the Popish hoast are qualities found as before that haue no subiect body to subsist in being not the qualities of Christs body and yet hauing no other body for them to subsist in for they are the qualities of Bread and yet there is no bread there if they say true to beare them Euery Bodie therefore must needs haue a certaine place and they are so circumscribed with and confined vnto that place that they cannot at the same time or so long as they keepe that place be in any other place but it And so is it also euen with the glorified body of Christ Iesus Christs body saith Leo in no respect differeth from the truth of our bodies And therefore Christ saith Gregorie Naziâ—nzen in regard of his body is circumscribed and conteined in a place in regard of his spirit or his Deitie he is not circumscribed nor conteined in any place And Augustine Our Lord is aboue but our Lord the Truth is here too For our Lords body wherein he rose againe must needs be in one place but his Truth that is his diuine power is diffused into all places And therefore Doubt not saith he but that the Man Christ is now there from whence he is to come He is gone vp into heauen and thence he shall come as he was seene to goe thither the Angel saith it that is in the same forme and substance of flesh which though he haue giuen immortalitie vnto it yet he hath
not taken nature away from it According to this forme he is not euery where For we must take heede that we doe not so maintaine the deitie of the Man that we ouerthrow the veritie of his Body In a word As the Angel reasoneth speaking to the women that sought Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe So reasoneth the same Augustine concerning Christs bodily presence reconciling those two places that might seeme the one to crosse the other Behold I am with you till the worlds end And Me shall you not haue alwaies with you ' ' In regard saith he of his Maiestie his prouidence his grace we haue him alwaies here But in regard of his flesh which the word assumed which was borne of the Virgin nailed on the crosse c. We haue him not alwaies And why so Because he is gone vp into heauen and he is not here And againe speaking of Christâ— being on earth and not in heauen as man and yet in both places as God Man according to his body is in a place and passeth from a place and when hee commeth to another place is not in that place from which he came But God is euery where and is not contâ—ined in any place So that the Romanists if they will haue Christs Body in the Eucharist they must fetch it out of Heauen and indeed as if they had so done they doe in their Masse request God to send his Angels to carry it vp againe thither And their Glosse saith that so soone as men set their teeth in it it retireth instantly thither though that crosse their common tenent Or rather they must frame a new body and so make Christ haue two bodies one that remaineth whole still in heauen and another that the Priest maketh or createth here vpon earth But what speake I of two Bodies Christ must haue as many seuerall Bodies as there be consecrated Hoasts for the whole Body of Christ they say is in each Hoast yea more then so there is an whole entire mans body flesh blood and bones with all limmes and lineaments for so it must needs be if it be Christs naturall Body not in euery Communicants mouth onely but in euery crum of the Hoasâ— that they breake of it when they crush it betweene their teeth as they also flatly and precisely affirme And by this reason the whole body of Christ against all reason For it is a principle in Nature that The whole is euer greater then any part shall be lesse in quantitie then the least limme or member of his Body then a nailes paring of his little finger then which nothing is more absurd and senselesse Euen an immortall body saith Augustine speaking of and instancing euen in Christs body is lesse in part then it is in the whole For a body being a substance the quantitie thereof consisteth in the greatnesse of bulke And since that the parts of a body are distant one from another and cannot all be together because they keepe each one their seuerall spaces and places the lesse parts lesser places and the great greater there cannot be either the whole quantitie or so great a quantitie in each single part but a greater quantitie in the greater parts and a lesser in the lesse and in no part at all so great a quantitie as in the whole But if their opinion be true any part of Christ is in quantitie as great and greater then his whole body and his whole body lesse then any part of it is But how will you say is Christs Body and Blood conneighed vnto vs or how is his flesh eaten and his blood drunke then in the Eucharist if it be not really there present I might with Aug. well in a word answer this Question How saith he shall I hold Christ when he is not here How can I stretch mine hand to Heauen there to lay hold on him Send thy faith thither saith he and thou hast him Thy forefathers held him in the flesh hold thou him in thy heart You haue him alwaies present in regard of his Maiestie but in regard of his Flesh as himselfe told his Disciples not alwaies But for fuller satisfaction I answer 1. Sacraments are seales annexed to Gods couenant And as a deede being drawne of the Princes gift concerning office land or liuelyhood and his broad seale annexed to it and that deede so drawne and sealed being deliuered that office or that land though lying an hundred miles of is therein and thereby as truly and as effectually conueighed and assured vnto the party vnto whom the same deede is so made and to whose vse and behoofe it is so deliuered as if it were really present So these seales being annexed to Gods Couenant of grace concerning Christ his Flesh and Blood and his Death and Passion and our title too and intereâ—t in either the things themselues euen Christs body and blood themselues though sited still in Heauen are as truly and as effectually conueighed with them and by them vnto the faithfull receiuer when they are to him deliuered as if they were here really and corporally present 2. We receiue Christ in the Eucharist as in the Word and Baptisme wherein also we doe truly receiue him yea and feede on his flesh and blood as well as in the Encharist albeit he be not corporally exhibited in either We are buried together with Christ saith the Apostle by Baptisme into his Death And h As many of you as haue beene baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. We are dipped in our Lords passion saith Tertullian Sprinkle thy face with Christs blood saith Hierome speaking of Baptisme that the destroyer may see it in thy forehead Thou hast Christ saith Augustine at the present by faith at the present by the signe of him at the present by the Sacrament of Baptisme at the present by the meate and drinke of the altar Yea No man ought to doubt saith Augustine but that euery Faithfull one is made partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ and that he is not estranged from the communion of that Bread and Cup though he depart out of this life ere he eate of that bread and drinke of that Cup because he hath that which that Sacrament signifieth And for the Word Christian men saith Origen eate euery day the flesh of the Lambe because daily they receiue the Flesh of Gods word And The true Lambe is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world for Christ our Passeouer is offred for vs. Let the Iewes in a carnall sense caete the flesh of a Lambe but let vs eate the flesh of the Word of God For he saith vnlesse ye eate my flesh ye shall haue no life in you This that I now speake is the Flesh of the Word
of God And againe We are said to drinke Christs blood not in the Sacramentall rites onely but when we receiue his word wherein life consisteth as he saith The words that I speake are Spirit and Life And Hierome also vnderstandeth those words of our Sauiour He that eateth not my Flesh and drinketh not my blood not of the Sacrament of the Eucharist onely but more specially or as he speaketh more truly of Christs word and doctrine and addeth therefore that t When we heare the word of God both the word of God and the Flesh of Christ and his Bloud is powred in at our eares If in the Sacrament of Baptisme then and in the Ministery of the word we truly receiue Christ and become partakers of Christ yea we eate and drinke Christ in either as well as in the Eucharist what needeth any such reall transmutation more in the one then in the other 6. We reason from the Qualitie of the Communicants in the Eucharist If Christs body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist then all that eate of the Eucharist must of necessitie eate Christ in it But many eate of the Eucharist that yet eate not Christ in it For none but the faithfull feede on Christ none eate him as we shewed before but those that liue by him yea and in him that are liuing members of his mysticall Body Whereas many wicked ones eate of the Eucharist many eate of it that are out of Christ. The other Disciples saith Augustine did eate that Bread that is the Lord Iudas did eate the Lords Bread against the Lord. And disputing against those that hold that wicked men should be saued if they liued in the Church because they fed on Christ in the Eucharist saith that such wicked ones are not to be said to eate Christs body because they are not members of his body And that Christ when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I i◠him doth thereby shew what it is truly and not sacramentally onely to eate Christs body and to drinke his blood and that no man eateth his body and drinketh his blood that abideth not 〈…〉 Christ and Christ in him And againe he saith He receiueth the Bread of Life and drinketh the Cup of eternitie that abideth in Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth But he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood though to his owne iudgement for his presumption he daily receiue indifferently the Sacrament of so great a thing And againe They that eate and drinke Christ eate and drinke life To eate him is to be made againe to drinke him is to liue That which is taken visibly in a Sacrament is eaten and drunke spiritually in the truth it selfe For This meate and drinke maketh those that take it truly immortall and incorruptible This is therefore to eate that flesh and drinke that drinke for a manto abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in him And consequently he that abideth not in Christ nor Christ in him without doubt doth not eate his flesh nor drinke his blood spiritually though carnally and visibly with his teeth he crush the Sacrament of Christs Body To Augustine I adde Origen who hauing spoken what shall anone be related of Christs typicall and symbolicall Body as he calleth the Sacrament Much saith he might be said more of the Word it selfe that became Flesh and true Foode which whosoeuer eateth shall surely liue for euer and which no euill man can eate of For if it were possible that any man that continueth euill still should eate of the Word that became Flesh since it is the liuing Bread it had neuer beene written Whosoeuer eateth of this Bread shall liue for euer It is impossible then that any wicked man or any that are damned should eate Christ But many wicked men eate of the Eucharist many are damned that eate of it The Eucharist therefore is not really Christ. Lastly we reason from those things that are done about or may be fall those Creatures that in the Eucharist are consecrated which cannot be done to or betide now Christs glorified Body 1. The Eucharisticall Bread was broken in pieces and diuided into parts by our Sauiour at his last Supper And the like rite was obserued by the Apostles in the administratiof the Eucharist And is in the Romish Church also not vnusuall But as Christ saith the Apostle is not diuided so Christs Body is not diuided into parts as they themselues confesse nor broken into pieces His Body indeede is said to be broken not that it was really broken into pieces but as by the Prophet it is said that It pleased God to breake him and to put him to griefe which was fulfilled in those paines and torments that for vs he sustained and as we vse to say of men that with griefe and care they are broken Otherwise it was neuer broken much lesse is it now broken being wholly quit euen of all those infirmities that it was so broken with before Yea the Papists themselues not daring to auow that of Christs verie bodie are enforced to affirme that euery Communicant receiueth the whole and entire body of Christ. Yet they receiue but a part saith their owne Canon as you shall heare anone of the Element in the Sacrament That therefore that is so diuided there is not Christs naturall Body And here the Popish Glosser is strangely troubled to salue and reconcile the words of their Canons and to make their owne doctrine agree with the sayings of some of the Ancients there cited There is inserted into the Canon this saying of Augustine We doe 〈…〉 make parts of Christ when we eate him Indeede in the Sacrament we doe so and the faithfull know how we eate Christs flesh there Each one taketh his part and the Eucharist it selfe is therefore called their Parts Christ is eaten by parts in a Sacrament and yet remaineth whole in Heauen and yet remaineth whole in thy heart On which place saith the Glosser This is contrary to that which Pope Nicolas saith in Berengarius his Confession And so it is indeede for therein as before you heard it is said that not the Sacrament onely but Christs very Body it selfe is broken by the Priest But that cannot be saith the Glosse for a glorified Body cannot suffer any such maime or harme And therefore saith the same Glosse The Body and Blood of Christ is called by the name of Parts or the Species that are diuided are called the Body and Blood of Christ in a significant mysterie that is as we say because in a mysterie they signifie Christs Body and Blood That then which is taken in the Sacrament is diuided into parts and eaten by peece-meale But Christs naturall Body is not so diuided or taken corporally That therefore that is taken in the Eucharist
is not Christs naturall Body To conclude Christ when he brake either he brake Bread or his Body but he brake not his Body for his Body remained entire still he brake Bread therefore and so the Euangelist saith He tooke Bread and brake it and yet he had blessed it and so consecrated it first as Pope Innocent and other Popish writers confesse It remained Bread still therefore euen after Consecration when as Cyril speaketh He gaue his Disciples fragments of Bread for of his Body it could not be Yea that which they breake at this day either it is Christs very body or but bread not Christs body For Christs body if it were broken and diuided would bee spoiled saith Biel the Schooleman but that it is impossible because it is impassible Therefore Bread onely For what they speake out of Pope Innocent therein crossing Pope Nicholas as Durand also well obserueth of diuiding nothing but the colour and shape and sauour and weight and the like accidents is friuolous and contrary to the words of the Institution that admit no such sense I might adde hereunto that which Pope Nicholas acknowledgeth that if the body of Christ be corporally in the Eucharist it is not onely broken by the Priests hands but torne to pieces also with mens teeth And though the Euangelist tell vs that No boâ—e of him was broken God indeede so kept them that not one of them was broken euen when they pierced with nailes his hands and his feete yet if it be as they say his very bones must needs be broken betweene their teeth that here chew him and he sustaineth more hard measure in that kinde by the teeth of his owne Disciples then he did then at the hands of those that were his executioners Hard teeth they haue doubtlesse that can so easily breake bones and hard hearts that can finde in their heart to vse their Sauiour so hardly Who is so sottish saith the Heathen man as to thinke that that he eateth to be God What man in his wits saith Theodoret wil account that to be God which either he abhorreth or that he offereth to the true God and himselfe eateth And who is so impious say I as to eate thus that which he thinketh to be God 2. That which is consecrated in the Eucharist is subiect to corruption putrefaction and foule abuse Christs naturall body now glorified is not so That therefore is not Christs naturall body that is consecrated in the Eucharist That which is consecrated in the Eucharist I say is subiect to corruption For If we regard those visible things saith Augustine wherewith we administer the Sacraments who knoweth not that they are corruptible But if wee respect that that is intended in them who seeth not that it cannot be corrupted The Elements in the Eucharist if they be kept any long time are prone to putrisie In regard whereof their counterfeit S. Clement instructing for so he speaketh the Apostle S. Iames how to deale with the Sacrament How shamelesse are they that dare obtrude such things on the Church of God how blockish and sottish that beleeue them doth very grauely and sagely admonish him to haue speciall care of keeping the reliques of the Hoast or the fragments of Christs bodie for so he calleth them from growing mouldy in the Pyx and that no mouse dung be found among the fragments of Christs portion lest great wrong be done to some portion or piece of Christs body And yet they told vs before that Christs body is not parted And Cardinal Bellarmine telleth vs of the Sacramentall wine that it cannot be kept long but it will grow sowre Or if they be taken they are consumed and perish as the Apostle speaketh in the vse of them The Bread saith Augustine that is made for this vse is in the Sacrament consumed But Christs naturall Body is in no wise consumed No multitude saith one consumeth this bread no continuance maketh it stale That heauenly foode refresheth and yet neuer faileth it is neuer spent at all though it be neuer so oft taken It neuer perisheth saith our Sauiour but lasteth to life eternall Yea in many places the manner was anciently if any bread were left after the celebration of the Sacrament either to distribute it among the Catechumeni who might not as yet receiue the Eucharist or to burne it with fire in imitation of the Paschal Lambs remainders which yet it is to be thought they would not haue done with it if they had held it to be Christs body Yea to this day the Romanists are enioyned in their Church Canons if the hoast grow mouldy or breede mites neither of which I suppose Christs Body now can doe Or n if a sicke body that hath bin houseled bring it vp againe Or if the Priest being drunke before chance to spew it vp againe to burne both the one and the other if no man be found so hardy as to take either and to lay vp or reserue the ashes of it for a relique and if the dogs chance to licke that vp that the Priest cased himselfe of he must doe double penance for it Or if a mouse chance to picke their God almightie out of the Pyx of which more anone and she can be taken againe she must be opened and Christs body if it may be picked out of her and if no man haue a stomacke to so delicate a morsell both shee and it must be burnt and the ashes reserued For that that is both taken and kept by the Communicanes let them not blame vs if with due reuerence to such holy mysteries we argue from our Sauiours owne words the Auncients haue done so before vs Whatsoeuer saith our Sauiour goeth into the mouth entreth not into the heart but goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught which is the purging of all meates Whereupon as Augustine saith hauing spoken both of the foode that is sanctified for the sustenance of our bodies and of the bread that they vsed to giue to the Catechumeni after the celebration of the Sacrament This sanctification of meates hindreth not but that that which goeth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is by corruption cast out into the draught whereupon our Lord exhorteth vs to another meate that corrupteth not So Origen speaking of the Sacrament it selfe of the typicall and symbolicall Body of Christ for so expressely he explaineth himselfe If saith he whatsoeuer goeth in at the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught then euen that Bread also that is sanctified or consecrated all is one by the word of God and by prayer as it is materiall goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught nor is it the matter of the bread but
say This my Blood is the Testament in my blood 3. He saith that Christs blood is offered in the Eucharist vnbloodily or not as blood 4. He expoundeth a place of Theodâ—ret thus * The Sacramentall Signes that is the Accidents retaine still the same Substance that is the same Accidents 5. He saith that Christs Body is in the Eucharist but without bodily existence that is his body is there but not as a body 6. That it is there and yet it followeth not that it is eaten though that that is there be eaten 7. He maintaineth a corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament and yet that he is not there corporally eaten 8. He affirmeth that all are not saued that beleeue in Christ and so feâ—de spiritually on Christ. 9. He saith that the Sonne of God is contained in the bread that is eaâ—en in the Eâ—châ—rist whereas they dery any brâ—… at 〈…〉 to be there 10. He maintaineth that a thing may truly be said to be turned 〈…〉 that that commeth onely in the place of it 11. He affirmeth that one and the selfe same thing may 〈…〉 12 That Christs bodie in the Sacrament hath no exteâ—… bignesse a◠〈…〉 13. He affirmeth Christs very bodie to be present in the Sacrament but in a spirituall manner or as a Spirit and therefore can no more there be broken then Angels wounded iâ—bâ—diâ—s â—ffirmed or then his Deâ—… on the Crosse and that nothing but accâ—â—â—nts are broken in the Euchâ—rist 14. That Christs hiding himselfe in the Sacrâ—â—ent is 〈…〉 exâ—…ion of him 15. He saith that Christ is not touched in the Sacrament and yet we touch him that he inâ—…th 〈…〉 there and yet he cannot be touched of vs. 16. He saith that Christs body is not abused though mice and Rats eate it 17. That their Masse is the very selfe same with Christs Sacrifice on the Crosse and yet it is vnbloodie 18. He maketh Christ himselfe a memoriall of himselfe Crosse and wilfull falshoods and falsifications 1. That I affirme Sacraments to be nothing but bare Signes and Types and that we make the Sacrament but a bare Memoriall of Christ. 2. That I affirme them to bee nothing but bare bread and wine 3. That I affirme Caietane Bellarmine and Gratian to say the same 4. That Iustine Martyr describeth the Celebration of the Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist iust as they now celebrate it 5. That the Fathers affirme that Iâ—das receiued Christs naturall body 6. That all Christians in the World celebrate as they doe 7. That Augustine and all the auncient Fathers vnderstand Christs words Iohn 6. literally and not figuratiuely 8. That all the Fathers expound those words property This is my bodie 9. That Christ did not say of the Eucharist Cup I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine 10. That the Centurists blame all the Fathers almost of Constantines time vniuersally for teaching Transubstantiation and adoration of the Sacrament 11. That the auncient Britens held the same 12. That Origen Basil Ierome and Augustine make the sinne of such as come vnworthily to the Sacrament equall with the sinne of those that betraied and kild Christ. But passe we from his Preamble to the Worke it selfe Diuision 2. HIs first endâ—… for three leaues together is to prâ—… that there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may not be vnderstood figuratiuely as well as other speeches of the like kinde in Scripture as when Seuen kine are said to be seuen yeeres ten Hornes ten Kings The Rocke was Christ c. So he not telling withall his Reader as he ought to haue done like an ingenuous solide Author the many differences noted by Bellarmine and other Catholike Authors soluing this very Obiection betweene Christs literall words This is my Bodie and other figuratiue speeches these being simply and without any other explication vniformally recounted by three Euangelists as also by Saint Paul in their historicall narrations whereas where the Lambe is called the Passeouer the Rocke is said to be Christ c. Something is still added in the text to explicate the literall and true meaning of them The Lambe for example is called in the same place the sacrifice of the Passeouer Christ is said to be a spirituall Rocke c. And the very scope of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words of them are literally to be taken â—s the seauen kine ten hornes c. Besides in all such figuratiue speeches Semper predicatur de disparato disparatum One thing is said to be another which cannot be â—…dually or specifically the â—ame but wholly different in nature from it A man for example as Christ was cannot 〈…〉 â—…narily be a Vine a Lyon a Rocke c. But in Christs words This is my bodie no such absurdor impossible thing is affirmed but onely that the substance which he had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conuersion of bread into it Christs words being operatiue saith S. Ambrose and omnipotently able to make that to be which is signified by them in in these words Perhaps thou wilt say I see another thing How prooue you to me that I take the bodie of Christ And this remaineth yet for vs to prooue that it is not what nature framed but what benediction hath consecrated and that the force of benediction is greater then the force of nature because euen nature it selfe is changed by benediction Moses holding a wand in his hand did cast it from him and it became a serpent Now if mans benediction were of such force as that it could change nature what say we of that same diuine Consecration where the words of our Lord and Sauiour doe worke For this Sacrament which thou takest is made by the speech of Christ. And if the speech of Elias was of such powâ—â— as to draw fire from heauen shall not Christs words be of foâ—ce to change the formes of the elements Thou hast read of the workes of the whole world Because he spake the word they were made he commaunded and they were created The word of Christ then which of nothing could make that which was not cannot it not as well change those things which are into that which before they were not Since it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures vnto things then to change natures c. It is indeede Bread before the words of the Sacraments But after that consecration is once added vnto it of bread it is made the flesh of Christ c. I haue told you saith S. Augustine that before Christs words that which is offered on the Altar is called bread but when Christs words are vttered it is called no more bread but his bodie And explicating the
Title of the 33. Psalme wherein these words are written Et ferebatur in manibus suis And-he was carried in his owne hands Who saith he conc 1. is able to conceiue how this can happen in man For who is carried in his owne hands A man may be carried in the hands of an other But in his owne hands he cannot be carried How this may be literally vnderstood in Dauid we finde not But in Christ we doe For Christ was carried in his owne hands when giuing his bodie he said This is my Body For then did he carry that body in his owne hands c. When as Christ himselfe saith S. Cyril affirmeth and saith of the bread This is my Bodie who may presume to make any doubt thereof And when the same Christ confirmeth and saith This is my Blood who can doubt and say it is not his blood Againe Let vs not consider it as meere bread or bare wine For it is the bodie and blood of Christ. For although the sense teacheth thee that it is bread and wine yet let thy faith confirme thee that thou iudge not the thing it selfe by thy taste And a little after This knowing for most certaine that the bread which we see is not bread although thy taste thinketh it to be bread but that it is the bodie of Christ and the wine which we behold although to the sense of tasting it seemeth to be wine yet that it is not wine indeede but the blood of our Sauiour c. Let vs beleeue God saith S. Chrysostome in euery thing not gain-saying him though what he saith may seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation I beseech thee therefore that his speech may ouercome our sense and reason Which point we are to obserue in all things but especially in holy mysteries not onely beholding those things which lie before vs but also laying hold of his words for his words cannot deceiue vs but our sense may easily be deceiued And elsewhere lib. 3. de Sacerd. O miracle saith he O the bountie of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father euen in the same instant of time is handled with the hands of all and deliuereth himselfe to such as are willing to entertaine and imbrace him Againe Elias did leaue his garment to his disciple But the Sonne of God ascending to heauen did leaue his flesh But Elias by leauing it was deuested thereof Whereas Christ leauing his flesh to vs yet ascending to heauen there also he hath it AFter that he hath thus spent some part of his railing Rhetorick in traducing vilifying this Protestantical Diuine his Aduersary asignorant vnacquainted with the Authors he citeth a petty writer a meere collector a filcher a falsifier c. and disgraced his Discourse as consisting of proofes tedious and superficiall and allegations impertinent maimedly and corruptly produced and that nothing may escape him without some nip written with a very bad hand which he taketh to be his owne and the partie therefore one it may be not so fit to write for Ladies as himselfe being both a man of worth as before he intimated himselfe to be and writing a faire hand too though not very Scholerlike as the worke it selfe sheweth Hee commeth now to deale with the matter and substance of the Discourse Where the first Proposition that he vndertaketh to oppugne as I propound it is this These words in the Gospel This is my Body may well be taken figuratiuely Which how it may be I shew by some instances to wit these other in Scripture The seuen kine are seauen yeeres The ten hornes are ten Kings The Rocke was Christ or as those other in ordinary speech This is Caesar That is Cicero c. Nor is there any thing in the Gospel that may enforce the contrarie Now this worthy man that taxeth me for a meere Collector and a filcher out of Bellarmine hath nothing here to answere but what he fetcheth from Bellarmine whom he saith I filch all from But let vs see how well he vrgeth and maketh good Bellarmines answeres 1. The words are simply and without any other explication simply and vniformally for so in his scholerlike manner he speaketh recounted by three Euangelists and Saint Paul And therefore they cannot be taken figuratiuely For that must follow or else he speaketh nothing to the purpose We shall not neede to goe farre to discouer the weakenesse of this consequence The three Euangelists and S. Paul speaking of the other part of this Sacrament doe all simply and without another explication vniformally to retaine his owne precise tearmes say This Cup is c. therefore the Cup cannot be taken figuratiuely there which if it be not they must inuent a new Transsubstantiation of some other matter or mettall then the fruite of the Vine either into the New Testament or into Christs blood § 2. When the Lambe is called the Passeouer and the Rocke said to be Christ something is added in the Text to explaine the literall true meaning of them The Lambe for example in the same place is called the Sacrifice of the Passeouer Christ is said to be a spirituall Rocke c. 1. It is not true that he saith that in the same place where the Lambe is called the Passeouer the same Lambe is called the Sacrifice of the Passeouer There is no more said Exod. 12. 11. but this Ye shall eate it in hast it is the Lords Passeouer there being nothing by way of explication there added But after indeede verse 27. not the Lambe precisely but the whole Seruice is said to be the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer When your Children shal aske you What seruice is this that you obserue Then shall you say It is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer Neither is Christ said to be a spirituall Rocke 1. Cor. 10. 4. But the reall Rocke is called a spirituall Rocke as the Manna and the water that issued from it are called spirituall meate and drinke And that Rocke for matter corporall for vse spirituall is said as Augustine well obserueth not to signifie but to be Christ Nothing being added more to intimate a figuratiue sense there then heere in the wordes This is my Body which two speeches both Augustine and Caietan compare the one with the other 2. It is senselesse thus to reason In some places where figuratiue speeches are vsed something is added to explicate them therefore wheresoeuer nothing is added to explicate the figure the words are not or cannot be figuratiuely taken 3. In many of the instances giuen no such explication is added as these The ten Hornes are ten Kings The seven Kine are seuen yeeres This is Caesar This Cicero c. 4. In the very Context there is added that which sheweth the sense to bee figuratiue For that which is called Christs blood by the Euangelist in the one verse is expresly said to be the
that the same thing should both rest and mooue at once It is impossible that the same body should by locall motion arriue in diuers severall places at once It is impossible that Christs should personally assume the bread in the Sacrament It is impossible that Christs body should bee in the Sacrament any other way but by the conversion of bread into it All these and many other impossibilities they tell vs of that cannot endure to heare vs speake of any Now if they will tell vs why these things are impossible we shall as soone tell them againe in their owne wordes why such a Transubstantiation and reall presence as they dreame of is impossible 4. How doth this follow There is no impossible thing affirmed in Christs words Therefore they must needs bee taken properly or they cannot bee taken figuratiuely Hee might by the same reason prooue that the Apostles words where he saith of himselfe I die dayly or where he saith I am crucified together with Christ or where he saith of the Galathians that Christ was crucified among them or the Psalmists as some fantasticall Rabbines haue held where hee saith of the Heavens that they relate Gods glory c. or our Sauiours where hee saith that the tongue of the Rich mans soule was in torment must of necessity be all vnderstood literally and properly because there is nothing simply impossible affirmed in them § 5. He telleth vs in Conclusion that the meaning of our Sauiour Christs wordes is this The Substance which I hold in my hands is my Body made by the miraculous conuersion of bread into it But where is ought in the Text that inti nateth this miraculous conuersion yea if this were the sense of them it should be made Christs body ere those wordes were spoken of it Whereas hee and his associates commonly hold that this miraculous conuersion is wrought by those wordes This is my body and is not effected till those wordes be all out which they giue the Priest a speciall charge thereof to vtter speedily with one breath And here let this profound doughty Doctor giue an ignorant petty writer leaue to demand of him what is ment by the word This in those wordes This is my body for I suppose hee will not be so absurd as the Glosser is to say that Hoc or this there signifieth nothing at all or what that substance was as hee speaketh that Christ held in his hands when hee spake the word Hoc or this If it were Christs body made before of bread then the vttering of those wordes did not then nor doth now worke any conuersion of the bread into Christs body for nothing can bee turned into it selfe or into that that already it is or if it were bread still as for ought ap peareth in the text still it was then must this needs bee the summe and sense of Christs wordes This bread is my body and so by his owne rule when disparatum de disparato dicitur one thing is said to be another different in nature from it it must needs be taken figuratiuely § 6. Well wotting that there was no such thing either in the Text or gatherable to vse his owne tearmes out of it hee would faine finde out some Author that would say that for him that the text it selfe will not and alleagdeth therefore some few Testimonies Concerning which I might well say as hee saith if I would doe as hee doth that they haue beene answered long since by the L. Morney the B. Morton D. Fulke and others and hee doth not deale sincerely in concealing their Answers and so turne my Reader over to them as his manner is when he hath nothing to answer But I answer to them severally 1. Ambrose is alleadged out of his bookes de Mysterijs c. and de Sacramentis which bookes howsoeuer for diuers passages of them and phrases vsed in them they may well be doubted of whether they were written by him or no and Posseuine himselfe implieth that some haue denied it when hee saith that all almost hold them to be his and part of them as we shall see anone goeth commonly vnder another name yet not to stand thereupon but admit them for his Nothing there said doth necessarily enforce any such Transubstantiation as the Romanists hold yea some subsequent wordes if they had beene annexed would euidently speake against it For first Ambrose there expressely teacheth that the creatures of bread and wine still abide euen after Consecration which vtterly ouerthroweth the Popish Transubstantiation If saith he there were so much force in the word of the Lord in the worke of Creation that those things began by it to be that before were not how much more operatiue is it to cause that things should be still what they were before and be changed into another things So that by this Ambroses confession the elements remaine still what they were and yet are changed indeed which wee deny not into that which they were not as waxe is turned into a seale being annexed to a deed though it remaine still for substance what erst it was 2. That which Ambrose saith in the latter place that This bread is bread before the wordes sacramentall but when consecration commeth to it it is of bread made Christs flesh that hee speaketh in these wordes in the former place which this mangler of him omitteth Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes is another kinde named but after Consecrationis Christs body signified And againe in the latter place Wine and water is put into the Cup but by Consecration it becommeth blood Thou wilt say I see no kind or shew of blood But it hath saith hee a similitude of it For as thou hast taken a similitude of death in Baptisme hee meaneth as lib. 3. cap. 7. so thou drinkest a similitude of Christs precious blood c. And thereupon he concludeth Thou hast learned now that that which thou receiuest is Christs body So that it is in regard of signification and similitude that the one is said to be Christs flesh and the other his blood as this Ambrose explicateth himselfe 3. Expounding what manner of change hee meaneth when he saith They are changed into that which erst they were not Thou thy selfe saith he wast before but thou wast an old creature after thou wast consecrated thou begannest to be a new creature which newnesse yet as Tertullian well obserueth importeth no corporall but a spirituall change in the party so consecrated not in substance but in quality differing from what he was before 4. In the next Chapter relating the wordes of their Church Liturgie then in vse hee calleth that holy oblation a figure of Christs body and blood which they entreate God to accept of as hee did Abels gifts and Abrahams sacrifice c. which cannot
bee vnderstood of the very reall sacrifice of Christ himselfe vnlesse they will make the Priest an intercessor to God the Father in the behalfe of Christ Iesus Of which also more hereafter 2. Out of Augustine are cited two Testimonies In the former whereof he sheweth how iudicious he is in the choice of his allegations that for which he taxeth the Diuine he dealeth with and how well seene in and acquainted with the Authors he alleadgeth There are diuers Sermons set out vnder Augustines name for this is no new thing with them to forge daily as well new workes as new writers which they cite many of them sometime vnder the name of Augustine sometime vnder the name of this or that other Father for they can finde Fathers for their bastards as they list themselues Of these many by Bellarmine Baronius Erasmus the Diuines of Louaine and diuers others are confessed to bee meere counterfeits One whereof is the Sermon de Verb. Dom. 28. which this worthy Writer here citeth and indeede is nothing else but a whole Chapter verbatim taken out of the fift booke of that worke de Sacramentis which he cited last before as Ambroses So that he doth herein as Captaines that wanting of their full number borrow one of an other and so produce the same party by one name to day as one mans souldier and by an other name the next day as an other mans souldier a gun-man it may be to day and a pike-man to morrow For this Author was but euen now Ambrose and now he is sodainely become Augustine as if some such spel had beene said ouer him as they suppose to be said ouer their Hoast And thus as their common guise is they make their coined creatures like plaiers on a stage sometime to act one part and sometime another And this may well giue iust cause to suspect the authoritie of the Author when sometime he is Ambrose and sometime Augustine and it may well be neither For he is hardly euer beleeued that is taken once in two tales And this Erasmus his annotation would haue giuen him some hint of had he beene so well acquainted with the Authors he citeth as he would seeme to be Besides that this Ambrose or Augustine or what euer he be when he is cited to giue in euidence saith nothing but this that that which before Christs words is called bread is after them called no more bread but Christs bodie Which vnlesse it be meant that it is not called onely bread but Christs body also which manner of speaking is not vnusuall he will not deny himselfe to be most manifestly vnture for he acknowledgeth a little after that euen after consecration the Apostle diuers times so tearmeth it And if it be so vnderstood what maketh it either against vs who acknowledge with the Auncients that it is commonly called as all other signes ordinarily by the name of the thing it signifieth or for them who should prooue not that it is commonly called Christs body but that it is really and essentially it It is no more then as if one had said Waxe before it is set to a deede and imprinted is called waxe but after that it is not called waxe but a Seale Meane while it may hence appeare that either this Writer what euer he be is scarce well acquainted with the writings of those Fathers that he citeth or else he is wretchedly bent to abuse and delude those that he dealeth with The latter Authoritie is taken out of Augustines first Sermon on Psal. 33. wherein he saith that Christ was carried in his owne hands when he said This is my body And here againe this great Doctor sheweth either his little acquaintance with Augustine or his fraudulent dealing with those whom he desireth to delude For Augustine repeating againe in the very next Sermon what hee had deliuered in the former putteth in those words which shew what his meaning was When he commended saith he vnto them his body and blood he tooke into his hands what the faithfull know that was nothing they themselues will graunt but bread when he tooke it And he carried himselfe after a manner when he said This is my body And if you will know what that after a manner meaneth Augustine himselfe will best tell you where he saith elsewhere The Sacrament of Christs body is after a manner Christs body because Sacraments for the most part be are the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments After a manner then it is the body of Christ. And yet is it bread still For so Augustine againe elsewhere It was Bread that Christ carried in his hands at his last Supper Which Supper we to this day eate daily by Faith and in it by faith receiue Christ in whom we beleeue and taking a little modicum are spiritually fatted His third Author is S. Cyril that should be Bishop of Ierusalem a little after the time of Constantine the Great An Author not without good cause shrewdly suspected Vnder his name our Popish Father-forgers haue set out diuers things Among others an Epistle of his that should be written to S. Augustine of S. Ieromes decease and of the miracles that he wrought Which Epistle is so grosse and ridiculous writing of the death of one that many a long yeere out-liued him that should write it that albeit many of them are not ashamed to cite it as Cyrils for the maintenance of sundry Popish points yet others of them are enforced to confesse the worke countorfeit and sticke not to brand the Author of it for an hereticall impostor and a loud lier And of late they haue set out vnder the name of the same Cyrill two bookes of Catechising which besides sundry passages in them that argue a late writer as where he speaketh of the Inuention of the Crosse as a matter long before his time and saith that the whole world was then filled with the pieces of it whereas the true Cyril was liuing at the very time when the Crosse is reported to haue beene found by Helen the same Catechâ—sings are reported to bee found in some written copies vnder the name one Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem of which name there was one about the 2. Nicene Councel some hundreds of yeeres after that Cyrils decease So that they may as well cite that second Councel of Nice for the adoration of Images as this counterfeit Cyril for their Transubstantiation vnlesse they can bring sounder proofe for him and better informe vs what he is and whence he came The authoritie of this Catechiser is no better then the authoritie of that Epistler for ought can bee shewed which yet in this very Argument is also produced and is enforced vpon vs as an indubitate and authenticall Author Such bastard pearles Bristow diamonds and glasse bugles are these poore pedlars like pety chapmen faine to
for a man well read in the auncient Fathers as hereafter hee boasteth himselfe to be Diuision 3. THis is the true Doctrine of the auncient Fathers and so plainely and vnanswerably doe they teach the literall vnderstanding of our Sauiours words and the miraculous coÌ„uersion of the bread wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the bodie and blood of Christ telling vs that we must not beleeue our sense or reason telling vs the contrarie nor conceiue it so impossible as our carnall and grosse Aduersaries pretend for the bodie of our Sauiour to bee in heauen and in numberlesse places of the earth together iâ—…sibly existing Whose plaine testimonies are in a whole Booke together by learned Bellarmine truly and particularly collected where also he refuteth the shifting answeres of Protestanticall Diuines vnto them soluing all Obiections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against Catholicke doctrine Who is by this Minister ignorantly or malitiously traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figuratiue and tropicall sense of our Sauiours words This is my Body because disputing against Luther supposing as well as he the literall sense of our Sauiours words argumento ad hominem by an Argument drawne from Luthers owne grounds hee driueth Luther either to confesse Transubstantiation necessarily purported in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie or for to admit barely against the knowne opinion of himselfe and all his disciples a figuratiue and metaphoricall vnderstanding of them For if Christs words be literally to be vnderstood and bread also admitted to remaine in the Sacrament the Pronoune Hoc This would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it and not the bodie of Christ inuisibly therein present and so bread in our Sauiours speech should falsly be affirmed to be Christs bodie Whereas if bread remaine not but be truly conuerted into Christs bodie no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literall vnderstanding of Christs words Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seeme to affirme that there is nothing in the holy Text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament or which is all one that may enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words c. Ignorance and mistaking must be my aduersaries best meanes to salue this falshood and many others which doe ensue afterward IN the next place hauing digressed all this while from the Argument he should haue answered he addeth that that which they teach coÌ„cerning the literall sense of Christs words and the miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ is the true doctrine of the auncient Fathers and to saue himselfe the labour of proouing that which neither he nor any of his side shall euer be able to make good he turneth his Reader ouer to Bellarmine out of whom he picked all that before he had said and telleth him that he hath both prooued it and refuted all the shifting answeres of the Protestanticall Diuines Bellarmine it seemeth is his Aiax behinde whose shield hee must shroud himselfe or else he dare abide no brunt of encounter againe Now to make Bellarmine againe some part of requitall because he is so much beholden to him he will doe his best to cleere him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad Minister by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of the Protestant doctrine concerning the figuratiue sense of our Sauiours words and to affirme c. It is true I say that Bellarmine granteth and so he doth I haue set downe his owne words they are not nor can be denied that these words This is my bodie may imply either such a reall change as the Catholickes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold and that is all I say of him The truth contrary to the maine drift and scope of his controuersie as it falleth out oft with those that against their owne knowledge maintaine errour did start from him vnawares Nor is the question now de re but de propositione as Bellarmine there speaketh the question is not of the maine matter in controuersie whether Christ did really conuert the Bread into his Body which Bellarmine affirmeth but whether that speech of our Sauiour may not beare such a figuratiue sense as we giue which Bellarmine in plaine and precise tearmes granteth And all that this his Champion can say for him is nothing but this that Bellarmine doth not say that which in expresse words I haue cited out of him without alteration of any one syllable and the falshood therefore lyeth manifestly on him that denieth it when he knoweth them to be Bellarmines owne wordes in precise tearmes But he hopeth it seemeth that with facing hee may carry away any thing I will adde a little more out of Bellarmine and yet no more then himselfe in precise tearmes saith Scotus and Cameracensis two great Schoolemen grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot necessarily bee gathered out of the text of the Evangelists howsoeuer they hold it because the Church of Rome that cannot erre hath so expounded it And Bellarmine himselfe granteth that this is not improbable For though the Scripture saith he that we bring may seeme so cleere that it may constraine a man that is not wilfull to yeeld it yet it may well bee doubted whether it be so or no since most learned men and most acute such especially as Scotus was are of a contrary minde And now we haue besides Scotus and others three Cardidinals Card. Bellarmine Card. Caietan and Card. Cameracensis all confessing that the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot cleerely or vnanswerably bee prooued by Scripture I conclude then with mine Adversaries grant It is all one saith he to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament and to say that there is nothing to enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words Card. Caietan freely confesseth the latter and vnlesse hee can disprooue Caietan which as yet hee hath not assaied to doe he must by his owne confession yeeld the former Diuision 4. PAge 3. He maketh a great stir in asking how the Chalice may be called the new Testament in our Sauiours blood I answer him because our Sauiours blood by the effusion whereof his last Wâ—ll and Testament was confirmed and our eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs is in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar for vs. For the word Testament as all learned men know is apt to import not onely the interiour act of the dying mans Wil but also the authenticall instrument or deed wherein that his dying
Will is contained and his legacy conueighed vnto vs which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deâ—â—â—t soules Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to bee no other then bare signes and types of Christs true body and blood as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person as Circumcision is called the Couenant because it was a signe thereof c. either not vnderstatding like a dull Scholler his Master Caluines doctrine or ouer sawcily willing to contradict him who towards the end of his booke de Coena Domini expressely denieth bread wine to be empty signes of our Sauiours body and blood but such signes as haue the signified substances of our Sauiours body and blood conioyned with them For Christ saith hee is no deceiuer to delude vs with bare figures c. According to which doctrine of Caluine it will be easie for my Adversarie himselfe to salue many of his owne obiections that for example which he maketh out of Tertullian page 3. saying The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his body saying This is my body that is a figure of my body For as Caluines former words import so also Tertullian meaneth the sacramentall symbols not to be naked signes of Christs absent body and blood as the Minister would haue them but such signes as haue the signified substance conioyned vnto them as smoake is the signe of fire warme blood of life the fiery tongues ouer the Apostles in that day of Pentecost and the Doue ouer our Sauiour in his Baptisme were signes of the holy Ghost present c. Which manner of being signes of Christs body and blood doth not exclude but suppose the Accidents of bread and wine to containe the true substances of our Sauiours body and blood in them So is Saint Augustine to be vnderstood where he saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when hee deliuered the signe of his body And when out of Gratian my Aduersary citeth those wordes The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ c. is a Sacrament of Christs body visible palpable mortal and pierced on the Crosse c. So when Theodoret and Gelasius affirme the substance and nature of bread and wine still to remaine in the Sacrament they meane not physicall substances and nature of bread and wine still to remaine after the consecration but onely the accidents to remaine vnaltered in their nature signifying and containing our Sauiours body and blood vnder them And if hee had cited the place of Theodoret fully out he had vtterly ouerthrowne his hereticall and fraudulent purposes of citing him His wordes are these Neither do the sacramentall signes after consecration depart from their nature for they remaine note how hee speaketh of the signes not of the substances of bread and wine remaining in their former substance figure and forme to be seene and touched as before but they are by our vnderstanding conceiued to be as they are made and they are beleeued and adored according to our faith of them So iudicious and learned is mine Aduersarie here and in other places in the choise of his Arguments and Authorities alleadged against vs. But howsoeuer he faileth in that he will be sure to helpe out the matter by maiming and corruptly citing such testimonies I haue iust cause to suspect his like dealing in citing Gratians Glosse on S. Augustines wordes in the precedent page and Caietans words cited by him page 2. But I haue not these Authors now by me to examine the places in themselues And they are of so small esteeme with vs especially Caietan in his dangerous and inconuenient manner of expounding Scripture with more subtilty many times then truth as I cannot but wonder to see the Minister so to magnifie him as if hee were the Oracle of our Church and his ipse dixit and bare assertion so certaine a proofe as it could not be denied by vs. IN the next place therefore skipping ouer this Confession of Caietan that there is nothing in the Gospell that may inforce vs to take those words of our Sauiour properly This is my body but that they may for ought that is in the Text be taken figuratiuely as well as those wordes The Rock was Christ. As also leaping quite ouer the Answer giuen to that Obiection that we are bound to beleeue our Sauiour when hee saith This my body as if wee could not beleeue those wordes of his vnlesse wee beleeue Transubstantiation whereas their owne writers grant that the words of our Sauiour may be true though no such thing be He picketh out here and there some by-matter to bee nibling vpon that hee may seeme to say somewhat though hee keepe aloofe off from the maine matter And first because hee thought hee had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet which hee was desirous to vent He saith I make a great stirre in asking how the Chalice may bee called the New Testament in Christs blood I halfe suspect that some body hath sometime pusâ—ed him with this Question and he is willing therfore here to explicate it for the saluing of his owne credit the rather hauing lighted vpon a new deuice that hee thinketh wil easily helpe out For I mooue no such Question much lesse make such adoe about asking it but say onely We must beleeue our Sauiour as well when he saith This Cup is the new Testament or This Cup is my blood as wee must beleeue him when he saith This is my body and that either may bee true though there be no such reall conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament or Christs blood in the one or of the Bread into his body in the other And his part had beene if he ment to keepe to the point to shew why the one may not be true in a figuratiue sense as wel as the other But let vs heare how learnedly though it bee beside the matter he explicateth our Sauiours wordes This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Thus forsooth My blood in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed and the eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood Did any man in his right wits thinke wee euer expound Scripture on this manner Yea but he hath a singular piece of Schollership by himselfe to iustifie his Exposition For all learned men saith hee know that the word Testament is apt to import not the dying mans Will onely but the deed wherein it is contained and the legacy conueighed by it which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deuout soules c. If he had beene himselfe inebriated when hee writ this hee could not lightly haue beene more absurd For 1. By this
exposition of his our Sauiour should say This Cup that is this blood contained in the Chalice is the New Testament in my blood And so Christs blood shall be not in the Chalice onely but in his blood would any reasonable man say My body is in my body or My blood is in my blood But they care not what absurd language they fasten vpon our Sauiour so it may make for their owne turne 2. There is the blood of Christ really contained in the Chalice and yet this blood is vnbloodily offered It is vnbloodily offered and yet it is really blood yea there is nothing there but blood True it is the ancient Fathers oft tearme the Eucharist an vnbloody sacrifice which sheweth their speeches where they say that the Altar and the people are besprinckled and dyed purplered with blood were metaphoricall and hyperbolicall and well might they so call it not dreaming of any such bloody stuffe in the Chalice as these men seeme to imagine But how there can bee an vnbloody offering where there is much more blood then flesh and Christ offered vnbloodily where men drinke nothing but meere blood yea if Chrysostomes speeches were to be taken properly where all the Communicants are dyed red with blood let any reasonable man iudge 3. All learned men he saith of which number I hope he counteth himselfe one know that a Testament is apt to import not a will onely or a deed but a legacie too Vsus loquendi Magister Use is the Lord and Master of language We should thinke they say as the best speake as the most and vse as such coine so such speech as is commonly currant We ignorant and vnlearned Protestanticall Ministers are vnacquainted with this learning But I would request him if hee can here as well for the sauing and saluing of of his owne credite as for our better instruction to produce any one learned man besides himselfe and his associates that euer so said or euer so spake that euer called a legacy by the name of a Testament Such learned men I see as hee is may say what they list we vnlearned must speake by rule when we speake least such learned men as hee is controll vs if we doe otherwise for ignorant 4. Marke I beseech you this learned mans Logicke how soundly and substantially he argueth This word Testament may well signifie either a Will or a Legacie ergo Christs blood wherewith his last Will was confirmed may well be tearmed the New Testament What connexion there is betweene these two Propositions the one produced by him to prooue the other let any one that is not vtterly senslesse consider 5. Let it be obserued how these men that cannot endure at our hands to heare of any figure in the wordes of our Saviour though one neuer so frequent in signes and Sacraments especially which both they grant these things to be yet themselues in the explicating of them are enforced to flie to figures yea take liberty to themselues to coine and forge such figures as were neuer heard of before either in holy writ or in prophane writer For let him if he can shew a legacie so tearmed in either Lastly Christs blood indeed may in some sense be said to inebriate mens soules and the Ancients sometime so speake But that which is in the Chalice if it be taken which the Priest sometime may chance to doe ouer-largely will as Aquinas well obserueth inebriate the bodie and not the soule which I neuer yet heard that blood did or could doe And therefore wee haue cause to thinke if we see the Priest drunke with it yea we haue reason to beleeue because we know he well may that it is not Christs blood but the fruit of the vine the blood of the grape that is in the Chalice and produceth such effects § 2. In the next place like a man in a maze going backward and forward as vncertaine which way to turne himselfe Afterward saith hee relating but misrelating as his vsuall manner is some things spoken before confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to be no other then bare signes and types of Christs body and blood as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person as Circumcision is called the Couenant because it was a signe thereof c. True it is I say these wordes of our Sauiour This is my body may as well be vnderstood figuratiuely as those speeches are where the Rocke is called Christ and when pointing to the pictures of Caesar and Alexander it is the comparison that Augustine vseth we say This is Caesar and That is Alexander And in Answer to the Obiection before recited I say that the Cup that is the wine in the Cup is said to be the New Testament as Circumcision the Couenant because a signe and seale of it But that the bread and wine are no other then bare signes and types c. I no where say It is his vntruth not mine assertion I say expressely more then so that they are not signes onely but seales and signes and seales so effectuall as after I shew that by them the things signified by them and sealed vp in them are truely and effectually yet spiritually conueighed vnto those that doe faithfully receiue them Hee dealeth herein but as Bellarmine whom hee imitateth doth with Caluine one while charging him to make the Sacramemt nothing but a symbole and memoriall of Christs passion and so no better saith hee nay nor so good as a Crucifixe and yet else-where acknowledging that hee maketh it not a signe onely but a seale also confirming and sealing vp Gods promises made in the Word But like a dull Scholler he saith herein I vnderstood not my Master Caluine Master in these matters wee acknowledge none but Christ whose Word alone is absolutely authenticall with vs. Caluine we reuerence as a worthy seruant of Christ. And as dull a Scholler as I am I vnderstand him well enough where in that booke he calleth Transubstantiation a deuice of the Diuell their Consecration a kinde of Incantation the Masse an Histrionicall action and the Priest acting it a meere Ape The signes indeed saith hee in the Eucharist are not naked signes but such as haue the truth of the thing conioyned with them that which is true of Baptisme as well as of the Lords Supper Yet not inclosed in them nor carnally but spiritually partaked Nor doth God delude vs with bare figures though there bee no such reall change of the elements in the Eucharist more then hee doth vs now in Baptisme or did the Israelites of old when hee fed them with spirituall food and water in the Wildernesse § 2. And heere againe I cannot say cunningly but knauishly rather hauing falsly related my wordes and passing ouer mine Answer to this very Obiection wherein they challenge vs to make the Sacrament nothing
you are they Signes of Heretike Of the Lords Body and Blood Orthodox Of a body that is truly or of one that is not truly Heretike Of one that is truly Orthodox Very well For of the Image there must needs be some Originall For Painters imitate nature and draw Images of such things as are seene Heret True Orthodox If then the diuine mysteries represent that that is truly a body then the Lords body is a true body still not changed into the Nature of the Deity but filled with Diuine glorie Heret You haue in good time made mention of the diuine Mysterie for euen thereby will I shew you that the Body of our Lord is turned into another Nature Answer you therefore my Question Orthodox I will Heretike What call you the gift that is offred before the Priests Inuocation Orthodox I may not tell openly because it may bee there be some here that are not yet initiated Heretike Answere then aenigmatically Orthodox The foode that is made of certaine graine Heret The other Signe how call you it Orthodox By that common name that signifieth some kinde of drinke Heret But after sanctification how doe you call them Orthodox The body of Christ and the blood of Christ. Heret And doe you beleeue that you are made partaeker of Christs body and blood Orthodox I doe beleeue so Heret As then the Signes of the Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests prayer but after it are changed and become another So the Lords body also after his Assumption is changed into a diuine Substance Orthodox You are taken now in a net of your owne weauing For the Mysticall Signes doe not after Sanctification depart from their owne Nature For they remaine still in their former Substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be that which they are made and they are beleeued and adored or reuerenced as being those things that they are beleeued to be Compare then the Image with the Originall and you shall see the Similitude For it is meete that the Figure bee like to the Truth For that Body hath indeede its former forme and figure and circumscription and to speake in a word bodily Substance But since the Resurrection it is become immortall and such as no corruption or destruction can befall and it is vouchsafed to sit at Gods right-hand and is worshipped of euery creature as being called the Lords naturall Bodie Heretike Yea but the mysticall Signe changeth his former Name For it is not any more called as it was before but it is called a Body In like manner therefore should the Truth be called God and not a Body Orthodox Me thinkes you are very ignorant For it is not onely called a Body but it is called Bread of Life So the Lord himselfe called it And moreouer the Body it selfe we call a diuine Body and a quickning Body and the Lords Body and teach that it is not the common Body of any man but the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ who is God and Man For Iesus Christ is yesterday and to day the same and for euer Will you heare more yet of Theodoret In his first Dialogue out of which I cite also one or two Sentences which this scambling Answerer hath not list it seemeth to take notice of he bringeth in the same Parties thus discoursing together Orthodox Do you not know that the Lord called himselfe a Vine Heretike I know that he said I am the true Vine Orthodox And how call you the juice of the fruite of the Vine Heretike Wine Orthodox When the souldiers opened Christs side with a speare what saith the Euangelist did then issue on t Heretike Water and Blood Orthodox The Patriarch Iacob then calleth Christs blood the blood of the Grape For if Christ be called a Vine and the frnite of the Vine and streames of blood and water issuing out of Christs side trickled downe his whole Body he is fitly said by him to wash his coate in wine and his raiment in the blood of the Grape For as we call the mysticall fruite of the Vine after sanctification the Lords blood so doth he call the blood of the true Vine the blood of the Grape Heretike That which was propounded hath both mystically and cleerely beene shewen Orthodox Though the things said be sufficient yet I will adde another proofe Heretike You shall doe me a pleasure because the more profit in so doing Orthodox Doe you not know that God called his body Bread Heretike I know it Orthodox And else-where againe hee called his Flesh wheate Heretike I know that too For vnlesse the wheate corne saith he fall into the ground c. Orthodox Now in the deliuery of the Sacraments he called Bread his Body and that which is poured into and mixt in the Cup Blood Heretike He did so call them Orthodox Yea but that which by nature is his Body is also iustly tearmed his Body and in like manner his Blood Heretike It is acknowledged Orthodox Our Sauiour indeede hee changed the Names and imposed that Name on his Body that was the Name of the Symbole and Signe of it and on the Symbole or Signe he imposed that Name that is the Name of his Body And so hauing named himselfe a Uine he called that that was a signe Blood Heretike It is true that you say But why did he thus change the Names Orthodox Because his will was that those that are partakers of those diuine Mysteries should not attend the nature of the things that they see but for the change of the Names beleeue the change that by grace is wrought For hee that called that that by Nature is his Body wheate and bread and againe named himselfe a Vine he honoured the Symboles and Signes that we see with the appellation of his Body and Blood not changing Nature but to Nature adding Grace And at length the Orthodoxe Diuine thus concludeth It is cleere that that holy Foode is a Symbole and a Signe of Christs body and blood the name whereof it beareth For our Lord when he had taken the Symbole or Signe said not This is my Deitie But This is my Bodie and againe This is my Blood and else where The bread that I will giue is my Flesh that I will giue for the life of the world You haue heard Theodoret at large It remaineth now to consider how he ouerthroweth that which I produce him for to wit that the bread wine in the Sacrament remaine for substance still the same and that the Bread is called Christs body figuratiuely as his body is else-where called Bread and the wine his blood figuratiuely as himselfe is tearmed a Vine Or to consider rather if you please because that any one at the first sight may see how fitly this mans explication of Theodoret agreeth with
assertions as that the damned spirits in hell salute all the Saints in heauen and by name the Apostles Prophets and Martyrs the Patriarches Monkes and the Uirgin Mary and lastly their seuerall editions of them so chopped and changed mangled and made vp againe cut off or pieced out as they pleased that had the breeding of them that scarce any one of them is any whit like another The testimonies cited out of him could not be answered before the Author himselfe was hatched and his workes abroad in mens hands that they might bee seene and knowne what they were And now that they are seen and known what they are they appeare plainely to be such that they are not worthy of any answer Vnlesse it bee deemed equall that wee bee tied to answer to euery saying that is alleadged out of any counterfeite that they shall at any time thrust out with the glorious title of some Ancient Father clapt on his Frontispice And yet neither are this Authors wordes what euer he be by the Cardinals good leaue for all his great bragge so pregnant and full for them that no answer can be giuen to them He saith that the mysteries of Christ are most admirable and inscrutable and who denieth it this follow himselfe bringeth in Caluin and Beza saying the same and that men ought not to pry ouer curiously into them wherein not we but their S. Dennis is faulty their Schoolemen who with their wanton wit haue therein exceeded all bounds as well of modestie as of measure that we partake with our Lords immaculate bodie by faith for so in Uossius his edition are his wordes distinguished which we may well without any such corporall presence of it as by their owne Authors is confessed that wee must be assured that we eate the Lambe himselfe whole which is contrary not to our doctrine who say and shew euidently that the Fathers did as much that liued euen before Christ was incarnate but to the doctrine of their Pope Nicholas as else-where is shewed So that here is nothing that we need so much to stick at or that should be deemed so vnanswerable vnlesse he wil presse vs with that that followeth that Christ giueth vs fire to feed on when hee giueth vs his body as Chrysostome saith sometime that fire floweth from the Lords table and it is a coale of fire that wee receiue in the Eucharist Which if they will expound figuratinely and spiritually as I suppose they must needs let them giue vs the like liberty to vnderstand the former wordes in like manner I will adde only and so leaue this Ephrem what in the very same discourse himselfe saith what this potion and perception is saith he it is our part to learne And it is lawfull then belike yea and our dutie too to make some kinde of inquiry into it Marke diligently how Christ taking bread into his hands blessed it and brake it for a figure of his immaculate body and how hee blessed the Cup for a figure of his blood Which wordes I take it encline rather to our doctrine then to theirs And yet further in the same Treatise With the eyes of faith when like light it shineth bright in a mans heart doth he cleerly see the Lambe of God that was slaine for vs and that hath giuen vs his holy and immaculate bodie perpetually to feede vpon and to partake of vnto remission of sinnes This eye of faith he that hath doth cleerely and openly see the Lord and by a sure and full faith eateth of the bodie of that immaculate Lambe the onely begotten sonne of the heauenly Father and drinketh his blood c. By faith saith hee wee see the Lambe of God as expounding that that was said out of the storie of the Nicene Councell before and by faith wee seede on him and his bodie and blood and partake of him perpetually and not in the Eucharist onely Which as it fitteth not their orall manducation which without faith may bee effected so it agreeth well with that spirituall feeding that we expound our Sauiours wordes of So little doth this their Ephrem further or auaile them in this Argument Lastly for the high tearmes and stately titles that the Ancient Fathers giue the Eucharist let him but compare them with those that they giue to its elder sister the other Sacrament of Baptisme and I suppose hee will finde little oddes betweene either Onely for what hee saith of their affirming that the Angels adore it let the places bee produced and they shall then bee answered That they are present oft and if present no doubt present with much reuerence as well at the celebration of the Lords Supper as at other parts of Gods worship and that they adore him who is therein represented which is all that Chrysostome saith in the places produced out of him by Bellarmine we deny not and of Baptisme in effect their Cyrist saith as much But that they doe adore as God a piece of bread or a sorry wafer cake as the Papists doe in their Masse therein committing as grosse idolatry it is their owne grant if it be not Christ which we well know it is not as euer any was in the world that we vtterly deny nor will this Defendant euer be able to produce any one Orthodox Father that euer so said And thus much for his allegations though produced here to no purpose to disprooue as they might well enough without hurting of vs no assertion of ours but a fiction of his owne framing nor was it necessarie therefore that they should haue beene answered Let vs now proceede to the next part of his Answer Diuision 6. HIs next ground for ouerthrowing our literall vnderstanding of Christs wordes and reall presence of his true bodie and blood in the Sacrament is an vnlearned and slender manner of proouing our Sauiours large discourse in S Iohn 6. not to bee at all vnderstood of sacrament all manducation but spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him And first hee quareleth at Pope Nicholas manner of speech making Berengarius in the abiuration of his heresie to affirme not onely the signe but the body it selfe of Christ to bee handled by the Priests hands and rent and bruised with the teeth of the faithfull c. Which manner of speech was purposely by Pope Nicholas in a Councell of learned Doctors devised to make this slippery shifting hereticke make a direct and plaine confession of his faith concerning our Sauiours being present in the hands of the Priest consecrating the Sacrament and mouthes of such as receiue him impassible now in his owne corporall nature glorified and vncapable of renting or any kinde of corporall mutation as being not with the sacramental signes also quantitatiuely extended but indiuisibly and after a spirituall manner existing
with some shew of allegations 1. Hee telleth vs that Iohn Husse was of their iudgement concerning the Sacrament and alledgeth a sorry Rome to prooue it which whence hee hath I know not nor am able to say what Husse sometime held But sure I am that in the Councell of Constance one of the Articles wherewith he was charged and for which condemned and contrary to the Emperours safeconduct granted him perfidiousâ—â— burnt was the deniall of Transubstantiation as a deuice inuented to delude simple people with and the teaching and maintaining as well publikely as priuately that the substance of bread and materiall bread remained after Consecration in the Sacrament deposed by many that had heard him and that had argued about it with him 2. He citeth a few Fathers some forged as the Author of the Passion of S. Andrew some falsified as that of Iustine Martyr which shall by and by be examined some saying nothing but what wee will willingly yeeld him as both Irenaeus and that also out of the apocryphall Story of S. Andrew which howsoeuer he saith that Bellarmine which is his wonted manner of proofe hath proued to be authenticall Yet neither are his proofes pregnant no iust antiquitie being produced for it and by others of their owne as we shewed before it is confessed to be apocryphall and if we may beleeue Bellarmine himselfe there is some grosse vntruth in it For this vncertaine Author affirmeth that S. Andrew was not nailed with nailes but with cords eyed to the crosse as their counterfeit Abdie also saith that he might liue the longer in paine as he did preaching two daies together as he hung there aliue Whereas if Bellarmine may be beleeued it was not so but he was with nailes fastned as Christ was to the Crosse. But to leaue that as saying nothing that we neede sticke at no more then we doe at ought that out of Irenaeus is alleadged I may not let passe his falsifying of Iustine Martyr whom hauing so little occasion to alledge here he may well seeme for no other end to haue alleadged but to falsifie what he saith of this Sacrament in which kinde he hath the best gift one of them that euer I knew any Iustine Martyr saith he in his 2. Apologie where as far as was fit c. he describeth the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is now celebrated by vs telleth Antoninus the Emperour that they did therein eate bread and drinke wine conuerted by the miraculous force of Christs words into his naturall flesh and blood Now heare Justines owne words Hauing spoken before of Baptisme After this saith he is there bread and a cup of water and wine presented to the Prelate of the brethren Who receiuing the same sendeth vp praise and glory to the Father of all by the name of the Sonne and the holy Ghost and at large giueth thankes to him for being vouchsafed to be by him reputed worthy of these things And when he hath ended his prayers and thankes-giuing all the people answer Amen Now when the Prelate hath giuen thankes and all the people haue answered those that we call Deacons giue to each one of those that be present to partake of the blessed Bread and wine and water and they carry of it to those that be not present And this foode is with vs called the Eucharist which none may partake of but those that beleeue haue beene baptised and liue as Christ taught For we receiue not these things as common Bread and Wine but in like maner as Christ our Sauiour being by the word of God incarnate had flesh and blood so haue wee beene taught that the foode blessed by the word of prayer that is from him whereby our blood and flesh by a change are nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ incarnate For so in the Gospels haue the Apostles deliuered that Iesus enioyned them hauing taken the bread and giuen thankes to say Doe this in remembrance of me This is my Body And taking the Cup likewise and hauing giuen thankes to say This is my blood and to giue it to such onely Now first tell me I pray you where there is any mention of a Sacrifice in Iustine distinct especially from the Sacrament that this corrupter of all almost that he dealeth with should say Iustine describeth the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament True it is that the Fathers tearme the Lords Supper oft a Sacrifice as we also in our Liturgie partly in regard of the spirituall Sacrifice of praise therein offred and partly because it is a liuely representation and commemoration of Christs Sacrifice once offred on the Crosse as their Master of the Sentences himselfe explaineth it and partly also because it succeedeth in the roome of the Passeouer and those other Sacrifices that in the old Testament were offred But that they euer dreamed of any other Sacrifice distinct and diuers from the Sacrament no Papist shall euer be able to prooue Nor either out of our Sauiours words or Iustines report can be gathered 2. Obserue how iustly Iustine describeth the whole order of this Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is celebrated by them Yea marke and iudge I pray you whether his description of it come neerer vnto ours or vnto theirs 1. Where are all those crossings and bendings and â—ringes and turnings and eleuations and adorations and mimicke gestures and apish sooleries that their Masse-bookes enioyne 2. As well the cup as the bread is giuen to all present which Iustine also saith that Christ enioyned them to giue and which Pope Gelasius saith cannot be seuered from the Bread without great Sacriledge Whereas with them the people may not meddle at all with it How many toyes are there in theirs that are not touched at all in Iustine And againe what is there in Iustines relation that is not found in our Protestanticall as he tearmeth it communion that sending of it home ordinarily onely excepted which neither they themselues vse ordinarily when they celebrate and the danger of repaire hindring accesse it seemeth then occasioned 3. Where doth Iustine say as this corrupt corrupter reporteth him that they eate bread and drinke wine conuerted by the miraculous force of Christs words into his naturall flesh and blood No one word in him of a miraculous conuersion nor of their being the naturall flesh and blood of Christ. There is mention indeede of a change and that a naturall change not of the creatures into Christs naturall flesh and blood but of the blessed foode Or the foode made the Eucharist as Bellarmine translateth it into our flesh Which words though Bellarmine would faine wrest awry because they wring him yet no Grammer will admit any other sense of them From whence it is apparent that the blessed foode that Iustine speaketh of is not really but
symbolically and figuratiuely Christs body For there can nothing be deuised more absurd saith Bellarmine then that the Substance of our bodies should be nourished with Christs flesh But our flesh and blood and that I hope is the substance of our Bodies as Irenaeus also expressely speaketh are nourished saith Iustine by the blessed foode or by the Bread and Wine made the Eucharist and that by a change of the things receiued The blessed foode therefore that Iustine speaketh of is not really Christs naturall Body as this mis-reporter and mis-expounder of him affirmeth NEither can euer the Minister prooue his ensuing Assertion that Christs corporall presence in the thing eaten must necessarily inferre and enforce a corporall and carnall manner of eating him vnlesse his bodie had therein a corporall extensiue and sensible manner of existing which is by no Catholike Author affirmed and so no hainous and vnseemely thing is in such a manner of receiuing Christs body committed For auoiding whereof we should be enforced to runne to a figuratiue interpretation of our Sauiours speeches Ioh. 6. So as to exclude the reall receiuing of our Sauiours flesh and blood in the Sacrament as out of an obscure place of S. Austin cited by him page 7. and fully answered by Cardinall Bellarmine hee falsely gathereth the place proouing no more but that our Sauiours speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figuratiue so farre forth as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten but after a Sacramentall and inuisible manner as the signes of bread and wine doe containe them the chiefe end of his being so receiued by vs being indeed to communicate with Christs passion and profitably to lay vp in our memories that his flesh was wounded for vs as S. Austin in that place affirmeth Whose plaine places for the reall receiuing of our Sauiours body and blood in the Sacrament my superficiall Aduersarie taketh no notice of but as Eeles loue rather to hide themselues in durt then to swim in cleere waters so are hee and his companions glad to hide themselues and their hereticall nouelties in darke and obscure places of the holy Fathers not regarding their pregnant and plaine testimonies for vs and against them vnanswerably in other places expressed § 3. AT length he pleaseth to recollect himselfe and returne to the matter in hand Christs corporall presence saith he in the thing eaten doth not necessarily inferre and enforce a corporall and carnall manner of eating him vnlesse his body had therein a corporall extensiue and sensible manner of existing To passe by these mysticall and metaphysicall tearmes wherewith he and his Associates are wont to enwrap and inuolue themselues like Eeles in mire and mud as himselfe speaketh that their absurd and senselesse doctrines or dotages rather may not be discerned nor to insist vpon the implication of contradiction when he saith that Christs body is corporally that is bodily present in the Eucharist and yet hath there no corporall that is bodily existence a bodie bodily present and yet not bodily existing like the Marcionites riddles in Tertullian A man no man Flesh no flesh a body no body blood no blood or A body but not as a body with blood but not as blood in a place but not as in a place with qualities but not qualitatiuely with quantitie but not quantitatiuely Such strange fancies and prodigies are these mens braines possest with 1. If the one doe not follow vpon the other Pope Nicholas was much to blame when he inferred thereupon that Christs very body was sensually that is as much if not more then corporally chewed and eaten in the Eucharist 2. If it be true that Bellarmine telleth vs that by the Eucharist Christ remaineth carnally in vs which he citeth also but with a foule hand and some of his owne words foisted in as a saying of S. Hilaries then sure he must needs carnally be eaten of vs. And to see how inconstant error is and how contrary to it selfe one while he saith that there is a corporall eating of Christs body in the Sacrament as their common tenent is and how is he not then corporaelly eaten and that Christ carnally thereby abideth in vs And yet againe another while out of Athanasius that the eating of Christs body is not carnally to be taken nor is in a carnall manner to be vnderstood In a word 1. Either Bread or Christs body must needs be corporally eaten in the Eucharist but not bread if we beleeue them for there is none there and to say that meere accidents onely are chewed and fed vpon is most senselesse and absurd It remaineth therefore that Christs body if that alone be there be corporally eaten there as Pope Nicholas before affirmed 2. Either Christs flesh is eaten there corporally or spiritually onely If corporally why doth this fellow sticke at it and is so loath to acknowledge it If spiritually onely why vrge they those passages of Iohn 6. to prooue 〈…〉 corporall and bodily manducation of Christs body in the Eucharist And so come we to examine that place by them so much and so oft vrged to prooue such a carnall eating of Christ. § 4. Here this profound and learned Doctor telleth vs that his superficiall Aduersarie hath in an vnlearned and slender manner endeauoured to prooue that our Sauiours discourse there is not to be vnderstood of Sacramentall Manducation but of spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him I propound two Propositions to be prooued 1. That the words are not to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking as they hold 2. That Christ doth not in that whole discourse speake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was not as yet instituted but of such spirituall feeding on Christ as is performed not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also The former I prooue by a plaine place of S. Augustine which this Aduersarie referring vs still for an answer to Bellarmine from whom he borroweth the most that he hath saith is an obscure place and is pleased a little after to tearme it no better then durt which wee Protestants like Eeles desire to hide our selues in 1. Were it not an absurd thing for Augustine to speake â—bscurely there where he giueth rules for the opening and right vnderstanding of places obscure where should he speake more plainely and perspicuously then there where his maine aime is to make things cleere 2. This shifters answer borrowed from Bellarmine is but a bare shift to wit that the place prooueth no more but that our Sauiours speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figuratiue so far forth as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten and in a bloody manner as flesh sold in the shambles is wont to be eaten c. As if flesh bought in the shambles vsed to be eaten raw and in bloody manner Here
is a deale of durt indeede and mud raised to trouble Augustines cleere water The Question is whether our Sauiours words be to be vnderstood properly or figuratiuely They say properly and not figuratiuely Augustine saith figuratiuely and so consequently not properly which is as much as is here required Christs body saith Bellar mine is with the body properly eaten in the Eucharist But it is no proper but a figuratiue eating saith Augustine that Christ speaketh of Iohn 6. It is no such eating of Christs body therefore as they imagine to be in the Eucharist Yea so contrary to them and so pregnant for vs is that passage of Augustine that in Fulbertus his workes where those words of his are related they haue with a foule insertion branded them for hereticall Yea but saith mine Aduersarie there are many plaine places in Augustine cited by Bellarmine for the reall receiuing of Christ which my superficiall Aduersarie taketh no notice of Bellarmine is still much in this mans mouth and the superficialnesse of his silly and vnlearned Aduersarie But this I am sure is a very vnlearned slender and superficiall proofe of points questioned to turne his Reader ouer still for satisfaction to some other Yet I will doe him the couttesie since he telleth vs of other plaine places in Augustine to present him with one of them though such an one it may be as will not easily goe downe with him Augustine speaking of this place in Iohn on Psal. 98. saith that Christ hauing vsed those words Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you When some vnderstood them foolishly and carnally he taught them to vnderstand them spiritually saying It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speake are Spirit and life As if he should haue said vnderstand you spiritually what I haue spoken You are not to eate that body which you see and to drinke that blood which they will shed that shall crucifie me I haue commended a kinde of Sacrament vnto you which being spiritually vnderstood will quicken you Though it must be visibly colebrated yet is it inuisibly to be vnderstood Thus Augustine in plaine tearmes and yet if we beleeue these men the very same body of Christ that was then seene and that very same blood that was shed on the Crosse is orally eaten and drunke in the Eucharist ANd surely if the Authoritie of holy Fathers might preuaile with the Minister further then himselfe listeth he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that all the auncient Doctors expounding or treating of Christs words Ioh. 6. haue literally vnderstood them of the Sacrament as learned Tolet Saunders Bellarmine and other of our diuines haue particularly prooued collecting from them inuincible Testimonies also to prooue the verity of our Sauiours body and blood really in the Sacrament conteined and receiued Insomuch as S. Austin affirmeth S. Iohn purposely to haue emitted all mention of the Sacrament in our Sauiours last Supper because he had in the 6. Chap. of his Gospell so particularly expressed the promised excellency and heauenly fruits thereof and many euident and vnanswerable Arguments are by Catholike expositors of that Chapter made to prooue the same which with silence my Aduersarie ouerpasseth First for example our Sauiour from the 31. to the 60. verse of that Chapter maketh a difference betwixt the gift which his Father had giuen to the Iewes louing the world so as to giue his onely begotten Sonne for it and the gift which himselfe meant to giue to them speaking of the one as a gift already past but of the other as of a gift afterwards to bee giuen vnto them Secondly He compareth the eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna in the desert which was a corporall food really eaten by them Thirdly If by eating his flesh and drinking his blood our Sauiour meant no other thing then that they should beleeue in him it had beene a strange course in him who so thirsted after the saluation of soules by an obscure manner of speaking to driue away so many such persons especially as had formerly followed him without any word added which might open this obscure doctrine vnto them as Card. Tollet excellently relateth there the whole processe of our Sauiours doctrine § 5. MY second Proposition is that Christ in that whole Discourse Iohn 6 doth not speake of the Eucharist That Augustine and diuers others of the ancient Fathers doe expound it of feeding on Christ yet not corporally but spiritually in the Sacrament for so Bishop Iansenius also ingenuously confesseth that Augustine holdeth it to be vnderstood of seeding on Christ spiritually not corporally yea and so Pope Innocent himselfe witnesse Durand and Biel and Peter Lombard also witnesse Bonâ—uenture expound it I deny not nor doth it at all impeach our cause in the maine point here in question of Christs corporall presence Yet the rather herein wee are inforced together with diuerse Popish writers to depart from them in that their exposition so farre forth as they vnderstand the same as directly speaking of the Eucharist as for the one moitie of that discourse also euen Bellarmine himself doth in regard of some erronious consequences that they were by that meanes enforced vnto which euen the Papists themselues now condemne and for other weighty reasons as in my first writing I shew Yea but Catholique Expositors saith this Answerer by many euident and vnanswerable Arguments haue prooued that it is so to be vnderstood which his Aduersarie also saith hee euerpasseth with silence And say I A Catholique Expositor in their language to wit Corn. Iansenius no Iesuite now for so this Answerer hath informed me and yet a Bishop of Flanders in a worke of his by common consent of the learned among them well approoued of they are the Popes owne Censurers wordes of it hath by euident and vnanswerable Arguments prooued that it cannot so bee vnderstood which this mine aduersarie also ouerpasseth with silence And the like also doth Frier Ferus and Gabriel Biel at large in the place aboue recited But hee will at length I hope say somewhat himselfe 1. Our Sauiour saith he maketh a difference there betweene the gift which his Father had â—iuen the Iewes and the gift that himselfe ment to giue speaking of the one as past of the other as to come This out of Bellarmine I maruell where this man learned his Logicke He neuer is luckie in the framing of his Consequences There is a difference betweene the gift that God the Father had giuen and the gift that Christ would giue Ergò Christs wordes must needs be vnderstood of his corporall presence in the Eucharist How hang these things together or by what necâ—ssity of consequence doth the one follow from the other For first Are they diuerse gifts that God
heauenly effects which Christs promises there import in the soules of such as worthily receiue it and such centrarily as come vnworthily thereunto receiue death and iudgement to themselues by it As for those few Catholike writers who haue denied Christs words in that 6. Chap. of Saint Iohn to haue beene vnderstood at all of Sacramentall manducation I answer that their number is not great and their authoritie of no weight at all against a numberlesse multitude of ancient Fathers and moderne Doctors of better note contrarily vnderstanding them yeelding better reasons for that their literall true explication and easily soluing all hereticall Obiections gathered from the literall sense of our Sauiours words in that Chapter against our communion vnder one kinde and other points of Catholike doctrine And sithence my Aduersaerie will not sticke to contemne these very Authors in their other knowne Catholike doctrines why doth he so highly value and mainely vrge them in this opinion wherein without any hereticall intention or obstinacie of Iudgement they differ from vs § 6. AT length he commeth to refute mine Arguments which he saith are topicall and prooue nothing My first Argument is this None are saued but such as so feede on Christ as is there spoken of But many are saued that neuer fed on Christ in the Eucharist as the Fathers before Christ the children of the faithfull that die infants c. Ergò it is not spoken of the Eucharist To this he answereth 1. That I barely affirme that the Iewes before Christ did sacramentally receiue Christ as well as we but I prooue it not It is true I say obiter that they fed on Christs flesh spiritually as well as we now doe though that be no part of mine Argument And I adde a place or two of Augustine for the proofe of it grounded on the Apostles words 1. Cor. 10. 3 4. Which seeing that this shifter ouerslippeth let him heare Bishop Iansenius himselfe not to goe any further relate a little more at large to wit that the good Iewes in the old Testament were quickned by eating of Manna because vnder that visible foode they also spiritually did eate the true Bread of Life by Manna signified Or if Iansenius will not serue let him heare their great Albert There is saith he a three-fold eating of Christ sacramentally onely spiritually onely or sacramentally and spiritually both In the first sort all that euer were saued did eate in the second sort euill Christians eate him in the Sacrament in the third sort good communicants onely And againe alleadging those words of the Apostle All those good Auncients in the Manna vnderstood beleeued and tasted Christ himselfe and were thereby saued And this no Papist I suppose will be so absurd as to deny But this is but a by-matter no part of the maine Argument and therefore I forbeare here to insist further on it 2. That is as impossible for children to eate Christ by faith spiritually as to receiue him sacramentally in the Eucharist Not to runne out into more Questions then needs must at the present I answer 1. Many yong ones die though at yeeres of discretion when in ordinary course they may well haue faith and beleeue actually yet ere they be admitted to the Eucharist and yet is not their saluation at all thereby preindiced 2. By the doctrine of their Church euen Infants haue an habite of faith infused into them in Baptisme 3. Neither is it a thing impossible for the Spirit of God by an extraordinary manner to worke faith in such infants as are to be saued dying before yeeres of discretion no more then it was to regenerate Iohn Baptist in his mothers wombe of whom Gregorie therefore saith that he was new bred yet vnborne 4. The speech is of the same latitude and extent at least with those other whosoeuer beleeueth in me hath life eternall And Whosoeuer beleeueth not in the Sonne of God shall neuer liue but shall be damned and the like which comprehend those onely to whom it appertaineth actually to come vnto Christ and to beleeue in him saith Iansenius And that is enough for my purpose § 7. My second Argument was thus framed All that so feede on Christ are eternally saued our Sauiour so saith But many feede on the Eucharist that are eternally damned Ergò Christ speaketh not there of orall eating in the Eucharist Now this Argument saith he if I had wit to discerne the force of it maketh more against vs then against them And why so Forsooth because all are not saued that spiritually and by faith feede on Christ. This is like Bâ—llarmines bold assertion that some that beleeue in Christ perish eternally because they die before they can haue a Priest to assoile them And what is this but to say that all that doe truly beleeue in Christ are not saued Yea what is this not to repeate all the allegations both of Scripture and Fathers produced for the proofe of the Proposition which he purposely passeth ouer not being able to answere but to giue our Sauiour himselfe and the holy Ghost the lye who so oft say Whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall be saued Nor is it sufficient as he addeth for to verifie our Sauiours speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce such effects in the Soules of such as worthily receiue it though the contrary befall those that doe vnworthily reÌ„ceiue it For to answer them againe in the words of one of their owne Authors our Sauiours words imply manifestly a certaine effect as he speaketh not a matter that may be as Augustine and Cyril also in the places cited by me there shew whereupon also he concludeth that it is apparent thence that all are not there said to eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of Christs body and blood § 8. To their owne Authors Cardinals Schoelemen Canonists publike Professors or Readers of Diuinity in their Vniuersities Friers I might haue said too and in steed of Iesuites being better informed by him I now say Bishops which will not much mend the matter 1. Hee answereth that they bee but few in number and their authoritie of no great weight in regard of those that hold the contrarie Yet one of their owne Bishops though of an other mind himselfe confesseth that there are very many of them that are of this iudgement But had there beene but one or two of them especially of note as some of them were of some one sort it might well haue weighed much on our side For the witnesse of an aduersarie is of no small weight How much more when so many of all sorts of so speciall repute shall so vniformely speake for vs and herein accord with vs 2. He demandeth of his Aduersarie why he doth so highly value them and mainely vrge them herein when in other points he will not
sticke to contemne them Had he any wit in his adle braine he would neuer haue asked this idle Question It is as if in a Law-suite because a man taketh hold as he may well doe of somewhat that falleth from his Aduersaries or is granted him and confessed by them because it furthereth his owne cause he were therefore bound to beleeue or admit all that euer they say to the preiudice of his right The greater differences are betweene them and vs yea in the present controuersie concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament the lesse cause there is to suspect that they should speake partially for vs and the greater cause to suppose they were by euidence of truth enforced to confesse that that should take away some of those grounds whereby the cause that themselues stiffely maintained is ordinarily vpheld 3. He addeth in the end These men herein without hereticall intention or obstinâ—cie of iudgement differed from vs. Whom he meaneth by that Vs I leaue to himselfe to explaine And the lesse hereticall their intention was as he vnderstandeth hereticall the lesse suspition there is of collusion or any purpose therein to gratifie vs and so much the stronger therefore is their testimonie for vs. The testimonie of a meere stranger or no well-willer to the cause maketh it to be of more moment But when he speaketh of obstinacie of iudgement he glaunceth at a secret in their Church which I shall in a word or two take occasion hereby to discouer It is no matter what a man hold or maintaine among them so long as he acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacie the maine pillar of their faith and submit himselfe and his workes wholly to his censure and so be ready to vnsay what he saith when he will haue him so to doe For his censure indeede alone is that which they call commonly the censure of the Church And to this purpose they confesse that many of their writers haue held the very same points for which they condemne vs now as Heretikes of whom yet they say that they were not Heretikes because they submitted themselues to this Censure I will adde an instance or two hereof out of Bellarmine 1. In this very particular he confesseth that many of the Authors before mentioned expound that 6. Chap. of Iohn as the Heretikes doe but they submit themselues saith he and their writings to the Censure of the Councels and Popes which the Heretikes doe not 2. In the present controuersie Durandus held not a Transubstantiation but a transformation in the Sacrament which opinion saith he is hereticall and yet was hee no Heretike because he was ready to yeeld to the iudgement of the Church 3. Ambrose Catharines opinion of the Ministers intention in the Sacrament differeth not saith he for ought I see from the opinion of Chemnicius and other Heretikes saue that he in the end of his booke submitteth himselfe to the Apostolike Sea and Councel 4. Durandus in the point concerning merite of workes held as we now doe that no reward was due to them but out of Gods meere liberalitie and that it were temerarious and blasphemous to say that God were vniust if he should not so reward them And yet was he also no Heretike for the cause before-mentioned And thus are we at length arriued after much winding to and fro while wee follow a shifting wind at the end of the former part of my Discourse wherein hath beene shewed beside other Arguments confirming the same by the confession of their owne Authors that those places of Scripture doe not enforce any such corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament as Papists maintaine which they commonly produce to prooue it Diuision 7. PAg. 9. My Aduersarie becommeth a more formall Disputant then before and against our Doctrines of Transubstantiation and reall presence of our Sauiour in the Sacrament ignorantly by him in many places confounded he frameth this wise Argument Looke what our Sauiour tooke that he blessed what he blessed that he brake what he brake that he deliuered to his Disciples what he deliuered of that he said This is my Body But it was bread that he tooke And bread therefore that he blessed bread that hee brake and bread that he deliuered and bread consequently of which he said This is my Body Which is a formelâ—sse and fallacious kinde of arguing wholly forcelesse if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy Fathers to be true that Christs words haue force now as then they had when himselfe vttred them to change the substance of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood As if after the like manner of the water conuerted by Christ into wine I should make this deduction The Ministers drew water out of the well carried what they drew therefore that which they drew and carried was water If the Minister shall tell me that they drew water but carried it made wine by our Sauiours omnipotent operation so I will tell him that Christ tooke bread and wine and conuerted them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction into his owne bodie and blood before he distributed them as he by his plaine words pronounced of them saying This is my Body c. HItherto if you will beleeue this worthy Doctor his Aduersarie hath disputed without forme or figure that you may not maruaile why his Answer is so diffused deformed and mis-figured for the fault it seemeth was in his Aduersaries mishapen Syllogismes which made him also so loath to meddle with any of them Here he confesseth he becommeth a more formall Dissutant and I hope therefore we shall finde him a more formall Defendant Yet ere he come to my first Argument he must needs haue a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of Transsubstantiation and the reall presence corporall hee should haue said for more perspicuitie for so I speake ignorantly the one with the other I perceiue well what his drift herein is to make some beleeue that howsoeuer Transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times yet a reall that is a corporall presence was euer acknowledged But if we will beleeue Bellarmine Aquinas and the Councel of Trent the one of them is euery iot as ancient as the other yea the one cannot possibly bee without the other This the Councel of Trent telleth vs was alwaies the faith of the Church that by the consecration of Bread and Wine the whole Substance of the Bread was turned into the Substance of Christs body and the whole Substance of wine into his Blood And A body saith Aquinas cannot be where it was not before but either by locall motion or by the conuersion of some other thing into it But it is manifest that Christs bodie beginneth not to bee in the Sacrament by any locall motion And therefore it must needs come there by the conuersion of the bread into it Yea by locall motion it cannot be there nor by any meanes but
by this And Bellarm. cleane contrary to himselfe else-where It cannot be that the words of Christ should be true but by such a conversion and transmutation as the Catholike Church calleth Transubstantiation It is no matter of ignorance therefore in this Controversie to confound those things which those we deale with conioyne yea which they tell vs cannot be dis-ioyned To ouerthrow this their opinion then of Transubstantiation and Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist I first reason from the Context Christ tooke bread and blessed it and gaue it and said This is my body Whence I thus argued What Christ tooke hee blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he deliuered what he deliuered of that he said This is my body But it was bread that hee tooke blessed brake and deliuered It is bread saith Durant a Popish writer that all those verbes are referred to It was bread therefore of which he said This is my body Now this saith mine Adversarie forgetting it seemeth what he had said but euen now that heere I began to dispute formally is a formlesse fallacious and wholly forcelesse kinde of arguing if we suppose with the holy Fathers who belike held Transubstantiation then as well as a reall and corporall presence if this worthy man vpon his bare word may bee beleeued that the substances of bread and wine were by the force of Christs wordes turned into Christs body and blood That is as if hee should say this Argument is of no force at all if the point in Question be granted or if that be yeelded that is not at all in the Text. Yea but this is as if a man should make the like deduction of the water that Christ turned into wine The Ministers drew water out of the well carried what they drew Therefore that which they drew and carried was water How formall a Disputant soeuer this mans Adversary is sure I am hee disputeth neither in forme nor figure But let vs helpe him a little to bring his Argument into forme and then hee shall haue an Answer Thus it seemeth he would argue if he could hit on it What the Ministers drew out of the well they caried But they drew water Therefore they carried water And now I deny his Proposition The Ministers carried not that that they drew They drew water they carried not water but wine And for his addition hereunto that Christ after hee tooke the bread and wine and before hee distributed them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction converted them into his owne body and blood as hee sheweth by his wordes plainely pronounced of them This is my body Though it be nothing to the Argument and a meere begging of the point in Question yet let vs consider a little of it where in the Text hee findeth that Christ thus converted them for the wordes This is my body as was formerly shewed doe not euince it But he findeth it it seemeth in the benediction or the blessing of the bread which is yet against the common conceite of his Associates that say there was no conversion at all till Christ vttered those words This is my body Heare we Bellarmine a little arguing this point against Luther Hauing acknowledged as was said formerly that Christs words This is my body may beare either the sence that wee giue them or the sense that they giue them but not that sense that the Lutherans giue For saith hee the Lord tooke bread and blessed it and gaue it his Disciples saying This is my body Bread therefore he tooke bread hee blessed and of bread of he said This is my body Either therefore Christ by blessing changed the bread into his body truely and properly or he changed it improperly and figuratiuely by adding signification or as Theodoret rather by adding to nature that grace which before it had not If hee changed it truely and properly then gaue he bread changed and of that bread so changed he truely said This is my body that is that which is contained vnder the shape of bread is no more bread but my body and this we say If it be said that he changed the bread figuratiuely then shall there be that bread given the Apostles that is siguratiuely Christs body and those words This is my body haue this sense This is the figure of my body and so the Protestants hold Yea so indeede as you haue heard before did Augustine in precise tearmes after Tertullian expound them who belike then by Bellarmines ground was in this point a Protestant Now let either Bellarmine or this Answerer prooue that our Sauiour by his blessing wrought any other conuersion and wee will yeeld vnto them But they will as soone proue that Christ turned the children that hee blessed into bread as that he turned the bread by blessing it into his naturall bodie Yea runne ouer all the whole Chapter in Bellarmine wherein hee propoundeth to himselfe to proue Transubstantiation out of Gods word in the entrance whereunto hee confesseth that the words of Christ may be taken as well our way as their way but not Luthers way and you shall finde that there is neuer a word in it much lesse any sound proofe either to prooue that Christs wordes are so to be vnderstood as they say or that they are not to bee vnderstood as we say but it is wholly spent in confuting of Luthers opinion to wit that bread remaineth together with Christs body in the Sacrament Which opinion also themselues confesse that Luther admonished by Melancthon renounced before he died Hee beginneth with a first Argument without any second the summe and substance whereof was before related Either his second he saw was vnsound and it seemed best therefore to suppresse and conceale it or else he wanted a second and thought to let the first though without a fellow stand still as first by the rule of the Ciuilians who say That is first that hath none before it though no other come after it or that is first that hath none before it that is last that hath none after it And so is this Bellarmines both first and last Argument there And in Conclusion he is faine to flie to the Councels and pretended Fachers Though there were some ambiguity saith hee in our Sauiour Christs words yet it is taken away by Councels what Councels think we Surely none but such as themselues held within these 300. yeeres as himself afterward sheweth and the consent of Fathers which remaineth yet to be shewed As for the benediction the best nay the sole Argument whereby hee can prooue such 〈…〉 conuersion wrought there is this Christ is not wont to giue thankes but when hee is about to worke some great and maruelous thing For he is read onely to haue given thankes when hee would multiply the fiue loaues and againe when the seuen and when hee was to raise Lazarus from the
reason is â—idiculous The accidents remaining retaine still their old names therefore the substance that is gone retaineth it owne name still or the colour savour shape and sise retaine their old names and that which is in the Eucharist what euer it be is said still to be white round thin well tasted c. and that with good reason since it is so still as it was therefore though it be no more bread now yet is it said to be so still Sure reason and this mans braine were farre asunder when he writ this 3. He addeth that the Apostle when hee calleth it bread for so I suppose he would say and not when he speaketh of the accidents of bread onely speaketh with such articles superadded as may note the singular and divine excellency of it This bread and so This Chalice and The bread which we breake and requireth men to examine themselues before they come there least they sinne in not distinguishing it from other common bread c. And that the ancient Fathers shew what an horrible sinne it is to come vnreuerently to it c. because they presume to eate that bread wherein the Son of God himselfe is contained And is not this a most silly Argument to prooue that that hee should prooue vnlesse you take in withall his ly at the last where he saith that the Sonne of God himselfe is contained in the bread which hee falsely also fathereth vpon those Fathers as would haue appeared had hee cited their wordes and which being the point in Question had it beene propounded as it should haue beene vnlesse you grant him hee sticketh fast still and cannot goe forward For may not a man say as much of Baptisme that the holy Ghost speaks of it with such elogies superadded as may note the singular diuine excellency of it that those therefore that are of yeeres ought with great care to addresse and prepare themselues vnto it when they are to be baptised and that those that distinguish it not from ordinary water or vse it irreuerently commit an hainous sinne euen against Christ himselfe And yet who euer dreamed therefore of any such Transubstantiation in Baptisme yea the very same Authours here produced by him so plentifully though by their bare names onely out of Bellarmine in a point for the generall not at all denied to wit the hainousnesse of their sinne that abuse this Sacrament yet distinguish expressely some of them as in mine allegations I haue noted betweene the bread of the Lord as the Apostle tearmeth it and the Bread the Lord of which our Sauiour in the Gospel betweene the body that was on the Crosse and the bread that is on the bord Which he taketh no notice of 4. And yet neither is it true that so confidently here he affirmeth that all those Fathers in all those places yea or that any one of them in any one of those places that he quoteth nor as I verily beleeue in any place of their writings else-where doe as he saith expressely and purposely teach that the sinne of vnworthy receiuers is equall for the hainousnesse of it with the sinne of those that betraied and killed Christ. Which no sober Diuine will say nor can it be iustified vnlesse the Stoicall paritie of sinnes charged vpon Iouinian by some how truly I know not vpon vs by some of their side falsely I am sure Bellarmine himselfe therein acquitting vs be in Theologie admitted Bellarmine indeede in the Chapter whence he tooke all these quotations as he found them there mustered together hath somewhat out of Oecumenius that may seeme to looke that way He compareth vnworthy communicants saith he with those that killed Christ which this man hauing strained more then an inch further ascribeth vnaduisedly and vntruly to them all Whereas onely Basil if those ascetica at least be his and Chrysostome who is wont to presse farre in reproouing of sinne the one of them willeth vs to repaire holily to Gods bord least we incurre the iudgement of them that killed Christ the other of them in one of the places there quoted saith that as those that defile the princes robe are punished in like manner as those also that rend it so it is u not vnlikely or vnequal that those that with an vnholy heart receiue the Lords body vndergoe the same punishment with those that tore it with nailes that is that the one be damned for so doing as well as the other which may well be albeit their sinnes be not equall The rest of them to wit Origen Hierome and Augustine haue not any one word at all in any of all those places of the sinne of those that killed Christ yea the places well weighed vtterly ouerthrow the ground of that Argument which from the words of the Apostle and their application of it they would frame to prooue a reall and essentiall presence of Christs naturall body and blood in the Eucharist because such vnworthy receiuers are said to be guilty of wronging Christs body and blood and thereby to acquire iudgemenâ— or condemnation to themselues For beside that in the one place Augustine saith nothing but this that the Sacrament of Baptisme as well as that other of the Eucharist is a true Sacrament euen to those that vse it otherwise then they ought which is nothing at all to that for which here it is alleadged In the other place he saith nothing of the Eucharist but what he saith also both of the Word of God or the Law and Baptisme expressely in the same place to wit that euen holy and diuine things hurt those that vse them otherwise then they ought Yea Hierome goeth further in the place alleadged and applieth what he speaketh not to the Sacraments onely of the New Testament but to the Sacrifices also which were Sacraments too of the old For commenting on those words Wherein doe we pollute thee When the Sacraments saith he are violated he is violated whose Sacraments they are And that is all he saith there Now were not the Sacrifices and the Sacraments of the old Testament as the l Paschall Lambe at least Sacraments of Christ yea and of his body and blood too If they were as no doubt can be but they were then by Hieromes Rule was Christ and his body and blood wronged in them when any wrong was done to them albeit it were not essentially or corporally present in them nor doth such wrong therefore or guilt acquired by euill vsage of the Eucharist imply any such corporall presence thereof in it 5. Let me adde onely that this Defendant telleth vs â—hat the Sonne of God is contained in that bread that is eaten â—n the Eucharist and yet by their doctrine there is no bread at all there How is he in bread where no bread is Or how is there no bread there where in bread
wine there whereas the whole substance as this fellow beareth vs in hand that is both matter and forme of bread passeth into Christs body here 9. To say that one substance passeth into another substance preexisting is to say that that is made that already is or that is produced and hath beeing giuen it that is in beeing already when as a thing cannot be in making and beeing at once nor can beeing be giuen to that that already is or to say that a creature is now made that was fully made before or that a creature that was before is new made of that that before was not it Yea to speake more plainely it is all one to as say that a man is killed when hee was dead before or is quickened when hee was aliue before or is now stript when hee was starke naked before or is now bred or begotten when he was borne before Lastly to say that Christs body long before preexisting is now made of bread that some two or three dayes past had no existence it selfe is all one as to say that wine of a twelue-month old is made of grapes that were but yesterday gathered and pressed and were yet growing the day before or that an Oke hauing stood vpward of an hundred yeeres and yet standing in the Forrest is sprung vp this yeere of an acorne of the last yeares growth And consider wee now how well these things agree together The body of Christ is contained in the bread and yet there is no bread at all in the Eucharist The body of Christ succeedeth onely in the roome of bread and yet the substance of the bread passeth into the substance of Christs body The whole substance of bread is so abolished that nothing remaineth of it and yet the whole substance of the same bread passeth into the substance of Christs body Christs body was in beeing before and yet it is now made of another substance that before it was not yea Christs body that was bread and borne aboue a thousand yeeres since is now made of a wafer-cake of yesterdayes baking The whole essence of that wafer cake passeth into Christs body and yet wee cannot say of Christs body that euer it was that wafer-cake But like ropes of sand as wee are wont to say doe these things hang together and to spend much time in refuting them may be deemed I feare as ridiculous to vse their Dennis his tearmes as to stand seriously and curiously pulling downe by piece-meale such castles as little children haue in sport built vp of sand NEither is it a good or Christian kinde of Argument which my Adversary in the end of the same 12. page to this purpose maketh Other substantiall conversions are sensible and easily discerned albeit miraculous as when Aarons rod was made a Serpent c. Wheras in the Sacrament we see wholly the contrary therefore we are not to beleeue therein any such conversion citing thus for proofe thereof a place of S. Augustine in his margent which directly if hee had marked it overthroweth his owne doctrine and purpose of citing it That which you see saith this Father is bread and a Cup but that which your faith requireth you to be enformed of is that the bread is Christs body and the Cup his blood Could hee affirme any thing more plainly against this Ministers sensuall and absurd Argument which were it good would lead vs to beleeue nothing faith being onely of things which appeare not to our vnderstanding or senses How farre is this carnall poore vnlearned man from the holy Fathers spirit and doctrine as I haue formerly cited their assertions wherein they teach vs to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses and with the Apostle to captivate our vnderstandings to the obedience of faith in this and many other mysteries of faith humbly to bee vpon the warrant of Gods word assented vnto and not ouer-curiously searched after by vs. We are saith S. Hillarie that great Doctor of Christs Church and victorious Champion of his deity not to dispute as my Adversarie doth in a secular and sensuall manner of diuine things For of this naturall veritie of Christ in vs speaking of the Sacrament vnlesse we learne of Christ himself we speake foolishly and impiously Wherefore sithence hee saith My flesh is truely food and my blood is truely drinke Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood remaineth in mee and I in him there is no place of doubting left cōcerning the verity of Christs body and blood For now by the profession of our Lord and faithfull beleefe which we haue thereof it is his true flesh and blood and these being receiued by vs do make vs to be in Christ and Christ in vs. Is not this truth Surely it is but to those that deny Iesus Christ to be true God c. With a cloud of such ancient and vncontrollable Testimonies of the holy Fathers formerly touched could I confound my sensuall Adversary and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and diuine Mysteries instituted by the Sonne of God with equall wisedome power and goodnesse for vs wherein the omnipotency of him that chiefly doth them is to be assigned for a sufficient reason of them § 4. NOw further whereas I alleadge among other things that in euery miraculous conversion of bodies there is a sensible change whereas no such thing at all is found in the Sacrament Our eyes saith Augustine informe vs that it is bread that is there He telleth me this is no good nor Christian but an absurd secular and senslesse arguing and such as would leade vs to beleeue nothing but what we see and that Augustine if I had marked him whom I cite in the margent as if his very wordes were not in the text vtterly ouerthroweth it as also Hillarie and other Fathers when they teach vs in diuine mysteries to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses which this poore carnall vnlearned man his Adversarie is so farre from c. And withall as commiserating and bewailing my simplicity Oh how farre is this poore c. He telleth his Reader that he could with a cloud of such ancient and vncontrolleable testimonies of the holy Fathers confound this his sensuall Adversarie and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and divine mysteries Wel when he doth this you may beleeue that he can doe it and his poore puny Adversary shall be eternally obliged to him for it But meane while let vs see what Pyrgopolinices here saith 1. Augustine telleth vs that something is seene in the Sacrament and something else is to bee belieued But doth Augustine tell vs that wee must not beleeue that there is bread there though our eyes informe vs that there is No He telleth vs expressely that there is bread there as our eyes doe informe vs. And what can be more euidently or plainely spoken Yea
who I pray you doubteth of or denyeth ought that is here said who teacheth men to speake otherwise then Christ euer taught but they that tell vs of bread transubstantiated and of a body of Christ made of bread of Christs flesh contained in bread or vnder the accidents of bread and of his blood in the bread and his body by a concomitancie in the Cup c Who doubteth with vs of the truth of Christs body and blood For of the corporall presence of either in the Sacrament Hilarie hath not heere a word Or who denyeth but that by the receiuing of those venerable mysteries Christ is spiritually in vs and we in him Doth not the Apostle say of Baptisme that by it we are ingraffed into Christ and Chrysostome that by it we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Hilaries scope is to shew that Christ is one with God and his Father and we one with him not by consent of will onely as some Heretikes said but by a true and reall vnion yet spirituall as his words implie when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Vpon whinch wordes their owne Bishop Iansenius They saith hee that thus eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood either by such faith alone or in the Eucharist are said to haue Christ abiding in them and to abide themselues in him in regard of the true vnion of our nature with the diuine nature by the spirit of Christ whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature Yea those words of our Sauiour cannot be meant of Christ corporally receiued in the Eucharist nor could Hilarie so meane if he were otherwise of their minde appeareth For Christs body so taken as they imagine doth not abide long in those that so receiue it but by their owne doctrine goeth away againe I know not whither a while after Whereas by vertue of such receiuing Christ as our Sauiour there speaketh of We doe abide in him and he in vs that is we are most inwardly and inseparably knit vnto Christ and he vnto vs they are still Iansenius his tearmes and Hilarie also saith the same and obteine therefore thereby not a transitorie life as we doe by the eating of corporall meate that passeth est-soones away and abideth not in him that eateth it but life permanent and eternall Whence it is manifest also saith the same Author that all are not in this place said to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of his body and blood since that all such haue not Christ abiding in them But they eate his flesh and drinke his blood as he there speaketh who beleeuing that his flesh and blood were giuen on the Crosse for the Saluation of mankinde and that by vertue of the hypostaticall vnion they haue a power to giue life do either by such faith alone or in the holy Eucharist also receiue the Lord himselfe within themselues imbrace him and by faith fast clasping him so keepe him within them as one by whom whatsoeuer we desire commeth to vs and is conferred on vs. Thus he by whose words it plainely appeareth that our abiding in Christ and Christ in vs which Hilarie from our Sauiour speaketh of dependeth not vpon any such corporall presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament nor doth necessarily require the same which by their owne doctrine also it doth not effect Diuision 9. HIS next Argument drawen from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments is idle and forcelesse For wee denie not as there he supposeth the Sacramentall Signes containing the bodie of Christ vnder them to signifie somewhat distinct from themselues to wit the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace that worthily receiue them They signifie likewise Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion And so a thing considered in one manner may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured represented his owne bodie as now it is in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem on Palme Sunday figured his owne entrance into heauen afterwards as Eusebius Emissenus and other Fathers teach and as an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victories c. MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments whose nature is to signifie one thing and to be another The Argument is this No Signes or Sacraments are the same with that that they signifie But the bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood in the Eucharist They are not therefore essentially either To this idle and forcelesse Argument as he pleaseth to style it he thus answereth 1. That the Sacrament all Signes signifie the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace as also Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his Passion Now 1. what is this to mine Argument was this man thinke we euer a disputant that answereth Arguments on this wise which part of my Syllogisme I pray you is this Answer applied to I had thought that a Syllogisme being propounded the Answerer should either haue denied or distinguished of one of the former Propositions 2. It is not true that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are signes of these things Some affections of them and Actions vsed about them indeede are The bread and wine themselues are signes of spirituall nutriment not nutrition The eating and drinking is a signe of it Signes they are of Christs body and blood not of the dolorous seuering of them in the passion though their being apart is a signe of it also 3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen and an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie But 1. If signum res signata the Signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues as without all Question they are a Father may as well be a father to himselfe as a signe may be the signe of it selfe Not to adde that the Ancients as hath formerly beene shewen are wont to call the Sacraments pictures and pledges and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture or a pledge of it selfe 2. I might well put this Defendant to prooue that Christs transfiguration was a representation of his present glorification or that his entrance into Ierusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heauen whatsoeuer his bastardly Eusebius Emissenus say of it whose authoritie is no better then his owne 3. Let him haue what he would that the one was a type of the other Doth it follow Christs transfiguration was a type of his glorification therefore Christ was a type or a signe of himselfe 4. An Emperour and his victorie I suppose are not all
one no more then Christs body and the glorification of it nor againe the transfiguration the present glorification The Argument therefore is neither idle nor forcelessâ— for ought that he hath yet shewed Diuision 10. HIs next Argument pag. 13. is grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered For who but a babbling ignorant Person would as he doth there make such an inference Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his passion which tediously and needelesly he prooueth But they are not so in the Eucharist Ergo the naturall parts of Christs bodie are not at all in it For if the Argument were good we might rightly inferre that Christ had no body at all when in Emaus for example after he had blessed and brake bread he vanished out of the Disciples sight when he hid himselfe from the Iewes who would haue stoned him in the Temple not by running into a corner as this grosse fellow peraduenture may of Christ basely and vnworthily imagine but by becomming vndiscernable by them as he became also inuisible and impalpable to the Nazarites holding and drawing him towards the hill on which there Citie was built whence they ment to tumble him As if locall extension visibilitie palpabilitie and other naturall Accidents and sensible properties could not by Gods omnipotency be seuered from his owne bodie without the totall destruction thereof This is a grosse kinde of Philosophie and Diuinitie fit for such a stupide Professour MY fourth Argument was taken from the Nature of Christs Body which hath slesh blood and bones is an organicall body endued with limmes and lineaments yea and life too Whereas that which is giuen and receiued in the Eucharist is as Epiphanius well obserueth liuelesse and limmelesse c. Now here according to his vsuall manner he letteth the Argument goe and falleth to raile downe right that it is an argument grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered of a babbling and ignorant person and a stupide professour He sheweth where his shoe wringeth him Yet that he may not seeme to say nothing to it he frameth me an Argument of his owne on this wise Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his Passion But they are not so in the Eucharist ergò Whereas I tell him that Christs body hath flesh blood and bones and sense and life and limmes and lineaments of a body organicall But their silly sorry wafer-cake hath none of all these And then he telleth vs that I might as well affirme that Christ had no body when at Emaus hee vanished out of the sight of his Disciples when he hid himselfe from the Iewes that would haue stoned him in the Temple when he passed through the midst of them that would haue thrown him downe head-long c. 1. Let him prooue vnto vs that at any of these times those that had Christs body in their hands to feele at their pleasure as his Disciples had when hee appeared vnto them after his passion and resurrection which in prosecution of mine Argument I produce also and presse did finde it and feele it to haue neither hands nor feete flesh blood nor bone life nor limme and the consequence shall then bee granted him but neuer till then And looke what limmes and lineaments our Sauiour then had when hee was here on earth the same he retaineth still Augustine demanded whether Christs body had bones and blood still and other bodily limmes and lineaments I beleeue saith he that Christs body is now in heauen as it was on earth when he went vp into heauen For so when the Disciples doubted whether it were a body or a spirit that they saw he had them see and feele his hands and feete for that a spirit had not flesh and bones as they saw that hee had So he was on earth so he was seene to be when he went to heauen and so shall he as the Angell told come againe from thence But such wee are sure their little breaden God is not It is none of Christ therefore 2. Looke how this man argueth so did the Heretâ—kes of old to prooue our Sauiour Christ to haue an aiery spirituall aad fantasticall body Let it not deceiue you you simple sots saith Iohn of Ierusalem when you reade that Christ shewed Thomas his hands and his side or when you heare him say that he hath flesh and bones These things he made some shew of indeede to strenghthen the saith of his doubting Disciples But he shewed that hee had an aiâ—ry and spirituall body in truth when he came to his Disciples while the doores were shut and hee vanished out of their sight And to the like purpose did the Marciâ—nites vrge his escape froÌ„ those of Nazareth Now what do the ancient Fathers hereunto answer That Christs body saith Tertullian is no fancy euer hereby appeareth in that it endâ—red violent handling when hee was taken and held and haled to the hill-brow For albeit hee made an escape through the midst of them being first forcibly held and after let goe either the throng being dissolued or forcibly broken through yet was it not by any fantasticall delusion For he had a true body still and hands that hee touched others still with and were by them felt and then his body belike was not impalpable as this fellow saith it was And againe when Christ sheweth his Disciples his hands and his feet without doubt he hath hands and feet and bones which a spirit hath not And Ierome refuting Iohn of Ierusalem As Christ shewed his Disciples true hands and a true side so hee ate truely with them spake with his tongue truely to them and with his hands truely brake and reached them out bread For that he suddenly vanished out of their sight as before his passion also at Nazareth he passed through the midst of them that is he made an escape out of their hands it was done by his diuine power not by any fantasticall delusion Could not Christ doe as much as some Magitians haue done Apollonius as he stood in the Court before Domitian vanished suddenly out of sight Yet doe you not therefore match Christs power with Magicians iuglings in making him seeme to bee that that hee was not to eate without teeth breake bread without hands walke without feet speake without tongue shew a side without ribs And whereas it might be demanded how it came to passe that those two Disciples did not know him till a little before hee left them Ierome maketh answer out of the Text it selfe that it was not because his body was not the same it had beene but because their eyes were held that they might not know him And the same Ierome else-where dealing against the same dotages Christ saith hee had hands and sides had breast and bellie too he that had hands and feete had armes
and thighes too And seeing hee had all the members of the body hee must needs haue a whole body that consisteth of those members Let vs reason backward as well wee may If Christ haue an entire body consisting of those limmes then he hath all those limmes whereof such a body consisteth And then let vs say to these as he then to them You heare of flesh and feet and hands and other limmes And doe you forge vs some Stoicall round bals and aiery dotages As these doe little round wafer-cakes which they beare vs downe to be Christs body He alludeth to the Stoicks who held that the Gods had some shape and that shape was as a body but yet no body and had as it were blood and yet no blood Wherein the Marcionites also in a manner agreed with them and our Romanists at this day with either imagining our Sauiour saith Tertullian to haue flesh hard without bones solide without muscles bloody without blood clad without coate speaking without tongue eating without teeth c. Whereupon Tertullian concludeth that since Christ had all his limmes when hee shewed them to his Desciplâ—s they that imagined such a Christ as this that deceiueth beguileth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings and taste too hee might haue said we at least may say should not bring him from heauen from whence the Marcionites said their Christ had his body though the Papists dare not say they haue theirs from thence but fetch him rather out of some iuglers box the Popish pyx or the like not to worke saluation but to make sport with This I haue the rather insisted vpon to shew how the Papists iump in their conceits about this their breaden God and strange fantasticall body that hath all parts of a mans body and yet none at all to be seen felt heard yea or vnderstood with the Hereticks of old time and to confirme these their dotages vse and vrge the very same Arguments that they then did by the ancient Fathers long since answered As also that the ancient Fathers vsed then the very same Arguments against them that we doe now against these which yet it pleaseth this vaine trifler to tearme grossely carnall and vnworthy to be answered § 2. Oh but saith hee it is a grosse kinde both of diuinity and philosophie fit for such a stupide Professor to hold that locall extention visiblitie palpability and other naturall accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by Gods omnipotency be severed from his owne body without the destruction of it 1. Yea and to omit that it is a very sorry shift to haue recourse to Gods omnipotency for the iustifying of such monstrous fictions and forged miracles as either in this their prodigious dotage or in their lying Legends they haue endeauoured to obtrude vpon the world To say that God can make Christs body to remaine still in his full stature and yet at the same time to be no bigger then to enter in at a mans mouth or goe downe a childs throat or to make a mans body consisting of flesh blood and bone to haue no dimensions or extention at all not other accidents and properties of a naturall body is manifestly to say that God can make a thing at the same time to be and not to be to be a body and no body which implyeth contradiction And those things that imply contradiction they theÌ„selues grant that God cannot doe For it were to make falshood truth which hee that is Truth it selfe can neuer doe 2. In this very manner also did the Heretickes reason as appeareth by Theodoret to maintaine their absurd dotages against the Orthodox Christians who likewise answered them then as wee doe these now There is nothing saith the Hereticke that God cannot doe Wee say that all things are possible with God And Iob saith that God can doe all things and there is nothing impossible with him There is nothing therefore but he can doe that is able to doe all things Now how doth the Orthodoxe disputer answer this God saith hee can do whatsoeuer he will But God neither can doe nor will any thing which is not agreeable to his owne nature As for example he cannot sin hee cannot ly nor do any vniust thing being iustice and truth it selfe Many things there are therefore that God that can doe all things yet cannot doe Yea it is a part of his power that he cannot doe them no argument at all of any impotency in him This was deemed a sufficient answere to those Heretikes then and may as well now be returned our Popish Adversaries fighting with the same weapons that they then did for points as absurd as euer any of them held Diuision 11. ANother Argument is by my Aduersarie tediously prosecuted pag. 12. wherein from Christs locall being still in heaven hee argueth and endeauoureth to prooue an vtter impossibility of his bodily being in the Sacrament Of which kinde of disputing I may fitly say with Saint Augustine Behold with what manner of Arguments humane infiâ—mity possessed with vanity contradicteth Gods omnipotency As if naturall vnder standing were able to comprehend the vtmost limit and extention of Gods power which is in it selfe infinite and inforutably manifested in many of his wonderfull miracles of which as I haue said no other reason can be giuen but that hee is omnipotent that did them and cannot deceiue vs when hee is pleased to testifie them Can wee conceiue for example the creation of the world of nothing at all preexisting the resurrection and repaire which God will make of all bodies so vtterly by frequent and successiue conuersions into other things altered and consumed the personall vnion of man with God the torment of soules and diuels wholly spirituall by corporall fire the consubstantiall subsisting of the divine nature simply one of it selfe in three distinct persons and other like mysteries of faith not conceiuable more then the bodily being of our Saviour in the Sacrament yet vpon the warrant of Scripture and doctrine of Christs Church faithfully by vs beleeued Can this Minister tell me to come more neerely to our purpose how our Sauiour appeared visibly to S. Paul on earth as diuerse plaine texts import particularly by Bellarmine produced and discussed and yet as himselfe will not deny still remaining in heauen Or can he tell me how our Sauiours body went out of his Sepulcher without remoouing that huge stone rolled afterward by the Angell from it Or how hee entred the house the doores being and remayning still shut vpon his disciples as for a great miracle the Euangelist recounted Or how he pierced the solide and huge Orbes of heauen in his ascension without making any hole in them Sithence it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place as for one bodie to be in many places And if according to
as spoken to assure them that hee came downe from heauen The truth is this exposition it not Chrysostomes but Bellarmines from whom this Collector hath filched it who yet to adde some grace and procure some weight to an inuention of his owne saith that c Chrysostome to him seemeth to point at some such thing And what Bellarmine saith cautelously and timorously Chrysostome to him seemeth to point at that this blinde bayard saith boldly and confidently that Chrysostome saith and vpon the Exposition as backed now sufficiently with Chrysostome he buildeth a peremptory answer to all mine Obiections that will easily remooue them all Did this man thinke that these things would euer be examined Or is his credit so meane already that he need not feare to bee discredited that hee dare vse such sorry shifts as these are 2. Grant all to be Chrysostomes and all to bee as true as if not Chrysostome but Christ himselfe had said it what will thence bee concluded to prooue that Christs body may be in many places at once But since hee hath cited this place though to small purpose let him heare Augustines words on it going directly agaiust them and these absurd fantasies of theirs Christ saith he doth in these wordes solue that that mooued them and openeth that whereas they were jcandalized For they thought that hee would giue them out his body but he told them that be should gâ—e vp whole into heauen As if hee had said When you shall see the Sonne of Man ascend where hee was before certainely then you shall see that he doth not giue out his body in such a manner as you imagine Certainely euen then you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed by bits And to Augustine addewe Athanasius one as ancient as the Nicene Councell and a principall person in it Christ disputing saith hee of the eating of his body and seeing many therevpon scandalized thus spake Doth this scandalize you What then if you shall see the Sonne of Man ascend where before he was It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speake are spinit and life For heere he spake of both both his flesh and his spirit and distinguished the spirit from the flesh that beleeuing not onely that that appeared to the eyes but that also that was invisible they might learne that those things also that he spake were not carnall but spirituall For to how many men could his body haue sufficed to eate of that it might be the foodalso of the whole world But therefore made he mention of his ascension into heauen that hee might withdraw them form the corporall vnderstanding and that then they might vnderstand that his flesh which hee spake of was heauenly meate from aboue and spirituall food to be giuen by him For saith he Those things which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life Which is euen all one as if hee had said My body that is shewed and giuen shall be giuen to bee meate for the whole world that it may spiritually be distributed to each one and become to each one a safegard and preseruatiue for resurrection to life eternall So little doth this place auaile for this purpose as the Ancients both Latine and Greeke expound it making much rather against them this popish doctrine of a carnall feeding on Christs flesh which those Fathers gather and prooue thence to be wholly spirituall But thus iudicious is he in the choice of his allegations and so sincere in his citations of the Ancients putting downe their names only but pointing to no place that his fraud and forgeries may not be discouered and fastening vpon them his owne or his owne associates expositions wholly differing and dissenting from that that themselues say MOreouer it is a wilde kinde of arguing from the naturall and locall extension of bodies to inferre as my Adversary doth page 16. that by no possible power of God any body can want this locall extension this being a secondary effect of quantity and an accidentall propriety which God may therefore easily hinder and conserue without it bodily substance as our Sauiour himselfe insinuateth in the Gospell affirming for a thing possible with God to make a great Camell to passe through the eye of a needle by taking to wit from it exterior bignesse and locall extension Of which Camell so extenuated and straitned in place all the very same may be proportionably affirmed which this Minister accounteth so absurd by vs held of Christs body in the Sacrament And supposing truely that the body of Christ hath no extension in place it is ridiculous for this ignorant Minister to make such inferences as that any part of Christs body must be as great and greater then his whole body and his whole body lesse then any part of it For if neither the whole nor any part thereof as it is in the Sacrament hath any exterior bignesse at all how can one part be said to bee bigger then the whole as of two blacke things a man should say one was whiter then the other when neither had any whitenesse at all in them § 4. TO the recitâ—ll of their absurd assertions that there is a whole Christ flesh blood and bone head hands and feet belly breast and backe in euery little wafer-cake and euery least crumme of each and consequently the whole body of Christ on earth lesse then the least limme or fingers end of it in heaven as also to the allegations out of Augustine that this cannot be for that in euery true body the parts cannot bee altogether but must haue their due distance and each of them his space or place according to his bignesse and none of them can be bigger then the whole He maketh answer that this is but a wilde kinde of reasoning and yet it is Augustine that so reasoneth whom hee might haue beene pleased to vse with better tearmes telleth vs what our Sauiour saith of a Camell passing thorow a needles ey as if what were spoken there by our Sauiour of the one did relieue the absurditie of the other which no whit it doth being onely an hyperbolicall speech vsed to set forth the impossibility with man of such a rich mans salvation as hee there speaketh of and informeth this ignorant Minister that neither the whole body of Christ nor any part of it as it is in the Sacrament hath any exterior bignesse at all 1. Did any man euer before heare of a body without bignesse or a coâ—pus non quantum without those dimensions that are so vnseparable from a body that the very same name is giuen vnto either and wee haue no particular name either in Greeke or Latine to expresse the one by but that which is the vsuall appellation of the other But a number of such absurd dreames and dotages doth this prodigious doctrine produce Accidents without subiects
Bodies without bignesse Parts bigger then the whole The whole lesse then the least part A growne mans entire body with all limmes and toynts of it couched and cooped vp in a thinne wafer-cake and in every crum of it The same body that is entire in heauen still in a thousand places entire too at the same time here on earth and yet never stirre an inch from the place that in heauen it still holdeth These are magicall mysteries indeed which it is no maruell if this ignorant Minister cannot conceiue 2 Yea but our Sauiours wordes of a Camell passing through a needles eye sheweth that a body may be freed from it exterior bignesse and locall extension that is as much as if hee had said they shew that a bodie may become no bodie and yet be a body still The speech is hyperbolicall and no more prooueth a possibility of the thing therein spoken as Piscator well obserueth answering Bellarmine from whom he here hath it then of many other things spoken commonly in speeches of the like kinde Quantitie saith Bonaventure is of the verity of a body and a true bodie consequently cannot bee without it And though it were granted that some substance might bee without quantitie yet it cannot be that any quicke or organicall body such as a Camels is and such as hee granteth Christs to be should be without it Yea and therefore also not the veritie onely as this fellow would haue it but the quantity also as Bonauenture auoweth and this fellow denieth that is the exterior bignesse of Christs body must needs bee with it in the Sacrament if it bee at all there 3. To conclude this wilde discourse indeed because we are in it compelled to follow one that turneth round till hee be giddy againe when wee reason thus from the nature and property of a true body to be but in one place wee reason no otherwise howsoeuer hee esteeme it a wilde kinde of reasoning then wise and learned men yea Angels too haue taught vs to reason For as the Angell reasoneth with the nomen that came to seeke Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe which were no good Argument if his bodie might haue beene in two places at once So the ancient Fathers also reason in their disputes against Heretikes where it stood them vpon to speake warily and not to argue wildly as this giddy braines tearmeth it Christs body saith Theodoret albeit it be now glorified yet is a bodie still and hath the same circumscriptiō that before it had Which as the Angels teach shall come in the same manner as it was seene goe to heauen But they saw it then circumscribed Yea our Lord himselfe saith You shall see the Son of Man come in the clouds But that nature cannot be seene that is not circumscribed He sheweth then that his body is circumscribed It is not therefore changed into another nature but it remaineth still a true body though filled with divine glory So Fulgentius One and the same Christ saith hee is both locall man of man and God infinite of his Father One and the same according to his humane nature absent from heauen when he was here vpon earth and leaving the earth when he went vp into heauen but according to his divine and infinite nature neither leaving heauen when he came downe from heauen nor forsaking the earth when hee went vp into heauen Which may most certainely bee gathered from his owne wordes who to shew that his humanity was locall said I goe vp to my Father c. Now how went he vp into heauen but because hee was locall and true man Or how is hee yet present with his faithfull ones but that hee is infinite and true God And Uigilius most euidently against Eutyches to passe by all other places which are more then one in him If the Word saith hee and the Flesh were both of one nature how should not the flesh bee euery where as well as the word For when it to wit Christs flesh or his body his humanity was on earth it was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen it is not on earth for that according to it we expect Christ to come from heauen whom according to the Word that is his Deitie we beleeue to be with vs on earth It is apparent therefore that the same Christ is of a twofold nature and is every where indeed according to the nature of his diviniti◠but is cōtained in a place according to the nature of his humanity And hee concludeth his discourse thus This is the Catholike Faith and Confession which the Apostles haue deliuered Martyrs haue confirmed and the faithfull keepe to this day And if this be so then sure the Popish doctrine that affirmeth the cleane contrary to it is not Diuision 12. PAge 16. and 17. My Adversarie wisely after his accustomed manner vndertaketh by comparisons to declare the true manner of Christs body and blood being conveighed vnto vs in the Sacrament and that so easily as if there were no difficulty at all in the explication thereof whereas Caluin himselfe accounteth it an inconceiuable and vnexplicable mysterie worthy with wonder and astonishment to bee by vs beleeved how to wit Christs body so remotely distant as heauen is from the earth can be eaten and receiued by vs. Wee confesse it saith Beza to be an incomprehensible mystery wherein it commeth to passe that the same body which is and still remaineth in heauen and is no where but there should be truely cōmunicated to vs who are now on earth and no where else This indeed is a mystery and true Iewell of Protestanticall doctrine harder to be conceived as Caluin Beza and other chiefe Calvinists seeme sometime to meane it then to conceiue all those true miracles which we teach to be wrought by God in the consecration and vse of this wonderfull Sacrament Yea surely it implyeth an evident contradiction that Christs body should be truely given together with the sacramentall signes as Caluin expressely affirmeth and so by vt eaten that is no neerer then the top of heauen is to the mouth of such as receiue him If by faith onely and a gratefull memory of his passion we eate Christ in the Sacrament as this Minister solueth the former riddle no more present therein nor in any other manner conioyned with the sacramentall signes then the land conveighed by an Indenture sealed is present or conveighed with the seale thereof or then he is present in the water of Baptisme they are his owne comparisons then is their Sacrament a bare signe and figure of Christs body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration in it For what wonder is it for a man to eate one thing thinking vpon another bread for example remembring our Saviours passion And then are Caluin Beza
and many more of their learnedest companions meer Iuglers and Impostors who seeke to plaister rotten wals and maske with great wordes the naked breadinesse of their Protestanticall Sacrament AT the end of this Argument I answer an Obiection how Christs body and blood can be conveighed vnto vs or eaten and drunke of vs in the Eucharist if hee be not there present Which Question from the Fathers as you heard before may in a word be soone answered Because our Sauiour shewed it by those wordes of his concerning his ascension his speech therunto annexed to be a spirituall not a corporall kind of communication And if they will heare one of their owne Bishops Iansenius hee will tell them that to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood is to beleeue in his Incarnation and in his passion and blood sheading and that so by faith either of them are both present with vs and conueighed to vs as well in the Sacrament as out of it But hereupon this mine Aduersary befooling me for my labour for taking such a task vpon me to answer such a Question saith I vndertake to declare that by comparisons as if there were no difficulty at all in it which Calvin and Beza confesse to be a mysterie vnconceiuable incomprehensible inexplicable yea which as wee hold it implyeth an evident contradiction affirming that Christ is no more present therein nor in any manner conioyned with the sacramentall signes then the land conveighed by an Indenture sealed is present with the same or then hee is present with the water in Baptisme Whereupon hee worthily inferreth that this our Sacrament then is but a bare signe or figure of Christs body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration and Calvin and Beza c. are but Iuglers and Impostors It might well haue been one of Hercules his labours to purge this mans writings Augaeus his stable was not fuller of durt and dung then they are of foule and filthy corrupt matter and of lowd and lewd lies 1. Where doe I affirme it to bee a matter without all difficulty fully to explicate the admirable efficacy and operation of divine mysteries or the manner how the same is effected I shew onely by some comparisons and those such as the Apostle warranteth the vse of how Christ may being absent bee truely and effectually conueighed and assured vnto vs. But followeth it thence that I hold the thing it selfe for the manner of effecting it to haue no difficulty at all in it Doe not the ancient Fathers hold the Trinitie an vnsearchable mysterie And yet what is more common among them then by Comparisons and similitudes to shew how in one nature there may be a plurality of persons This Disputant himselfe among other wondrous workes reckoneth the resurrection of mens bodies for one will hee say that the Fathers therefore deeme that there is no difficulty in it because by sundry similitudes they endeauour to proue a possibilitie of it notwithstanding the frequent and successiue conuersions of them into other things altered and consumed as hee speaketh 2. Let him shew how it implieth an evident contradiction to say that Christs bodie is truely given with the sacramentall signes though it bee no neerer then heauen-top is to the mouthes of the receivers How this may be without colour of contradiction not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also when as the thing is done spiritually beside the comparisons that I expresse it by his owne Iansenius will shew yea or his owne Albert will enforme him where hee saith that Some eate and yet eate not and some eate not and yet eate The former hee meaneth of those that eate vnprofitably in the Sacrament the latter of those that eate spiritually out of it If out of the Sacrament men may truely receiue Christs body though it be no neerer then heauen top to their mouthes then is it no such strange paradox as should imply contradiction to say that the selfe same is done in the Sacrament also I will tell him of a stranger matter Many thousands thus did eate Christs flesh a thousand yeeres before hee was in the flesh For howsoeuer hee required before to haue it prooued and Bellarmine in diuerse places would faine deny it and in effect sometime doth though directly and absolutely he dare not yet it was shewed before out of Augustine to whom I now adde Gregorie Nyssene who in his tenth Sermon on the Canticles speaking of those wordes Eate and drinke my friends There is no difference saith hee betweene the wordes here vsed and the words vsed in the Institution of the Eucharist For that which hee exhorteth vs to doe in the one was then also done in that divine meate and drinke And very many yea the most of their owne writers vniformly confesse it Thomas Aquinas on 1 Cor. 10. They did eate all the same spirituall meate that is Christs body in a signe spiritually vnderstood and dranke all the same spirituall drinke to wit Christs blood in a signe They did eate Christ spiritually according to that Beleeue and thou hast eaten Anselm or Hervae◅s rather that goeth vnder his name They did eate in the Manna the same food of Christs body that wee eate in Bread and the same drinke of Christs blood that wee drinke out of the Chalice did they drinke from the Rocke Hugh of S. Uictors The same saith hee that is signifying the same and having the same effect And Hugh the Cardinall They did eate signified in the Manna the same spirituall meate that is the body of Christ and dranke the same spirituall drinke the blood of Christ and this did they by faith according to that of Augustine Beleeue and thou hast eaten If Christs flesh then might be spiritually eaten by faith so long before it was and it implyeth no contradiction to say that Christs flesh was so eaten even before his Incarnation much lesse doth it to say that it is now spiritually eaten though locally and corporally it be no neerer then heauen-top is to the mouth or lips of him that so eateth it Faith like an Epistle maketh things and persons absent present Nor doth a spiritual feeding necessarily require a corporall presence of that that is fed on 3. Where say I that Christ is no otherwise conioynrd with the Sacrament then the land with the Indenture and seale of it I say onely that Christs body maybe and is as effectually conveighed vnto vs by the one as land is cōveighed to vs by the other though neither of them be locally or materially present And if no more then so were done in the Sacrament yet were there much more done thereby then by their owne confession is done by their orall and corporall manducation in which manner they grant themselues that many so eate Christ as yet hee is neuer effectually conueighed or assured
vnto to be theirs 4. I say indeed that Christ is as truely present in the Word which he slyly passeth by and maketh not a word of and in Baptisme as in the Eucharist and wee receiue him as really and as effectually in the one as in the other Nor doth hee answer one word to the allegations of the Fathers to that purpose produced To which may be added that of Tertullian which shall hereafter be recited And this of Augustine which he saith of Mary that shee did eate him whom shee heard and prooueth what he saith by that place of Iohn I am the living bread which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer As that also of Ambrose He eateth that bread that observeth Gods word And further also that Bellarmine acknowledgeth that Clemens of Alexandria Basil of Caesarea he might haue added Origen also and Chrysostom and Hierome apply those words of our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. to the word which howsoeuer indeed they bee not directly spoken of there yet certaine it is that both in the iudgement of those Ancients who else would not so haue applied it and in truth it selfe also for neither dare Bellarmine himselfe therein controule them the thing there spoken of is in and by it also effectually performed But to passe by the Word and the vnutterable effects of it together with the vnconceiuable manner whereby it either worketh vpon our soules or conueigheth Christ into our soules for in receiuing of it we receiue Christ in it Doe not the ancient Fathers call the Sacrament of Baptisme an ineffable mysterie as was cited out of Gregorie Nyssene a little before Yea doe they not speake as much of the dignitie and excellency and of the vnconceiuable and vnutterable efficacy of it as either Calvin or Beza doe of the Eucharist And yet this shamelesse and blasphemous beast sticketh not to say if Christ be no otherwise present in the Eucharist then hee is in Baptisme it is but a bare signe or figure hauing no mystery at all worthie of admiration And so by necessary consequence he taxeth those Worthies to speake in his fribald language as meere Iuglers and Impostors that in speaking so honourably of it and ascribing such admirable power and efficacy vnto it seeke to plaister rotten walles and maske with great wordes the naked watrinesse of their Baptisme by them so much admired Let him shew how with any colour at all he can here cleere himselfe of impietie and blasphemy And let him if hee dare deny that Christ is effectually receiued both in the Word and in Baptisme in neither whereof yet there is any such reall transmutation or corporall presence as they necessarily require vnto the receiuing of Christ in the Eucharist Diuision 13. MY Aduersaries next Argument from the qualitie of the Communicants page 18. is this If Christs body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist then all that eate thereof must of necessity eate Christ in it But many eate of the Eucharist that yet eate not Christ in it for none but faithfull and liuely members of Christ eate him in this Sacrament In which Argument hee endeavoureth to prooue one falshood by another equally by vs denyed because the holy Fathers expressely affirme that Iudas and the Corinthians blamed by Saint Paul receiued albeit vnworthily and to damnation the body of Christ as the Apostles words 1 Cor. 11. euidently import and when S. Augustine and others seemed to deny them to receiue Christ in the Sacrament they speake not of bare sacramentall but of profitable and fruitfull receiuing of him MY sixt Reason is taken from the qualitie of the Communicants The Argument is briefly this Many eate of the Eucharist that eate not Christ in it Ergò Christ is not corporally in it The Antecedent is thus prooued None feed on Christ but the faithfull such as be in Christ and liue by Christ But many eate of the Eucharist that are vnfaithfull and are out of Christ Ergò c. The Proposition of this latter Syllogisme he denyeth and saith it is a meere falshood and why so forsooth they deny it themselues And why doe they so because the holy Fathers say that Iudas and the Corinthians blamed by S. Paul did receiue Christs body as the Apostles words evidently import 1. For the Apostle he saith expresly He that eateth this bread as plainely as can bee telling vs more then once or twice that it was bread that they did eat though tearmed also Christs body as hath oft beene said and as Augustine sheweth because a Sacrament of it 2. Is not this shamelesse dealing to say the Fathers affirme that Iudas receiued Christs naturall body for of that is the question yet not alleadging any one tittle out of any of them for the proofe of it and that when the saying of one them is produced directly to the coÌ„trary that Iudas ate Christs bread but not the bread Christ which he answereth not a word to If they say that Iudas ate with the rest Christs body they expound themselues what thereby they meane to wit Christs bread the Sacrament of his body § 2. Yea but the Fathers when they deny wicked men to receâ—â— Christ in the Sacrament they speake not of bare sacramentall but of profitable and fruitfull receiuing of him 1. It is true indeed they speake not of bare sacramentall eating And who saith they do Or what is this tothe purpose what is it but that I say They speake not of bare sacrametall eating when they say wickedmen eat not Christ in the Eucharist but they speake of it when they say they do eat yet of the Eucharist wherein they should eat Christ were Christ corporally in it which they say they doe not 2. They say you haue their owne wordes that it is not possible for any wicked man to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood albeit they doe gnaw or chew the Sacrament with their teeth because our Saviour saith Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in mee and whosoeuer eateth of this bread shall liue for euer 3. This Answer implieth that Christs body it selfe may vnfruitfully and vnprofitably be eaten as if the ancient Fathers had dreamed of a twofold eating of it a worthy and profitable and an vnworthie and vnprofitable eating To which I might answer with his owne Bishop I ansenius his words He that vnworthily eateth the bread of life in the Sacrament doth not truely eate of that bread of which it is said I am the bread of life and My flesh is meate in deed And hee addeth that it were an absurd thing to expound our Sauiour where he saith If a man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer as if he should meane If a man eate worthily of this bread he shall liue for euer as if any man could
eate vnworthily of it as some did of the Manna and eternally died But heare we Augustine in a word what hee saith hereof and so learne we to expound Augustine and other the Ancients not by this idle fellowes friuolous conceits but by Augustine himself The Sacrament hereof saith hee to wit of Christs body and blood and our vnion with either is taken at the Lords table by some to life by some to death But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is taken by euery one that partaketh thereof to life by none to death And if of all to life by none to death then vndoubtedly not vnworthily or vnprofitably of any Diuision 14. LAstly when pag. 19 20 21 22 and 23. hee argueth that Christs body cannot be in the Eucharist first because then it should be broken as the bread is broken Secondly it should be subiect to many vndecencies as corruption putrefaction mice-eating and other foule abuses apt to happen to the bread and wine of the Sacrament I answer him that Christs body being in it selfe now glorious and impossible and after a spirituall and indivisible manner present in the Sacrament cannot be in it selfe broken or otherwise abused then Angels in assumped bodies can bee wounded or then the Maiesty of the diuine person in Christ was by thornes torne nayles pierced or other torments defaced for all such indignities and painfull alterations were immediately onely inflicted on the corporall nature of our Sauiour defaced vtterly by them and touched not immediately the diuine person albeit personally therein subsisting So all indignities and alterations happening to the sacramentall signes touch not at all the body it selfe of our Sauiour impassibly and iudiuisibly vnder them more then the maiesty it selfe of the diuine nature-present in all creatures is defiled in fonle places c. Such Arguments as these made against our Sauiours reall true presence in the Sacrament by our inconsiderate Aduersaries are like to those other Arguments wont to bee made by the Eutycheans Nestorians Arians and other ancient Heretickes against the diuinity of our Sauiour and personall vnion of two natures in him as that it was not fit or reasonable to be conceiued that either God so vnited with man or man deified by personall assumption should be torn with whips thornes and nayles spet vpon buffeted and finally die in agonies and torments that fleas and flies should sucke the blood of God bite his flesh c. which indeed is more then can be done vnto the same as it is here in the Sacrament euen when mice eate the sacramentall signes or when in our stomacks wee receiue them or by fire wee consume them or â—…wise abuse theÌ„ Christ being not quantitatiuely and corporally with them extended and so not to be touched or altered by any corporall action done about them And holy soules considering with what humility and effusion of his bounty the Son of God was pleased to institute this great Sacrament affording therein for his glory and our great good his owne comfortable presence vnto vs haue iust reason to cry out his mercy and to admire his wisedome power and goodnesse wonderfully manifested in this second exhiminition of himself as I may iustly call this Sacramentall presence or hiding of himselfe in this Sacrament to become thereby an heauenly food and diuine refection of soules deuontly receiuing him as also a louing spouse visiting embracing delighting adorning and enriching them with his presence daily triumphing himselfe in his victory ouer Sathan and our redemption solely and abundantly purchased by his passion and making vs also to triumph with him And whereas the Diuell once by his ministers Iewes and Gentiles caused his blood to be separated from his body he deuised to haue that real separation mysteriously continued and daily exhibited to the fâ—ce of his eternall Father for vs which is the declaring of the Lords death till he come mentioned by the Apostle MY last Argument is taken from those things that are done aboâ—… or may befall the consecrated creatures which if they be Christs body and blood must needs befall Christ as fraction corruption putrefaction mitebreeding mice eating c. To this he answereth 1. That though these things be done to or befall the Sacrament yet Christs body being now glorious and impassible and after a spirituall and indiuisible manner present it can no more thereby be broken and abused then Angels in assumpted bodies can be wounded or Christs Deity was wounded or pierced on the Crosse. 1. We take what hee granteth Christs body is now glorious and impassible and therefore not subiect vnto such indignities as these creatures are and the one consequently is not the other Yea is Christs body it self impassible What is it then that as Origen speaketh goeth into the draught c. which this Defendant taketh no notice of because hee knoweth not what to say to it Or let him resolue what those ashes that they will to be reserued for reliques or what those mites are made of that breed in the consecrated bread when either they burne it and so deale with it as they doe with Heretickes or reserue it ouer long 2. It is present in a spirituall manner Had hee but added onely he had marred all hee had beene a foule Hereticke and perchance might fare no better if he would stand to his words then this their little God almighty doth when he groweth hoary But is hee come to that now Christ is spiritually in the Sacrament What is become I maruell of that carnall and corporall presence then that they prate so much of and for want whereof they so much vilifie the Protestantical CoÌ„munion Or what is the reason why hee could not endure to heare that those wordes of our Sauiour of eating his flesh Iohn 6. should be spiritually vnderstood 3. If these things cannot befall Christs body because it is after a spirituall manner present then belike these things may befall it yea must needs befall it when they doe fall out if it be present in a carnall or corporall manner which Bellarmine granteth it is and they sticke not vsually to afifrme 4. If Christs body bee in an indiuisible manner there what is it that is there broken Or what did our Sauiour breake at his last Supper at which time also his body was not indiuisible or impassible Or how doth Pope Nicholas tel vs that Christs body it selfe is sensually broken Where marke I pray you how the Arguments and Allegations produced to prooue the thing broken in the Sacrament to be bread and to shew the absurdity of their doctrine in this point as well of Pope Nicholas that saith that Christs very body it selfe is broken and torne in peeces as also of others that say that nothing is broken at all or nothing but accidents only here is not a word answered The hoast they say is Christs body and the Priest breaketh the hoast and yet he
that Christ as a louing Spouse doth there visitt and imbrace vs It is true indeed that their Priests vse much wanton dalliance with their breaden God while they make the poore people like silly ideots adore him and like Ixion for a substance embrace a meere shadow THis is that cleane hoast as S. Irenaeus affirmeth which the Gentiles were by Malachy foretold to offer vnto God in all places and the onely sacrifice of Christians as S. Augustine calleth it figured by Melchisedechs oblation of bread and wine as the holy Fathers ioyntly teach vs and represented by the Iewish as well bloody as vnbloody sacrifices not distinct from the sacrifice of the Crosse by which alone our redemption was consummated as S. Paul teacheth vs but the same in the hoast and chiefe offerer thereof daily repeated now in an other vnbloody and mysterious manner by the Ministery of Christs consecrated servants So as all Christian Nations of the world Grecians for example Rutenians Armenians Mozaribites Cataians Ethiopians and other Christians in India neere mount Libanus and in other the remotest places in the world such as haue not euer heard peraduenture of the Roman Church since their first Apostolicall conuersions or had any commerce between themselues are knowne to conspire not withstanding their other late errors with vs in the celebration and true beliefe of this great sacrifice and Sacrament as Dr. Philippus Nicolai a chiefe Protestant Diuine in his Commentary of Christs Kingdome and Sir Edwin Sands in his Relation of Religion c. with other aduersaries of our Church plainely acknowledge Which may bee to any wise and well minded man an euident argument that they receiued this common beliefe and celebration of this diuine sacrifice from no other fountaine but the instruction and example of their first Apostolicall conuerters And when Luther taught by the Diuell as hee plainely confesseth vpon plaine sophismes and doceitfull arguments by himselfe particularly related as I haue seene in his works first printed at Iene and now extant in the great Library at Oxford began to impugne that holy sacrifice which hee had formerly offered and presented that his hereticall doctrine and whole confession of Augusta to be accepted as he hoped by the Grecian Churches Ieremias their Patriarch in his Censure as he calleth his booke of the East Church yet extant in Greeke and Latine plainely condemneth amongst their other hereticall doctrines this very denyall of Christs sacrifice transubstantiation c. vrging as we doe invincible arguments and the vniuersall euer continued practise of Christs Church to prooue them vsing as I my selfe haue seene in their Churches alike forme to ours for the mysterious and decent celebration thereof causesly wont by our Aduersaries to be derided whereas their owne Liturgie or forme of diuine seruice is as a shadow chosen in place of the substance hauing nothing decent therein but what they haue stollen from vs and picked here and there out of our Missals gracing all with a riming Psalme sung to a liggish tune with iarring and for the most part vntunable voyces neuer vsed before in any Christian Churches The first Authors of this new Sect were Apostaâ—aes of our Church for their confessed disorders of life and miserable ends plainely discouered to haue been no Apostolicall persons whose endeauours haue neuer tended at any time to conuert Pagans to Christ as his true Church shall euer doe but to corrupt Christians truly already conuerted And they haue seldome planted themselues in any Countrey but vpon very carnall grosse occasions as here in England or with open rebellion and tragicall acts against lawfull Princes and Magistrates namely in Scotland France Flanders Swisserland Sueuia Polonia seuerall Prouinces of Germany Geneua it selfe and other Protestant territories The pretence of a Church and Religion like to theirs in former ages canot colourably be defended without many shifts contradictory deuices Some will haue it to haue beene latent and inuisible for 800. others 900 other 1000 or 1200. yeers Others contrarily teach it to haue beene euer visible and conspicuously dilated into many Christian Countries as the Oraculous predictions of the Prophets and expresse promises of God himselfe describe it Others say that our Church was euer the true Church of Christ onely in some parts of faith not fundamentall erring and by them since Luther reformed Others deny that euer our Church was the true Church of Christ or other than a preuailing faction in the true Church professing at all times visibly and in all Christian countries their present doctrine But no one of these dreamers and Church-deuisers as I may tearme them is able before Luther to assigne in any age since Christ or Country of the world one Parish of Protestant true prosessors or single person iumping in all points with any one sect of them their religion indeed being like a beggers cloake patched together out of olde condemned Heresies and vnsutably composed Their markes of a Church to wit preaching of true doctrine and a rightfull administration of Sacraments are such as any hereticall sect past or to come may equally peetend according to the maine grounds of Protestant doctrine which are to admit no common translation or interpretation of Scripture but what themselues list for discerning of true doctrine and rightly administring Sacraments § 4. HE magnifieth their Masse by telling vs that this is that cleane hoast that Irenaeus saith Malachie foretold the Christians onely sacrifice figured by that of Melchisedeck and represented by the Iewish as well bloody as vnbloody Sacrifices not distinct from the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse but the same repeated in another vnbloodie manner 1. It is true indeede that Irenaeus vnderstandeth by that pure Offring in Malachie the Eucharist now in vse and that the Avncients many of them suppose it resembled in that action of Melchisedeck And they call it the Christians yet not the onely Christian Sacrifice succeeding in the roome of the Iewish Sacrifices the Sacrament I say of the Eucharist not their Sacrifice of the Masse In what sense Augustine will tell vs A Sacrifice of praise saith he out of the Psalmist shall glorifie me and there is the way that I will shew him my Saluation The flesh and blood of this Sacrifice before Christs comming was promised by Sacrifices resembling it in Christs passion it was exhibited in the truth it selfe since his ascension it is celebrated in a Sacrament of remembrance And againe The Hebrewes in their Sacrifices of beasts which they offered vnto God did celebrate a prophecie of the Sacrifice to come that Christ offred And Christians now celebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice past in an holy oblation and participation of Christs body and blood And Procopius vpon Genesit Christ dranke to his Disciples in mysticall Wine saying This is my Blood and gaue them withall a type figure or image of his Body no more admitting or
that through Iesus Christ by whom he continually createth quickeneth and blesseth all these good things And againe that that which they haue taken may of a temporall gift become an eternall remedie How stand now these speeches and prayers with their Transubstantiation Are Christs body and blood those temporall gifts and good things that God by Christ daily createth and quickeneth Or needeth Christ the Priest to entreate his Father to looke propitiously vpon him Or any Angell to cary him vp and present him before his Father in heauen in whose presence and sight he is continually there Or is it not absurd to place Abels fatlings and Abrahams Ramme in equipage with the body and blood of Christ Iesus But these things it seemeth were in their ancient Liturgies before euer this new monster was hatched and to their owne shame confusion are yet vnwisely still retained And if you will see how handsomely things therein hang together obserue but this one passage The Priest prayeth to God to send an Angell to fetch the holy Housell vp into heauen and yet they tell vs withall the most of them that it neuer came from thence nor neuer returneth againe thither wherein we better beleeue them then we doe some other of their fellowes that say otherwise and within a while after hee swalloweth it downe himselfe and then praieth God as if he repented him of his former prayer that that which hee hath eaten may sticke fast to his guts Let him shew any such absurdities as these if he can in our Seruice If some pieces of Antiquity found in theirs be retained still in ours that is neither derogation to ours nor commendation to theirs Wee embrace true and sound Antiquity wheresoeuer we finde it their corrupt nouelties which it suteth so euillfauouredly withall we deseruedly reiect THey pretend cleare places of Scripture for each point of their doctrines wherein they differ from vs. But when they come to be duly discussed they either make against themselues or prooue nothing at all against vs as I will briefely declare in this very controuersie for a Corollarium of my whole doctrine For whereas S. Cyprian S. Hilarie Saint Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and vniuersally all the ancient Fathers commenting the 6. Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell haue literally vnderstood Christs promise of giuing his flesh to eate and his blood to drinke in the Sacrament these men restraine them to a metaphoricall and spirituall eating by faith onely and for this their interpretation quite contrary to the iudgement of the ancient Church they onely cite those wordes of Christ It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing c. and affirme them to import that Christs wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood and not at all according to the literall signification of them to wit of Christs body and blood receiued in the Sacrament Whereas at most they can import that Christ promised not to giue his flesh and blood cannally as the Capharnaits vnderstood him cut to wit in pieces and by bits eaten as S. Augustine explicateth them but that Christs body and blood were to be after a spirituall manner present and receiued in the Sacrament which we deny not And great Authors as Tolet noteth so expound them as to make this sense It is the deity or diuine spirit which is vnited with my flesh that viuificateth by grace soules worthily receiuing it and not by flesh alone barely of it selfe eaten Neither of which explications prooue a figuratiue vnderstanding of Christs wordes this being a Glosse of their owne besides the text neuer before them taught by any Catholike Doctor and so it can be no solide sufficient ground sor them to rely vpon for their hereticall deniall of Christs true body and blood really present and receiued in the Sacrament For Scripture ill vnderstood is no Scripture but Gods word abused § 7. YEt in concluâ—ion to say somewhat againe of the present point hee telleth vs that S. Cyprian Hilarie Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and all the ancient Fathers vniuersally vnderstood that place of Iohn concerning the eating of Christs flesh not figuratiuely but literally whereas wee contrary to the iudgement of the whole ancient Church vnderstand them of spirituall eating by faith alleadging onely for this our exposition those words of our Sauiour It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing which wordes as Tolet sheweth may beare another sense 1. How prooueth hee that these Fathers so expound that place Forsooth he sendeth vs to seeke the proofe of it in Bellarmine It is enough that he saith it let Bellarmine if he can prooe it But is not this impudent out-facing to say that these Fathers all literally vnderstand it when out of diuerse of them the contrary hath beene euidently shewed Yea when Augustine one of them giuing rules to expound Scripture doth expressely affirme that the place is to be taken figuratiuely and that it were an haynous and flagitious thing otherwise to vnderstand it 2. It is another vntruth as grosse as the former to say we ground our exposition on those wordes onely Wee vrge indeed the wordes following The wordes that I speake are spirit and life And we vrge and expound them no otherwise then diuerse of the Ancients haue done before vs. To omit Athanasius formerly alleadged Augustine besides that that is in the selfe same place cited What meane those wordes saith he They are spirit and life but that they are to be vnderstood spiritually And againe He spake this that hee might not bee vnderstoode carnally as Nicodemus before had done Yea and of those former wordes Thomas Aquinas out of Chrysostom When Christ saith It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing his meaning is that we ought spiritually to vnderstand those things that wee heare of him and that whoso heareth carnally getteth thereby no good Now to vnderstand them carnally is to looke on the outward things onely and to imagine no more then wee see To vnderstand them spiritually is not so to iudge of them but also with the inward eyes to looke on them Which in all mysteries ought alwayes to be done And Tertullian When Christ saith that The flesh profiteth nothing His meaning must be drawne from the matter of his speech For because they thought his speech hard and intollerable as if hee determined to giue them his very flesh to bee eaten or his flesh verely to bee eaten to place the state of saluation in the spirit hee premiseth It is the spirit that quickeneth and then adioyneth the flesh profiteth nothing to wit to quicken And withall he sheweth what he meaneth by the spirit The words that I haue spoken are spirit and life As he said before Hee that heareth my word and beleeueth in him that sent mee hath life eternall So
of an Image of Christ which Baronius himselfe disauoweth wherein mention is made of no flesh of Christ left in the world but what is made vpon the Altar and how haue they his foreskin among their holy reliques then some vnder the name of Eusebius Emissemus confessed by Bellarmine in diuers places to be meere counterfeits as an Homely wherein the bread and wine are said to be turned into the substance of Christs body and blood words not found once in the writings of any one of the Auncients We produce expresse places where the Substance of bread is said to remaine still in the Sacrament they not one where the bread is said to be turned into the substance of Christs body But a number of such counterfeits doe they daily coine and forge and then cry out that men condemne antiquity when they censure them and such grosse errors as they meete withall in them And withall they obserue that two or three of the Fathers that were not in Constantines time but somewhat after vsed some new tearmes and phrases in their discourses of these Mysteries that were not vsuall in auncienter times But that they condemne any one Father that liued in Constantine time or within that age much lesse all of them almost vniuersally for teaching Transubstantiation and adoration of the Eucharist is most vntrue He should haue done well to haue added what indeed they obserue and therein hee should not haue lied that they did in those times deliuer the Sacrament entire to all and not mangle it as their Church doth now adaies bereauing the people of one principall part of it as also that they deliuered them the bread into their hands and not popped it into their mouthes as their manner now is AND of Constantine that renowmed first Christian Emperour they confesse from the testimonie of Eusebius liuing with him and writing his life of S. Ierome likewise and other certaine Authors that he erected Temples in memorie of Martyrs dedicated a most sumptuous Church in honour of the Apostles prouided his sepulcher there to the end that after his death he might be made partaker of the praiers there offered he dedicated his Church with great solemnitie and celebrated the dedication thereof with a yeerely festiuall day he carried about with him a portable Church or tabernacle and Priests and Deacons attending it for the celebration of the diuine mysteries he had lights by day burning therein he translated to Constantinople the holy reliques of S. Andrew S. Luke and Timothie at which diuels did roare and certaine reliques of the Crosse found by his Mother for conseruation of the Citie built by him hee honoured sacred Virgins professing perpetuall chastitie Vnder him were Monkes throughout all Syria Palestine Bithynia and other places of Asia and Affrick he greatly reuerenced Anthony the Monke hee went to embrace the sepulcher of Saint Peter and Saint Paul humbly praying to their Saints that they would be intercessours to God for him he much honoured the Crosse and signed his face with it Vnder him in that age were Pilgrimages made to Ierusalem he reprooued Acesius the Nouatian for denying the power giuen vnto Priests to remit sinnes vnder pretence that God onely remitteth sinnes of his Cleargie Priests and Bishops assembled by him to the dedication of his Church some of them did did preach and interpret holy Scriptures others of them who could not doe so appeased the Deitie with vnbloody Sacrifices and mysticall consecrations praying for the health of the Emperour At the time of his death he intended to expiate his sinnes by efficacie of the holy Mysteries and confessed his sinnes in the house of Martyrs After his death praier was made for his soule and the mysticall Sacrifice offered So euident was hee and the Primatiue flourishing Church of Christ in his daies in these and all other points Catholike and continued so in our Countrey and other Christian parts of the world vntill Luthers foule Apostasie and reuolt from it The Brittish auncient Inhabitantt of this I le conuerted in or neere the time of the Apostles agreed in all other points of faith with S. Austin our first Apostle excepting some different Ceremonies of Baptisme and the Iewish obseruation of Easter as S. Bede testifieth whose religion is euidently knowne and confessed by our chiefe Aduersaries to haue beene Romane and Catholike And neuer any countrey was in any age conuerted from Paganisme to Christ but it receiued our doctrine namely the practise of the Masse and beleefe of the Sacrament § 12. TO passe by his impertinent Catalogue of by-matters in Constantines time whereof some also are vntrue and some vncertaine which he is very forward to run out into willing to be dealing with any thing though neuer so impertinent then the point that against his will he must be held to Whereunto I answer no more for the present but this Let him first quit himselfe of the taske that he hath already vndertaken to wit to maintaine this their Metaphysicall Transmutation in the Eucharist and when he hath so done let him then produce if he can any one Article of Faith that was held generally as such in Constantines time by vs now reiected and he shall not want an Answere But to passe by this I say he would make vs beleeue if we will take it on his word that the Brittish auncient inhabitants of this I le held the same beleefe concerning this Sacrament that the Romanists doe at this day All the reason he produceth for it is this that they differed from Augustine that was sent by Pope Gregorie into England onely in some ceremonies about Baptisme and the obseruation of Easter Surely this man hath a notable vaine in disputing and arguing he can prooue any thing if you doe but grant him all that he saith The Brittish Inhabitants saith he here presently after the Apostles time held Transubstantiation then as we doe now at Rome Whereas he well knoweth that for aboue 1000. yeeres after Christ their Transubstantiation was not generally held scarce heard of for farre more then halfe that time Neither is hee able to produce any title of true Antiquitie to shew that it was then held here Yea but saith he there was no difference here about it when Austin came into these parts betweene him and them that hee found here But I demand how it appeareth that Gregorie that sent Austin held Transubstantiation or that in the Church of Rome it was then held Till hee can prooue this to vs not out of lying Legends or bastard writings but out of some authentick Story or Gregories owne vndoubted workes we haue little reason to beleeue him Bellarmine I am sure can fish very little out of him nothing at all that prooueth ought Sure we are that our Country-man venerable Bede whom he here citeth as the reporter of Augustines arriuall here was of an other iudgement as by his writings appeareth
fruit of the vine in the next verse And that which is called Christs body by the Apostle is immediately after more then once or twice expounded to bee bread § 3. The very scope saith he or Bellarmine by him of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words are literally to be taken as the seuen kine ten hornes c. And doth not the very nature of signes and Sacraments shew in what sense the wordes vsed of or in them are to be taken to wit figuratiuely and symbolically not properly or essentially For what are Signes and Sacraments but reall parables both therefore tearmed Mysteries as Chrysostome noteth because one thing is seene in the one as heard in the other and some other thing vnderstood Or what is more vâ—uall then as Augustine and others well obserue that Signes and Sacraments be called by the names of those things which they are signes and sacraments of What Sacrament also is there wherein or whereof such speeches are not vsed Circumcision is called the Covenant the pasohall Lambe the Passeouer the Rocke Christ Bapâ—â—sme the Laver of Regeneration And in like manner saith Augustine is the bread Christâ— body the name of the thing signified saith Theodoret being giuen to the signe So that whereas this worthy writer thus argueth out of Bellarmine In visions and parables the very scope euer sheweth that the things spoken are to bee vnstoode figuratiuely But these places the seven kine and the ten hornes are visions and parables And therefore the things therein spoken are to be taken figuratiuely Why may not we as wel reason on this wise The very nature of signes and sacraments leadeth vnto this that when the names of the things whereof they are signes and sacraments are given vnto them it is to bee vnderstood not properly but figuratiuely But it is a Sacrament wherein and whereof these speeches are vsed This is my bodie and This is my blood These wordes therefore wherein the name of the thing signified is giuen to the Sacrament are to bee vnderstood figuratiuely And so hee hath from his owne grounds by due proportion somewhat more to conclude then was before required to wit not onely that there is nothing that may enforce vs to expound them literally but that there is somewhat of moment to induce vs to expound them figuratiuely § 4. In all such figuratiue speeches saith he further out of Bellarmine Semper praedicatur de disparato disparatum One thing is said to be another when it cannot be indiâ—idually or specifically the same but wholly different in nature from it A man for example as Christ was cannot but similitudinarily be a Rock a Vine or a Lion But in Christs words This is my body no such absurd or impossible thing is affirmed but only that the substance which he had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 1. In this speech of our Sauiour This is my body as well as in that speech of the Prophet This is Ierusalem or in that speech of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ is one thing to wit bread as is afterward prooued both by the course of the context the words of the Apostle and the doctrine of the ancient Fathers said to bee an other thing to wit the flesh of Christ which is wholly different in nature from it Nor can this worthy Disputer prooue theÌ„ contrary vnlesse you grant him the point in question which heere hee shamefully beggeth to make good his Assertion to wit that that which Christ had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 2. A man may as well be a rocke as a rocke may bee a man or bread may be flesh And why was it not as possible for the rocke to be turned into Christ and so to become Christ as for bread to bee turned into the bodie of Christ and so to be the flesh of Christ that the one might be vnderstood properly as well as the other If they will say It is impossible that the rocke should bee turned into the flesh of Christ before Christ was incarnate I might answer them as they vse to do vs that God is able to do all things And questionlesse it is as possible that the rock should be turned into that flesh that as yet was not as that a little thinne wafer cake or the compasse of it at least should containe Christs whole and entire body here on earth while the very selfe same indiuiduall body should be whole and entire still in heaven A creature may as well be and yet not be at once as a naturall body may at the same time be wholly and entire thus contracted on earth and yet whole and entire also in his full stature in heauen Yea how is it not a thing absurd and impossible that Christs body sitting whole and entire at the table should hold the selfe-same body whole and entire in its two hands on the table and should giue the selfe-same body away whole and entire ouer the table to twelue seuerall persons to goe seuerally into each of their mouthes still whole and entire and to become so many whole and entire humane organicall bodies in their mouthes as in chewing they made pieces of that that was giuen them and yet the selfe-same body that they did thus take and eate remaine sitting there still vnstirred and vntouched If these things be not absurda absurdorum absurdissima as he speaketh as monstrous absurdities as euer were any I know not what are 3. Obserue how these men that cannot endure to heare vs say This or that thing is impossible yet tell vs themselues of many impossibilities and that euen then also when they speake of these miraculous mysteries in the confuting one of another It is impossible saith this worthy writer for a man as Christ was otherwise then similitudinarily to be a rock or a vine It is impossible saith Aquinas that a man should be an Asse It is impossible saith the Glosse that bread should be Christs bodie It is altogether impossible saith Bellarmine that this sentence This bread is my body should be true properly It is impossible saith Biel that Christs body should be broken or divided and so bee spoiled being impassible It is impossible saith Aquinas that Christ in his last Supper should giue his body impassible It is impossible that his body being now impassible should be altered in shape or hew It is impossible that Christs body in his proper shape should be seene in any other place but that one onely wherein he is definitiuely It is impossible that the substantiall forme of bread should remaine after consecration or that the substance of bread and wine should abide there It is impossible that Christs body by a locall motion should come to bee in the Sacrament It is impossible
but hee addeth withall that our faith informeth vs that the bread is Christs body Yea but saith Bellarmine that sentence is most absurd and impossible if it be not meant figuratiuely In which manner Augustine as before was shewed expoundeth himselfe else-where 2. Doe the Fathers tell vs that in this holy Mystery we must not so much regard what our sense informeth vs as what our faith apprehendeth And doe they not say the same of Baptisme and of all mysteries or Sacraments in general Heare we one or two of them speake for all The Fathers of the Nicene Councell whom before he alleaged Our Baptisme say they must not with bodily eyes be considered but with spirituall Seest thou water vnderstand the power of God hidden in it conceiue it full of the holy Ghost and diuine fire And then wil they the same regard to be had also at the Lords Table That Ambrose that this Author and his Associates so oft cite as making so much for them You are come saith hee to the Font consider what you there saw consider what you said c. You saw the Font you saw water c. you saw all that you could see with your bodily eyes and humane aspect You saw not those things that worke and are not seene The Apostle hath taught vs that wee are to behold not the things that are seene but the things that are not seene For farre greater are the things that are not seene then those that are seene Beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone That is better seene that is not seene So Gregory Nyssene Both the spirit and water concurre in Baptisme And as man consisteth of two parts so are there medicines of like like appointed for either for the bodie water that appeareth and is subiect to sense for the soule the spirit that cannot bee seene nor doth appeare but is called by faith and commeth in an ineffable manner Yet the water that is vsed in Baptisme addeth a blessing to the Body baptised Wherefore doe not contemne the divine Laver neither make little account of it as common because of the water that is vsed in it For it is a greater matter that it worketh and marueilous effects proceed from it And a little after of the Eucharist y The bread also is at first common bread but when the Mystery hath sanctified it it is called Christs body And in like manner the wine though it be a thing of small price before the blessing yet after the sanctification which proceedeth from the Spirit both of them worke excellently And so in many other things if you regard it you shall see the things that appeare to be contemptible but the things wrought by them to be great and admirable And so Chrysostome speaking of those wordes of our Sauiour The wordes I speake are spirit and life To vnderstand saith hee things carnally is to consider the things simply as they are spoken and no otherwise Where as all mysteries and then not the Eucharist onely are to bee iudged not by the externall things that are visible but are to be considered with the inward eyes that is spiritually And in particular of Baptisme else-where The Gospell is called a mystery because we beleeue not in it what we see but wee see somethings and beleeue other things For that is the nature of our mysteries which my selfe therefore and an Infidell are diversly affected with c. Hee when hee heareth of a Laver thinketh it but bare water but I consider not the thing seene simply but the purging of the soule by the Spirit c. For I iudge not the things that appeare by my bodily sight but with the eyes of my minde Againe I heare Christs body I vnderstand the thing spoken one way and the Infidell another And as children or vnlettered persons when they looke on bookes know not the power of the letter nor know what they see but a skilfull man can finde matter in those letters contained liues or stories and the like c. So it is in this mystery the Infidels though hearing seeme not to heare but the faithfull hauing spirituall skill see the force of the things therein contained Nothing then in this kinde is said of the Eucharist but what is said of all Sacraments and of Baptisme by name Nothing therefore that argueth any miraculous change more in the one then in the other Nor doth it follow that we would haue men to beleeue nothing but what they see because we refuse to beleeue that that we see is not so We may not saith Tertullian call in question our senses lest in so doing we detract credit from Christ himselfe as if he might be mistaken when hee sawe Sathan fall downe or heard his Fathers voyce from heauen or mistooke the smell of the oyntment that was poured vpon him or the tast of the wine that he consecrated for a memoriall of his blood Neither was nature deluded in the Apostles Faithfull was their sight and their hearing on the mount Faithfull was their taste of the wine that had beene water Faithfull was the touch of incredulous Thomas And yet as Augustine well obserueth Thomas saw one thing and beleeued another thing Hee saw Christ the man and beleeued him to bee God Hee beleeued with his minde that which hee saw not by that which appeared to his bodily senses And when we are said to beleeue our eyes saith hee by those things that wee doe see wee are induced to beleeue those things that we doe not see In a word Rehearse mee saith Tertullian Iohns testimony That which we haue heard and seene with our eyes and felt with our hands that declare we vnto you A false testimony saith he an vncertaine at least if the nature of our senses in our eyes eares and hands be such But these men would haue vs as the sonnes of Eliah speake to thrust out our eyes and as the Iewish Rabbines say abusing a place of Scripture to that purpose that a man must beleeue the High Priest in all things yea though hee shall tell him that his left hand is his right and his right hand the left so they would haue vs to beleeue whatsoeuer the Pope or they say though they tell vs that that both our sight and sense informeth vs to be most false § 5. But to make good in part yet his former glorious flourish hee citeth a place of Hilarie where hee affirmeth that concerning the veritie of Christ in vs not speaking as hee here saith specially of the Eucharist but of our vnion and coniunction with him in generall vnlesse we speake as Christ hath taught vs wee speake foolishly and impiously that there is no place left to doubt of the verity of Christs body and blood that the Sacraments being receiued cause that Christ is in vs and we in him Now