string and carrying the vniuersall Church vpon his backe as though his words had neuer been nor could be answered and this facing may become a Papist reasonably well but when he brings in Ephanius with a wrong translation to second the matter whose testimonie hath ben often answered and the edge point of it turned long agoe to the very throte and bowels of transubstantiation I may truely say of him as the wise man doth of vnaduised pratlers Prou. 29.20 Cap. 26.12 namely that there is more hope of a foole than of him Epiphanius saith Et accepit haec And hee tooke these speaking plurally of many round cakes or peeces of bread which after hee cals hoc hoc this and this more distinctlyt his our translator cleane omitteth and englisheth hoc est meum hoc hoc this is mine and this and this this is my bodie and so forth Againe hoc est rotundae figurae insensibile quantum ad potentiam this is of a round figure insensible he translateth that is of a round figure and impossible to be discerned of vs. And againe qui non credit esse ipsum verum hee that beleeueth not that it is true Hee translateth thus who so beleeueth not that it is hee whereas ipsum verum agreeth grammatically with sermonem immediately before These forgeries bee verie materiall for when Epiphanius saith hoc meum est hoc hoc as of three round cakes wherof euerie one seuerally and separately is sayd to bee the bodie of Christ verily we must either admit a new trinitie in vnitie whereof euerie one seuerally is the bodie of Christ and yet all three but one bodie or else we cannot hold transubstantiation it will not be so hard a matter to exemplifie the mysterie of the Trinitie which is beyond all example if hoc hoc hoc be a trinitie in vnitie Secondly when Epiphanius saith that the round cake is without sense and powerlesse for so wee are taught to translate it by opposition following in these words Dominum verò nostrum nouimus totum sensum totum sensitiuum c. Wee know that our Lord is all sense and all sensitiue We see plainely that it cannot be sayd of the bodie of Christ simply and absolutely vnlesse we imagine the bodie of Christ to be senselesse and powerlesse Lastly when Epiphanius saith that wee must beleeue the words of Christ to be true as hee spake them we may not thinke that he vnderstood by ipsum verum verie Christ himselfe bodie blood and all as this man translateth in fauor of the popish single sacrilegious communion for that 's not sicut dixit as any man may easily perceiue The Counsell of Trent decreeth thus Sess 13. cap. 3. Si quis negauerit totum integrum Christum omnium gratiarum fontem authorem sub vna panis specie sumi anathema sit If any man shall denie that whole Christ and the author and fountaine of all graces is contained vnder the onely forme of bread let him be accursed But I beseech you tell vs by what wordes this strange consecration is made hoc est corpus meum makes but the bodie that is broken and bloud is not broken but shed Againe hic est sanguis meus makes but the blood that is shed and the bodie is not shed but broken Verily our Sauiour himselfe when he gaue bread gaue his bodie and not blood for that he gaue after supper when he took the cup Luk. 22 20. and if he gaue integrum Christum whole Christ when he gaue bread then he gaue nothing when he gaue the cup and therefore these good fellowes had need take heede they inuolue not the Sonne of God himselfe within their 1. Cor. 12 3. Anathema sit for no man speaking by the spirite of God calleth Iesus execrable In decret pontiff dist 2. cap. Comper No no they that diuide this holy mysterie bee Sacrilegi saith Pope Gelasius and so by good consequent this Anathema sit must returne home and fall vpon their owne bald pates that made it But to leaue these fashoods and to giue you the true meaning of this ancient Father in a summary Compendium wee must beleeue that bread in the Lords supper is the bodie of Christ not simply but in such a figure as taketh not away the truth of the Scripture as we also beleeue man to be after a true vnderstanding Gent. 1.26 27 the Image of God for as man is after a sort the Image of God as the word of God testifieth though hee be not throughly so neither in regard of bodie nor soule nor minde nor baptisme nor vertuous liuing not any other euident and liuely similitude wee see him to haue with God so doe wee beleeue that the bread which is of a round figure and without sense and feeling is after a true manner and meaning the bodie of Christ as the wordes of Christ teach vs though it be not so by substance or apparant proportion and portraiture of bodily members Wherefore though bread by nature be but a prophane common element appointed of God to feede our bodies yet by grace it pleaseth the Lord to make it and to call it his bodie that is a Sacrament of his bodie whereby as by an effectuall instrument the faithfull receiuers are spiritually fed and nourished to eternall life This I take to be Epiphanius meaning whereunto I will adde a few lessons for more perspicuitie and for the ouerthwarting of those two lessons which our Papist heere giueth vs. Frst Epiphanius being learned and industrious knew well inough wherein the Image of God consisted Ephes 4 24. Coloss 3 10. for Paul teacheth it plainely in his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians Secondly this Image is so defaced and ouershadowed in the posteritie of Adam that nothing in man or about man seemeth answerable or agreeable vnto it Thirdly notwithstanding this obscuritie wee must beleeue the truth of Gods word that man is created after the Image of God and not ouerthrow that truth by allegoricall subtilties Fourthly wee haue the like example in the wordes of Christ at his last supper namely this bread is my bodie which Epiphanius knew to be spoken per gratiam by grace whereby that common element was aduanced supernaturally and mystically yet truely to haue the name of the bodie of Christ whereof it was a Sacrament Fiftly there is no apparant equalitie or likelyhood or outward sensible similitude or proportion of members why bread should be so called Lastly notwithstanding this difficultie we must beleeue that by bread is meant true bread and by bodie the true bodie of Christ and that the one is sayd of the other figuratiuely indeed because they be dispanita yet truly as our Sauiour spake and not flye to origenicall allegories which ouerthrowe the hystoricall truth of Gods holy word and turne it into fables These lessons I trow be plaine inough yet I doubt our Papist will
it be presently bestowed on the poore so shall men not seeme to forsake the memories of their friends which might be occasion of no small griefe of heart and that which is celebrated in the Church shall be godlily and honestly celebrated It is not very easie to gesse what these oblations were for the sacrament cannot be sumptuous vnlesse we met some precious stone of great value in the Communion Cup as Cleopatra did in a cup of Ippocras other oblations cannot be sold nor yet giuen to euery one that asketh them if it be said that the sacrament might be called sumptuous not in it selfe but in regard of the pompe and costly braueries of funerals it is easily seene that Austine heere speakes not of funerals but memorials which as they were sumptuous so were they celebrated with feasting and ioy not with mournefull calling vpon God for a gaole deliuerie and therefore we may better vnderstand this same aliquid adiunare somewhat to helpe of helping the liuing who otherwise might conceiue sorrow of heart or of the inflaming of mens deuotion to zeale and feruencie of prayer when they behold the representation of the death of Christ in the reuerend mysteries then of offering Christ in sacrifice to God his father for the reliefe of the dead Vero aliquid adiuuare credendum est We might belieue that they doe indeed helpe somewhat saith Augustine but that euery one that celebrated the memory of his friend should beleeue that his friends soule was in purgatorie crauing yeerely reliefe at his hands that saith not Austine it may be his friends soule was in heauen it may be it was in hell it may be it was deliuered out of purgatorie the last yeere or the yeere before and therefore it may be that oblations could not helpe him and so consequently that Austines credendum in this case is no whit better then an ignorandum howbeit you may tell your papist that this place is not for his profite for if his massing soule Priest may not sell his oblations and prayers but giue them freely and cheerefully to all that aske tht poore man will hardly be able to keepe a Concubine Austine saw that veniale peccatum veniall sinne was like to prooue venale venall or set to sale and therefore he saith prebeantur neque vendantur let them be giuen not sold But now no money no masse no penny no pater noster Wherefore to conclude all in a word if this had bene Austines faith he would not haue taught it so loosely and vntowardlie yet howsoeuer he teacheth it as faith or opinion or custome or what else soeuer the faith of one moderne sacrifice Sacrificatorians is of another Edition The Dialogue Sectio VIII SAint Ambrose who a This Ambrose neuer saw S. Austine nor S. Austine him conuerted Saint Austine to the faith die likewise hold and practise the same doctrine for thus he prayeth before the celebration of the diuine mysteries Let the inuisible forme of the Holy Ghost descend to teach me thine vnworthie Priest reuerently to handle so high a mysterie that thou mayest mercifully receiue at my hands this sacrifice to the helpe both of quicke and dead Precatio prima praeparans ad b The word Missa is not to be found in all Ambrose missam The Answere BElike Ambrose and Austine must agree in all points because the one conuerted the other otherwise this tale of Austines conuersion is told out of season but by your leaue if this counterfect prayer be construed after the Popish fashion I doubt whether Austine will giue it allowance Howbeit supposing this Iacke Strawe to be the right Ambrose I answere that he speakes not here of this mysterie as it is a sacrament putting vs in mind of God for then the vertue of it could not depend vpon the worthinesse the reuerent or irreuerent handling of the Priest but as it is a sacrifice putting God in mind of vs now if Ambrose purposed to offer vp the very body and blood of the sonne of God in sacrifice to his father the absurdity of receiuing it mercifully in regard of his reuerent handling remaineth still for the reall body and blood of Christ had bene acceptable to God of it selfe without helpe of Ambroses holinesse Contr. epist Par. lib. 2. cap. 8. Austine could not abide that Parmenian should say that the Bishop is mediatour betweene God and the people and auoucheth that if Saint Iohn had taken so much vpon him euery good faithfull Christian would haue taken him for Antichrist rather then the Apostle of Christ and therefore if Ambrose had prayed that God would mercifully receiue the body and blood of his sonne at his hands making himselfe mediatour betweene the sonne of God and his father as Popish Priests venter to doe at this day in the Church of Rome I may well thinke Austine notwithstanding his conuersion would haue detested it Lib. 4. part 2. Cum sacerdos orauerit prohostia transubstātianda eamque transubstantiatā patri obtulerit orat pro ipsius acceptatione Whē the Priest praieth for transubstantiating of the hoste and doth offer it being transubstantiated to the father he prayeth for the acceptation of it Thus saith Durand and the Priest in the Masse desireth God to looke Propitio ac sereno vultu propitiously and cheerefully vpon the body and blood of Christ his sonne and to receiue the same as once he receiued the sacrifice of Abel c. This is a presumptuous and a desperate blasphemy yet must we either make Ambrose guilty of it in this praier or else see him discharged of transubstantiation There is a full discourse in Irenaeus where it is prooued out of the Scriptures Lib. 4. cap. 34. that God euer accepted him that offered better than the offering and that no oblation is pleasing vnto God when hee that offereth it doth not please him better and therefore it is sayd in Genesis Cap. 4.4.5 that the Lord had respect vnto Abel and his offering but vnto Cain and his offering he had no regard and if the offering of a wicked man were acceptable to God it had bene out of season to charge that man to goe away from the Altar to be reconciled with his brother Matth. 5.23 before he presume to offer his oblation so long as a man choseth his owne wayes and inwardly delighteth in abhominations Esa 66.23 c. his killing of a bullocke is as if he slew a man his sacrificing a sheepe as if he cut off a dogs necke his offering an oblation as if he offered swines flesh and such a mans offering incense to God is as if he blessed an idoll It commeth to passe often among men that the wicked is accepted for his gift and so absolued because the iudge is either needy or couetous but God hath no neede of our sacrifices he neither eats the flesh of Buls nor drinkes the blood of Goats Psal 50.30 he neither eats bread nor drinkes wine
sensibly to be handled by the Priests not onely in a sacrament but in trueth but to be broken and torne with teeth truely indeed but onely in a sacrament Your glosse sets the text vpon the racke violenlty drawes the members of it a sunder which are copulatiuely chained together in the text tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri distinguenda sunt quoth he alas euery child may see it cannot beare such a distinction and therefore either suffer your Popes text to stand still in force or else set downe plainely like honest meaning men that your Pope and his Councell haue grossely erred Howbeit the former part of the Popes words haue most need of a glosse for when he saith that bread and wine after consecration is not onely a sacrament but also the true body and blood of Christ if he meane the accidents they can be neither body nor blood if he meane the substance that 's vanished Lib. 4. dist 1◠if he meane substantia mutata in id quod facta est the substance changed into that which it is made that is in carnem sanguinem Christi Lib. 4 dist 11. Into the bodie and blood of Christ as Lumbard some where seemeth to tell vs then is it not both a sacrament and the true bodie and blood of Christ too but only one of them namely id quod facta est that whereinto it is changed and here you may smell Transubstantiation though it were not yet deuised but it stunke so that Lumbard himselfe could hardly abide it Ibid. for thus hee writes Si quaeritur qualis sit illa conuersio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio If a man aske what manner of conuersion it is whether formall or substantiall or of some other kind I am not able to determine it Which is as much to say as I cannot tell whether the substance of bread be changed into the bodie of Christ or no for graunt me this antecedent substantia panis mutatur the substance of bread is changed the conclusion wil follow of necessitie ergo est substantialis mutatio a substantiall change so he that tels me that he cannot define whether the change of bread into flesh and wine into blood be substantiall tels me withall that he cannot define whether the substance of bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of Christ These be the colours and shewes and accidents that haue bewitched a great part of the world and these be the glosses and interpretations that haue caused men to runne mad and at length to sleepe in their owne excrements but if you looke into the ages before Berengarius you shall find such as did write openly against these Popish accidents and formes without subiect and against all vntoward glosses in defence of the sacramentarie heresie as heretickes now call it without all controlement or contradiction which is a maine euidence to perswade that these reall conuersions and transmutations which be defended so stoutly and peremptorily in Poperie are not Catholicke but hereticall Iohn Scotus a learned man venerable Beds scholler taught the same doctrine wee hold at this day Iohan. Scotus almost two hundred yeeres before Berengarius so did Bertram Bertram a famous man in his time as appeareth by his booke De corpore sanguine Dei written at the request of Charles the Great and Doctor Tonstall witnesseth Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar. that before Transubstantiation was concluded in the Counsell of Lateran it was lawfull for euerie man freely to thinke of it as he thought good and if this euidence be not stronge inough to carrie away the matter then would I faine learne how they dare stand against Pope Gelasius that tels them plainely that the substance and nature of bread and wine remaineth still Gelas contr Eutych Non desinit esse substantia panis natura vini There ceaseth not to bee the substance of bread and nature of wine They tell vs verie demurely that by vertue of Christs prayer Luk. 22 32. the Popes faith cannot faile and that hee is to confirme his brethren yet herein they make Gelasius faith to faile and vtterly refuse to bee confirmed by him yet was it not Gelasius owne priuate opinion De Sacram. li. 4. cap. 4. Dialog 1 2 Ambrose saith of the consecrated bread and wine Sunt quae erant in aliud commutantur They are the same they were and are changed into another thing Theodoret Signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt à natura sua manent enim in priori substantia figura forma The mysticall signes after sanctification do not depart from their owne nature for they remaine in their former substance figure and forme Chrysostome Ad Caesarium in Math. hom 15. Panis sanctificatus dignus est dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in illo remanserit The sanctified bread is worthy the name of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it Origen Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei per obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum encitur That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer according to that which is materiall in it goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the draught And if all these authorities be reiected yee shall they neuer bee able to auoide the words of our Sauiour Christ who after the ministration of the Sacrament in both kindes concludeth after this maner I say vnto you Math. 26 29. Mark 14 25. I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine till I drinke it new in the Kingdome of God vnlesse they can make men beleeue that blood may be the fruit of a Vine Let vs now returne to the examination of the ancient Father which our Papist imagineth to bee raysed from the dead What if hee should say saith he that the verie bodie of Christ is present in the Sacrament in forme of bread Many then say I hee should lye for Chrysostome saith In oper imper in Math. hom 11. In vasis sanctificatis non est ipsum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis eius continetur In the sanctified vessels is contained not the verie bodie of Christ but the mysterie of his bodie But forasmuch as it is heere confessed that if this Doctor raised from the dead should answere that the bread is called the bodie of Christ in a figuratiue sense and that in Sacraments the signe is many times called by the name of the thing signified he doth cleerely in so answering determine the controuersie on the Protestants side what should wee labour further it being too too manifest that the Fathers doe answere so in their Bookes extant at this day and that in as plaine manner as can be wished Qui seipsum vitem appellauit Dialog
1. ibid. saith Theodoret. I lle Symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit Hee that called himselfe the vine did honor the signes which are seene with the name of his bodie and blood And againe Seruator noster commutauit nomina corpori quidem symboli nomen de dit symbolo verò nomen corporis Our Sauiour changed the names and gaue to the bodie the name of the symbole and to the symbole the name of the bodie Chrysostome Ad Caesar Monach ad Bonis Epist 23. Contr. Adim cap. 12. Panis sanctificatus dignus est dominici corporis appellatione The sanctified bread is dignified with the name of Christs bodie Austine Sacramenta plerunque rerum ipsarum nomina accipiunt Sacraments doe often take the names of the things themselues And againe Non dubitauit Dominus dicere Contr. Marcion lib. 4. In 1. Cor. 11. De his qui init myst cap. vlt. hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis sui The Lord did not sticke to say this is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie And againe facinus vel flagitium videtur inbere figura ergo est praecipiens passioni domini esse communicādū suauiter atque vtiliter recondendū in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa vulnerata sit He seemeth to cōmand a heinous or horrible wickednes therfore it is a figure instructing vs to communicate of the passion of the Lord and pleasantly and profitably to keepe in memorie that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Tertullian Hoc est corpus meum hoc est figura corporis mei This is my bodie that is to say this is a figure of my bodie Ambrose Quia morte domini liberati sumus huiusrei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because wee are deliuered by the death of the Lord being mindefull thereof in eating and drinking we doe signifie his flesh and his blood which were offered for vs. And againe Post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur After consecration the bodie of Christ is signified Such places as these be so common in the writings of the ancient Fathers that it is vtterly needlesse to rehearse any more of them Thus is your Papist preuented for our cause you see is cleerely determined Yet notwithstanding it is pittie the poore mans tale should not be heard if this Doctor sayth he should answere that God is omnipotent and able to doe what he will that he was able to make heauen and earth to doe great wonders and miracles in Aegipt were not the matter cleerely determined on the Papists side No verily were it not neither would any man euer thinke so if he knew the vertue and power of a Sacrament Pope Leo speaking of the water in baptisme though it be not transubstantiate saith thus Christus dedit aquae quod dedit matri De Natiuit serm 4. virtus enim altissimi obumbratio spiritus sancti quae fecit vt Maria pareret saluatorem eadē fecit vtregeneraret vnda credentem Christ gaue that to the water which he gaue to his mother for the power of the most high and the ouershadowing of the holy spirite which caused Marie to bring foorth the Sauiour made the water to regenerate a beleeuer So Austine Cont liter pet tan lib. 3. cap. 49. Nec iam baptizare cessauit Dominus sed adhuc id agit non ministerio corporis sed inuisibili opere maiestatis Neither hath the Lord now ceased to baptize but he doth it still not by the ministerie of his bodie but by the inuisible worke of his maiestie So Chrysostome Angeli qui adfuerunt in baptismo iam inenarrabilis operis modum non possunt enarrare adfuerunt tantum viderunt In Ioh. ho. 24. nihil tamen operati sunt sed pater tantum filius spiritus sanctus The Angels which were present in baptisme were not able to declare the manner of that vnspeakable worke onely they were present and beheld but wrought nothing but the father onely and the Sonne and holy spirite This verie power of the most high and ouershadowing of the holy Ghost this verie worke of the Maiestie of God is it and onely it that maketh these outward elements Rom. 4.11 Eph. 4 15 16. Ephe. 5 30. seales of the righteousnesse of faith and effectuall signes and meanes of our regeneration and growing vp into him which is the head euen Christ so as we be made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones Immortalitatis alimonia datur à communibus cibis differens Cypr. de caena domini corporalis substantiae retinens speciem sed virtutis diuinae inuisibili efficientia probans adesse praesentiam A food of immortality is giuen differing from common meats retaining the forme of a bodily substance but proouing that a diuine power is present by the inuisible efficacie of it You see now I trow that Gods omnipotencie hath somewhat else to doe than to transubstantiate bread and wine and to vphold emptie accidents that haue no subiect And touching the words of Saint Ambrose which bee counted so pregnant for transubstantiation as we are here willed to read them in his Booke De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs So you may read them obiected by Steph. Gardiner and Chedsey and so answered by Peter Martyr that few Papists or none at al frō that day to this euer durst propound them Ambrose doth not say that the substance of bread and wine is abolished for he flatly auoucheth the contrarie when he saith sunt quae erant they are the same they were but that the nature of them is changed that whereas before they were common creatures and prophane by nature now by consecration they be holy signes such as doe not onely represent but exhibite the bodie and blood of Christ to the faithfull receiuer and bee effectuall and powerfull instruments whereby life and immortalitie is conuayed into vs and this exposition doth Ambrose himselfe confirme where he saith toward the end of the Chapter that this is a Sacrament of the true flesh of Christ and that after consecration the bodie of Christ is signified Nowe to make light of so wonderfull a change which passeth the capacitie of Angels as Chrysostome saith and to make it inferiour to the wonders of Aegypt whereof most were done by sorcerers as well as by Moses argueth an vnderstanding darkened with deepe ignorance and too much addicted to Popish deuises I could adde that this place of Ambrose is obiected also by Harding and answered by Bishop Iuell Art 10 diuis 3. and that this Booke is thought by many wise and learned men to bee falsely fathered vpon Ambrose but this that I haue sayd alreadie is sufficient to beat downe the fond bragges of our Papist and to shew him cleerely that Ambrose is wrested
not think his knot is yet loosed there is nothing saith hee in the Sacrament that is incomprehensible but Epiphanius saith not so though he say it neither can it bee inferred out of quot sunt similia sunt for the Image of God was comprehensible in Adam though it be defaced in vs and things may be Similia secundum magis minus but not to multiply quarrels let vs graunt that he saith to bee true what then Marrie then I would learne saith hee if it bee not Christs true bodie really present but a figure therof what wonder or incomprehensible matrer is there here is a little prety It three times repeated in the knitting of this knot It is his bodie It is not like to a naturall bodie and if it be not Christs bodie c. I beseech you what meanes this man by his It is It something or is It nothing or what is It Epiphanius saith It is of a round forme therefore It is not accidens for rotundum is not accidens but rotunditas if It be a substance then It must bee either the bodie of Christ and so the bodie of Christ is of a round forme or else it must bee bread and so indeed all the three Euangelists are bold to call It Math. 26 26. Mark 14 22. Luk. 22 19. 1. Cor. 10 16.17 1. Cor. 11 23 26 27 28. and so is the Apostle Paul twise in one Chapter and foure times in another and hee himselfe for all this mincing of the mattter comes downe in the end out of the clouds and confesseth the Sacrament to be of a round forme whereof it followeth that it is neither an accident nor the reall substance of Christs bodie but bread as the Scripture cals it Now for the vnloosing of his knot I say that it is incomprehensible howe a round peece of bread should bee such a figure as is worthy to bee called the bodie of Christ and so to exhibite and conuey the graces and merites of Christs passion into vs that our sinnes are remitted our faith encreased and wee incorporate and made members of his bodie of his flesh and of his bones Let him shew me that this is not farre beyond the comprehension of mans reason and I will giue him his asking But for a full cleering of Epiphanius it is to bee remembred that Manes and his disciples liuing vpon the sweat of other mens browes and supposing all things to haue life soule as man had were wont to consecrate the bread and wine that was giuen them to fill their slowe bellies withall after this sort Ego non seminauite non messui te non molui in clibanum non misi alius obtulit comedi innoxius sum c. I sowed thee not I reape thee not I ground thee not I baked thee not another offered it and I did eate I am innocent c. Wherunto Epiphanius answereth ipsi non recidunt botrū sed edunt botrū Haeres 66. circa medium vtrum grauius est etenim vindemians semel recidit botrū qui vero comedit per dētes sectores ac manducatores singula grana edomat per hoc magis multipliciter torquet ac secat non amplius similis erit ei qui semel secuit is qui manducauit consumpsit They cut not the bunch of grapes but they eat it which is greater the Grape-gatherer did once cut the vine but he that eateth it doth cut and grinde with his teeth all the graces and in the respect he doth torment it much more and hee that hath eaten and consumed it is no longer like to him that onely once cut it You heare what Epiphanius saith for confutation of the Manichies Now cōsider how that he saith can possibly be good if the liuing sensitiue bodie of Christ blood and all be eaten of the Catholickes might not the Manichies then reply that they were more to be borne withall that were compelled by hunger and thirst to eat and drinke liuing things of meane regard crying for griefe Ego non seminaui te non messui non molui c Than Epiphanius and his Catholickes that presumed to eat the liuing flesh of Christ and to drinke his blood verily Epiphanius being learned wise would not haue left his reason in this case wide open without either fence or shelter against the aduersarie if the reall presence and manducation of the bodie and blood of Christ had been catholickely beleeued in his time Peter in the Acts when a voice from heauen commanded him to kil and eat though he were hungry and in a traunce yet he forgat not the law of God but answered God forbid Lord for nothing polluted or vncleane hath euer entred into my mouth and shall wee thinke that the same Peter when our Sauiour saith take Act. 10 10. c. Et cap. 11 5 c. eat this is my bodie and take drinke this is my blood would neuer make any question neither he nor any of his fellow Apostles against the eating of mans flesh and drinking mans blood if they had vnderstood the wordes of Christ after the popish fashion Euen so hee that thinketh that Epiphanius holding the reall eating and drinking of the bodie and blood of Christ would dispute so loosely as he doth against the Manichies must needs thinke withall that his wits were in a deeper traunce than Saint Peters and so fitter to gather wooll than to confute heretickes The Dialogue Sectio XVII I Will leaue this knot for you to vnloose at better leasure and assay you with another argument to prooue the a This will you neuer prooue while you liue nor your child after you consent of all ancient Fathers and the vniforme practise of the vniuersall Church in this doctrine of transubstantiation but first I will set downe certaine places out of the Fathers whereon to ground mine argument although I haue alreadie vsed the same places for the proofe of prayer for the dead This Custome saith b These places are answered all of them Saint Austine the vniuersall Church doth obserue being deliuered by tradition from the Elders that whereas at the time of the Sacrifices commemoration is made of all soules departed in the communion of the bodie and blood of Christ they should be prayed for and that the sacrifice also should be offered for them De verb. Apost Sermone 32. You shall also finde that there was a Sacrifice offered for the quicke and dead in Saint Ambrose his first prayer Praeparans ad missam and in Tertullians Booke de Monogamia about the middest of the Booke the place beginneth dic mihi soror in pace c. Hereby it is manifest that c How many ages were they I pray you in all these ages the Church did d That is to say Signum repraesentationem sacrificij Aug. de ciuit dei lib. 10. cap. 15 offer a sacrifice for the quicke and the dead which being agréed vpon
the contrary Pa. It fareth with you in this businesse much like as with a man that hath lost his way who the more hée bestirreth himselfe the further hee is from the end of his iourney your heresie hath beene pursued and chased through all the doubles windinges which it can possibly imagine and is now retyred like a crafty foxe into the burrow where it was first littered bredde which is the iudgement and censure of humane reason whereunto as vnto a supreame iudge it doth now appeale from the authoritie of c Non potest per vllam Scripturam probari Roffensis contra captiuit Babiloni i. It cannot be proued by any scripture scriptures fathers and Councels and surely this is the very fountaine and seminary of all atheisme heresye for if I should labor to instruct an Infidell in the principall points of christian religion as the resurrection of the very same bodies after they bée consumed to dust ashes that the Father is God the Sonne God and the holy Ghost God and yet that they thrée are but one God without confounding of the persons that the Sonne is eternall and yet begotten of his father that d I maruell how this can he shewed to be a principall point of christian religion Christ came in vnto his disciples the e Are the Protestants hereticks for so interpreting what if he came in at the window or chimney or louer hole Non dicitur quod intrauit per ianuas clausas c vide Durand lib. 4. dist 44. q. 6. 1. It is not said that he entered by the doore being shut doores being shut not as the Protestants interpret the doores opening vnto him but after a miraculous and supernatural manner as S. Austine expoundeth it Tractatu 121. euangelij S. Iohannis all which is as contrary to the capacitie of humane reason as the reall presence in the sacrament if the Infidell in this case should appeale vnto the same iudges might he not with the same reason and by the iudgement of the same arbitrators as well reiect these and many like articles of our christian faith as you doe the reall presence if the imperfection of mans vnderstanding be such in the comprehension of the workes of nature that as f VVe must needs yeeld if such authors speake against vs. So is not Gods word 2. Tim. 3.16 Psa 119.105 Socrates saith Hoc solum scimus quod nihil scimus this one thing wee doe know that wee doe know nothing how great is the imperfection thereof in the comprehension of things supernatural being so farre remote from our senses and vnderstanding the wisedom of man as S. Paul saith is foolishnesse with God and therefore a farre incompetent iudge is it to determine of things appertaining to God from this fountaine sprang first the heresie of Arius who not being able to comprehend how the Sonne of God could be begotten when as there was no time of his begetting chose rather to rend himselfe from the vnitie of g That 's not the popish church Belike the catholicke church can vnderstand things that be aboue vnderstanding without the scriptures helpe the catholicke Church and to wrest the Scriptures to his owne capacitie than to submit his owne vnderstanding in things aboue vnderstanding vnto the censure of the Catholicke Church the sure rocke and pillar of trueth and whosoeuer he be that in matters of his faith consulteth with flesh and blood measuring the same by rule of humane reason must needs be an hereticke if not an atheist if you demaund how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament I answere I h No nor any man els liuing cannot tell because it is ineffable neither can I conceiue it because it is incomprehensible if you doe alleage impossibilitie I answere that i So answered Praxeas the hereticke vide Tertul. nothing is to God impossible if you require arguments of credibilitie you haue as many and as great as for any one article of our christian faith you haue the vniforme consent of the k I pray you where doth S. Iohn say hoc est corpus meum or what other plaine and direct words hath he or any of the greeke churches foure Euangelistes in direct and plaine wordes you haue the vniforme consent practise of the l Gréek churches continued and remaining at this day so that there is nothing wanting but the assistance of Gods holy spirite which you are to séeke and craue be continuall and hearty prayer The Answere OVr Protestant here is worse afraid than hurt the big lookes of his aduersary made him afraid but his withered armes could not hurt him hee telleth vs with full mouth and face enough that he will proue the sacrifice of the masse which implyeth transubstantiation by the consent of all ancient fathers and the vniforme practise of the vniuersall Church but when all is come to all hee runnes away and leaues this withered conclusion behind him ergo the sacrifice of the Church was either the masse or the Protestants communion I trow such arguments as these may soone bee answered but now that our Protestant calleth forth sense and reason to witnesse against him and to demonstrate infallibly that his assertion is not to be beleeued he comes backe againe and intreats him to shut his eies and suffer himselfe to be hudwinked and then he will take paines to lead him into a popish ditch If we relie vpon the censure of our senses and reason saith he wee are in the hie way to all Atheisme and heresie Iohn 20.27 29. a strange thing that that which was a meane to faith in Christs time should now become a fountaine of heresie our Sauiour saith to Thomas because thou hast seene thou beleeuest and againe put thy finger here and see my hands and put forth thy hand put it into my side and be not faithlesse but beleeue and in another place he saith Luke 24.38 why are yee troubled and wherefore doe doubts arise in your hearts behold my hands and my feete for it is I my selfe handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to haue Now I beseech you tell me if the consecrated bread had a mouth to speake as it hath an inuisible mouth if Papists may be beleeued and should say to vs why are yee troubled and wherefore doe doubts arise in your hearts behold my forme and colour handle taste and see for the body of Christ is not round white sweete heauie thicke grosse earthie as you taste feele and see me to be Shall wee answere that this is the fountaine of heresie and Atheisme No by your leaue answer so who will and who dare this shall be my warrant to settle my conscience and without further trouble of minde or doubt of heart to beleeue that it is very bread and not the body of Christ Moreouer the holy Apostle S. Iohn assureth vs of the certentie of his
that Christ had twoo bloods or a double blood for then is it all one as if Saint Luke reported our Sauiour to haue spoken thus This blood conteined in this cup is the new Testament in my blood Againe all these three Euangelists say This is my body where the demonstratiue pronowne must needs shew some visible thing or other els our Sauiour dallied with his disciples willing them to take and eat when they saw nothing the disciples themselues were witlesse to reach out their hands to take and eat that which they saw not neuer asking where the thing was which our Sauiour spake of now what was this visible thing trow ye the body of Christ they say is inuisible if we say it was a lump of accidents theÌ„ we must imagine our Sauior to speak thus this lumpe of accidents is my body which cannot be taken directly and plainely as the words lie without figure and therefore that sense may not be abidden what then can this visible thing be but bread which our Sauiour did breake and his disciples did eate whereas neither breaking nor eating can agree either to accidents or the inuiolable body of Christ But goe too let vs admit that our Sauiour spake thus after the Catholicke fashion this that lieth hid inuisibly vnder these visible accidents is my body then will it follow inanswerably either that Christ had two bodies one visible that spake to the disciples another inuisible that lay hid vnder accidents or else if both were but one bodie by miracle that the same one body is both visible and inuisible at once which is impossible yea but God is omnipotent and nothing is to God impossible yes by your leaue and so will Peter Lumbard tell you Lib. 1. dist 24. if it please you to heare him Howbeit because the popish doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be maintained vnlesse we hold that the bodie of Christ is visible and not visible at once and also circumscribed and not circumscribed at one and the same time I will set you downe the iudgement of Saint Thomas of Aquine who auoucheth in plaine and direct termes that these contradictions cannot be auoided by appealing to Gods omnipotencie whereunto they are not subiect these bee his wordes Sum part 1. quaest 25. artiâ— 3. Quicquid potest habere rationem entis continetur sub possibilibus absolutisre spectu quoruÌ„ deus dicitur omnipotens nihil autem opponitur rationi entis nisi non ens hoc igitur repugnat rationi possibilis absoluti quod subditur diuinae omnipotentiae quod implicat in se esse non esse simul hoc enim omnipotentiae non subditur non propter defectum diuinae potentiae sed quia non potest habere rationem factibilis neque possibilis quaecunque igitur contradictionem non implicant subillis possibilibus continentur respectu quorum dicitur Deus omnipotens ea vero qua contradictionem implicant sub diuina omnipotentia non continentur quia non possunt habere possibilium rationem vnde conuenientiùs dicitur quod ea non possunt fieri quà m quod Deus ea non possit facere Luke 1 37 neque hoc est contra verbum angeli dicentis non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum id enim quod contradictionem implicat verbum esse non potest quia nullus intellectus potest illud concipere Whatsoeuer hath the reason of ens is conteined vnder absolute possibilities in regard whereof God is called omnipotent now nothing is contrary to the reason of ens but non ens this is therefore contrary to the reason of absolute possibility which is subiect to the omnipotency of God which implieth in it to be and not to be at one instant now this is not subiect to omnipotency not for any defect of power in God but because the same thing cannot haue the reason of possible to be done and impossible whatsoeuer things therefore doe not imply contradiction are contained vnder those possibilities whereof God is called omnipotent but the things which imply contradiction are not conteyned vnder Gâ—ds omnipotency because they cannot haue the reason of possibilities whereupon it is more fitly sayd that these things cannot be done than that God cannot doe them neither is this against the speech of the Angel which sayd No word shall be impossible with God for that which implyeth contradiction is not a word for no vnderstanding can conceiue it Thus hath S. Thomas the Angelicall doctor the crowne and foretop of all poperie dragged out transubstantiation by the heeles from vnder the shelter of Gods omnipotencie and will not suffer such popish contradictions and impossibilities as it is maintained by to haue any succour in the almightinesse of Gods power The Dialogue Sectio XIX Prayers to Saints IDeòque habet ecclesiastica disciplina quod fideles nouerunt cùm Martyres eo loco recitantur ad altare Dei ibi non pro ipsis oretur pro caeteris autem commemoratis defunctis oretur iniuria est enim pro Martyre orare cuius nos debemus orationibus commendari and therefore it is the practise of the Church as the faithfull doe know that when as mention is made of the Martyrs at the altar of God they are not prayed for as others are who are departed for it is an iniury to pray for a Martyr vnto whose prayers we ought to a Not by praying to them after they are dead commend our selues Austine de verbis Apostoli sermone 17. Ideo quippe ad ipsam mensam non sic Martyres commemoramus quemadmodum alios qui in pace requiescunt vt etiam pro eis oremus sed magis vt orent ipsi pro nobis vt eorum vestigijs hereamus quia impleuerunt ipsi charitatem qua Dominus dixit non posse esse maiorem and therefore at the Lords table we doe not b Augustine doth not say here we should pray to Martyrs make mention of the Martyrs as wee doe of others that rest in peace to the intent to pray for them also but rather that they should pray for vs that we may constantly follow their steps c. Sancta Maria succurre miseris c. c Cauendum ne dum matris excellentia amplietur filij gloria minuatur c. Bonauent in 3. dist 3. quest 2. VVe must take heede least while the excellencie of the mother is enlarged the glorie of the sonne bee diminished Holy Mâ—rie succour vs wretches helpe vs that are weake hearted comfort vs that mourne pray for the people c. Austine de Sanctis d These sermons be none of Austines sermone 18. reade also the 35. sermon de Sanctis The Answere THis point of popish doctrine may well be called a doctrine of diuels and therefore wee answere them that defend it and vrge it vpon vs as our Sauiour answered the deuill Matth. 4.10 Deuter. 10.20 Rom. 10.14 auoyd Satan for it is written thou shalt worship the
doctrine by the infalliblenesse of the outward senses 1. Iohn 1.1 saying that which we haue heard which wee haue seene with these our eies which wee haue looked vpon these hands haue handled of that word of life that I say which we haue seene and heard declare we vnto you not that you may be Heretickes and Atheists but that you may haue felloship with vs and that our fellowship may be with the father and with his sonne Iesus Christ Now touching humane reason I would gladly know whether our Papist haue framed his arguments with it or without it if with it let him take heede he be not an Hereticke or an Atheist if without it I doubt he shall hardly mooue either Hereticke or Catholicke to be of his opinion much lesse conuert Infidels It were strange doctrine to teach men neuer to vse the helpe of humane reason because Saint Paul saith Rom. 1 19. the wisedome of this world if foolishnesse for though the mysterie of our redemption in Christ Iesu be farre beyond the reach of mans wisedome yet the same Paul saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you may be knowen concerning God is ingraffed in the heart of man whereby Gods eternall power and Godhead shining in his works is knowen vnto him and Peter Lumbard Lib. 3 dist 24. his owne Prophet saith Quaedā fide creduntur quae intelliguntur naturali ratione Something 's are beleeued by faith which are vnderstood by naturall reason But to make short worke Paul saith indeed that the naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God and God forbid we should denie it but yet the same Apostle presently after saith 1. Cor. 2.14 c. againe the spirituall man discerneth all things now let him shew vs that papists are spirituall men and Protestants naturall men and then we will vayle the bonnet of his insensible and vnreasonable assertions otherwise we may not become fooles and run mad at his pleasure Againe where he disputeth that an infidell may reiect the resurrection of the dead the mystery of the Trinitie the eternitie of the sonne of God the comming in of Christ in his naturall bodie to his disciples the doores being shut and such like Articles of our Christian faith as well as we may reiect the reall presence in the Sacrament you may see the pure simplicitie of this man who makes Christs entrance through a shut doore to be an Article of faith Howbeit his master of sentences findeth documents of the Trinitie in things created and Saint Austine saith Lib. 1. dist 3. De Trinitate lib. 6. cap. 20. Oportet vt creatorem per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspicientes Trinitatem intelligamus It behooueth vs that we beholding in vnderstanding the creator by the things which were created should vnderstand the Trinitie Againe Tertullian hath written a booke De resurrectione carnis and Athenagoras a Christian Philosopher hath written another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the resurrection of the dead Tertullian Athenagoras wherein this article of faith is soundly prooued by humane reason and it being a sure ground that God cannot be without his power and wisedome and that the father is Fons origo Deitatis as sol is fons origo lucis The fountaine and originall of the Godhead as the sunne is the fountaine and originall of light It will not be so hard to conceiue by reason that the son of God may be begotten yet coeternal with God his father but I shal not need to labor further in this point there is a Treatise written purposely of this argument by Philip Morney a noble man of Fraunce Phil. Morney wherin you may see how far reason may wade in these such like articles of Christianity therfore if an infidel flie to humane reason he shal haue some stay to leane vpō in matters of faith wheras neither he nor we nor any man els liuing can find any possibility of reason or sense to induce vs to beleue the real presence Howbeit he may do well to teach vs from what an infidell should appeale to the arbiterment of humane reason is it like that any man will presse an infidell with Scriptures Fathers Councels so to driue him to appeale to reason Paul saith that prophecying serueth not for infidels but for them which beleeue 1. Cor. 14.22 where the Apostle meaneth such infidels as be altogether strangers from Christian doctrine and must be won by signes not by prophecying as for Fathers Councels we may not prefer them to Paul and Peter in the conuersion of an infidell and besides that infidels will make more account of their own Prophets Epimenides Menander and Aratus Tit. 1.12 Plato Hesiode and Homer such like than of our Fathers and Councels yet notwithstanding if we should confesse that other matters of faith cannot be measured by humane reason without danger of heresie yet if you cleaue to his faith not to your owne reason in the reall presence you cannot choose but be an hereticke Dial 2. in con The Symboles or signes of the Lords bodie after the priest hath inuocated are charged made other shings and this doth Theodoret euidētly declare in one of his Dialogues where the hereticke saith Symbola dominici corporis sanguinis post inuocationē sacerdotis mutantur et alia fiunt And this he speakes of a substantial change as our Papists do at this day but the Catholicke answereth Signa mysticapost sanctificationem non recedunt à natura sua manent enim in priori substantia figura forma Thus hath Theodoret a learned and auncient father of the Greeke Church written almost 1200. yeeres agoe giuing cleerely to vnderstand that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not Catholicke in his time but hereticall what the Greeke Church thinketh of it at this day may better be learned by the last Session of the Councell of Florence than by the bold face of this Papist whose head is so full of vniforme consents and arguments of credibilitie Council Florent sess vltima that he forgets how many of the Euangelists speake of the Lords supper See then what ill lucke this poore man hath that both his vniforme consents faile him the one confuted by Theodoret and the Councell of Florence the other by Saint Iohns Gospel where you shall not finde one word spoken of the Sacrament all the foure Euangelists quoth he how I pray you in thought word or deed marry saith he in direct and plaine words Indeed the words of three Euangelists are direct and plaine against him but the fourth saith nothing Matthew Marke say that the Sacrament of Christs blood after consecration is the fruit of the vine Math. 26.29 Mar. 14.25 cap. 22 20. and Luke saith that the cup is the new Testament in his blood now if you vnderstand by the cup not wine but reall blood it will follow