hee commanded his disciples to eate in somuch that in the deliuerie of the cup he said Drinke yee all of this for this is my body In vaine therfore after the coÌ„mandement of drinking had hee added the word for Two bloods one in the veines of his body the other in the chalice if the blood which hee then shewed had bin beleiued to haue bin then only in the vaines of his body not exhibited giueÌ„ to haue bin drunke In this last sentence of the 4. thinges in the supper which Christ did that is his taking blessing breaking giuing Saunders seemeth to allow 3. of them to appertaine to the bread taking blessiag Deinde cum Christus subiunxit hoc facite non soluÌ„ praecepit vt id ageremus quod illepaneÌ„ accipiendo be nedicendo fraÌ„ gendo distribuendo egit vetum etiam vt opus quoddam relinque remus in mensa domini post nostras actiones finitas fol. 634. Saunders com meth to the distributing of bread then must they needes eate bread Ibid fol. 637. The substance which I shew what substaÌ„ce This is my body that is behold my body where are the wordes which make the chang Ibid fol. 639. This is my body worketh the Change Note breaking but not his giuing their cating yet in the next leafe he commeth som what nearer for hee confeseth that Christ did not only commande that we should doe that which hee did by taking the bread by blessing the bread by breaking the bread and by distributing the bread but that wee should leaue a certaine worke done at the table of the Lord after we haue finished all So commeth hee now to the distributing or giuing of bread what should they eate but what hee distributed which was euen bread After this findinge the ill conclusions of some of his owne speeches where hee referreth the word this to the body there presently made he doth deny that they resolue the sentence thus hoc corpus meum ost corpus meum this body is my body but thus the substaÌ„ce which I shew is the substaÌ„ce of my body as if it should be said Behold the substance of my body or Behold my body vnder these accidents of this bread Why mince you so finely with substantia quam demonstro the substance which I shew what substaÌ„ce is that if the bread theÌ„ Christ spake of the bread which once you affirmed if the body then the speech must needes bee maugre al gaine saiers This body is my body which nowe you denie Take your foote out of which fetter you will our of both you cannot Againe where he resolueth or expoundeth the words of Christ this is my body as if hee should haue said behold the substance of my body or behold my body vnder these accidents I demande where are the words of Transubstantiation or that turned or made the bread the body of Christ For according to Saunders opinion here these wordes this is my body are but demonstratiue as if hee should haue said Behold the substance of my body then of necessitie the wordes that made it so must goe before But where nether they nor he can tell But to my seeming he falleth vpon his old Bias againe which he did before where he saith Itaque olla verba Hoc est corpus meum therfore those worde this is my body being directed to the bread taken blessed doc change the substance of bread into the body of Christ If they bee directed to the bread the speech must be this bread is my body This bread is my body how can they bee directed to the bread else And if it remaine bread till those wordes of this is my body come what neede they feare to say he gaue bread for those words coÌ„e last of al yea after giuing eating He tooke saith he at first Ibid fol. 645. Accepit eniâ—… ab initio non quideÌ„ corpus suum sed paneÌ„ velut materiaÌ„ elementum c. Saunders Ibid. fol 658. 659. He breaketh bread theÌ„ the reall body is not there not his body but bread as it were a matter element whervnto his worde was to bee ioined that it might be made a sacrament did he not speake of the bread then when he said this is my body Furthermore going about to proue that the body blood of Christ are in the eucharist although it bee neither eaten nor drunken he beginneth with S. Paule who saith 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not a partaking of the blood of Christ and the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of Christ and inferreth we break the bread before we deliuer it or giue it to be eateÌ„ For the breaking is both to reuiue the memory of the passion wherin the flesh of Christ was rent torne with whipps nailes and speares as also that to every communicant a part morcell Hee distributeth the bread in peeces the real body of Christ is not yet there theÌ„ Prius ergo quaÌ„ iste panis frangatur c. At the first then when the bread is broken it is the partaking of the body of Christ for the blessing causeth that the bread bee the partaking of the body of Christ the blessing I saie of the Lord wherby he giuing thankes said This is my body and commanded vs to doe it in his remembrance Here is a gallimaufery of fustiaÌ„ tearmes wouen Lincy-wolsy fashion He speaketh of breaking distributing of bread yet the reall body must be there according to his accompt beefore the breaking come for that is his drift here and then will he say it is the reall body of Christ Noe by his own confession it is but the breaking panis benedicti of the coÌ„secrated bread as he calleth it before Againe he saith the blessing is don by sayrng this is my body but the order of the Evangelists is contrary they place that blessing last of al. The wordes are Hee tooke bread blessed it after the blessing commeth the breaking He tooke 1. Hee blessed 2. He brake 3. He gaue 4. after that the distributing then this is my body So that except he wil interrupt the narration of the EvaÌ„gelists and confounde those tearmes which are distinct and refuse that for a blessing which the Gospel pointeth calleth a blessing on the other side call that a blessing which the Gospell doth not Instit l. 5. c 3. he can neuer iustifie his report Haec est mendaciorum naturae vt cobaerere uon possint This is saith Lactaâ—tius the nature of lies that they cannot agree to gether cap. 6. Valet enim visua veritas but the truth doth preuaile of her own force whosoeuer resisteth If one or two of them did thus dote or dreame in their discourses it might be excused by the insufficiency of the meÌ„ but since amongst
leife in that sacrament Rom. Why what perceaued they by my wordes of that sacrament Tub. They take you to hold not Catholiklie of it neither as our Lord and sauiour jesus Christ did first institute it nor as the ancient times of 1500 yeares by Fathers counsels and Doctors did and therfore they wished mee to make a stand and pause before I ioined with you therin For you teach that they who receaue it at your hands receaue only a peece of bread One of Hardings slanders and a draught of wine not worth anie thing and so call it a sacrament of the Lords institution wheras he gaue his bodie his reall substantiall bodie so his disciples did eate him reallie and substantiallie and dranke his verie blood and to beleiue this is healthful holy religious and they that receaue it so receaue it as Christ instituted it and they who doe otherwise Rhem. I. Cor. 11. fol. 453. in fine paginae Magnus nuga tor magno co natu magnas nobis nugas parit receaue noe sacrament but prophane bread as they called it This they did saie of you then touching the difference betweene them and you in that question and that in all other things al antiquitie consent of al ages were for them nothing for you Rom I doubt not but they are verie bitterly eloquēt against vs when opportunitie is offered of a fit audience their tongues pens are miserablie valiant But me thinketh Tuberius you are remember that both Christ himselfe al ages and all Doctors counsells doe make for them against vs ordinary abilitie cannot comprehend this in so short time much like vnto a sillie gentlewoman with whom of late I talked also who being not aboue one quarter of a yeare from her freinds returned home with arguments as strong as yours in defence of her new obtained religion shee could talke what a good booke the Rhemists bible was she could saie the Scriptures were written in Greeke and Latine For the Rhemists testamēt For Hebrew Greeke I saie not that they did teach her so simply but simply she remēbred what they said Laur. Vaux bachelot of divinity in his catechisme ca. 3. taketh awaye the 2 commādemēt of grauen images insted of that teacheth them Greeke Written in latin by Gasper Loarte doctor of divinitie translate dinto english fol. 76. would haue vs beleiue contrary to that which the gospel expresseth and therfore people shold praie in latine naie she could distinguish betweene an Idoll and an Image obseruing that the second commandement was onlie directed against Grauen Idolls as she tearmed them and not against Grauen Images And yet nether before shee went nor now can she read english to such a method vvas she brought to too quickly to knowe what she said I doubt not but she had bin so instructed but not by M. Vaux for he to make sure worke hath taken that commandement wholy out of his catechisme as remouing a block as belike stādeth not in their waie which noe wise man will euer bestowe anie labour about recompencing his breuitie in that point in telling the vse of certaine Greeke words Latria Hyperdulia Dulia where a learner is taught to worshipp anie creature in heauen or earth and commit as he thinketh noe I dolatry but noe otherwise then if a grand theife should teach a puny to steale by precept and when hee had committed the fact that is had stolen in deed saie it were not the deed and so leaue him to the gallowes Or if it had bin her luck to haue bin schooled by him that composed the instructiōs and advertisements how to meditate the misteries of the Rosary hee would haue taught her a more compendious waie to haue defended it by or anie other point then by a distinction which is although the commandement forbid vs the worshipping of anie Image yet wel for our parts maie beleiue and doe otherwise For so hee saith plainlie in an other question though not of that waight yet of that clearnes where speaking al in honor of our blessed Virgin Mary doth not sticke to sale that our Lorde redeemer did presentlie after hee was risen vp visit his most holie mother vvhom we maie vvel beleiue to haue bin the first albeit in the Gospel there be noe mentiō made therof For saith he if as the Evangelist reporteth our Lord did Luc. 24. after he was risen vp appeare to S. Peter that had earst denied him whie should not wee beleiue that hee appeared first to his blessed mother that neuer denied him Here is a plaine lesson a graunt that the Scripture teacheth so and so yet vvee maie beleiue otherwise Thus as their affections lead them either to the things or persōs wherof they speak so doe they in their conceipts bend the course of their arguments Other amongst them ad those of the greatest doe referre this appearing of our Lord to Saint Peter De rom pont lib. 1. c. 20. fine for S. Peter aboue al the disciples reckoning it amongst his prerogatiues as Bellarmine whoe affirmeth that Christ rising appeared to S. Peter first of al his disciples confirming it by S. Lukes Gospel and the witnesse of S Ambrose who saith that of the men Christ appeared to Peter for before saith he Christ had appeared to Mary Magdalene and that he further confirmeth out of S. Paule howe that Christ rising the third daie was seene of Cephas and then of the Eleuen 1. Cor. 15. Abdias Apost hist l. 6. fol. 188. Hard. cont Iuell art 1. fo 25. Ei primum omnium vt Mariae Magdalenae Petro apparere voluit Reyn. confer with Hart c. 8. diu 2. Sutc. cont Bel. de rom pont l. 2. c. 6. Rhem. Marc. 16. v. 1. Mat. c. 28.1 afterward of more then 500. brethren and after to S Iames. On the other side Abdias described to be an ancient writer first Bishop of Babylō who was the Apostles scholler and saw our sauiour in flesh and was present at the passion and martirdome of S. Andrewe and S. Mathewe speaking in the honor of S. Iames doth saie that our Lord woulde appeare to him first of all as he did to Mary Magdalene and to Peter vvhich indignitie of these men against the Gospel graclesse exposing it vnto the worlde as vertue is not only taxed by our learned writers as being dealt iniuriously withal but their owne Rhemists both confesse according to the truth of the text that Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene Mary of Iames Salome called by S. Mathew the other Mary and acknowledge it by their note That she first before al other they next saw him after his resurrectiō But the Rhemists seeing the Scripture hath giuē this prerogatiue of appearing from Peter to the woemen will stretch hard but euen touching that some what in it shal be his prerogatiue for when the weomen are bidden to telis to the Disciples to Peter they
into his blood the showes of bread wine only remaining which conuersion the catholike Church doth aptly call Transubstantiation let him be accursed Can. 8. gaine if anie man saie That Christ is exhibited or set forth in the Eucharist to the intent to bee eaten spiritually not also sacramentally really let him be accursed Not to speake heare how blasphemous contrary this their doctrine is to the holy institution of Christ at his last supper the verie manner of their handling seting downe their opinions is by their leaues erronious yet not vnder stood by their owne Doctors For first it must follow of their words if the whol substāce of the bread be turned into Christs body then is the body of Christ made of bread as is verified in the decrees which saith The bodie of Christ his blood by the power of the holy ghost is made of the substance De Cons dist 2. can vtrum sub figura of bread and wine Then will it follow that it is not that bodie which was made of the flesh blood of the virgin Mary Hard. cont Iu. art 12. fol. 168 D. Harding seeing this impietie of making our sauiour Christ haue two contrary bodies both avoideth his own authorities ouerthroweth his Transubstantiation for thus he saith Where the bodie blood of Christ is said to be made of bread wine beware thou vnlearned mā thou thinke not them therof to bee made as though they were newly created of the matter of bread and wine nether that they be made of bread wine as of a matter but that where bread wine were before This is noe trāsubstantiation after consecration there is the verie bodie blood of Christ borne of the verie substance of the Virgin Mary To say where bread was before there is the bodie of Christ as M. Harding saith is a departing or annibilation of the bread a comming of it as it were to nothing not a transubstantiation a turning of the substance of the bread into the substance of the bodie of Christ as the Trent fathers define Againe if bread be made the body of Christ or is the bodie of Christ as they are willing to grant why shoulde it not be said to be made of bread as of a matter If it bee made of the substance of bread why not made of bread as of a matter Againe They themselues teach vs Lumb l. 4. dis 1. b. Alan de sac in gener l. 1. c. 2. Dureus cont Whit. rat 2 fol 103. Hard. cont Iuell art 8. f. 144. b. Tonstal l. 1. fol 33. Allen de Euch sacra l. 1. c. 3. fol 217 Bellar. de euch sac l. 2. c. 9. fol. 151. ex Iren l. 4 cont haer c. 34 that a sacrament is a signe of an holy thinge or a visible signe of an invisible grace so that on two things doth a sacrament consist by both our cōsents Now least there should be anie strife what those two things are they teach moreouer that the on is earthly the other heauenly so they al teach our of Ireneus that ancient father who saith this being not commō bread but the Eucharist after consecration consisting of two things earthly heauenly what that earthly thing is al men may vnderstād that wel to be verie bread the substance of bread except he bee driuen to say as al they doe in those places quoted that by the earthly thing named by Ireneus is ment not the substance of bread but the accidents that is the tast colour waight show sauour fashion of bread What earthly thinge the tast colour shew waight and sauour of bread can bee I appeale to anie indifferent iudge So that to say as the Trent fathers saie that noe substance remaineth after consecration Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the nature of a sacrament They keepe it in the one and destroy it in the other Tons l. 1. f. 30. 48. b. ex cā conc Nicen. considera divinā vim quae in aquis latet Step. Gardin fol. 8 b. but the real and substantial bodie of Christ is to ouerthrowe the nature of a sacrament and to take awaie the earthly part of it instead of exhibiting the Grace of Christ putteth the Person of Christ God man in the roomth But see how they retaine the true nature definition of a sacrament in the one destroy it in the other They saie there remaineth the nature and substance of water the invisible grace of the spirit the holy Ghost commeth down halloweth the water there we cōsider the diuine spirit which lieth hid in the water there wee consider our baptisme not with the eies of our flesh but with the eies of our soules And as in the sacrament of Christs most precious bodie and blood we receaue Christs verie flesh drinke his verie blood to cōtinue augmēt the life receaued so in baptisme we receaue the spirit of Christ for the renuing of our life's And therfore in the same forme of words Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme In both sacraments Christ is exhibiteth himselfe vnto vs. Andra. Ortho. expl l. 3. f. 239. that he spake of the eating of his body drinking of his blood in both sacraments giueth dispenseth exhibiteth indeed those celestiall guifts in sensible elements In both sacraments the blood of Christ is included the sprinkling of our bodies with the water of Baptisme is nothing but that the soule be washed rinced with the blood of Christ If all this bee verified of the sacrament of Baptisme if Christ can giue exhibite himselfe as he doth indeed vnto vs without anie transubstantiation retaining the substance of the element of water we cannot but say so of the sacrament of the supper Lumb l. 4. dist 9. a Torren l. 3. c. 6. parag 3. fine vide tale a liquid apud Aug. tom 7. de peccat merit remiss l. 3. c. 4 that there we maie feed on Christs flesh drink his blood without anie transubstantiation of the bread wine Nay in more plainer maner they tell vs that Saint Augustine doubteth not to say of infants other faithfull people Nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum Noe man may in anie wise doubt but that euerie faithful man is then made partaker of the body blood of Christ when in baptisme he is made a member of Christ that he is not without the fellowship of that bread the cup although before hee eate of that bread and drinke of that cup he depart this world beeing in the vnity of Christs bodie for he is not made frustrate of the communion and benefit of that sacrament whiles hee findeth that thinge which is signified by the sacrament If infants and other faithfull people may be made partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of Baptisme I demand of our Trent fathers why we may not be
disable the whol masse as though it were lesse worth that Christ should offer himselfe were it but by the hand of a minister The third of Bellarmines reasons is drawen froÌ„ the will of Christ For saith he although Christ could obtaine by one oblation of this vnbloody sacrifice offered ether by himselfe or by his minister whatsoeuer he would for whomsoeuer yet would he nether aske nor obtaine of God any thing but that by euery oblation in the masse there should be applyed a certaine fruit of his passion All the application in the Gospell nowe of Christs sacrifice commoÌ„ both to Preist and people is that of the Apostle Let vs drawe neere with a true hart in assurance of faith Heb. 10. v. 22. Bellar. de miss l. 1. c. 25. f 748. H 9.17,20 The Lord supper or Eucharist is this testament or seal of Godes promise exhibited to vs. The matter testamentary or which is testified is the sacâ—ifice of Christs death as Christ saith this cup is the new testameÌ„t in my blood Missa non est noua testameÌ„ti Christi institutio sed est repetitio illius eius dem Ib c 25. f. 740. Neque vnquam repetitur ib. c. 4. l. 2. fol. 776. ether for remission of sinnes or obtaining other benefites which in this life we want Thus haue wee the ful of Bellarmines reasons to proue that the value and strength of the sacrifice of the masse is finite wheras hee confesseth the sacrifice of the Crosse was infinite so that by his owne grant the difference betweene them is as between finite infinite which is disproportioÌ„ enough whervpon wee may safly conclude the Masse is not the sacrifice of Christ And thus hath Bellarmine like an other Hercules cleÌ„sed Augeus stable of a number of filth For would he would bringe not three but three skore reasons to proue that the sacrifice of the Masse is inferiour to that on the Crosse hee should willingly be heard I wil follow Bellarmine in on note more about his masse and so giue an ende to this part Wee obiect the confirmation of a Testament dependeth on the death of the Testator therfore the confirming of Christs testament dependeth on his death Or thus Where a sacrifice is the testament is confirmed but where a testament is there is death therfore the masse is a new testament yea there are so many testaments as there be masses Christ must so ofteÌ„ die as there be masses to ratifie establish them Bellarmine answereth that the masse is not a new feting forth of the testament of Christ or is not a new testament but a repetition of his owne which he did confirmed by his death so a little before hee called the masse an iteration of the oblation of Christ Thus is Bellarmine content to make his masse a repetition and iteration of Christs sacrifice which a while after hee will not allow For as before is rehearsed out of him speaking of the sacrifice of the crosse he saith it is only one caÌ„not be repeated So saith Gardiner very confidently That Christs sacrifice was and is perfect without necessitie of iteration If Bellarmine will stand to this that his masse is but a repetition and iteration of Christs testament it may very wel bee demanded where the Rhemists wil finde their masse or sacrifice done daily vnbloodily Annot. Heb. c. 10. v. 11. that was once downe bloodily made by the same Preist Christ Iesus though by his ministers hands not many hosts as those of the old law were but the very selfe same in number euen Christs owne body that was crucified Tub. I haue obserued you with attention in your discourse wherin you haue shewed the diuersities of handlinge one and the same thinge It seemeth they cannot tell themselues what they woulde say if you haue laid downe their wordes rightly without falsification For in this of the masse they teach the offering vp of the sonne of God to his father which assertion had need because it is a matter of the greatest waight to be strongly confirmed by holy scripture They teach a true sacrifice a perfect reall but when they come to confirme that which first they lay downe they speake of the formes of bread and wine destroying the truth of Christs naturall body They make it bloody and vnbloody They knowe not howe farre the Preist worketh in it nor whether they were best to say it is the same that Christ did Articles subscribed vnto by the Church of EnglaÌ„d art 31. Redemption act 20.28 Rom. 5.6 Gal. 3.13 1. Cor. 6.28 1. Pet 1,18 Propitiation Act. 10.43 RoÌ„ 3.25 Heb. 9.12.28 1. Iohn 2.2 1. Ioh 4.10 Satisfaction Io. 1.29 1 Pet. 3.18 1 Io. 1.7 Gardiner Saunders Hardinge Their discourses herein are me thinketh vnprofitable and vncomfortable Rom. Vnprofitable and vncomfortable said you you neuer iudged righter in all your life For where the offeringe of Christ once made on the crosse is that perfect redemptioÌ„ propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both original actual there being noe other sacrifice for sinn but that alone they in stead of that brought in sacrifices of Masses wherein they offer Christ for the quick dead to haue remission of paine guilt haue handled the proof as before is set downe wherby you may obserue the boldnes impudencie of them in defence liking of their cause who are not any whit a hashed to bid the readers sift try and examine waigh without partiallity their reasons and arguments and then to iudge which who soeuer doth shal assuredly finde noe sincere dealing on their parts but shifts cauills and base trigiuersations a sufficient proofe wherof is gone before and more shal now presently followe in continuing their seueral declarations of the maner of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament which I hindred before in discoursing so largly of their sacrifice which I did reserue to this place because we are to examine the force of every word in the institution of the Lords supper and their manner of contriuing them for their purpose The senteÌ„ce of holy scripture by which they wold proue both their sacrifices reall presence in this The reall presence of Christ in the sacrament Mat. 26.26,27 Marc. 14.22 Luc. 22.19 1. Cor. 11.23.24 When they were eating Jesus when he had taken the bread and giuen thankes hee brake it gaue it to the disciples said take yee eate yee this is my body And when he had taken the cup giuen thankes he gaue it them saying drinke yee all of it for this is my blood of the new testament that is shed for manie for the remission of sinnes By this narration of the Euangelist you see both what Christ did and said at his last supper He tooke he blessed he brake he gaue and said Take eate this is my body Doe this in remembraÌ„ce of me Now I aske you this question what
thinge was it which Christ tooke all men agree The words of the institution examined This bread is my body it was bread What blessed hee bread What brake he bread What gaue he bread then said take eate this what bread is my body We say by this it is cleare that when Christ said Take eate this is my body he spake of the bread as if he had said Take eate this bread is my body One the other side they expound it Take eate this nothinge is my body wee knowe not what Or this invisible thinge Or this thinge I haue in my hands but in noe case this bread is my body For you must vnderstand that in the triall of this one word standeth all our whole controuersie both of the reall presence Transubstantiation the sacrifice of the Masse if Christ spake of the bread when he said Take eate this is my body This reason hath his force in nature confessed by al mē both they we are agreed that the substance of bread remaineth so nothinge on their side wil fal out right the reason is one contrary thinge as bread body cannot bee spoken of or be said to be an other thinge but in and by a figure so that to say of the bread this is my body must needes intend a figure And because they woulde avoid the figure they doe violate the eternall law of Reason which intendeth that if a man say take this hee must meane somthinge which he giueth or hath in his hand The evidence of this is so cleare that I could confute thē diuers waies but according to my first institution I will opēly shew by their owne darke perplexed speeches that did they not striue to vphold a thinge once apprehended they might more easier yeild then defend their errors Iuell art 24. The Reuerend Bishop of Sarum made this one of his questions at Paules Crosse publikly enough whether the people were euer taught to beleiue that when Christ said This is my body the worde this pointed not the bread but somthinge in generall they knewe not what M. Harding who seemed to say somthinge to every of those articles denied by the Bishopp said least of all to this which argueth he had not what to answere least he should haue runn himselfe vppon on shelfe or other there is so many diuersities of opinions amongst them in this How this worde Hoc in that saying of Christ is to bee taken and what it pointeth Hard cont Iuel art 24. f. 2 28 we knowe saith M. Hardinge who haue more learnedly more certainly and more truly treated therof then Luther Zuinglius Caluin Cranmer P. Martyr We knowe or any their ofspringe We knowe saith he But what hee knewe touching this point nether he whilst he liued Gard. in his explication fol. 39. b. referreth the word this to the inuisible substāce In his detectiō of the deuills sophistry fol. 29. b. Now it demonstrateth the bread nor his freinds since he died would neuer let vs knowe vnkinde as they are Freindlier yet hath D. Gardiner dealt with vs in this same case who hath yet giuen vs words though we knowe not his meaning When Christ said this is my body there is noe necessity saith he that the demonstration this should bee refered to the outward visible matter but may be referred to the invisible substance what outward visible matter what inuisible substance is there Is Christs body that invisible substance Then the speech will bee This body is my body yet was not the same man alwaies of the same opinion though hee would be called Marcus Constantius Allen de euch sacrif l. 1. c. 34. fol. 420. Disparata sūt opposita quorum vnū multis pariter op ponitur sic homo arbor lapis ciu smo di res infinite disparantur nec eadem res potest esse homo arbor lapis Ra mus de disparatis Ib fol. 419 421 Hoc demōstrat corpus vt sit sēsus hoc corpus meum est corpus meum This is it indeed that moueth vs. Bread wine are there indeed Vagè indefinite nec per sehocaut illud exacte demōstrare donec compleatur oratio AEneid l. 4. Staplet returne of vntruths against M. Iuell art 1. fol. 16. b. For before he had thus written Christ spake plainly making a demonstration of the bread when he said this is my body If it be plaine why are they so obscure For they dare not say what it meaneth neither one thinge nor other A third of theirs a country mā of ours reprouing the Protestants for referring the word this to the bread saith it is absurd both in philosophy diuinity that two thinges different distinct in nature substance should be affirmed spoken the one of the other It is true it cannot be without a figure So Dureus Quid obsecro stultius quam disparatorum vt dialectici appellant alterum dies de altero ac si lignum esse lapidem aut murem Elephantum deceret What is more foolish I pray you saith hee then as the Logitians vse to speake that one contrary should be spoken of an other as if a mā should saya peece of wood were a stone or an mouse an Elephant These men to avoid the figure rectifying what is amisse in vs haue made that crooked which before was straight Allen saith the word this demonstrateth the body But saith hee if there be any man whome it doth trouble how the word This can demonstrate the body blood which are not there present when the worde This is spoken Or that they should not shewe the bread and wine which are there indeed let him read not the scriptures for those ouerthrowe you Guimūdus Thomas who haue largly elegantly subtilly treated of these things To amend al he saith the safest best way is to take the worde THIS in the beginning of the sentence wandringly without any certainty nether to signifie this thinge or that exactly vntill the speech be ended Stapleton is as variable as the best we need not so much remember the Poet varium mutabile semper foemina a womā is an vnconstant and changable creature as maruaile at these Doctors in their vncertaine speches Now M. Iuell saith he doe you thinke it an vntruth to say that in Tertullians time Christian folke or the olde Fathers called that bread the body of Christ so consequently our maker re deemer By Stapleton here Christ spake of the bread whē he said this is my body But what saith our sauiour himselfe in the Gospell Doth not he saie of that bread which hee tooke into his hands which hee brake blessed This is my body Doth not he in these wordes call it his body To this we agree we desire noe more let him stand to this the controuersie is ended We say as Stapletō saith that Christ did say of that bread which
he tooke in his hands which he brake blessed This is my body Staptlet ibid. art 2. fol. 41. b. Now hee will not haue it sig nify the bread But hee will not abide by this he goeth from it in the examination of the second article for there he reasoneth after this manner The scripture saith Hoc ost corpus meum this is my body which this M. Iuell Can you say this bread is my body you knowe Hoe this is the neuter gender panis bread is the masculine Was it not bread which he blessed Then what this This forsooth which Christ had blessed made saying This is my body Thus far Stapleton Doth not his secoÌ„d affirmation frustrat his first his first the second In the first he is plaine Christ spake of the bread which he brake blese sedâ—n the second he wrangleth about the genders and maketh interrogations when he knoweth wel enough what it is as hee in the Poet that said Sed quid hoc pner herclè est Ter. Andr. act 4. scen 4. 1. Reioyn fol. 304. 2. Tonstall fol. 58. 3. Bellar. de sac euch l. 2. â— 6 fol 155. 4. Dureus consur resp Whirrat 9. fol. 657. 5. Hard cont Iuel art 17. fol 210. b. 6. Bell. de missa l 1. c 10. fol. 687. Hard Reioynd pag 305. a. in noe case he wil not haue this to point to the bread M. Hardinge comming as neere the truth as 4. and 4. is to 8. dare not yet stand vnto it he telleth vs out of Ireneus that Christ tooke the creature of bread or that which by creatioÌ„ it bread gaue thankes saying this is my body Can any man in his right witts imagine that Ireueus did not thinke writing so plainly as he doth that Christ spake of the bread wheÌ„ he said this is my body And saith himselfe in the next page that for signification of mystery they brake distribute also vnto others that heauenly bread in the forme of commoÌ„ bread I hope to salue this they wil not saie that they breake the reall fleshly bodie of Christ breake bread they doe though heauenlie heauenlie bread we doe not denie but the bread of the holy communion maie be called when it is sanctified made holy by the word of God and prayer put apart for that holy vse Dureus cont whit rat 2. f. 114 Stapl. reto art 1. fol. 12. Reioyn fol. 149. b. but yet bread and such bread as of which the substance of our flesh is increased consisteth as they all teach with one ioint consent out of Ireneus also I hope they are not come to that degree of blasphemy as to say that our substantial naturall bodies are augmented doe consist of the real and naturall body of Christ Therfore he must needes meane by their own trauises out of him that Christ both spake meant the bread when he said this is my body Quam vterque est similis sui Teren. in Phor act 3. scen 2 act 1. scen 5. such bread as is in vse amongst vs. You shall see further how like they are in this one to an other Ecce autem similia omnia omwes congruuni Vuum cognoris omnes noris all feathers of one winge knowe one knowe al Tradunt mutu as operas They help one an other but bringe their causes to noe good passe Lib. 1 fol. 18. Saunders saith Christ spake of the bread GratiaruÌ„ actio Fractio panis bene dicti This conuinceth plainly he spake of the bread L. 7. fol 629. Now hee cannot tel what to make of it Nec ad visibileÌ„ corporis Christi formaÌ„ nec ad hunc paneÌ„ velut qui maneat panisnec simul ad hune panem hoc corpus nec c D. Saunders in his visible monarchy treating of the sacrament saith verie plainly Christus de pane quem Apostols nonduÌ„ acceperant dixit Christ said of the bread which the Apostles had not yet receaued This is my body then he handleth his giuing of thankes after commeth to the breaking of the consecrated bread which I hope they wil not verifie of Christs reall body And a little after the words of our Lord saith he in the Eucharist are referred to the Elements for that saying This is my body is referred to the bread This is my blood to the Cup. But after yet a great while after so that wel he might forget himselfe in the same worke treating of the same matter he hath these words Disparata sunt panis triticens Corpus Christi Bread the body of Christ are saith hee two seperate diuers thinges so that wee iustly saie that the pronoune hoc this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ nether to the bread as it should remaine bread nether to the bread to gether with the body nor to the whole action of the supper but only to the body of our Lord iam tum de substantia panto factum euen then made of the substance of bread exhibited vnder the forme of bread Thus doth Saunders here make Christ haue two seuerall bodies one visible their present the other made of bread to that body there made of substance of bread hee referreth the worde this in the sentence this is my body so hee maketh the sence thus This body made of the substance of bread is my body which is a very vaine speech to noe purpose For by that exposition Christs body should bee there before the words of coÌ„secration were pronounced so there should be noe force and vertue in consecration or rather there should be consecration before consecration so consecratioÌ„ without consecration And a little after he saith At nunc pronomeÌ„ hoc But now the pronowne hoc this which she weth the whol substance rei proposita of the thing that is proposed or shewed What thinge you are afraid to call it any thing doth demonstrate noe other thinge then the body of Christ not remembring what hee said in the first booke as I even now recited that Christ spake of the bread which the A postles had not yet receaued when he said This is my body If he spake of the bread he spake not of his bodie if he spake of his body hee spake not of the bread and yet Saunders avoucheth both Saunders ibid l. 7. fol. 633. Marke this that he cofesseth the blessing came before the break ing In an other place going about to proue that the word this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ saith thus Cum Christus post acceptum panem benedictionem interpositam Seeing Christ after the taking of the bread and the blessing comming betweene did breake and giue to his disciples saying take eate this is my body it is cleare by the order course of the sentence that hee called that thinge his body which he gaue which
things cannot be spoken of the body of Christ though by meane of the accidents but by a trope Now if by a Trope Bellarmine meane a figure a signe or tokeÌ„ as the Eucharist is we willingly agree with him and with Allen too that whatsoeuer may be verified of the bread and wine before consecration may be said also of the body of Christ that we see it feele it breake it cate it and that it encreaseth the substance of our bodies Chrisost de sacerd l. 3. quoted by the Rhem Heb. 9.20 Hard. art 6. fol. 137. Toastall l. 1. f. 71. Dureus 2. rat fol. 118 Bellar. de eue sacra l 1. c. 2. fol. 27. 29. l 2 c. 22. fol 220. tuÌ„ vero turbam circumfusam precioso sanguine in tingâ— ac rubefieri They borrow each others names and feedeth them and that Christ is seene there by all the faithfull and handled with their hands as the Rhemists Harding Tonstall Dureus and Bellarmine do quote S. Chrysostome the rest vnto vs so as they will take withall that which the same Chrysostome saith in the same place that the people staÌ„ding about to receiue are besprinkled and made redde with that precious bloud and that we are not then conversant in earth among mortal men but translated into heaven If all this be too hard and harsh to affirme of the body bloud of Christ let them consider it is spoken by a trope or figure and verified actually and really of the bread and wine which speech the like are vsed of the fathers only to draw their hearers from fiâ—…ing their mindes below on the earthlie elements but to mount vp to heaven and their seeke Christ For as the bread in the Eucharist is called the Lordes body but in plaine and simple manner of speech is not fleshly and really the Lords body so is the body of our Lord sometime said to nourishour bodies and feede vs because the sacrament of his body feedeth vs and this is done in respect of the Enterchange of names the sacraments bearing the names of the things whereof they are sacraments and the things having attributed vnto them which is due only to the signes If Bellarmine meane any other thing by the word Trope than I haue expressed he falleth from the vse of the word and hath not satisfied the question nor rectified his fellows error But it is a worlde to see into what streightes the want of consideration in these pointes hath driven the adverse part proving their discourses to be hungry and barren hetherto without fruit because they proclaime war against the general edicts of nature reason Bellarmine againe De sacra euch l. 1. c. 14. fol. 117. 118. to avoide the grossenes of Allens and Hardings opinion of the mingling of the flesh of Christ with our bodies saith That the body of Christ going into the mouthes of the communicants passeth into the stomacke then the outward formes being corrupted and gonne The Eucharist is no meate for the body yet goeth in at the mouth and into the stomacke the body of Christ without any detriment to it selfe ceaseth to be there and that the body of Christ eaten by the faithfull is not for the nourishment of the bodie but of the soule Here is the rule of Christ and difference betweene the body and soule of man quite antiquated and confounded Our saviour decideth that nothing can enter both the hart and the belly and yet Bellarmine will haue one the same thing enter in at the one yet feed the other If our soules be nourished and not our bodies as hee saith then must our soules eate it and not our bodies Can our bodies eate and our soules be nourished by it What more contrary to al Religion Eating digesting and nourishing be consequent and coherent actions and therefore they must al three be either corporal or spiritual If the soule be nourished the soule must eate and digest that which is eaten If the body eat the body must digest and be nourished by that foode Eating is therefore in vaine without nourishing If then Christs flesh do enter our mouthes it is vtterly without profit to vs if it nourish not our bodies Thus are the wits of the greatest amongst theÌ„ even snared in their owne gins They handle therest that follow as vngainly as those before which lest I should coÌ„sent vnto by silence I will also set downe vnto you then iudge you of all To the question what it is in the sacrament that nourishâ—th our bodies seeing generally they deny it One is hungry an other is drunken 1. con 11. 21. of the body of Christ and taken immoderately after consecration will make a man drunke as S. Paule reproued the Corinthians for their abuse that way Thomas Aquinas the father of all popery Comment in 1. Cor. 11. lect 4. in fine and most acute disputer amongst them leaving the grossenes of the one absurdity of the other opinion before saith 1. That some amongst them haue saide That those things are not wrought by any conversion but by an alteration of the senses of a man by the accidents of bread and wine which remaine after consecration for men haue bin accustomed to be comforted by the only smel of meate and to be overcome and as it were made drunk by the abundant smell of wine 2. Some others haue said That the consecreted bread and wine may be conuerted into an other thinge so nourish because the substance of bread and wine remaineth with the substance of the body blood of Christ but this saith he is against the scripture 3. Some others haue said that the substantiall forme of bread remaineth which worketh the operatioÌ„ so it norisheth as the bread should nourish This he refelleth 4. Some haue said that the aire rouÌ„d about is conuerted into the substance of that which is nourished or into some such thinge But this saith he caÌ„not be 5. And therfore some haue said that by the power of God the substance of the bread wine is restored againe to the intent that the sacrament might not be found in such like conuersions But that is vnpossible 6. The accidents shews of bread can nourish De euch sacra l. i. c. 37. f. 432. How can you seuer the naturall properties of a thing froÌ„ the very thing it selfe Part. 2. q. 33. f. 189. His own conclusion is that the accidents formes of bread and wine can nourish make drunke as wel as if the substance of bread wine were there So D. Allen although he bee loth so to say The formes accidents of bread and wine are able to nourish make drunke performe all the offices duties naturall that the bread wine could when their substance was there So the Romish Catechisme Why is it called bread after consecration say they Aswel because it hath the shew of bread as also the natural property of nourishing feeding the body which
the seas Ex officina Christophori Plant. an 1571 Iun. in epist ad illustrissimum principem Ioannem Casimi rum Hunc foetum genuerunt illi sed nascentem inter genua sua presserunt as it was a going was intercepted The verie Authenticall booke of their owne impression singulari numinis prouidentiâ by gods prouidence was brought to a great Protestant who toke the pains for thē to send it by copies vnto al Protestāt Churches in Christendome so that that birth of theirs which like another monster they were diuers daies and nights in bringing forth thought when they had brought it forth to haue stifled it between their knees doth now liue in good liking through good cherishing but to the perpetuall in famie of the parents An other helpe like vnto that before in effect they doe also vse to make their schollers to thinke that the ancient Doctors of the Church doe all make for them The elder schollers and those that read vnto the rest take paines most in the controuersies hauing found what liketh thē to confirme their doctrine doe write it in breife deliuer it in notes to their schollers out of their written sheetes neuer suffering them to looke into the doctors originalls thēselues so that whensoeuer it please the Masters to coggorly either by adding or abating the text which they finde the schollers are deceaued abused thinking such such authorities doe make for them when if the grounds bee looked into they shew nothing lesse then they quote them for which dealing of the Masters with their owne schollers caused a faithfull teacher of this land Reinolds conference with Hart. c. 1. diuis 1. fol. 4. to wish his Concumbatāt for his owne good to looke into the originall books themselues for proofe of that which he was to dispute of because he knewe hee would otherwise bee deceaued if hee trusted those on whom he meant to relie which was the greatest freest liberty that could be graunted to anie man Thus much haue I bin willing to shew by the way at first Sic. habent principia sese Ter. in Phor. Act. 3. scen 1. touching their politick but not religious courses in astonishing the world vvith that religion vvhich only is boulstred out by manie indirect courses perceaued euerie day more more I wil now according to my first intent goe forward to set before your eies the manie differences and implications which they vse in expressing their minds in that question of the sacrament betweene them vs remembring here noe other thinge then that which themselues doe euer giue in charge In the explication of the true catholike faith in the sacrament f 4. b Then is the doctrine of the Church of Rome not the truth as shall manifestly appeare hereafter to be regarded advised vpon to be ioined with that good counsel of D. Hardinge set down before Amongst manie other proofs saith Gardiner wherby truth after much trauaile in contention at the last preuaileth hath victorie there is none more notable then when the verie adversaries of truth who pretend never the lesse to be truthes freinds doe by some euident vntruth bewraie themselues For on that part ever is the truth where al sayings doings appear vniformely consonāt to the truth pretended And on what side a notable lie appeareth the rest maie be iudged after the same sort for truth needeth noe aide of lies craft or slight NOTE WEL wherwith to be supported maintained So that in the intreating of the truth of this high ineffable mysterie of the sacrament on what part thou seest craft shift slight or obliquitie or in anie one point an open manifest lie there thou maiest consider whatsoeuer pretence bee made of truth yet the victorie of truth not to be there intēded which loueth simplicitie plain nesse direct speech without admixture of shift or colour Thus farre Gardener To this purpose also speaketh D. Saunders Protestantium inter se dissensiones certissimam fidem faciuat doctrinae veritatem non penes illos verum penes ecclesiam Romanamesse Devisibili monar l. 7. f. 627. The dissentions amongst the Protestants saith he doe make evident proofe that the truth is not on their sides but altogether on the Church of Romes wherin amongst the beleiuers there is one hart one soule on tongue vnder one Pastor the Pope Now if notwithstanding their braggs of truth evidence of truth nothing but truth on their side there doe fall out in searching of their bookes that they doe nothing lesse thē further that which they most extol I hope you will not laie the fault blame on me that doe but shew that so they doe but rather on them whoe deliuer such matter Si illum obiurges vitae qui auxilium tulit Terenc in Andr act 1. scen 1 quid facias illi qui dederit damnum aut malum saith the Poet If you blame him that shal further your health by his best indeauour what wil you doe to an other that shal seeke to bring you into danger But indeed all their clamours against vs or petite glozes in defence of themselues or faire admonitions to their readers Actor P Clodius aedilis Reus sui que patronus Cice ro acta in sen anno Ciceronis 51. vrbis 697. de haruspicū respōsis to beware of vs are but as that accusation of Publius Clodius against Tully who hauing himselfe sacrilegiously abused certaine holy things appertaining to the Temple and fearing least Tuily would accuse him in the senate first complained of him that all religion was prophaned in his house Tub. I both perceaue what you would saie as also what you are willing I should conceaue touching their dealing in these matters Goe to the question of the sacrament I pray you because in that they pretend most perspicuitie clearnesse Rom. I knowe they doe In confidence wherof on that was great amongst them once said Camp rat 2. Adhuc durissimae partes Caluini sūt nostrae faciles explicatae Moreouer the Protestāts are verie harsh in this question but our arguments are cleare expedite which whether it be so or noe iudge you The counsell of Trent which they al follow Conc Trid. less 13. can 1. on whom they al depend in this and all other points hath thus defined therof Si quis negauerit c. If anie man shal denie that in the sacrament of the holy Eucharist there is not contained vere realiter substantialiter truly really substantially the body blood together with the soule diuinitie of our Lord sauiour Iesus Christ in that respect whole Christ let him bee accursed negaueritque mirabilem illam singularem conuersionem totius substantiae panis in corpus or shal denie that maruelous only conversion of the whole substance of the bread Can. 2. into the body and of the whole substance of the wine
made partakers of his flesh and blood of the sacrament of the aultar without any transubstantiatiō of the bread into the body of Christ Vt ante can 8. sacramentally really are a tearmes contrary yet cōfounded More ouer they hold that Christ is eaten there sacramentally really which two tearmes as they vtter them are very opposit for if there be nothing to be eaten but the reall substātiall body of Christ what is eaten sacramentally Wee affirme that Christ is there sacramentally is eaten sacramentally by his spirit present by his grace as hee is in the sacrament of baptisme that is properly sacramentall Againe speaking of the vse and profite of that sacrament Cap. 8. de vsu admirabilis hu ius sacramenti 1. Sacramentally they say there be three sorts of Receiuers some that receaue it only sacramentally as sinners others spiritually in desire by a liuely faith thirdly those that receaue it sacramentally spiritually both together Which three waies may bee taken for sound Orthodoxall 2. Spiritually who cannot for the time communicate if we could cause them to tell vs what they meane by sacramentally If by sacramentally they mean really fleshly and substantially as at the first they treated of his presence there 3. Sacramentally spiritually who doe cōmunicate as they ought Ioh. 6.54.56 Sacramentally Spiritually so say the Protestants how doe they make good that sinners and wicked persons doe eate his verie flesh and drinke his verie blood as they saie they doe since the worde of life it selfe that mouth which neuer spake guile hath said He that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood hath eternall life I will raise him vp at the last daie And hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me I in him And by the third waie described that those eate him sacramentally spiritually who doe duly prepare themselues puting on the wedding garmēt doe come vnto that holy table doth breed an other scruple how sacramentally can stand with spiritually vnderstanding by sacramentally Really substantially may stād to gether but spiritually cannot as they did before really fleshly substātially those two tearmes being also vsed of the Protestants who say the wicked doe eate sacramētally only that is the sacrament of his body and bloud the godly sacramentally spiritually that is bread and wine with the hand mouth the body blood by faith and noe otherwise which are the right vse of the words sacramentally spiritually Againe I may demand of them why they doe not describe the presence of Christ to be spiritual sacramental aswel as describe him so to be eaten they saie he is eaten by on of those three waies of al men in generall good bad and to al men good bad they describe him presēt really truly substantially body soule diuinitie and al yet eaten only sacrementally spiritually now it is not possible to be thought but that the spirituall eating of Christ in the sacrament excludeth the corporall as his spiritual presence wil his corporall or substantiall nether can noe one meat be fit both for the body and soule as al men knowe And therfore if they will dissent from vs not from themselues also they must dispute either of a corporall eating of the flesh of Christ De manducati one corporis domini sit ne illa vera antropica sensibilis an insensibilis modo corporeo an spirituali l. 4. chron fol. 790 Fallacia alia aliā trudit Ter. in And. act 4. scen 4. De sac euc l. 1 c. 11. fol. 92. c. 14. fol. 117. l. 2. c. 8. fol. 163 or of a spiritual only as Genebrard confesseth was brought in about Bertrams time almost 800. yeares since not to a corporall to adde a spiritual of one the same thinge nor confound the tearmes of sacramentall spirituall reall Againe it is alwaies seene one absurditie draweth on an other I demand how their tearme of receauing spiritually doth agree with Bellarmine whoe saith that the body of Christ is verily properly eaten in the Eucharist by our body sent frō the mouth into the stomake that the body of Christ entreth in at the mouth of the communicants and is verily receaued by the mouth of the body small spirituall receauing is there by the instruments of the mouth belly Faith must haue other food if it were so it should not be said Crede manducasti beleiue thou hast eaten but lay hold with thy hand thou art safe The next in authoritie to the Trent Fathers is the Romish Cathechisme gathered by their decree Catec Rom. p. 1. art 6. c. 7. fol 57. The right sēce of the article ouerthroweth Transubstantiation published by Pius quintus the Pope The catechisme intreating of that article of our beleife He ascended into heauen and suteth one the right hand of god the father almightie doe say the right sense of that article is that the faithful without al doubt ought to be leiue that Christ the mysterie of our redemption being perfected and finished vt homo est in coelum corpore animâ ascendisse as he is man is ascended in body and soule into heauen For as hee is God hee was neuer from thence Vt qui diuinitate sua loca ominia cōpleat The causes why hee ascēded ib. fol. 59. The benefits of his ascention ibid. fol. 61 filling al places with his diuinitie And speaking of the causes whie Christ our sauiour would ascend vp into heauen one is beecause by ascending say they hee would bringe to passe that wee should mount vp thither in minde and affection and amongst many benefits which come vnto men by his ascention into heauen they reckon this a great one quod amorem nostrum ad coelum rapuit ac diuino spiritu inflammauit that it draweth our mindes and loue to heauen inflameth them with a diuine spirit for it is truly said There our harte is Marc. 6. where our treasure is surly if Christ our Lord were conuersant in earth omnis nostra cogitation in ipso hominis aspectu consuetudine defixa esset al our cogitations would be placed in the looking maner of him we shold behold him only as man becaus he had don so great things for vs But ascending into heauen it maketh our loue heauenly and causeth that whom wee think of being absent him we worship and loue as God which doctrine of theirs being very sound and Catholike cannot chuse but ouerthrowe their owne opinion of Transubstantiatiō Catec p. 2. c. 4. fol. 181. which bringeth the same body of Christ that same that was borne of the Virgin which is ascended and sitetth now euer shal at the right hand of his father in heauen to bee transubstantiated into bread to bee contained in the sacrament
ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt And by reason of this similitude they vsually take the names of the things themselues This is without glose or ambiguitie Christ saith S. Augustine was once offered in himselfe And is offered daily in a sacrament for that the speech should be vnderstood how once how daily it is added in a sacrament and in himselfe And why when it is done now but in a sacrament may it yet be truly said Christ is offered because sacraments haue the names of the thinges them selues for a certaine resemblance that is betweene theÌ„ This doth the words immediatly following shew Sieut ergo secundum quendam medum Therfore after a certaine manner of speech the sacrament of Christs body is Christs body the sacrament of Christs blood is Christs blood the sacrament of faith is faith this he illustrateth afteriby the sacrameÌ„t of Baptisme out of S. Paule Rom. 6. whoe saith by Baptisme wee bee buried with Christ into death he saith not we signifie buriall but he saith plainly wee bee buried so that the sacrament of so great a thinge is not called but by the name of the thing it self Cip. tom 2. de vnct Chris mat fere fine Thus far Augustine S. Cyprian was before S. Augustine certaine huÌ„dreds of yeares hee telleth vs without any scruple or bone cast in of doubt both what Christ did at his last supper and what on the crosse in sound words few Dedit dominus noster in mensa Our Lord at the table wherat hee receaued his last supper with his disciples with his own hands gaue bread wine But vpon the crosse he gaue his own body with the souldiers hands to be wounded This is by S. Cyprian the sacrifice of the table the sacrifice of the crosse at the one he gaue bread wine vpon the other he gaue his body Here is noe vailing of him vnder formes and shewes of bread and wine nospeaking of quantitieâ— qualities without substaÌ„ce nor offering vp of him to God his father In an other place he saith in most plaine words Tom. 2. de bap tism Christi manif trinit fine Nec sacerdotij eius paenituit deuÌ„ It neuer repented God saith he of Christs preisthood For the sacrifice that he offered vpoÌ„ the crosse is so acceptable in the goodwil of God so standeth in continuall strength virtue that the same oblatioÌ„ is noe lesse acceptable this day in the sight of God the Father then it was that daie when blood water ranne out of his wounded side semper reseruatae in corpore plaga salutis humana exigant pretium obedieutiae donatiuum requirant And the skarrs teserued stil in his body doe suffice for the redemption of man and doe require a fauour because of the obedience This is plaine according to the scriptures Heb 7.23.27 10. v. 12. 9 v. 28. that once Preist by one sacrifice once offered that is our sauiour by giuing himselfe to death vpoÌ„ the Crosse hath reconciled vs to God sanctified vs for euer cuteth of their many Preists to offer ofteÌ„ as though there were left now after the death of Christ an offering for sin or his pretious blood were of noe greater value then the blood of Bull Goates which were offered often because they coulde not purge sinne There is a Master amongst them called the Master of the esnteÌ„ces Vide Genebr Chron l. 4. an 1159. fol. 932. P. Lumbard or Longobardus who collected a breife of doctrine out of the Greeke latine Fathers ancienter by far then the counsel of Trent Allen Canus or the Rhemists and before any Protestant if they saie true that are accustomed to lie who liued in the yeare of our Lord Bishop of Paris anno Paris 1160. vpon whose bookes suruey hath bin made although they haue gathered noe Index vpon him as they haue done vpon others yet they haue noted him in manie places where they mislâ—ke him with a non tenetur the master is not allowed here Magister hic non tenetur This Catholike Doctor much renowned amongst them taught euen as the ProtestaÌ„ts doe in this quaeâ—stioÌ„ of the sacrifice of Christ in the Masse yet hath escaped froÌ„ amongst them without so much as an item for it which manifestly sheweth that though they haue vs offenders in that matter they haue their cheife Master also a ringleader therin themselues or brethreÌ„ accessary therto because they haue not taxed him therfore And howsoeuer we maie be faultie the case standing as it doth our aunswere is the same with the womans in the poet Nam si ego digna hac contumelia sum maximè Terenc in Eunueh act 5. scen 2. Senec. in Medea act 3. at tu indignus qui faceres tamen For although I be neuer so wel worthy to be so spitfully handled yet were you no meete man to doe it saith shee And as Medea saith to IasoÌ„ Omnes coniugem infamem arguant solus tuere solus insontem voca Tibi innocens sit quisquis est pro te nocens Let others defame me with infamie yet doe thou only take my part doe thou call me iust vndefiled let him be an innocent to thee who for thee doth transgresie The words of Lumbard are these Sent l. 4. dis 12 parag 7. Christ is not now really offered but the memorie of his sacrifice is celebrated Post heac quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos propriè dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidie immolatur vel semel tantum immolatus sit I demand saith he whether that which the preist doth be properly called a sacrifice an oblation or not and whether Christ bee daily offered or else were offered only once To this saith he our answere in breif is that that which is offered consecrated by the Preist is called a sacrifice oblation because it is a memory representation of the true sacrifice holy oblation which was made on the aultar of the crosse Et semel Christus mortuus in cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipse Christ also died once on the Crosse there was he offered himselfe quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento but hee is offered daily in a sacrament because in the sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once don on the Crosse And this is not Peter Lumbardes opinion only but his strong proofe collection out of all the Fathers Greeke and Latine noe one of theÌ„ euer dreaming of sacrificing the sonne of God to his father or of making the same sacrifice vnbloody which Christ made bloody or to haue the sacrament both the thing it selfe and a remembrance of it selfe al at one time Wherfore although the sacrifice be a true proper soueraigne propitiatorie sacrifice as it is defined by the Trent Fathers yet
that sacrifice which the ancient Church of God 1400. yeares before those of Trent spake of was not so caled properly according to the rigor of the word with them the celebration of the Lordes supper is called an oblation for that it is a representatioÌ„ of Christs death sacraments haue names of the things which they signifie because the merits fruits of Christs passion are by the power of his spirit devided bestowed on the faithful receauers of these mysteries Thomas of Aquine was in his time of greater credit with them then the Master of the sentences Acutè diuus Thomas vt omnia Camâ— rat 9. argutissime Canus l. 12 to 408. Melius diuus Thomas vt omnia dixit Allen fol. 419. p. 3. q 83. art I resp dicendum ex Aug. ad sim pl. quest 3. If Thom. had thought that Christ had bin killed sacrificed to God his father as D. Allen disputeth l. 2. c 11 he needed not to haue hand led it as here he doth Camp rat 5. Duraeus eaâ—… fol. 265. Art 17 cont luel fol 206. b. 207. a. though in time later the Master is not euer allowed by them but Thomas they saie hath done all things acutly well yet hee saith as we say in this In two respects saith hee celebratio butus sacraements dicitur immolatio Christi the celebratioÌ„ of this sacrameÌ„t may be called the sacraficing of Christ First because as S. Augustine saith resemblances are wont to be called by the name of those things wherof they are resemblances therfore the celebration of this sacrament is a certaine representatiue Image of the passion of Christ which is his true sacrificing Secondly touching the effect of Christs passion quia scilicet per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus dominicae passionis because by this sacrament wee are made partakers of the fruite of the Lords passioÌ„ This of Thomas were ceaue against their reall external corporal kinde of offering the liue flesh of Christ to God the Father by the Preists handes vnder the formes of bread wine as now they teach they doe With what facilitie of language D. Harding D. Stephan Gardiner proceeded in this question I will now also shew you and the rather because Campian Durâ—us both doe highly commeÌ„d D. Harding his worke he hauing spoken something of the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse done with shedding of blood in his owne person as the scripture witnesseth commeth to shew how he is handled in their Masse saith Sacramentally or in a mysterie Christ is offered vp to his Father in the daily sacrifice of the Church vnder the forme of bread and wine truly indead not in respect of the maner of offering but in respect of his very body blood really present And after recitinge the words of the Evangelists Luc. 22 how that Christ at his last supper took bread gaue thankes brake it said take eate this is my body which is giuen for you and this is my blood which is shed for you in remission of sinnes out of which he would proue his sacrifice saith they are wordes of sacrificing offering they shew and set forth an oblation in act deed though the tearme it selfe of oblatioÌ„ or sacrifice be not expressed therfore belike seeing nether any tearmes nor words to make for it there afterwards vpon more deliberation he peeceth out the Euangelists S Paul for Christ said Doe yes this in my remembrance he readeth doe yee or make yee this in my remembrance Reioynder f. 283. 305. Tully de natur deotum l. 1. feâ—e fine Elephanto belluarum nullaprudentior at figuraÌ„ quae vastior Of beasts saith Tully none is more wiser then the Elephant in shape none more deformed M. Harding was thought for that time to haue dealt substantially against his aduersary in substance of matter none more weake Who can explaine how Christ is offered really in their Masse yet not in respect of the manner of offering what manner what respect is this Or what words of sacrificing and offering did Christ vse at his last supper without any tearme of oblatioÌ„ sacrificing Hoc non est considerare sed quasi sortiri quid loquare Tull. ibid. This is not to speake with discretion but as it were by lot hap-hazard But the truth is Christ vsed noe word tearme or act of sacrificing at his last supper we maruaile not then though M. Harding say hee expressed it not by any tearme Yet the farthest of from al truth is Hard. Ibid. fol 209. A necessary point of Christian doctrine yet without al manner of Religion that which in the prosecution of this article he deliuereth which is that Christ at the very same instant of time that he offered himselfe on the Crosse with shedding of blood we must vnderstaÌ„d for a necessary point of Christian doctrine that he offered himselfe invisibly as concerning man in the sight of his heauenly father bearing the markes of his woundes and there appeareth before the face of God with that thorne prickt naile boared speare perced other wounded rent torne body for vs. Here are 4 sacrifices made of one The same Christ sacrificed at his last supper the same Christ on the Crosse the same Christ at the same time sacrificed in heauen the same Christ sacrificed in the Masse How M. Harding can bring Christs sacrificed into heaueÌ„ without his tormentors is hard to conceaue Aâ—…as Caiphas Iudas Pilate the rest of that damned crew indeed for without those wretches Christs blood was not shed and without shedding of blood there is noe remission of sinne Where M. Harding shold euer findany such doctrine deliuered before him I cannot iudge Heb. 9. l. 12. fol. 421. a incruentam oblationem Christus in cae lis fecit In his explication assertion of the true catholike faith l. 5. fol. 144 b. Noe iteration of Christs sacrifice except he did allight vpon it in Melchior Canus who amongst other idle vaine discourses of their Masse insinuateth such a thinge speaking of an vnbloody sacrifice in heauen offered there by Christ Stephan Gardiner sometime Bishop of Winchester a sure card to the posters at Rome writing purposly of the sacrifice of the Masse beginneth wel saith it is agreed by the scriptures plainly taught that the oblation sacrifice of our sauiour Christ was is a perfect worke once consummate in perfectioÌ„ without necessity of iteratioÌ„ as it was neuer taught to be iterate but a meere blasphemy to presuppose it This is sound Catholike if he would abide by it but within two leaues after hee saith wee must beleiue the very presence of Christs body and blood on Gods board and that the Priests doe their sacrifice and bee therfore called sacrificers If the Preists doe there sacrifice Ibid. fol. 146. b verie sacrificers theÌ„ doe they either iterate Christs sacrifice or
theÌ„ al there is noe one that standeth sure either to himselfe or to his fellowes it must needes bee iudged the weaknesse of the cause which they maintaine Conâ—ut resp Whitak rat 9. sol 601. that cause them thus to stumble Dureus the Iesuite comming to handle this matter against D Whitakers saith If Christ testified that which hee gaue to his disciples was his body assuredly it could not be bread from whence it necessarily commeth to passe that the bread which Christ took into his haÌ„ds was changed into his body by the force and vertue of his diuine wordes â—oc totam nimirum quam manicus tenebat substantiaÌ„ demonstrans est corpus meum Accipitâ— inquit Christus comedite Take saith Christ eate Quid tandem what then This shewing al that substance which he had in his hands is my body Why how now Dureus why walke you in these cloudes why doe you not tell vs what substance that was which Christ had in his handes Bread or noe bread the bodie or noe bodie That which Christ tooke he gaue although you deny it saying panem in manus accepisse fatcor Dureus rat 2. fol. 94. dedissenego That Christ tooke bread in his hands I confesse that he gaue bread I denie but was not the bread which he took that substance which you saie he shewed hauing it in his hands it cannot be otherwise for the words of chang as you saie this is my bodie not come yet If Dureus aunswere as hee will that he spake not of the bread which he tooke let him yet resolue vs what inbstance that was which he had in his han des shewed his disciples when he said Take eate this is my body Fecistis probèi incertior sum mulâ—o quaÌ„ dudum Teren in Phor. act 2. scen 3. Si verò quenquam illud ad huc moueat quomodo pro. nomina in sacramentalibus verbis possint demonstra re corpns sanguinem quae adhuc non suÌ„t cum ca efferuÌ„tur aut quomodonoÌ„ plane in dicent paneÌ„ vinum quae reuera tum ex istunt-Legat c. AlleÌ„ de sac Euch. l. 1. f. 42â— Bellar. de sacr Euc. l i c. ii f. 83 This doth not demonstrate the bread nor the body according to Thomas It doth not demonstrate the bread precisly Sic tamen vt demonstratio proprie ad species pertineat Sed in obliquo hoc modo Ibid fol. 85. Ibid. fol. 88 This Ens this thinge or this substance If he resolue not this he resolueth not our doubt but leaueth vs more vncertaine theÌ„ before for this is it that troubleth vs how the word this can demonstrate the body and blood which are not there when the word is spoken not demonstrate point the bread wine which certainly are there then as saith D. Allen And if the bread wine be there then euen when the wordes this is my body are spoken then are they there both at the breaking and giuing as they vtterly woulde denie Sâ—…ll Bellarmine the mouth of their senate conclude the coÌ„trouersie yes say they we al agree Heare him theÌ„ a maÌ„ of a polished wit Although saith hee the Catholikes doe agree in the thinge yet doe they not agree in the manner of explaining what the worde this should demonstrate Two famous opinions there are amongst them one that the pronoune this should demonstrate the body which opinion he refuseth as not consonant to the truth howsoeuer Allen and Saunders as you heard before did so teach The other is of Thomas Aquinas others verie manie whoe haue followed him that the pronoune this doth not demonstrate the bread precisely nor the bodie but a substance in common which is vnder those formes yet so that the demonstration appertaineth properly to the formes but not that the fence be This that is these formes are my body but thus on this sort this is my body that is vnder these formes is my bodie So that the word This doth not demonstrate the bread nor the body of Christ but that which is coÌ„tained vnder those forms Therfore we doe not say saith he this that is this substance or as Scotus this Ens but This that is the substance contained vnder these formes Here in Bellarmine you haue al that art or falshood can deuise to darken the truth with all Doth anie man yet conceaue by them what the word This poiuteth vnto but for very shame he wold saie it pointed to the bread he denieth it but in part he saith it doth not preciselie point the bread therfore I say he doth not precisely denie it His fellowes before him wil in noe sort haue it so But hee vtterly denieth that it pointeth to the body yet is he more out then they when hee saith the demonstration this doth properly belonge to the formes and yet the sence must not bee These formes are my body But not withstanding his deniall it must be so if he saiâ— true For if you referre the word this to the bread the sence wil be This bread is my body This body is my body Theâ—… formes are my body 〈◊〉 bread it my bodie therfore they denie it If it be referred to the body the sense must be this bodie is my bodie which Bellarmine denieth And what should let but if he saie it pointeth to the formes it should bee These formes are my body But he wil haue it thus That which is contained vnder these formes is my bodie And what with him them too is contained vnder those formes but the body of Christ Bread they saie there is none so according to Bellarmine the sense wil be This body vnder these formes is my bodie or otherwise to tel vs directly what it was that was contained vnder those formes In the chapter next beefore reciting out of S. Bellar de euch sacra l. 1. c. 10. fol. 69. Allen de Euc. sac l. 1. c. 15. Rhem an not Mat. 26 v. 26. parag 7. Refertur ad materiam quae erat in manibus Luc. 9. Marc. 8 Luc. vlt. Resolue me in this and I will yeild the whol Markes Gospel the order of the EvaÌ„gelists he saith it cannot bee doubred but Christ hauing taken the bread blessed it brake it gaue it to his disciples but as the breaking and giuing is referred to the matter which was in his handes so his blessing too should bee referred thither which was to the bread We grant him if so that wil pleasure him that Christ blessed the bread and that Christ neuer vsed to blesse or giue thanks but at some notable memorable worke as at the multiplying of the loaues in the Gospel and blessing of his disciples is read here in the institution of the supper But did Bellarmine euer read that the blessing of any creature sensible or insensible was the changing transubstantiation of the substance of it so that it was not the same substance after
that it was before if he cannot proue this he commeth short of his purpose to take needlesse paines to proue a thing not denied For both he al others of his side when they speake of blessing of the bread meane only a turning change of one substance into an other such a change as blessing nether can or euer did work yet Bellarmine must remember that in the institution of the supper the breaking followeth after the blessing so that here is a doubt what is brokeÌ„ bread there is none the Body of Christ I say must not be brokeÌ„ which consideratioÌ„ maketh Bellarmine salue himselfe an other waie by saying To be broken agreeth not to the body of Christ but in the forme of bread Bellar. de mis l. 1. c. 12. f. 699. To be brokeÌ„ a. greeth not to the body of Christ but in the forme of bread Allen de Euch. sacra l. 1. c. 15. c 16. Bell. de sac euch l. 1 c. 10. Rhem. annot Mat. 26 v. 26. parag 7. what need hee saie in the forme of bread why the body of Christ is not there but vnder the forme of bread therfore by him there is as very a breaking of the body of Christ as there is a verie presence a preseÌ„ce vnder the forme of bread a breaking in the forme of bread D. Allen in two seuerall chapters goeth about to proue First that Christ did blesse or Eucharishze the bread wine that with certaine words next that those wordes Hoc est corpus meum this is my body are the words of Consecration that those two are both one first froÌ„ the nature of the worde benedicere to blesse he discourseth wonderfully both in Greeke Latine of the strength vertue of it Fol. 291 Quanquam totam ceremo niam ordinem non narrent nec plura verba quibus ea seu â—ucharistiâ— seu Eulogia facta est Ver bonè an sola voluntatâ— aut impositione manuum fol. 294. Luc. vlt. the vse it hath in holy scripture in the Doctors yet hath not brought any one example neere his purpose For how can he say that that blessing vsed by our sauiour was the blessing of the creatures elemeÌ„ts an actiue blessing a powerful blessing seeing he confesseth himselfe that the Evangelists doe not recite any order of the blessing nor expresse any more wordes that belongeth therto but only the words blessing giuing thaukes and also doubteth whether Christ did blesse by auie words or by his intent and will or by laying on of hands For we read not saith he what Christ did or said in the blessing of the things Notwithstanding this hee is so far in loue with his owne conceipt of blessing by certaine words that he bring eth the bread for an example which Christ blessed at Emaus when the two disciples knewe him which saith he is taken of many of the ancients to bee the Eucharist although the Evangelist recite no wordes in forme how it was done No words of consecration mentioned so that we may see whatsoeuer he is disposed to proue be there scripture or be there none all is one with him he wil aduenture to perswade what liketh him best Allen eodem lib post c. 45. fol. 480. And yet the same maÌ„ a farre of in an other part of the same booke speaking of the same matter as hauing forgotten himselfe saith That the text of S. Luke cap. vlt. and all the order of the narration doth shew that the whole action was like to the consecrating of the Eucharist Now it is the Eucharist hee tooke saith the Evangelist bread he blessed it he brake the bread and reached it vnto them If this action here done be like to the order of consecration vsed at the Eucharist then there may be consecration without addition of This is my body which hee professeth to proue to bee al one or to be the words of blessing it selfe yea without receauing at al for there is no commaund of eating Allen trauerseth here this example to proue the coÌ„munion in one kinde lawfull for the lay people But I would not wish D. Allen or any papist of them al to liue by the losse for although they thinke to gaine by the practise of Christ there in drawing it to confirme their defaulking of one part of the sacrameÌ„t from the lay people because there is no mention made of the wine yet will they lose by it if the exaÌ„ple were stronge enough for one kinde because there is no mention of any consecration where no consecration is there is no reall presence and so they shall lose Transubstantiation all And can it bee the Eucharist without these But howsoeuer D. Allen woulde haue vs beleeue that it is the opinion of many of the ancients and of great druines that that is to be vnderstood of the Eucharist yet Bellarmine who is more freer of his report saith De sacraÌ„ ieuc l. 4. c. 24. f. 563. that touching that place there be two opinions amongst the Catholikes themselues The one is of Iohn of Louaine others that it was the Eucharist the other of Iansenius that it was not the Eucharist both these great men with that side But to returne to D. Allen from whom I haue a little digressed to follow him in his Blessing ConsecratioÌ„ Allen vt ante de euch c. 15. fol. 294. Qua re credeÌ„ dum est Christum benedicendo panem verbo aliquo vsum fuisse non solo tactu aut virtute euÌ„ sanctificasse Et cum eodeÌ„ verbo quo benedixit consecrasse putetur ab antiquitate pene ab om nibus theologis licet pauci quidam negeÌ„t cumque hic vt saepe docuimus coÌ„secrare materiam sit conficere sacramentum sequi tur idem illud verbum benedictionis esse formam huius sacramenti vt idem sit beney dicere vti verbis consecrationis seu applicare verba consecrationis ad elemeÌ„ ta proposita To blesse to consecrate is al one He commendeth this opinion with great reasons yet he refuseth it Ibid. 295. 1. He tooke bread 2. He blessed 3. He brake gaue 4. This in my body Tho. Aquin. p. 3. q. 78. saith the order should be Wherfore saith hee it is to be beleeued that Christ by blessing the bread vsed some word that he did not sanctifie it only by touching it or by his power And since it is iudged by antiquitie almost by all diuines although some few denie it that Christ consecrated by the same word wherby he blessed that to consecrate the matter is to make the sacrameÌ„t it followeth that that same worde that is the blessing is the forme of this sacrament insomuch that it is al one to blesse to vse the words of consecration or to apply the words of consecration to the elements set before
vs Notwithstanding this saith he it must not be dissembled that there are some diuines amongst whom is Bonauenture Caietane Dominicus Soto who affirme that Christ did not blesse by the wordes of Consecration therfore to blesse the bread and to consecrate the bread was two diuers things in the action of Christ so the chāge was not made by the blessing but after by the sacramentall wordes Which opinion saith he although it may probably be defended may seeme to be agreeable to the vse of the Church which nowe blesseth the bread by the signe of the Crosse before it vse the word of Consecration and may lesse trouble the order of the Evangelists who after the mention of blessing doe put the breaking distributing then in the fourth place the word of the sacrament it bringeth also some reuerence to the sacrament for if bread should bee broken by Christ after it were consecrate some small mites of the cōsecrated host might by likely hood haue fallen away These reasons saith he although they be waighty yet the safer opinion more agreeable to antiquitie and in euerie Church almost allowed which the Tridentine counsel doth in their catechisme follow is that whē Christ blessed he consecrated the things set before him That we ought so vnderstād that Christ blessed by saying This is my body 1. Hee tooke bread 2. Blessed it said 4. This is my body 3. He brake gaue Cicer. offic l. 2. although the Euāgelists by an inverted order of the speech or seting that after which should goe before doe put the distributing the breaking betweene the blessing and the forme of the sacrament which as it is very likly was done after the consecration or else euen as Christ did speake the words Facta omnia celeriter tanquam floscule decidunt This trecherie and deceipt cannot any lōger be hid it is apparent to all mē Neither is it any maruel that they who make of the Gospell as a thing made to bee handled as they thinke good should lose themselues in the labarinth of their owne druises as if reason had euen purposly forsaken them who of purpose forsake God the author therof For haue they these 1605. yeares been mounted on the stage of arrogancie out brauing a better cause then their owne and crying the Gospell the Gospell you Protestants heretiks both denie depraue it now doth D. Allen tell vs freely and vnconstrianedly that the Gospell will not serue their turnes as the Euangelists haue deliuered the order of the Lords supper What shall now become of Campians bragge Agedum pagella scripta superiores sumus ac sententia scripticontenditur Camp 2. ratio Goe to saith he we haue the better of it by the written word now we must debate the meaning No saith Allen the Gospel is not for vs And I say nether the writing nor the meaning of the writing is any for you And therfore Christo proprior ab hac lite remotior that age or antiquity which is nearest to Christ is farthest of from thē in this controuersy And for that one hand washeth an other they both wash the face often one foote strengthneth an other and they both stay the body so the testimonie of Cardinall Caietane in this case shall stay D Allen that hee be not vtterly ruinated because of his large graunt which they both haue yeelded in confirming the truth Caiet commēt super Tho p. 3 q. 75. art 1. Caietane in his Commentary on Thomas Aquinas vpō this question whether in the sacrament there be the body of Christace cording to the truth of it saith that touching that present demaund the rest following for the more manifest cleare vnd erstanding of the difficulties in them it is to be considered that touching the being of the body of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist there is nothinge writtē in the holy scripture but the words of our sauiour This is my body and those words must be true And because saith he the words of the scripture are expounded two waies ether properly or figuratiuely Vel propriè vel metaphoricè the first error about those wordes is of them that did interpret them figuratiuely which both the M. of the sentences Thomas doe proue in this article Ft consistit vis reprobationis in hoc the strēgth of the reproofe resteth in this that the words of the Gospell are vnderstood of the Church properly I say of the Church beecause there is not any constraint in the Golpell to cause vs to take them properly ex subiunctis siquidem verbis There is nothinge in the Gospell to cōstraine vs to take these wordes properly without a figure De lapsis ser 5. Cont. haeres l. 3. c. 11. fol. 237 Parisijs anno 1545. Allen vt ante l. 1. c. 16 Reciteth 4. seuerall opiniōs amōgst them touching the words of consecreation The iudgment of that Pope is refused who determined transubstantiation for thē for truly by the words following which shal be giuen for you in remission of sinnes it cannot bee concluded euidently that the former wordes This is my body are to be vnderstood properly So here be two cardinals Allen Catetaine who say that not the Gospel but the Church maketh for them Is there a Church where the Gospel is not Non iungitur Ecclesia qui ab Evangelio separatur he is not ioyned to the Church saith S. Cypriam who is separated from the Gospell S. Ireneus saith Columna firmametum ecclesie est Evāgelium spiritus vitae The Pillar and stability of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life But the truth is there is on their side in this question neither the Church nor the gospel nor any antiquitie at all To proceede with D. Allen in the other Chapter specified before by me wherein he laboureth to proue that the words of Christ This is my body are the words of Consecration he is further willing to let vs knowe what differences there hath bin amongst their schoole diuines who euer haue bin the vpholders of popery about the words of Consecratiō which they should be The first opinion is of Innocentius the third who called the great councel of Lateran and decreed Transubstantiatiō who said that Christ did consecrate by his divine power when he blessed and vsed therein the power of his might doing that without forme of words which we cannot do without a prescript order so that after he had consecrated he deliuered to vs these words This is my body by which words the Church should euer after consecrate This opinion of the Pope is reproved by Thomas Aquinas as beeing directly against the words of the scripture and by Allen as being vntrue The second opinion is of some who thought that Christ when hee blessed did consecrate 2. but with other words thā those where with he taught vs to consecrate But
that opinion saith he caÌ„ scarsely be excused from heresie now 3. The third opinion is of some who thought that Christ did consecrate twise once secretly whereby he did consecrate and then openlie for the Churches instruction But this saith he is most absurd of all 4. The fourth and last opinion saith he is the common opinion The 4. last opinioÌ„ is their owne now How many amongst them haue denied that Christ did ether breake bread or gaue bread Quanquam propter narra tionem Marci adducor in eaÌ„ sententiam vt putem potius priorem commentarium esseveruÌ„ Prothusteron esse Multò melius D. Thomas vt omnia dixit Allen. fol. 419. without question Catholike which although in the explaining it be two fould yet this in generall it teacheth That Christ did then consecrate when he blessed with the same words once spoken before the breaking giuing or which as Aquinas thinketh were spoken either before the breaking and giuing or which hee thinketh to bee more agreeable to the texte at the very breaking and distributing that so blessing breaking and giving bread hee saide This is my body Although saith Allen by reason of the order of S. Marke I am brought into the minde to thinke rather the former exposition to be true that it is not in order For S. Marke saith when he had blessed that is after he had blessed he brake and so it seemeth not that he did breake and coÌ„secrate at once or altogither Thus haue you seene in briefe the discourse of D. Allen proving against his fellowes their consecration But with such difficulty and hardnes that in the conclusion he leaueth the chiefest of his pillers Thomas Aquinas of whom afterward he giveth a definitiue censure that he saith althings better than his fellowes Bonaventure Caietane Dominicus a Soâ—o thought that Christ did not blesse by the words of consecration and that therfore with Christ it was two things to blesse the bread and to consecrate the bread that there was no change made by the blessing but after by the sacramental words This opinion of his fellows he confesseth hath good matter in it insomuch that it seemeth to be agreeable to their owne vse doth not disturbe the order of the EvaÌ„gelists doth bring revence to the sacrament and that these bee weighty reasons for them so to thinke And yet as being Lord of himself he chuseth such an opinion as is most absurd in it selfe overthroweth the order and whole narration of the Evangelists For thus saith the Evangelists 1 Christ tooke bread 2 He blessed it 3 He brake it and gaue it saying 4 Take eate this is my body Tho. Aquin. 3. p. 78. q. art 1. ad 1. They pervert the order and say 1 Christ tooke bread 2,3 He blessed it said Take eate This is my bodie 4 Hee brake it and gaue it And yet to see the miserable straights that these meÌ„ bring themselues into they are faine to cleaue to the former opinion against themselues for so in effect they say the breaking was eveÌ„ as he did consecrate it as who shoulde say the breaking blessing and cansecration were done at once because indeed they cannot tel what he brake whether his body or the bread So saith Gardiner Gardinerve ante fol. 97.2 Though the words sake eate goe before the words This is my bodie we may not argue that they took it and eate it before Christ told them what he gaue them al these rehersals of bread with he tooke bread he brake bread and blessed bread and if you will held bread all these induce no consequeÌ„ce He brake bread he gaue bread why They doe manifestly argue that hee gaue bread not his reall body If we may examine the Master in this point we shal finde him as vnready as the schollers Sent. Lumb l. 4. dist 12. b. Diuersities of opinions touching the breaking I meane in this matter of what is broken in the sacrament It was wont saith he to bee inquired touching the breaking partition which seemeth to be there whether it be a true breaking or no and if there be a true breaking indeed then wherein it is and in what thing it is made 1. And seeing there is no other substaÌ„ce there than the substaÌ„ce of Christ it seemeth to be made in the body of Christ but that cannot be since the body of Christ is incorruptible because it is immortall and impassâ—ble Therefore it pleaseth some to thinke 2. that there is no breaking as it seemeth to be but it is said to be broken because it seemeth to be broken 3. some others say That as the forme of breade is there there is not that thing there wherein the forme remaineth so there is a breaking which is in nothing because nothing is there broken which they say is by the mighty power of God that there should be a breaking where nothing is broken 4. Others deliver that the body of Christ is essentially broken yet remaineth whole and incorruptible which opinion they gathered froÌ„ the confessioÌ„ of Beringarius who confessed before Pope Nicholas and others that the bread and wine which are set on the Aulter after consecration are not only the sacrament but also the very body and bloud of Christ and that they are sensually touched and broken with the hands of the Priests and torne with the teeth of the faithfull not only in a sacrament but also indeed and truth But the more probable opinion saith he is that because the body of Christ is incotruptible â— it cannot be said that the breaking and partition is in the substance of the body The breaking is in the forme of bread sacramentally but in a sacrament that is in shew in the forme of bread sacramentally Neither may we insult or marvaile that the accidents of bread seeme to bee broken seeing they are there without a subiect Accidents of bread brokeÌ„ although some say they be in the aire There is a true breaking and division which is made in the bread that is in the shew of bread As the Apostle saith the bread which wee breake because the show of bread is broken and divided Thus far Lumbard If any thinge were euer dreamed not done this doctrine is only deuised in shew without substaÌ„ce what a breaking is here no breaking bread brokeÌ„ in shew the shew of bread brokeÌ„ this to be a communion of his flesh that was crucified for vs for so S. Paule saith 1. Cor. 16.16 Is not the bread which wee breake a communion of the body of Christ if nothinge be brokeÌ„ but in shew let them shew me what is the communion of the body of Christ Againe were it not strange if whitnesse should be broken yet nothinge broken that is white yet so it must be if they saie true Steph. Gard. vt ante f. 13â—
b Stephen Gardiner wil not haue the accideÌ„ts to be broken I would saith hee in other tearmes aunswere thus That thou seest is broken then if any aske further what that is I would saith he tel him the visible matter of the sacrament O marvailous matter you said plainly before that the bread was broken Gardiner darke contrary to himselfe Detection fo 15. b. Answere to M. Iuell art 23. f. 227. Allen de euch sacra l. 1. c. 37. fol 435. will haue somwhat broken besidâ— the body of Christ Christs glorious body mingled with our sinfull flesh And in the detection of the Deuills sophistrie you confesse contrarie to your selfe in both these places That the forme of bread only is said to be broken which doctrine D. Hardinge taking to be the sounder relieth vppon saith The forme only of the sacrament is broken and chewed of the receaner D. Allen forceably as it were against the haire erecting a new opinion touching this breaking wherof we now speake faulting many Catholikes for saying that the accidents only are chewed broken seene affirmeth himselfe that not only those things doe properly truly agree appertaine to the body of Christ which did before agree vnto the bread although by meane of the formes But also by the meane seruice of those formes accidents wee handle the body and bloud of Christ truly eate him carrie him about with vs mingle his body and bloud with our flesh teare him with our teeth can place him in this or that vessell and can shew by the small peeces where he is here or now can sacrifice him sensibly in the accidents can propose him visibly to the eie to be adored c. All which things whether they fall out saith hee to the body of Christ in the sacrament in respect of it selfe or by meanes of the accidents it skilleth not so wee firmly beleeue that these things are truly and properly done to the body of Christ no lesse then if he were in his owne shape forme no lesse then they might be done to the very bread indeed Although saith hee I am not ignorant that Thomas Aquinaâ— followeth an other opinion especially touching the very sight of Christs body in the Eucharist granting that the verie bodie may be touched and not the accidents only P. 3. q. 80. art 4 ad 4. Allen leaueth Aquinas but that the accidents formes are onlie seene and not the body of Christ But as this mans opinion is not cleare by no meanes agreeable to reason for it is most certaine that the body of Christ is no more obuious comprehended by meanes of the accidents of one of our senses then of an other so is the doctrine teaching of other some schoolmen touching the mouing sight place breaking eating of the body of Christ ful of curiosity danger De motu tactu viâ—u loco fractione comestione Here you haue from D. Alten that what the rest of his fellows haue fearefully doubted to affirme he doth not sticke positiuely to deliver affirming every action and thing to be done verily and really to the body and bloud of Christ vnder the shew of bread and wine after consecration as coulde be verised of the bread it selfe before consecration yea that the bodie of Christ should be mingled most groslie with our flesh Corpus sanguis Christi carninostrae immiscentur L. Wâ—nton dialo against the lesuits p. 4 fol. 770. 771. A position as voide of all religion so without all warrant saue theirs that deliuer it and not to sinke into a wise mans head that euer they would deliuer such doctrine A positioÌ„ which maketh our bodies to be fed and nourished with the natural and substantial body of Christ as we are with other meates A position that ioineth the body of Christ with our bodies in one and the same substance For foode doth go into the substance of that thing which it nourisheth and besides D. Allen Hard. Reioyn fol. 150. Rhem. annot 1. cor 10. v. 16. Harding averreth That the flesh of man is fed nourished with the body and bloud of Christ and what more Caparnaitical So the Rhemists say That we are made a peece of Christs body blood But denied vtterly and expresly by the fathers Nostra Christi coniunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias Cypr. de caeâ—… domini sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates The coniunction saith Cyprian that is betweene vs and Christ neither wingleth persons nor vniteth substances but ioineth affections knitteth wils The mixture of his bodily substance with ours Hooker l. 5. pa. rag 56. ecclespolit is a thing which the ancients disclaime Yet the mixture of his flesh with ours they speake of to signifie what our very bodies through mistical coniunction receiue from that vital efficacy which we know to be in his and froÌ„ bodyly mixtures they borrow diuerse similitudes rather to declare the truth than the maner of coherence betweene his sacred and the sanctified bodies of Saints but this is sundry other waies performed besides than by the Eucharist as by his taking our flesh on him in his nativity and by our regeneration in the water of baptisme by faith and the word preached so that you see when Allen wrote as before is set downe he thought to out-bid those former schoolemen whose doctrine hee taxeth with curiositie and danger verifying that of the Poet Oâ—…llo scelus credibile in avo quodque posterit as noget That no age Senec. in Thyest act i. 4. iaÌ„ nostra sub it stirpe turba quae suum vincat genus ac me innocenteÌ„ faciat in ausa audeat De sacra euch l. 1. c. 2. fol. 28. contrarieth D Allen. ever saw the like and whereof posterity wil be ashamed making those that haue gone him even innocent as Tautalus said of his nephewes But see how it happeneth to those that so peremptorilie and by their only authority abate the credit of others even their credits wil be againe abated Bellarmine handling the same matter affirmeth that it is a doubt of certaine amongst themselues whether those things that are verified of Christ by reason of the accidents may be spoken of him truly and properly or by a trope Some there be saith he and it may be secretly he meaneth Allen though he name him not that will haue all those things verified of Christ truely and properlie in the same manner as they might of the bread if it were present For the bread is verilie and properlie seene handled and broken by meanes of the accidents so will they haue Christs body in the Eucharist to be verily and properly seene handled by meane of the accidents Then those that AlleÌ„ checketh did teach well Peraliquem tropam But the common opinion of the divines doth teach the contrary that is that those
is proper to bread Is it called bread because it hath the shew of bread by what figure Hath it the naturall properties of bread yet is it not bread say againe say truly it is called bread therfore it is bread It hath the naturall properties of bread feeding nourishing as also the accidents sauor waight tast colour and al and therfore it hath the name is indeed very bread They are so farre remoued from the center of trueth in these points that rather then they wil leaue their wils shut vp the streame of their owne affections they will leaue all hope of a sound beleefe What eateth the mouse if she or he I know not whether chance to catch of the cōsecrated host Lumb l. 4. dis◠13. a fine Aske the schoolman it becommeth their grauities to treate such questions It cannot bee said saith Lumbard that the body of Christ is eaten of bruite beastes although it seemeth so to bee when the mouse eateth then what eateth hee Deus nouit God knoweth that and hee that saith otherwise God knoweth that is adiudged an hereticke How then escapeth the Angelicall Doctor Quidam autem dixerunt 3. p. 80. q. art 3 ad 3. Some haue saide faith hee that as astone as the sacrament is touched by a Mouse or a Dogge the body of Christ ceaseth to be there But this derogateth from the truth of this sacrament neither must we say that a bruit beast doth eat the body of Christ sacramentally but it must bee saide that the Mouse eateth by chance Ibid. fol. 24. 2. as a man that shoulde eate the consecrated host vnknowne vnto him Now Gardiner saith contrary that no creature can eate the body and bloud of Christ but only man I let passe the rest of Aquinas prodigious base discourses touching some other cautels belonging to this sacramēt Ib. q. 83. art 6 ad 3. as if a spider should fall into the consecrated wine or poison should therewith be mingled which although with warrant good enough I might lay thē before you Tuberius because I am by al honest direct courses to warne you to beware you drinke not at that fountaine The maine scope of this treatise discourse whose fairest Streames are so filthy and loth some yet I will omit him now returne to some hand somer discourse and shew you that as they are found to faulter touching the particular drift of every word in the institution of the Lordes supper as the blessing breaking This is my body so if those were granted vnto them to bee as they would lay thē downe themselues that we should agree and say with them that the reall and substantiall body of Christ is present in the Eucharist yet can they not tel you neither the manner of the presence Art 5. cont Iuell fol. 127. b. Christ gaue his diciples the same body which suffered on the crosse the same body is there corporally carnally and naturally but not after a corporal carnall or natural wise but in visibly spiritually diuinly by way to him onlie knowen The maner of his presence is not locall or natural but such as God only knoweth Art 6. fol. 136. Corporally yet spiritually Carnally yet diuinely Naturally and yet supernaturally and by al these waies yet by none of these God only knoweth the way nor according to what body that presence is as whether according to that wherein hee lived heere in earth or whether as it is now qualisfied and glorious in heaven Whether with parts or without parts neither are they agreed how hee is eaten D. Harding saith it is cleare by many places of holy scripture that Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples his very body even the same which the day following suffered death on the crosse which haue ministred iust cause to the godly learned fathers of the Church to say that Christs body is present in the sacrament really substantially corporally carnally and naturally by vse of which adverbes they haue ment only a truth of being so that we may say that in the sacrament his very body is present really that is to say indeed substantially that is in substance and corporally carnally naturally by which words is meant that his very body his very flesh and his very humane nature is there not after corporall carnall or naturall wise But invisibly vnspeakeably miraculously supernaturally spiritually divinely and by waie to him onlie knowne Againe Concerning the māner of the presence saith he being of that bodie bloud in the sacrament they that is the fathers we acknowledge and confesse that it is not locall circumscriptine definitiue or subiectiue or naturall but such as is knowen to God only In the next article The body of Christ saith he is made present in the blessed sacrament of the Altar vnder the forme of bread wine not after a grosse carnal maner but spiritually supernaturally yet substantially not by locall but by substantiall presence not by maner of quātitie or filling of a place or by chāging of place or by leaving his sitting on the right hand of God but in such a manner as God only knoweth and yet doth vs to vnderstand by faith the truth of his very presence far passing all mens capacities to comprehend the manner how Historia maxima nascitur do nihilo If M. Hardinge knowe not how it was in him an idle diligence to bee so copious in striuing to expresle the manner how Hath not he told vs He hath expressed our beleefe his owne two which is more then the manner how Corporally Carnally naturally saith he spiritually dininely say wee And yet he saith all confounding substantially spiritually God doth vs to vnderstand saith he by faith the truth of the presence What need faith sale I It is taken into the hād from the hād conferred to the mouth there they fasten their teeth Bellar. de sac euch l. 1. c. 2. f. 28. 29. and from thence to the stomacke The senses of sight feeling haue their offices here faith hath none nether is it hard to comprehend all this and more two Here is also one the same Christ with proportion of body members distinct each from other also without distinction of mēbers parts which ouerthroweth the truth of a naturall body and yet so they make him at one and the lame time at the table and vnder the shew of bread not by local but by substantiall presence not by maner of quantity or filling of a place and yet the same mā did saie before Art 5. fol. 130. b. Put laid Fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mēsa agnum illū dei sunt verba magni Niceni Synodi ex Cut Tonstall lib. 1. de euchar fol. 40. Bellarm. de sacra
wordes againe so plainly delivered Ibid. fol. 20 a. 21. b Har. vt ante 136. How oft doth Gardner tell vs that but by faith hee knoweth not howe Christ is present in the sacrament God doth vs to vnderstand by faith the truth of Christs presence And Bellarmine himselfe within fowre howers reading after Athanasius vseth the word spiritually answering to the ancient father Athanasius who saith the flesh of Christ is our spiritual nourishment and spirituallie distributed is driven to say that it is most rightly called our spirituall foode Christs body is food for the spirit and not for the body Bellar de sacr euch l. 2. c. 11. fol. 186. because it is given for the food of the spirit and not of the bodie and distributed spirituallie And that Christ made mention of his ascension to shew that his flesh is not to be eaten as other meates are which was the carnall vnderstanding of the Caparnaites sed spirituals quodam modo but after a certaine spirituall maner Is not Bellarmine come to that terme which hee was so much a fraide of If the Caparnaites were grosse and fleshly in thinking that Christs flesh was to be eaten more aliarum carnium as other flesh is I am well assured Bellarmine is a Caparnaite also he hath as grosse a conceipt of Christs flesh Bellar vt ante l. 1. c 2. fol. 28. 2. c. 8. f. 163. l. 1. c. 11. fol. 92 most grosse absurditie as they could haue for hee saith the flesh of Christ is transferred from the hand to the mouth from the mouth to the stomacke which I vnderstand to be as the manner of other meate is and this he inculcateth more than once And if Really be opposed and set to exclude our terme by faith as Bellarmine saith it is let him shewe why it is not opposed against spirituallie and spirit and spirituall manner which they and he vse also We say it is receiued by faith he saith it is meat for the spirit and not for the bodie most absurdly sutting that thing out from being meate for the body which is taken into the hand mouth and stomacke and making that a spirituall food and nourishment and which is receiued after a spiritual manner and apprehended by faith to goe into the mouth and downe into the stomacke by humane natural instrumeÌ„ts as the hand tongue and palate And then againe hee doth most strangely leaue himselfe in ioining the hand mouth tongue pallate and stomacke in the eating of the body of Christ Attritio denti bus facta Bellar. ib. f. 29. and yet deny the chewing or grinding of the teeth which necessarily accompanieth the rest especially having told vs before that infigimus dentes carnichristi we fasten our teeth in the flesh of Christ Neither is this Bellarmines case alone when he is pressed with any authority of the fathers to fly to our very termes and to vse our phrases but al others of theÌ„ also do the like Vt ante ratio 2. fol. 106. A spirituall kind of eating a naturall and substantiall thinge If reall be vsed in oppositioÌ„ to spirituall how can real inter pret spirituall as Dureus saith Dureus being vrged with S. Augustines authority touching the eating of Christ in the sacrament saith that S. Augustine accounted it an horrible thing to eate the flesh of Christ as we do other meates that are solde in the shambles and that therefore he calleth vs from that kinde of eating ad spiritualeÌ„ alium to an other kinde that is spiritual such an one as is agreeable to that sacrament but yet a true and reall eating Here he both commeth to our terme spirituall and yet confouÌ„deth it with reall which S. Augustins whose minde he interpreteth neuer vsed which Bellarmine saith the counsel vsed in opposition to that other A third Iesuite is mightily busied like a builder of the tower of Babel vsing a contrary language to that Torrens conf Au l. 3. de sacr Euch c. 4. fol. 318. b. in gloss CarneÌ„ christi sacramento panis valetaÌ„ with which he began his work for being troubled as his fellow Iesuit was with answering to S. Augustine a father who is most plaine against them is fain to expresse that manner of eating which S. Augustine â—speaketh of to be done dentibus fidei with the teeth of our faith but the body is hid vnder the shewe of bread which latter clause S. Augustine never vsed to shew the maner of Christs body in the sacrament That is only the Iesuits couler to avoide S. Augustine With the teeth of our faith with the eies of our faith Lud. Granat de freq commun fol. 100. vt ante f. 20. a. 21. b. 55. 40. 41. 72. a. But in a spiritual maner I knowe by faith that I haue it in my hand A grosse dull speech The presence is only spirituall and no part of his meaning The teeth of our body caÌ„ doth as they say eate Christs flesh in the shew of bread what need we vse the teeth of our faith or the eies of our faith either to see it there as an other of them saith if hee be really and substantially present in the host the same flesh that the Virgin Marie did beare and the Iews crucified Stephan Gardiner as is before noted vseth the same I knowe by faith Christ to be present we acknowledge by faith Christs bodie present Christs bodie there is present but in a spirituall manner It is called a spirituall maner of presence And yet in receiving that sacrament men vse their mouthes and teeth being by faith instructed that they doe not teare consume or violate that most precious bodie and bloud Onlie faithfull men by faith can vnderstande this misterie of eating Christs flesh in the sacrament And the manner of presence is onlie spirituall What need faith What need spiritual manner onlie What needes faith to bee the instructor when the Councell as Bellarmine saith hath deuised those strong able termes of truelie reallie and substantiallie and opposed theÌ„ against our imaginary termes of spirituallie and by faith which imaginary termes they vse also Tom. 2. trac 2. c. 3. 5. annexed to the 1. p. of Tho. Aquin. soÌ„time to the 3. The body of Christ is taken spiritually in the Eucharist Cardinal Caietane in excuse of those divines who drew the forme of Beringarius confessioÌ„ which was most grosse touching the eating of Christ in the sacrament vseth no other word but spirituallie and saith it is most false to affirme that they held that the body of Christ is taken corporallie for it is taken spirituallie in the Eucharist by beleeing and not by receiving it Againe he saith They eate the true body of Christ in the sacrament not corporally but spiritually The corporal eating is but of the sacrameÌ„tal signes but the spiritual eating which is performed by the soule obtaineth the flesh of
Christ which is in the sacrament If Bellarmine abridge Caietane of the word spirituallie he leaueth him never an other to expresse his minde by Now to drawe towards an end in this point Trent counsel Caietane Bellarmine Allen. Hardinge Gardiner let vs laie in breefe what wee vnfolded more largly Our Lord and sauiour Iesus Christ God man is truly really substantially contained vnder the forme and shew of bread and wine He is transferred from the hande to the mouth we fasten our teeth into his flesh and from thence he goeth into the stomacke and is mingled with our flesh c. And compare them with these of the same men in the same matter Christ is in the sacrament spiritually the maner of his presence is only spirituall he is eaten after a certaine spirituall manner The flesh of Christ is meate for the spirit not for the body It is a spirituall nourishment By faith we vnderstand he is there Wee see him with the eies of our faith eate him with the teeth of our faith by beleening not by receaning If euer there were a difference betweene the body and soule heauen hel light and darknesse sweete and sower ioye paine fire and water North south whatsoeuer may bee imagined to bee contrarie then is there a repugnancy in those their wordes expressing their meanings in the matter of the sacrament They will haue both true and yet our opinion must bee false and hereticall in vsing the later stile to expresse our meaninges But as wee and they are most opposite in the question so are one sort of their tearmes which they vse against vs vnto an other and such as can neuer verifie the truth of their assertion If they can reconcile all and prone vs heretikes I saie they maie vndertake any thinge yea though it be to the making of a black horse white or a white horse blacke as that cunning Grecian Autolycus did Of whom it is said Ovid. Met. l. 1◠Candida de nigris de candentibus atra facere assuenerat Although it hath beene a long time thought that they could doe much y I hope they can make no contradictorie propositions both true where euermore if one bee true the order wil be ineuitably false Tub. I assure my selfe so much as you haue said out of their owne bookes writings wil make anie reasonable mā astonied to thinke with how faire plausible tearmes they wil plead their religion as though there were agreement no where but amongst them disagreemēt everie where saue with them where if your collections quotations stand true sound I see not but they maie haue leaue to goe aside pen a new forme of wordes wherby to expresse their meanning in this point for the old wil not serue them Rom. Yea and a new Gospel too Allen Caietane for Allen Caietane confesseth both against themselues the one that the order of the Euangelists is peruerted and standing as it doth wil not serue their turne The other that there is nothing in the Gospell that doth binde vs to take those wordes in the proper signification as they sound to make the reall and substantiall body of Christ present vnder the shew of bread In explicating of which their opinion you may now call to minde the grossest of the figures which they vse and let passe a many of others Figures vsed by them in the sacramēt in those few words of Christ at his last supper First they saie 1,2 Christ tooke bread he blessed that is he transubstantiateth or changeth it he brake not the bread but the accidents or shew of bread he gaue not the bread but his own bodie 3. How they expound the word This in the sentence This is my body you haue heard before This that is that which is contained vnder these shewes is my bodie 4. 5. Againe where the words lie in the Evangelists Take eate this is my body they haue deuised an hideous figure of figures which is called Hysteron Proteron the Cart before the horse and say it should be This is my dody take eate 6. Christ blessed saie they by saying This is my body although the Euāgelists place it not so in order 7. How manie figures how often are they out in the breaking some saying one thing and some say an other 8. And in the wordes of consecration which and where they should be 9. And of the accidents being there in nothing that is whitnesse and nothing white Roundnesse and nothinge round colour and nothing coloured and an hundred monsters differences else amongst them hath this one monster Transubstantiation begot The antiquity of Transubstantiation But when was the monster himselfe begotten It was holidaie at Rome then he is not so old by 1200. yeares and more as you haue by told made beleeue Our countrie man Tonstall telleth vs it was concluded in the coūsel of Lateran L. 1. fol. 46. de ◅rit corpor sang 3 Opinions touching trāsubstantiation held vnder Innocentius the third Pope of that name Before which time saith he there was 3. opinions concernning that matter some thought that the bodie of Christ was there together with the bread as fire in a peece of flint which waie it seemeth Luther following held the Consubstantiation Others thought that the bread was gon corrupted Others that the substance of bread was changed into the substance of Christs bodie which waie Innocentius followed refusing the other two although no fewer miracles he should say grosse absurdities contrarieties in nature naie more seeme to bee builded vpon the opinion which hee did chuse then one the other which hee refused For before that time it was left free to euerie man to thinke as himselfe liked Now for the antiquitie credit of this Lateran counsell wee may consult with Andradius Defenc. Trid. conc l. 2. f. 427. Genebrard Chro. l. 4. fol. 955. rekoneth in for the 12. generall so doth Bellar. l. 2 c. 5. de conc eccles the late defender of the Tridētine counsell and as great a Doctor in his time as Bellarmine is now and therfore his testimonie may not bee denied In order it was the ninth generall for place it was held in the pallace Lateran in Rome for time it was held in the yeare of our Lord 1215. twelue hundred odd yeares after Christ It was called together saith he rather to amend the ill manners that then raigned then to decree anie matters of faith nether did they much trouble thēselues to expoūd any hard places of scripture or open anie mysteries such good heed was taken to establish so high a point Thus hauing the receipt you maie distill the water I meane hauing these things brought to your hands so plainly you maie learne those two points of wisdome so much spoken of Be sober distrustfull Amicus