personages than those famous and woorthie Pastours that obserued this course in the Church of Christ many hundreths before you were borne and find it most expedient to continue your vnfruitfull manner of praying in a tongue not vnderstoode though the precept of God the Doctrine of the Apostle and the practise of the primatiue Church bee expressely against it O mouthes prepared to sticke at nothing that may any way serue to hoodwinke your hearers In this and many other points of your Religion you runne headlong against the cleare testimonies of the sacred Scriptures and generall consent of the Catholike fathers and yet you will be Catholikes Phi. You be very rife with your reproches Theo. I might iustly giue you some oftener remembrances but that I more respect the seemelynes of the cause which is Gods than the sinnefulnesse of your attempts who neglect Scriptures Fathers Councels Canons Church and all that is to followe the decrees you knowe not of whome and yet will haue it insolencie and madnes in vs to dispute of your actions Philand You doe but slaunder vs. Theoph. Wee haue hitherto slaundered you with matters of trueth if the rest prooue like wee shall doe you no wrong though wee fawne on you lesse Your Masse which this Realme hath nowe reiected what hath it in it either Catholike or Apostolike or any way concordable with Christes insâ—itution Philand You coulde neuer light on a woorse match Of all the rites obseruances and Sacraments which we haue none is more Apostolike more Catholike more conformable to Christes order and example than our Masse and your prophane Supper hath nothing agreeable to the Apostles or Christs institution but all cleane contrary yea your communion is the very table and cup of diuels and your Caluins bread and wine like at length to come to the sacrifice of Ceres and Bacchus Theo. Tie vp your doggish if not diuelish eloquence you shall haue no praise though you take some pride in broching these blasphemies Your poysonfull tongues and vnblushing faces may iniurie the ordinance of God but you can not ouerthrow his trueth If wee had deuised any thing of our owne braines as you haue done the most part of your Religion you would haue kindled I see to some choler that spare vs such speaches for following the very samplar original which Christ did institute as exactly as we possibly might Phi. You follow no part of Christes institution Theo. It is easie for your side to say what you list you were no right Friers if you coulde not speake for your selues but leaue your scoffes vaunts at home bring forth your proofs Phi. I wil beginne with the name and so proceede to the rest of the circumstances You haue smal reason to name the holy sacrament rather the Supper of the Lord than after the maner of the primatiue Church the Eucharist Masse or Liturgie But belike you would bring it to the supper againe or Euening seruice when men be not fasting the rather to take away the olde estimation of the holynes thereof The. If you leaue not so much as the name vntouched I hope you will not conceale any weightie matter of more importance Phi. You may sweare for that and keepe your othe Theo. Then if all your quarrels being discussed you bee found to haue vttered nothing against vs but your sharpe and eger stomackes and notwithstanding your vagaries and resaliries to and fro your Masse bee neither Catholike nor Apostolike deserue you not to beare backe your owne burden and to haue Bacchus Ceres and the rest of your infernall saints to the shrines whence you brought them Phi. When that falleth out which wil be neuer But you delay the time for feare you take the foyle Theo. If your arguments be as quicke as your appetites we shall soone dispatch but bring vs not drippings and say they be deinties Phi. S. Ambrose in hunc locum and most good authors nowe thinke this which the Apostle calleth Dominicam Caenam is not ment of the blessed Sacrament as the circumstances also of the text do giue namelie the reiecting of the poore the riche mens priuate deuouring of all not exspecting one an other gluttonie and drunkennes in the same which cannot agree to the holie Sacrament And therefore you haue small reason as I saide to name the saide holie Sacrament rather the Supper of the Lorde than after the manner of the primatiue Church the Eucharist Masse or Liturgie Theo. Malice bursteth out at your tongues endes when you cannot abide the woordes which wee vse though the Scriptures did first authorize them and the fathers for their partes continue them The Sacrament which the Lorde ordained at his last maundie hath sundrie names that wee finde authenticallie written in the worde of God as the Lordes table the breaking of bread and cup of thanksgiuing the Communion of the bodie and blood of Christ and as we thought till this time the Lordes Supper You beginne to tell vs S. Ambrose is of an other minde and bâ—caâ—se your holde in him was verie small you adde that the most of your selues also doe nowe so thinke A worshipful catch that fifteene hundreth yeres after Christ you come in with your owne verdict in your owne cause and looke to haue it currant Phi. We meane not our selues Theo. You can meane none but your selues or your fellowes For you saie most good Authors now thinke so of our side I am sure you will not agnise that anie be good authors as you call them or that the most of vs are of that opinion and therefore you meane your selues and your owne adherents who were you not partial yet are you too young to bid Augustine Hierome Chrysostome Theodorete and others rise from their chaiers and giue you place Augustine repeating the verie woordes of S. Paul when you come togither this is not to eate the Lords supper saith hanc ipsam acceptionem Eucharistiae Dominicam Caenam vocat the Apostle calleth this verie receiuing of the Eucharist the Lords Supper Hierome commenting vpon the same wordes when you come togither this is not to eate the Lords Supper addeth Now is it not the Lordes Supper as you vse it but mans in as much as you seeme to meete rather to fill your bellies than for the mysterie For the Lordes Supper ought to be common to all because he deliuered the Sacramentes equallie to all his Disciples that were present And a Supper therefore it is called for that the Lord at Supper deliuered the Sacraments Chrysostome affirmeth the same The Apostle toucheth them more dreadfullie with these wordes This is not to eate the Lordes Supper sending them to that night in which Christ deliuered the wonderfull mysteries Therefore he calleth it a Supper for that Supper had all that were present sitting togither in common that is at one time and in one place * As
precepts eate ye drinke ye but in al respects the cup was deliuered at the same time to the same persons when the bread was So that you must either exclude the people from both which I trust you dare not or admit them to both which is the very point that we presse you with Heare what a man of your side thinketh as well of this consequent as of your halfe communion There be some false catholikes that feare not to stop the reformation of the church what they can These spare no blasphemies least that other part of the Sacrament shoulde bee restoared to the lay people For say they Christ spake drinke ye all of this onely to the Apostles but the words of the Masse be these take and eate ye al of this Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles then must laymen abstaine likewise from the element of bread which to say is an heresie yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemie It is therefore consequēt that both these words eate ye drinke ye were spoken to the whole Church I will not take this aduantage that your owne fellow doth proclaime you for false Catholikes heretikes and horrible blasphemers God giue you grace to see whither you be fallen and whence This for your liues you cannot shifte but these two precepts eate ye drinke ye by the tenor of Christs institution must be referred to the same persons and so both or neither pertaine to the people Surely the wordes which our Sauiour vsed in deliuering the cup are more generall and effectiue than when he gaue the bread Drinke ye all of this and they all dranke of it take it diuide it among you This cup is the newe Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you Now the Lord shed not his blood for the Priest onely but also for the people neither was the new Testament established in the blood of Christ for the Priestes sake but as well for the redemption of the people Then as the fruites and effects of the blood of Christ are common to the people with the Priest so should the cup also which is the communion of his blood shed for the remission of the peoples sins be diuided indifferently betweene the Preist and people There is saieth Chrysostome where the Priest differeth nothing from the people as when wee must receiue the dreadfull mysteries For it is not here as it was in the olde Lawe where the Priest eate one part and the pleople an other neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those thinges which the Priest was but now it is not so but rather one bodie is proposed to all and one cup. Phil. The church then might like that the people shoulde haue the cup as the church after did mislike it for many and weightie causes but how proue you that Christes precept extendeth vnto the people Theo. Wee can haue no better interpreter of Christes speech than his Apostle that was best acquainted with the true meaning of our Sauiour Wee haue sayth he the minde of Christ and that which I deliuered you I receiued of the Lorde So that hee did not correct but onely report the Lordes ordinaunce and in deliuering both kindes to the whole church of Corinth priest and people without exceptiō the teacher of the gentiles did neither swarue frō the first institutiō nor right intentiō of Christ his master The cup of thāksgiuing which we blesse is it not the communion of Christes blood The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord the cup of diuels Ye can not be partakers of the Lordes table and of the table of diuels Can you frame vs a reason out of these wordes of Sainct Paul to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking such things as the Gentile there sacrificed to Idols not confesse that they dranke of the Lords cup It is not possible For this is Sainct Paules argument You can not drinke both the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels the cuppe of thankes giuing which wee blesse and you all drinke of is the communion of the Lordes blood therefore you maie not drinke of the cup of diuels YOV CANNOT DRINKE BOTH inferreth they did and should drinke one which was the Lordes cup not the cup of diuels els Paul should haue said you maie drinke neither not the cup of diuels for they might haue no fellowship with diuels neither the Lordes cup for that is reserued for the Priest by your doctrine but both saith Paul you cannot drinke ergo they must drinke one which was not the cup of diuels Againe the cup which they dranke not could to them be no Communion For nature teacheth vs that to be partaker of a cup is to drinke but the Lordes cup was to them the communion of his blood ergo they dranke of the Lordes cup. My collection is so cleare that the vulgar translation which you are tied to by the Councell of Trent putteth these verie woordes in the text Omnes de vno pane de vno calice participamus we all are partakers of one bread AND OF ONE CVP. Ambrose Hierom Bede Haymo and others found it so consequent to S. Pauls former woords and coherent with his maine reason that they sticke not to keepe this addition de vno calice in their verie terts on which they comment So that out of question Paul taught the Church of Corinth to distribute the Lordes supper to the Christians in both kindes and that as he saith he receiued of the Lorde And who◠that hath anie shame or sense left reading the next Chapter that followeth where Christes institution is fullie proposed and largelie debated by S. Paul will or can doubt but the Lorde at his last Supper ordained both kindes for all the faithfull As often saith Paul to the whole Congregation as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this cup ye shewe the Lordes death till he come Whosoeuer shall eate this bread drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthilie shall be guiltie of the bodie and blood of the Lorde Let a man therefore not speaking of this or that man but of euerie man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. And least you should want a generall affirmatiue to iustifie this our exposition take these woordes of S. Paul and quiet your selfe By one spirit are we all Baptized into one bodie whether we be Iewes or Grecians bond or free and WE ALL HAVE DRVNKE into one spirit Can you looke for directer or plainer woordes All Iewes and Gentiles bond and free not onelie dranke but by drinking were made partakers of one and the same spirite uen as by baptisme they were grafted into one bodie Then if Christ himselfe deliuered both kindes at his last Supper
full consent of all ages and Churches in expounding the same but also to chase the people by terror of secular power and ecclesiasticall curse from the cup of their saluation from the communion of Christs blood and felowship of his holy spirit Such fathers such fansies What is mockerie what is iniurie to God and man if this be Religion or pietie The Church of Rome you will say concluded with them That increaseth her sinnes and excuseth not their follies If an Angel from heauen had conspired with them our duetie bindeth vs to detest both him and them as accursed if they step from that which the primatiue church receiued from Paul and Paul from Christ Howe much more then ought wee to reiect that which the church of Rome presumeth not onely besides but against the sacred scriptures And yet to speake vprightly the auncient church of Rome maketh wholy with vs in this cause For no church euer resisted your mangled communions with greater vehemencie than the church of Rome did till couetousnesse and pride blinded her eyes and hardned her heart against God and his sonne Pope Iulius that lyued vnder Constantine the great made this decree We heare that certaine led with schismaticall ambition against the diuine ordinances and Apostolike directions doe giue TO THE PEOPLE the Eucharist dipped in wyne for a full communion They receiued not this from the Gospell where Christ betooke his body and blood to the Disciples For there is recited the deliuering the bread by it selfe and the cup by it selfe Let therefore all such error and presumption cease least inordinate and peruerse diuises weaken the soundnes of fayth If the communion bee neither perfite nor agreeable to Christes institution and Apostolike prescription except the people receiue both kinds seuerall and asunder the bread from the cup and the cup from the bread as Christ ordayned and the Gospel declareth Ergo your excluding the people cleane from the cup is altogether repugnant to the manifest intent of our Sauiour and right imitation of his Apostles And what if the first authors of your drie communion were the Manichees are you not wise men and well promoted to forsake the precept which Christ gaue you the president which Paul left you the course which the christian world for so many yeeres obserued and followe so pestilent and pernicious a sect of heretikes reprooued and long since condemned by the church of Rome for that very fraude and abuse in the Sacraments which you bee nowe fallen vnto The Manichees sayth Leo to couer their infidelitie venter to bee present at our mysteries and so carie them-selues in the receiuing of the Sacraments for their more safetie that they take the body of Christ with an vnwoorthy mouth but in any wise they shunne to drinke the blood of our redemption Which I would haue your dâ—uoutnes speaking to the people learne for this cause that such men might bee knowen to you by these markes and when their sacrilegious simulation is founde they may bee noted and bewrayed by the Godly that they may bee chased away by the priestly power Against this disorder of Manichees wrate Pope Gelasâ—â— as your friende Master Harding confesseth Wee haue intelligence that certaine men receiuing onely a portion of the sanctified body abstaine from the cup of the sacred blood who for that it appeareth they be entangled with I knowe not what superstition let them either receiue the whole Sacraments or be driuen from the whole because the diuiding and parting of one and the same mysterie can not bee without grieuous sacrilege The sense is plaine To take the Lordes breade and not drinke of the Lordes cup is a seuering and distracting of this mysterie which by the iudgement of these two Popes is open sacrilege ergo neither Catholike or christian What shift nâ—we Philander to saue your selues from sacrilege Spake Gelasius of the Manichees as Master Harding resolueth Graunt it were so Then what was sacrilege in them can it bee catholike in you If that auncient church of Rome condenmed this in the Manichees howe commeth your late Church of Rome not onely to suffer but also to commaund the same Can you turne darkâ—nes to light and sacrilege to Religion That were a marueilous alteration But Siâ—s your minds may change wee knowe Christes institution can not changâ— The contempt thereof in Manichees in Papistes as then so still was and will be sacrilege Spake Gelasius not of the Manichees but of certaine Priestes that receiuing the bread at the Lordes table neglected the cup Yet Leo speaketh of the Manichees by name and â—hose Laymen and mingled with the people and calleth their forbearing the Lords blood a sacrilegious sleight reason were you should prooue that onely Priesâ—es are ment in this place of Gelasius and not suppose what you list at your pleasures as the gloze doeth and others of your side that stand on this answere The woordes are indefinite and touch as well people as Priest but let vs imagine that Gelasius spake of Priestes first then you commit sacrilege in restraining all Priestes from the communion of both kinds except they say Masse themsâ—lues Next if it bee sacrilege in the Priest why not in the people The precept of our Sauiour drinke ye all of this compriseth all both Laymen and Priestes His Apostle extendeth the same to the whole Church of Corinth Chrysostome sayth the Priest differeth nothing from the people in receiuing the mysteries but one cup is proposed to al In Chalice nobiscum vos estis You sayth Austen to the people are in the Lordes cup no lesse than we The cup was deliuered to all men Priest and people with like condition as Theophilact affiâ—meth Drinke yee all of this that is sayth Paschasius as well other beleuers as Ministers Hence wee frame you this argument The cup was by Christ deliuered to Priest and People with like condition and like precept the refusing of the Lordes cup is sacrilege in priests by the position of Gelasius and the confession of your friends it is therefore no lesse than sacrilege for the people to refraine the same What then is it for you to pull the Lordes cuppe out of their handes by rigor and force for so trifling respectes as you pretende but apparent violent and wilfull sacrilege Phi. It was sacrilege then for the people to refuse or refraine the cup because the church was content to admitte them to it But now the church is otherwise resolued it were sacrilege to expect or demand it Theo. What shall the man of sinne and sonne of perdition when he commeth if hee bee not already come and you his supporters to hold vp his seate in the temple of God say more than you now say that you at your lists may breake the commandements of the great and euerlasting God and alter his ordinances and to blame you for
it or recall you backe from your enterprise is sacrilege Woe bee to you that call good euill and euill good which set darkenesse for light and light for darkenesse and put bitter for sweete and sweete for bitter Woe bee to you that are so wise in your owne eyes and so prudent in your owne conceites that you preferre your owne Counsell before the wisedome of God Philand Nay you preferre your wittes before the whole Church of GOD you woulde not other-wise take vppon you to controle your forefathers and teachers in such sort as you doe Theoph. If they forsooke their fathers yea GOD him-selfe why shoulde wee not renounce them rather as parricides than resemblance of their auncestours Philand They were Catholikes and so are wee Theoph. You leaue the steppes both of Christ and his Church and yet you must and will bee catholikes Philand Wee followe them better than you doe Theoph. So it appeareth by your halfe communion which they condemned for sacrilege and you embrace for Religion Phi. Here is such a stirre about eating and drinking as though all consisted therein and in the meane while you neglect and abolish the holy and vnbloody sacrifice which is farre more Catholike than your communion Theo. You neede not make so light of eating and drinking at the Lordes table There depende greater promises and dueties on that than on your vnbloody sacrificing the sonne of God As often as yee shall eate this breade and drinke this cup yee shewe the Lordes death till hee come Without eating and drinking therefore the Lordes death is not shewed The bread which we breake to be eaten is it not the communion of Christes body The cup of blessing which wee blesse that all may drinke of it is it not the communion of Christes blood If wee refuse eating the one or drinking the other can we be partakers of Christ or his spirit Hee that eateth my flesh sayth our sauiour and drinketh my blood dwelleth in mee and I in him and except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you These bee the fruites and effectes of religions and worthie eating and drinking at the Lordes table shewe vs the like for your sacrificing and wee will thinke you had some occasion though no reason to turne the Lords Supper into an offering Philand This one Sacrifice hath succeeded all other and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices and hath the force and vertue of all other to be offered for all persons and causes that the others for the lyuing and the dead for sinnes and for thankesgiuing and for what other necessitie soeuer of body or soule Bee not these as great and good effectes of our Sacrifice as those which you nowe rehearsed for eating and drinking at the Altar Theo. They bee great if you had as good authoritie for the one as wee haue for the other Philand Wee haue better Theo. Wee must giue you leaue to say so but you shall giue vs leaue not to beleeue you Phi. All the fathers with one consent stand on our side for the Sacrifice Theoph. Were it so that yet is many degrees beneath the credite of our conclusion You bring vs the speaches of men wee bring you the woorde of God I trust you will aguise some difference betwixt them Phi. As though wee coulde not bring you Scriptures as well as fathers for the sacrifice of the Masse Melchisedec by his oblation in bread and wyne did properly and most singularly prefigurate this office of Christes eternall Priesthoode and sacrificing himselfe vnder the formes of breadâ— and wyne which shall contynue in the Church throughout all Christian Nations in steede of all the offeringes of Aarons Priesthood as the Prophet Malachie did foretell as Saint Cyprian Saint Iustine Saint Irineus and others the most auncient Doctors and Martyrs doe testifie Cyprian epistola 63. num 2. Iustin. dial cum Trypho post med Iren. libro 4. capit 32. And Saint Augustine libro 17. cap. 20. de ciuitat Dei libro primo contra aduers. leg prophet ca. 18. lib. 3. de baptism ca. 19. S. Leo sermone 8. de passione auouch that this one sacrifice hath succeeded all other and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices c. Yea in S. Pauls epistle to the Church at Corinth the first and tenth chapter We maie obserue that our bread and chalice our table and altar the participation of our host and oblation be compared or resembled point by point in all effectes conditions and properties to the altars hostes sacrifices and immolatious of the Iewes and Gentiles Which the Apostle woulde not or coulde not haue done in this Sacrament of the altar rather than in other Sacraments or seruice of our Religion if it onelie had not beene a Sacrifice and the proper worship of God among the Christians as the other were among the Iewes and heathen And so doe all the fathers acknowledge calling it onelie and continuallie almost by such termes as they doe no other Sacrament or ceremonie of Christes Religion The Lamb of God laide vpon the table Concil Nicen. The vnbloodie seruice of the Sacrifice In Concil Ephesin epist. ad Nestor pag. 605. The sacrifice of sacrifices Dionys. Eccles. Hieronym cap. 3. The quickning holie sacrifice the vnbloodie host and victime Cyril Alex. in Concil Ephes. Anatâ— the propitiatorie sacrifice both for the liuing and the dead Tertul. de cor Milit. Chrys. ho. 41. in 1. Corinth ho. 3. ad Phil. Ho. 66. ad pop Antioch Cypr. epi. 66. decaena Do. nu 1. August Euch. 109. Quaest. 2. ad Dulcit to 4. Ser. 34. de verb. Apost The sacrifice of our mediator the sacrifice of our price the sacrifice of the newe Testament the sacrifice of the Church August li. 9. ca. 13. li. 3. de baptist ca. 19. The one only inconsumptible victime without which there is no Religion Cyprian de caen Do. nu 2. Chrysost. ho. 17. ad Hebr. The pure oblation the newe ofspring of the newe Law the vital and impolluted host the honoâ—râ—ble dreadful Sacrifice the Sacrifice of thankesgiuing or Eucharistical the Sacrifice of Melchisedec This is the Apostles and fathers doctrine God grant you may find mercy to see so euident and inuincible a trueth Theo. You be nowe where you would be and where the fathers seeme to fit your foote But if your sacrifice bee conuinced to bee nothing lesse than catholike or consequent to the Prophets Apostles or Fathers Doctrine what say you then to your vanitie in alleaging if not impietie in abusing so many Fathers and Scriptures to proppe vp your follies Phi. Bee not these places which we bring you for this matter vndeniable vnauoydable indefeatable vnanswerable Theo. In any case lay on loade of termes You haue made vs so many in your late Rhemish testameÌ„t that now you must not seeme to lack But what if all these places neede
of Iewes and Gentiles Phi. In S. Paul Theophil I see no such thing Philand You wil not for feare you should be driuen to confesse that S. Paul calleth our host a Sacrifice Theo. Let vs then examine S. Pauls purpose that we may see both what he saieth and to what end he saith it The christians at Corinth in respect of aquaintaunce or alliaunce with others that were Heathens in that citie did not sticke if they were inuited to goe to the banquetes and feastes of the Pagans which they kept in the Temples of their Gods when they did sacrifice vnto them and at which they spent such cates and wines as they had then offered to their Idols The preteÌ„ce which the christians had for their resorting to the Pagans feastes was this that they knewe the idoll was nothing and therefore giuing thankes to God for his creatures they did eate of all things without scruple of conscience howsoeuer it had beene vsed or to whomsoeuer it had beene offered This Sainct Paul reproueth them for and sheweth that though the Idoll in it selfe bee nothing yet since the Gentiles did offer those thinges which were at their idols feastes not to God but to diuels the christians could not sit at the same tables with the Pagans reioycing triumphing and feasting in the names of their idolles but they must needes bee partakers of their idolatrie Nowe howe that could stand with their comming to the Lords table where they professed to serue him and none but him hee wisheth them to consider The reason which hee draweth from the Lordes table you call it a comparison point by point in all effectes conditions and proprieties to the altars hostes and sacrifices of the Heathen may bee eyther a comparison or an opposition but liker of the twaine to bee rather an opposition than a comparison For so Sainct Paul knitteth vp his argument You can not drink both the Lordes cup and the cup of diuelles you can not bee partakers or eate of the Lords table and of the table of diuels The one you are partakers of as you know For the cup of thanksgiuing which we blesse is it not the coÌ„munion or participatioÌ„ of Christs blood The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body You cannot there fore haue any fellowship with the table or cup of diuels but God will surely reuenge it as the forsaking of himselfe and seruing of his enimie This may the whole drift of S. Paul stand good and his reason forcible without your point by point or your effectes conditions and proprieties of altars hostes or Sacrifices If any list to make it a comparison he may for me yet that way I see no cause why you should so proportion Christes mysteries to the diuels sacrifices that point by point they must answere one an other in all effectes conditions and proprieties of Altars hostes and immolations For this sufficeth S. Pauls inteâ—t that where the christians thought it a matter indifferent and lawfull to eate drink in the temples and at the tables of Heathen Idols he by examples both of christian and Iewish religion sheweth them that though they did not sacrifice and so tooke themselues to be free from Idolatrie yet seeing they reioyced and feasted with the men and meates that were addicted and consecrated vnto Idols they were partakers of their wickednesse And therefore the thing which S. Paul vrgeth in this comparison of Christian Iewish and heathâ—nish religion is not offering or sacrificing but in plaine words eating drinking at the same table with men of any profession where their rites and ceremonies be they good or bad are vsed as well as their offeringes and immolations and in that sense the conclusion holdeth on either side though the thinges be not really sacrificed vnto God or the diuell but dedicated or consecrated to either of them or frequented in either of their names For as he that eateth and drinketh at the Lordes table partaketh with him and his so he that doth the like at the diuels table linketh himselfe in the like fellowship with the diuell and his adherentes though the meates that are set on the table bee not first solemnly sacrificed to the diuell but blessed either in his name or with his ceremonies who being a wicked spirit affecteth to be honored in like sort and equal â—tate with the true and mighty God Phi. S. Paul sayth the Gentiles did sacrifice their meates to the diuel Theo. So much the worse for those Christians that did eat them yet that doeth not inferre that the creatures at the Lords table were point by point in all effects and conditions vsed and sacrificed to him as the heathens cates were to their Idoles And to draw your argument from the diuels table to proue that the bread and wine at the Lordes table be sacrificed is a strange kinde of diuinitie if it bee not worse Certainly not the sacrifice but the Sacrament ordained by Christ to be taken and eaten from his table doeth make vs members of Christ and ioyneth vs all in one fellowship of his mysticall body the Priestes sacificing of Christes flesh doth not helpe the matter for ought that we know or you proue but by such sleeuelesse I wil not say witlesse conceites as these be And yet your owne comparison ouerthroweth your owne oblation For if in Pagan Iewish and euen in Christian religion as you say they which eate of the Sacrifice be partakers of the sacrifice we infer that in your priuate masses where the Priest alone â—ateth and no man eateth with him the people haue no part in that sacrifice so your oblation if it be any auaileth no man but your selues because no man eateth of it besides your selues which is more against your profit than the name of sacrifice would do you good if you could â—uince it by S. Paul Phi. God helpe you masters ye be so addicted to the bellie that you thinke of nothing â—ut of eating drinking The sacrifice you admit not the sacrameÌ„t you adore not but if you may eate and drinke then are you safe Theo. This diuinity will better become the diuels table whence you lately fet your sacrifice than the Lordes sacramentes or the seruauntes of Christ. To eate drinke at his table is not our inuention but his institution and therefore no point of gluttonie as you leuâ—ly surmise but of pietie which you skant beleeue as appeareth by your abolishing that order which Christ left and deuising an other of your owne without any warrant from him For where Christ said take ye eate ye you like not that but haue chaunged it into Looke ye adore ye telling the people they do God good seruice when they giue his diuine honour to dead â—â—slesse creatures Phi. No Sir we teach them to adore Christ and not the creatures of bread and wine Theo. You first imagine the creatures to be
Christ if you know not whereof he spake proue no conuersion of the bread into his body For vnlesse THIS be taken to import the bread the bread by those wordes can not be changed and if not by these then surely by none Phi. I see your drift you fet about to force me to confesse that by the strict coherence of our Sauiours wordes the bread is Christ since that propositioÌ„ in precise speech is vntrue you would come in with your figures Theo. And your drift is as open that hauing deuised a reall and carnall presence to your selues by colour of Christes wordes and perceiuing the same to bee no way consequent to the letter which you pretend least you shoulde bee disproued to your faces you will not admit the perfect and plaine context of Christes wordes but stand houering about other sophisticall illusions which will not helpe you For we haue the ful confession of scriptures fathers against you that the pronoune THIS in Christes words must bee restrained to the bread and to nothing else The Lord tooke breade and when hee had giuen thankes he brake no doubt the bread that he tooke and gaue to the Disciples the selfesame that he brake saying take ye eate ye this that I giue you This is my bodie What THIS could our Sauiour mean but THIS that he gaue THIS that he brake THIS that he tooke which by the witnesse of the Scripture it selfe was bread If you suppose that he tooke bread but brake it not or brake it but gaue it not or gaue it his Disciples to eate but told them not this which he gaue them but some other thing besides that was his body you make the Lords supper a merry iest where the later end starteth from the beginning and the middle from the both The pronoune THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore except you name the bread which Christ pointed vnto when he spake these wordes you coÌ„firme not the faithes but amase the wits of your followers S. Paul proposing the Lordes Supper to the church of Corinth expresseth that very word which we say the circumstances of the Gospel import As often as ye shall eate saith he This bread and drinke this cuppe you shew foorth the Lords death till he come The bread which he brake is it not the communion of Christs body Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cup for whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guilty of the body blood of the Lord. So that as wel by the cohereÌ„ce of the former words in the description of the Lords supper as by the manifest adiectioÌ„ which S. Paul putteth to the demoÌ„stratiue we conclude our sauior pronouÌ„ced of the bread that it was his body The referring of THIS to the bread all the catholik fathers that euer wrate with pen in the church of God acknowledge with one consent Iustinus Wee be taught that the sanctified foode which nourisheth our fleshe and our blood is the fleshe and blood of that Iesu. Tertullian So Christ taught vs calling bread his bodie and discussing the wordes of the supper Why saith he doth Christ there call bread his bodie Austen That which your faith requireth to be taught the bread is the body of Christ and the cup his blood Cyprian Our Lord at his table gaue to the Disciples with his own handes bread and wine on the crosse hee yeelded his body to the souldiers handes to be wounded that his Apostles might teach all Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood Ireneus How shall it appeare to them that the bread on which they giue thankes is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood if they graunt not Christ to be the sonne of the creator of the world How did the Lord rightly if an other were his father taking bread of this condition that is vsuall amongst vs confesse it to bee his body Hierom Let vs learn that the bread which the Lord brake gaue to his disciples is the Lords body himself saying to theÌ„ take ye eate ye this is my body Athan. or at lest the coÌ„mentary that is extaÌ„t in his name What is the bread the body of Christ. Epiphan Of that which is round in figure sensles in power the Lord would say by grace this is my body Cyrill Christ thus auoucheth and saith of the bread this is my body Theodorete In the verie giuing of the misteries he called bread his body And of all others your selues may not shrink from this resolution of Christs wordes the surest holde of your reall presence though it bee not much standeth onely on this settle For what wordes haue you besides thâ—se to proue that the breade is chaunged from his former substaunce Uerily none Then if in these wordes which should worke the change there be no mention at all of bread how can that which is no way comprised in them bee chaunged by them So miraculous a change can not be wrought by silence but rather if any such be by the power of Christes words and in those words must the thing at least be named that shall be changed Againe the demonstratiue THIS must needes note that which was there present on the Lordes table before the words of consecration were wholy repeated and the flesh of Christ coulde not be present vnder the likenesse of bread without or before Consecration ergo the pronoune inferreth not Christ but the bread which by your owne positions is not abolished but in vltimo instanti prolationis verboruÌ„ in the very last end instant of vttering these wordes And therefore remaine in his owne nature wheÌ„ the first word was pronounced Which some not the meanest men of your side foresaw very well howsoeuer you since haue taken other counsel and therefore they say Dicendum est quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panis We must behold saith Gerson that the pronoune THIS doeth demonstrate the substaunce of bread and Steuen Gardiner Christus ait euidenter hoc est corpus meum demonstrans panem Christ sayeth plainly this is my body pointing to the bread Notwithstanding afterward he changed his minde in this as in many other thinges came to Indiuiduum vagum as if Christ had saide THIS what is it I can not tell but it must needes be somwhat is my body Occam and other profound fellowes of your side bethinking themselues how your opinion might best agree with the wordes of Christ say the pronoune THIS must be referred to the bodie of Christ as if our Sauiour had said this my body is my body To make all cocksure the coronell of your scholmen I meane the gloze resolueth the doubt on this wife Solet quaeri quid demonstretur per pronomen
would conâ—uâ—e my selâ—e Theo. No the clearenes of trueth was such that you could not shadowe the beames of it and therefore in a brauerie you did admit it though now you would to your owlelight againe Phi. This is counsell to me I know not what you mean Theo. Dâ—d you not confesse it to bee very true thâ—t in this sacrament the signes after consecration did carie the names and effects of the things themselues Phi. Yeas I did Theo. Recaâ—t you that Phi. I doe not Theo. Then are the places which you brought for the reâ—l eating of Christs fleshe with your mouthes and teeth returned backe without your conclusiâ—n For the signes which are called after consecration by the names of â—hrists bodie and blood do enter our mouthes and passe our throates the true flâ—sh bloud of christ do not but â—re eaten at the Lords table only of the inward maÌ„ by faithful deuâ—tion and affâ—ctiâ—n preparing the hart that Christ may lodge there dwâ—ll there where hee dâ—lightâ—th and not in the mouthes and â—awes of men which is no place for him that sitâ—eth in heauâ—n whither we must flie with the spirituall wings of our soules and spirites before we can be paâ—takers of him Phi. You shall not so delâ—de me The Rule â— granted was veâ—y true but how proue you that these speeches muâ—t be so constâ—â—ed In other cases it may be true though not in this Theo. If the Rule which I laide downe be very true then your places can inâ—erre nothing â—or so much as the wordes which you brought may be spoken as well of the signes as of the things themselues and in that case the promises receiuing a double consâ—â—uction by your own confessâ—on how can your conclusion stand goâ—d importing that sense which is not only most doubted and least proued but â—laâ—ly denied by the same fathers in other places as I haue shewed Phi. Tutâ—e I will not be mocked wiâ—h such iâ—stes you shall answer thâ—m place by place as I cite them or els I wil not speake one word more Theo. You importune mee to spende time which nowe waxeth short but it will be the worse for your selfe your egernes without trueth will be your owne discredit and the more paâ—ticularly the more plainly it will appeare Phi. I haue aduantages in their wordes against your euasion which I will not omit Theo. In Augustine Chrysostome and Tertullian you haue vtterly none Austen saith that in honour of so great a Sacrament as this is it hath pleased the holie Ghost that the sacred and sanctified bread which after a sort is called the Lords bodie though indeed it be the signe Sacrament of his bodieâ— should enter the mouth before other meats that sâ—â—ue onely to feed nourish ouâ— fleshâ— Chrysostome saith It is no small honour that our mouth hath gotten by receiuing the sanctified bread after consecration countâ—d worthy to be called the Lords body though the nature of bread still remainâ— And indeed so is it no small both comfort and honour that God hath vouâ—saâ—ed to confirme and â—eale his mercies vnto vs with these elements that are câ—nuerted into our fâ—â—sh to shew vs that we are as reallie inuâ—sted strengthned with his grace and â—rueth as our bodies are nourisâ—ed and encreased with the sâ—gnâ—s and Sacraments of his grace And to that end Tertullian saith Our flâ—sh seedeth on the bread which Christ called his bodie and hath in it the â—ffâ—cts of his body that our soules might be replenished with God Phi. These be your corrections oâ— their speaches they be not their intentions Theo. Looke better to them and you shall finde that I haue added no wordes but such as them selues in other places haue delâ—uered to declare their owne both meaning and speaking Phi. The rest doe make for vs. Theo. Cyril saith nothing but that as the soul hath faith and grace to clense it and prepare it to eternall life so it was needfull that our rude and â—arthlie bodie should be brought to immortalitie by corporal and earthlie food that our bodies touching tasting and feeding on creatures like themselues might take them as pledges of our resurrection Gregorie comparing the two Passeouers the Iewes and ours and alluding to the storie of theirs â—aith The blood of our Passeouer is sprinckled on both Posts when it is drunke not onelie with the mouth of the bodie as the cup is which after the manner of Sacramentes is the Communion of Christes bloode but also with the mouth of the hart which is the true drinking of Christes blood Phi. We will none of that by your leaue you must graunt that in strict and precise speach according to the woordes the blood of Christ is drunke by the mouth of the bodie as well as by the mouth of the soule Theophil Hath the soule a mouth in strict and precise speach or hath shee lips to drinke according to the letter Phi. Would you make me such a foole as so to thinke Theo. Then if one part of the sentence be figuratiue why not the other If that which hee doth most vrge be not literall why shal the letter be eracted in the harder and vnlikelier part of the comparison If the whole be but an allusion whie eract you that strictnes and precisenes of the speach in either part It is not possible that one and the same thing should be reallie drunke by the mouth of the bodie and the mouth of the soul. If it be corporall how can it enter the soul If it be spirituall how can it enter the mouth And if those be Gregories wordes which your ownâ— Lawe assigneth to him in the verie same homilie his exposition shaketh your real presence more than all the authorities you can bring shall settle it Quidam non improbabiliter exponunt hoc loco carnis sanguinis veritatem ipsam eorundem efficientiam id est peccatorum remissionem Some not amisse doe expound the trueth of Christes flesh and blood in this place to be the verie efficience of the same things that is the remission of sins Take this construction with you bring out of Greg. or Leo what you can it wil not help the tight of a barely corne Phi. S. Leo saith You ought so to communicate at the sacred table that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the bodie and blood of christ Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur For that is receiued with the mouth which is beleeued by our faith and in vaine doe they answer Amen which dispute against the thing that themselues receiue O noble Lion and such as all the heretikes in Europe will neuer encounter Theo. You speake like a Lion but the spite is your eares are too long to be taken for a beast of that metal You foolishly
earthly cogitations of the mysticall elements and to stir them rather to marke in this Sacrament the wonderfull power and effects of Gods spirit and grace than the base condition and naturall digestion of bread and wine Phi. Would S. Chrysostom haue vs thinke the mysteries to bee consumed vnlesse in deede they were consumed Theo. His directing our cogitations for religion and reuerence rather to the inward force than outward appearance of the mysteries doeth not chaunge the sensible qualities of bread and wine whereof hee spake much lesse the substance alone whereof he spake not but draweth the receiuers from that which their eyes behold to that which by faith they beleeue to the secreter and diuiner part of the Sacrament not abolishing the one but preferring the other as more worthy to be considered and desired by the commers to the Lordes table And in this sense he willeth the people not to thinke that the Priest is a man in the verie next wordes that followe without line or letter betwixt Wherefore approaching to the Lordes table doe not thinke that you receiue the diuine body at the handes of a man but that you take a fierie coale by the Seraphims tongues which Esay sawe in his vision Can this be Chrysostoms meaning that in act and verie deede the Priest is changed into a Seraphim his hand into a paire of tongs the body of Christ into a coale of fire Except you be past your fiue wits you wil say no yet Chrysostom in the same place perswadeth the cōmunicants so to think as he did before that the mysteries were consumed by the substance or presence of Christs body Then if the latter wordes inferre no such chaunge why should the former If you be not so foolish as to mistake the second part of this sentence why be you so wilfull as to peruert the first vttered at the same time to the same purpose with the verie same phrase of speach Chrysostomes intent is no more to transsubstantiate the bread than the priest or the bodie of Christ but with vehement amplifications as his manner is he perswadeth the people to come to the Lordes table with no lesse reuerence than if they were to receiue a fierie coale as Esay did in his vision from one of the glorious Seraphims And to this end also doth he kendle them what he can not to be basely minded and affected toward the mysteries as if they were onely bread and wine in that sort to passe through the bellie with other meates but to prepare their hartes and to lift them vp to God as they promised to doe when the Priest saide lift vp your minds and harts they made answere we lift them vp vnto the Lord. These wordes therefore force no reall mutation in the thinges receiued but leade the receiuers from thinking on the weake creatures which they see to the mighty power of Gods graces which they see not and this is done with a religious cōsideration not with any monsterous transubstantiation or annihilation of the sacred mysteries Phi. S. Cyrill of Ierusalem saith Know you for a suerty that this bread which is seene of vs is not bread though the tast find it to be bread but the body of Christ. And so Theophilact It appeareth to bee bread but it is fleshe Theo. The first authors of this speach were late writers as Theophilact or lately set foorth by your fellowes not without great suspition as Cyrill of Ierusalem and the speech it selfe doth somwhat vary from the stile both of the Scriptures and fathers which acknowledge this mysterie to be bread wine The bread which we breake saith Paul is it not the communion of Christes body We all are partakers of one bread As often as you eate of this bread drink of this cup you shew the Lords death til he come Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drink of this cup. And our Sauiour in the Gospell speaking of the cup I will not drinke hencefoorth of this fruit of the vine Tertul. Christ hath not euen at this day reiected the water of the creator by which he doth wash his nor the bread by the which hee doth represent his verie body Clemens Alexandrinus This is my blood euē the blood of the grape Cyprian We find it was wine which the Lord called his blood The Lord called his body bread kneaded togither of many cornes and his blood wine pressed out of many clusters of grapes Origen The Lords bread according to the materiall partes thereof goeth into the belly and so foorth by the draught Austen As the men of God before vs did expound this the Lord commended his body blood in those things which are made one of many For the first is kneaded of many cornes into one lumpe the other is pressed of many clusters into one liquour That then which you saw is bread which also your eyes can tell you Cyrill of Alexandria To the beleeuing Disciples Christ gaue peeces of breade saying take eate this is my body Hesychius Hee meaneth that mystery which is both breade and fleshe The phrase it selfe therefore It is not bread sauoreth of later ages and writers and crosseth that course of speeche which both Scriptures and Fathers obserued and yet if you suffer them to declare their owne mindes they may soone be reconciled to the rest Theophilact expressing the same point in other wordes saieth Speciem quidem panis vini seruat in virtutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat Christ keepeth the shape or kind of bread and wine but changeth thē into the vertue of his body and blood Cyrill openeth his owne saying more at large The bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost is nowe no more common bread but the bodie of Christ. In the new Law the heauenly bread and cup of saluation sanctifie both soule and bodie As the bread serueth for the bodie so doth the word for the soule Thinke not therefore of the Sacrament as of bare bread and bare wine it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lordes owne wordes And although sense tell thee this that is bare bread and wine yet let faith confirme thee neither iudge them by tast but rather by faith assure thy selfe without all doubt that the body and blood of Christ are giuen vnto thee This assertion we grant is right and good and this intent had hee when hee said the bread which is seene is no bread meaning no common no bare bread In which assertion other ancient Fathers concurre with him Iustinus Wee receiue not these thinges as a common vsual bread or accustomed drink but we be taught that the food blessed by praier of the worde receiued from him is the fleshe and blood of that Iesus which tooke fleshe for our sakes Ireneus
but let a man examine himself and so eate of this bread and drinke of this cup that is before hee eate of this breade and drinke of this cup and he shall find that contentious and riotous persons such as they were in their feastes bee no sit ghestes for that heauenly Supper And yet to vs it is all one whether it were before or after at their bankers and feastes it was ministred and eueÌ„ serued at their tables as S. Augustine noteth in these words Non debent fratres mensis suis ista miscere sicut faciebant quos Apostolus arguit emendat The brethren ought not to haue these mysteries serued at their tables as they did whome the Apostle reprooueth and refourmeth And had not the Lordes Supper beene abused among them what needed the rehearsall of the first institution to the which because the Apostle recalleth them it is euident they were fallen from it Nowe abuses in this place S. Paul mentioneth none but drunkennesse dissention and defrauding the poore and since drunkennesse and deceiuing the poore as you auouche can not agree to the Sacrament it followeth that dissention was the thing which defaced the Lordes Supper among them in that they would neither at coÌ„mon meats nor at the Lordes Supper sit al together but sort them selues in factions and companies as they fauoured and friended eche other This was the fault which S. Paul first rebuked when hee beganne to redresse the thinges that troubled the Church of Corinth They contended about Baptisme saying I am Pauls and I am Apollos and I am Cephaes and their dissention so increased and came to that sharpnes that they woulde haue their tables in the Church and euen the Lordes Supper also eche company by them selues The false Apostles sayth Ambrose had sowen such discorde among them that they stood striuing for their oblations Hierom saith In ecclesia conuenieÌ„tes oblationes suas separatim offerebant Meeting in the church they deliuered their oblations to seueral companies according as euery man fansied the parties And againe Nemo alium expectabat vt communiter offeretur No man expected one an other that the oblation might be common And S. Paul as Chrysostom thinketh brought the Table Supper where the Lord himselfe was and at which sate all his Disciples euen Iudas the Traytour for an example to shew them that that is rightly iudged to be The Lordes Supper quae omnibus simul conuocatis concorditer communiter sumitur which is receiued in common and with one consent of all assembled together Yea S. Augustine affirmeth that The Apostle speaking of this Sacrament saith for which cause brethren when you assemble together to eate expect one an other Your obseruations therefore are first false when you say these circumstances can not agree to the holy Sacrament For euen these which you name as most vnlikeliest are applied by the fathers to the Lordes Supper Expecting one an other you heard S. Augustine referre directly to this Sacrament Deuouring of all by the rich and drunkennesse S. Hierom expoundeth likewise of the verie same mysterie The Apostle sayth one is drunke and an other hungrie for this reason Quia superuenientibus mediocribus volentibus sumere Sacramenta deerant quoniam ab illis qui obtulerant oblationes in communi conuiuio fuerant cuncta consumpta Because the meaner sort comming after the rich mynding to receiue the Sacraments there was nothing left to minister the Sacrament withall they that brought the oblations deuouring all in their common banket Haymo sayth One is hungrie that is hee which for pouertie is not able to bring wheaten bread and wyne to bee consecrated for the Communion an other to witte the riche and wealthie man is drunken and surfeyteth as well with other meates as with the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord. Next did some of them not agree to the sacraments of the Lordes table as surfeyting deuouring and drunkennesse yet other circumstaunces as schismes not expecting one an other may and doe very fitly serue for the Lordes Supper as you see by the iudgement of those Fathers whom I haue named Thirdly did no circumstaunces of their disorders agree to the right institution of the Sacrament yet so long as Saint Paul refelleth their doinges in the Church as vnseemely for the sacred mysteries there prepared and receiued what reason haue you to deny that Saint Paul meaneth the sacrament where hee sayth when you come together if you fall to filling your bellies and despising the poore as you doe in your feastes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You can not or this is not the right way to eate the Lordes Supper For this is plaine to him that hath but halfe an eye that Saint Paul checketh them as vnwoorthie partakers by these their abuses of the mysteries of Christ and interpreteth the plagues which some of them felt to bee Gods scourges for their loosenes in that behalfe and therefore with great reasons might hee beginne to reprehend them as vnâ—it approchers to the Sacrament and vtter so much in these woordes when you come together this is not the way to eate the Lordes Supper or to haue accesse to his table to make schismes at your feastes in the Church with excesse in your selues and reproche to others Phi. If you will needes haue the Sacrament called the Lordes Supper keepe you that name and wee will keepe ours as more auncient and Catholike by the testimonie of Saint Augustine S. Ambrose and the rest whome I cited before for the antiquitie of the blessed Masse Theo. Hee that wil boldly deny a trueth will easily affirme a falsehood S. Augustine in all the works that be vndoubtedly his neuer so much as once named the Masse The Sermons de tempore which you produce are collected out of other mens writings as well as his and many of them found vnder the names of other authors and fauour litle either of Austens learning or phrase as Erasmus confessed when he first surueyed them S. Ambrose hath the woorde once and so haue two Prouinciall Councels of Africa Leo hath it twise which is all that you can finde in sixe hundreth yeres till Gregorie the first came and vsed the woorde somewhat oftener yet none of these cal the Sacrament or Sacrifice by that name as you would haue it but rather expresse by that word the auncient order of the primatiue church in sending away such as might not be partakers of the Lords table as in place where I noted before And that Missa with the fathers doeth signifie not the Masse but leaue to depart before or after the communion your owne fellowes wil instruct you whom you may not wel distrust as being with you though you trust not vs that are against you Polydore repeateth and alloweth the same with these woordes Mihiverò prior ratio probatur vt
magis apposita The former diriuation of the word Mâ—ssa pleaseth me better as the likelier and not that it should signifie a sacrifice and be deriued from the Hebrew word Missà as Reuchline woulde deduce it And therefore he sayth Idem igitur mos a nostris etiam seruatur vt peractis sacris per Diaconum pronuncietur Ite missa est quod idem est ac ilicet id est ire licet The same maner is obserued of our men that at the ende of diuine seruice the Deacon should say ITE MISSA EST which is as if he sayd YOV MAY DEPART And that missa was vsual for missio he sheweth out of Cyprians epistles where he sayth remissa for remissio Rhenanus another of your friends giueth the like obseruation in his notes vppon the 4. booke of Tertullian against Marcion Hodie in fine Sacri Leuita pronunciat Ite missa est id est missio est quod olim in initio dicebatur antequam inciperentur videlicet ipsa mysteria Hinc iuxta vulgi consuetudinem Ambrosius missas facere dixit Propriè missa erat tempore Sacrificij quando Cathecumeni foras mittebantur At this day the Priest pronounceth at the end of his seruice Ite missa est that is go you haue leaue to depart which in the primatiue church was sayd in the beginning before they came to the celebration of the Sacraments Thence Ambrose vsed the word missam facere according to the vulgar custome of those tymes For properly missa was when the conuerts not yet baptized were sent away in the time of the sacrifice that is at what time the rest addressed themselues to be partakers of the Lords table And that missa was common for missio hee proueth by Tertullian and Cyprian in his booke de bono patientiae and epist. 14. And lest you shoulde thinke this to bee a phantasticall assertion of his without all ground or authoritie such as the most of your obseruations are hee telleth you that this mysterie of antiquitie is related in Isidores Lexicon And in deede so it is For Isidore sayth Missa tempore Sacrificij est quando Cathecumeni foras mittuntur clamaÌ„te Leuita si quis cathecumenus remansit exeat foras inde missa quia sacrameÌ„tis altaris interesse non possunt qui nonduÌ„ regenerati nascuntur Missa was about the tyme of the sacrifice when the learners and such as were not yet baptized were sent out of the Church the Leuite crying if any Cathecumene bee heere let him depart and thence is the word missa because they can not be present at the Sacrament of the Altar which are not yet regenerate And I thinke for very shame you would not séeme to be so foolish as to take missam Cathecumenorum which the fourth councell of Carthage doth mention in the place alleaged by your selues and likewise S. Austen in those very sermons which you cite as his for your Masse or Sacrifice For how can fit missa Cathecumenis stand either for the sacrament or sacrifice since the persons named were not baptized and consequently not to be admitted to any of the Church mysteries So that graunt the word missa were found oftner in the Fathers than it is you can thence conclude nothing for your Masse which you rudely and vnaduisedly thinke to be all one with their missa or missarum solemnia where in déede it is as contrarie to that which they spake of as poyson to an wholesome potion For missa with them did signifie the sending away of such as might not communicate with the rest at the Lords table the masse with you is the reall and actuall sacrificing of the sonne of God to his father and the setting of the people to gaze on the Priest whiles he alone deuoureth all and falsifieth the very words and actions of Christes institution Phil. Nay you falsifie both the words and déedes of Christes institution and though you gather out of Isidore and others that Missa in the ancient Fathers was the demising of such as might not be present at the Sacrifice and missa Cathecumenorum by no meanes can be our Masse yet touching our Sauiours institution of the blessed Sacrament we come néerer to this example than you do you missing it in most points that be essentiall and we following all his actions that are imitable Theop. What essentiall points do we misse Phil. Almost all Theop. Reason you named some Phil. You do not imitate Christ in blessing the bread and wyne nor in vnleauened bread and mingling water with wine nor in saying the words of consecration ouer the bread and wine you vse no confession before nor adoration of the blessed Sacrament at the receiuing of it A number of like defects there are in your communion which cause it to be no sacrament but common bread and wine Therfore imperet vobis Deus and confound you for not discerning his holy body and for conculcating the blood of the new Testament Theop. Kéepe your burning and cursing deuotion for your selues your manquelling and masse-mongring rage hath as much affinitie with Michaels praier beséeching God the diuell might be restrained as fiercenes and furie hath to patience and pietie If we haue altered any part of Christes institution curse on in Gods name and let your curses take effect But if the celebration of our mysteries be answerable to his will and word that first ordained them you curse not vs whome you would hurt but him that your cursed toongs can not hurt which is God to be blessed for euer and whose euerlasting curse will take hold of you if you relent not the sooner for your proude defiance and stately contempt of his truth in respect of your massing reuels and mummeries Philand Nay you are contemners of his true body and blood in this reuerent blessed and holy sacrament and breakers of his institution and therefore his curse will light on you Theop. Uaine spéech doth but spend time shew first wherein we breake Christes institution and for the truth of his presence in this Sacrament if we teach otherwise than the Scriptures and Fathers do warrant vs we are content to heare and beare the curse which blind zeale hath wrested from you Philand We shewed you euen now what things they were wherein you swarued from Christes institution Theoph. You must both repeate them and diuide them that we may the better discusse them Phil. I will Christ tooke bread into his hands applying this ceremonie action and benediction to it and did blesse the very element vsed power and actiue words vpon it as he did ouer the bread and fishes which he multiplied and so doeth the Church of God and so do not you if you followe your owne booke and Doctrine but you let the bread and cup stand aloofe and occupie Christes words by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed to
be occupied and therefore howsoeuer the simple people be deluded by the rehearsall of the same words which Christ vsed yet consecration benediction or sanctification of bread and wine you professe you make none at all Theoph. Christ you say tooke bread into his hands and did blesse the very element What meane you by blessing Philand He vsed power and actiue words vpon it as he did ouer the bread and fishes which he multiplied Theoph. Why walke you thus in cloudes Blessing with vs is the giuing of thanks vnto God with you it is the making of a crosse in the aire with your two forefingers Which of these twaine do you meane Philand That Christ blessed the bread we be very sure that he gaue thanks to the bread you dare not say Theo. Thanks he gaue to God and not to the bread Phil. But he blessed the bread and therefore blessing is not taken in Christes institution for thankes-giuing as you misconster it Theoph. If a man should put you to the new Testament in Gréeke can you spell it Philand Yea Sir and conster it as well as you Theoph. Then I trust your cunning will serue you to know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word the holy Ghost vseth to expresse the Lords action and benediction at his last Supper doth inferre that our Sauiour gaue thanks to God and made no crosse with his hand ouer the bread Philand But S. Marke saith that our Lord brake the bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing first blessed it and Saint Paul doeth not sticke to referre that word to the cup it selfe and not to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chalice of benediction which we blesse is it not the communication of the blood of Christ Theo. Do you think S. Marke reproueth S. Luke S. Matthew or that S. Paul is contrarie to himselfe Phil. No I thinke the one expoundeth the other and all their reportes méete full in one congruence Theoph. And otherwise to say or thinke is apparent blasphemie against the spirit of God who neuer halteth in his tale nor dissenteth from him-selfe in any thing much lesse in a matter of so weightie moment as this is Philand He can be no Christian that doubteth thereof Theop. Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since children in Grammer schooles do know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to giue thanks with words and not to crosse with fingers we conclude that this is a childish error of yours to thinke that Christ gaue not thanks to God but blessed the very element Yea no word plainer conuinceth your puerilitie than that which you haue brought to relieue your selfe For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth more euidently refell your crossing with fingers than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being compounded of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Gréeke importeth speach vttered by month and by no meanes drawing or crossing the fingers Phil. Let the word signifie what you will that which Christ did were it with hand or mouth he did it ouer the bread and vpon the bread and so do not you but let the bread and cup stand aloofe and occupie Christs words by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed to be occupied Theop. This is the right behauiour of your Rhemish translatours to wrangle and trifle about phrases and ambiguities as if they were the precepts and commandements of God Our Sauiour you affirme blessed the very element that is vsed power and actiue words vpon it or ouer it Blessing is a word that is diuersly vsed in the scriptures To blesse God is to praise him and to giue honor to his name and for that cause you shall find both those words ioyned together as words of like force as wheÌ„ S. Luke saith the disciples continued in the temple praising and blessing God To blesse men if it be done by men for of their blessings we speake and not of Gods is to pray for them and to beséech God that he will blesse them that is defend them prosper them and be mercifull vnto them So Isaac blessed Iacob and Iacob the sonnes of Ioseph and so were the Priests appointed by God himselfe to blesse the children of Israel and a forme of praier for that purpose prescribed them We may also blesse the time place and meanes in which or by which God sheweth his fauour towards vs that is we may pronounce them blessed for our sakes and our selues bound to blesse God for them So Dauid sayd to Abigail Blessed be God that sent thee this day to meete me Blessed be thy speach or counsell and blessed be thou which hast kept me this day from going to shed blood where he blesseth God as the author the woman as the meanes her words as the perswasions and occasions that kept him from vsing the bloody reuenge which he determined against Nabal and his familie And so said Salomon blessed is the tree whereby righteousnes commeth So on the contrary Iob and Ieremie cursed the dayes wherein they were borne would not haue them to be blessed We must likewise blesse the meates which we eate the things which we vse for the maintenance of this mortall life that is praier must be made vnto God that they may be healthfull for vs we thankfull for them by which meanes our food al other succors of this life are sanctified to his pleasure our comfort Since then the Scriptures not onely permit but also command that we should blesse one another and so the creatures which nourish our bodies we make no doubt but it is both lawfull néedfull for vs to blesse the sacraments which are the seales of Gods euerlasting promises therfore we readily receiue S. Pauls adiection when he saith the cup of blessing WHICH WE BLESSE is it not the coÌ„munion of Christs blood Mary blessing in that place we take not for crossing or charming the cup with a set number order of signs profers as you vse at your masse but for the making of our ernest huÌ„ble praiers to God that our vnworthines do not hinder the working of his sacraments but that by his goodnes mercy they may take their due effects in vs according â—o his sonnes institutioÌ„ for the pardoning of our sins the incresing of his grace our faith the quikning of our inward man preseruing both body soul to eternal life And this the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the maner of blessing all other things persons directed by the scriptures the very principles of praier pietie do approue coÌ„firm wheras your houering blowing ouer the Chalice your crossing hiding it your rubbing of fingers for feare of crums your first thwarting and then lifting of armes your ioining and vnioining of thumbe and
forefinger with twenty such nicefinities curiosities haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs action nor institution nor to his Apostles doctrine nor doings who knew their masters meaning and continued their masters example with words gestures reuerent sufficient to satisfie his heauenly will and precept for this matter Phi. You doe not so much as vse any words vpon the elements but let the bread and the wine stand aloofe as if you were afraid to touch them Theo. In déede we blesse with our hearts and voices not with our fingers and therefore we make our account that our praiers are as forceable and as effectuall at sixe féete length as at six haires bredth And to deal friendly with you that blessing with mouth taketh no place except the hand be also winding turning the patene and chalice after your maner we can not beléeue it afore we sée some reason for it sorcerers and coniurers haue such circumstances but we hope you be not of their Seminaries Phi. Did not Christ take the bread likewise the cup into his hands Theo. Yes verily He could not BREAK it with his hand vnles it were in his hand neither could he GIVE it out of his hand afore he TOOKE it into his hand Phil. Then Christ TOOKE the bread so the cup into his hands before he did consecrate so you do not Theo. You would say before he did distribute For breking giuing which wer the ends of his taking are parts of distributiō not of cōsecration Phi. What blasphemy haue we heer did Christ distribute before he did cōsecrate the bread Theo. You be so busie about blessing the host and the chalice that you charge the sonne of God in his doings and the euangelists in their writings with blasphemy Phi. Nay we charge you with blasphemie for saying that Christ gaue vnconsecrated bread and wine to his disciples Theoph. Doth not the Scripture say the same Iesus taking bread and giuing thanks brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and saide take ye eate ye this is my bodie And taking the cup and giuing thanks he gaue it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament c. He tooke bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples bidding them take it and eate it before he said this is my body Now if these words this is my bodie be the words of Consecration ergo distribution went before Consecration and when Christ did consecrate the bread was in his disciples and not in his owne hands Phil. But he blessed as we call it or as you terme it he gaue thanks before he brake it Theop. That thanksgiuing or benediction was not consecration as your selues confesse and would séem to prooue by an whole heape of fathers and therfore in spite of all that you do or can say Christ did consecrate by word of mouth whē the disciples had the bread cup in their hands Phi. Would you haue the priest then not at al to touch the elements Theo. When we diuide them we cannot choose but touch them as Christ did Mary they may be sanctified by prayer and made Sacraments by repeating the words of Christ though at that instant we touch them not And therfore your vnsound quidities that Christ blessed the very element and vsed power actiue words vpon the bread and ouer the bread which we doe not but let the bread and wine stand a loofe and occupie the words of Christ by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed these nice and new found quddities I say be méere fooleries since the words of Consecration take their effect not from our fingers or gestures but from Christs mouth and commandement that we should do the like Phil. You neuer apply these words this is my body more than the whole narration of the institution nor recite the whole otherwise than in historical maner and for that cause you make it no Sacrament at al. Theo. Can you tell what you say Phil. Why doubt you that Theo. Because it is a wicked and blasphemous lie for the priest to say this is my bodie otherwise than by way of rehearsall what Christ said And therefore your braines be more than distempered if you would haue vs or any other Christian ministers to say it otherwise than by report what Christ saide and commanded vs to do in remembrance of him Phil. Doe you thinke we meane the priest should say of his owne person this is my bodie Theo. If you do meane it Bedlem is a fitter place for you than either Rhemes or Rome Phil. You may be sure we do not Theo. Why then reprooue you vs for repeating the words of Christ by way of rehearsall what he did and saide Phil. You should apply them to the matter proposed Theo. How By praier precedent and consequent or by glozing and interlacing Christs wordes with ours Phil. You should actiuely and presently apply them to the elements of bread and wine Theo. I must aske you the same question that I did before The wordes were spoken by Christ in his own person and cannot actiuely and presently be pronounced by any priest but by way of report what Christ saide without apparent and horrible blasphemie And therefore the application of them in our words must either go before them or after them and not exactly with them much lesse to be comprised in them Phil. We tell you you doe not apply them actiuely and presently Theo. We tell you you knowe not what you say The words of Christ this is my body this is my blood mauger all the diuels in hell must be pronounced in no mans person but only by way of repetition what Christ at his last supper said in his owne person and your Iesuitical nouelties of actiuely and presently be so far from the soundnes of faith and substance of truth that your selues are not able to expound what you speake Phil. Yes that we are Theo. So it should séeme by the readinesse of your answere What then is the present and actiue application which you striue for or which way is it made By word of mouth or intention of hart The Priest when he saith this is my body cannot iointly with those words vtter any other words of his owne to apply them Intention of heart cannot alter the sense of the spéech but only direct before God the purpose of the speaker And vnlesse the meaning of the Priest be to recite the words of Christ by way of repetition I sée not how you can excuse either the Priests hart or mouth from outragious and monstrous impietie Phil. We haue a present and actiue application of the words which you haue not Theo. What is it Phil. The Priest intendeth to doe as Christ did and therefore vttereth the words distinctly and aduisedly ouer the elements that are in his hands and vnder his eies
which you doe not Theo. What you list to do is no care of ours if you can shew vs any thing in Christs institution which we haue not we wil giue you the hearing otherwise to ad your ceremonies to his commandements we mind it not We knowe you crosse the creatures at benedixit and hold your noses â—o néere the bread when you say hoc est corpus meum that the breath of your mouthes euen warmeth the host but our beliefe is that his mightie word not your vnpausing spéech or intentiue lookes performeth the Sacrament And therfore your blowing Christs words vpon the bread is rather a magicall incantation than any effectuall application of them to the elements and if you hold that his word is too weake to endue the visible signe with inuisible grace except it be backed by your blowing and crossing we say you be proud disciples no right appliers of his heauenly word and power Phil. We do not help his words as if they were of themselues weake but we apply them to the elements in this present and actiue maner which you do not for when you recite the words a man cannot tell whether you speake them to trie your memories or to coÌ„secrate the mysteries you be so far from vsing any gestures or action that should import application Theop. The purpose of our hearts wel knowen vnto God and made open vnto men wheÌ„ we call them to the Lords table the praiers which we make before we come to the words of Christ directly and plainely tending to that end the placing of the bread and the cup in our and their sight the mentioning of Christes institution and commandement that we should follow his example and continue that remembrance of him the duetifull and reuerent rehearsing the words which he spake as the holy Ghost did penne them this demonstration and supplication that we receiuing THESE THY creatures of bread and wine according to thy Sonne our Sauiour Iesus Christes institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed bodie and blood vsed immediatly before we repeate the words of Christ the breaking and giuing of the bread and so likewise the cup immediatly after they be sanctified and offering them to each communicant in remembrance of Christes bodie that was broken and blood that was shed to purchase the remission of their sinnes thereby to preserue them body and soule to euerlasting life the praiers I say precedent the preparation euident the direction adherent the distribution consequent are signes enough to hym that hath but eares or eyes that we presently purposely publikely execute Christes institution and other hooking and haling of Christes words to the elements by crossing crouching gaping and blowing on them as your manner is we acknowledge none to be required or expressed in the Lords Supper Philand It is no Sacrament but as Saint Augustine saith when the words come that is to say actiuely and presently be applied to the elements Theoph. We know that to be most true which S. Augustine saith Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum when the word commeth to the element the Sacrament is perfite but what haue your termes actiuely and presently to do with Saint Austens speach yea what place could you choose more repugnant to your fansies than this which you bring The element without the word is a weake and corruptible creature put the word to it and then it becommeth a Sacrament Philand You marke not the force of the verbe Accedit which signifieth the word must come so néere that it must euen touch the element Theoph. Can you tell vs how words may touch elements Philand What else By actiue and present application Theoph. This is your old song which we would haue you turne to some plainer note What kind of application meane you with the breath of your mouths motion of your hands or cogitation of your hearts You may blowe vppon the bread and wyne but there is some difference betwéene the sounde of your voyce and the breath of your loongs if you looke a little but to Aristotles Predicamentes and therefore your breath may touche the elements your woords can not Much lesse can your fingers apply your speach either actiuely or presently to the elements you must runne to the inward intention of the mynd and that may direct your purpose in speaking as it dooth ours but not actiuely apply your spéech to come néerer the elements in your masse than in our communion And so the comming of the word to the element in Saint Austen to perfite a Sacrament helpeth you to prooue your reall and manuall application of Christs words in your Masse as much as chaulke doth to make chéese when curds are wanting Yea rather if you reade on but foure lines you shall find your follies flatly refuted by Saint Augustine and a cleare resolution for vs that not vttering but beleeuing the words of Christ giueth force to the Sacraments In the water of Baptisme saith he it is the word that clenseth Take away the word and what is water but water Then commeth that which you cite Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Put the word to the element and then is it a Sacrament Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat nisi faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Nam in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manens Whence hath the water this vertue to touch the body and wash the soule but by the power of the word not in that it is spoken but in that it is beleeued for in the word it selfe the sound passing is one thing and that little woorth the vertue remaining is another thing If the word of Christ do not worke in that it is spoken much lesse in that it is actiuely or exquisitely spoken with square conueiance and nimble gestures the lacke of which is the greatest fault you can find with our Sacraments Philand This is no small fault but yet not the greatest Theoph. You should haue laid foorth in writing what circumstances are required to your actiue application of Christes words and then you might haue béene answered with more perspicuitie Wheras now your obiecting vnto vs the breach of Christes institution in certaine metaphysicall and supermysticall termes neither opened by your selues nor vnderstood of others is but a Iesuiticall deuise to make a brable about words and to get the simple in the meane time to mistrust some-what in our doctrine and doings though they nor you sée no iust cause to mislike But to be short with you if the repelling of your actiue and slipper gestures and hauiours that we might embrace the will and commandement of the high and mightie God be a fault we haue committed many foule faults in this and all other parts of our profession otherwise in pride and presumption you
your pelting quarelles in the eyes of all men that euer reade the wordes of Christ if your owne Schooles in eyther or any of these thinges which you oppose goe not cleare with vs that they bee no partes of Christes institution wee will yeelde to the fault and correct that ouersight If they doe then let your friends conceiue what truth there is in your mâ—uthes and what credit is to bee giuen to your wrangling obseruations sent vs lately from Rhemes wherein without all shame and care you refute not vs but your selues and your owne conclusions that you might say somewhat against vs before the simple and vnlearned were it otherwise neuer so false or foolish and euen contrary to your own Principles But you did well to beginne first you sawe howe plainely you were to bee taken tardie with many wilfull and ineâ—cusable breaches of Christes institution and therefore you thought it safest to make the salie first on vs that whiles we were occupied in defending our own we should desist from impugning your Masse which is nowe nothing else but an heape of sinnefull deuises and abuses inuented by Satan and broached by Antichrist to deface and frustrate the Lordes supper Phi. Who can abide your blasphemies against the blessed Masse Theo. Call you that blâ—ssed where besides your fruitlesse prayers and superstitious ceremonies your prinâ—â—e halfe commâ—nion subuerteâ—h â—he Lords instâ—tution your sacrifice derogateth from his death and bloodshedding your adoration of bread wine conuinceth you of hainous open Idolatrie Phi. Thâ—se words declare your fury Theo. Those deedes shew foorth your pieâ—â—e Phi. You can not proue so much as one of these things which you obiect Theo. If we moue not euery one of them we will acquite you from them all Phi. That shall you neuer do Theo. So must you say though it bee neuer so plaine but to the point Where learned you thaâ—â—he Priest might celebrate the Lordes Supper openly in the church witâ—â—â—â— any man to communicate with him the people standing by and gasing on hâ—m The Gospell is against you for Christ took bread and when hee had giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue it to the Disciples you breake the bread in your priuate Masse for fashions sake but to whom doe you giue it Giuing is a part of the Lordes supper as wel as breaking If it bee needefull to breake the bread because Christ did so wee conclude it as needfull to giue thâ— bread because he did both and the bread is broken as Augustine affirmeth to be diuided In vaine then is it broken if it be not giuen This the wordes that next insue confirme Accipite edite take ye eate ye The wordes bee plurall ergo they bee neither truly repeated nor dulie followed except others receiue with the Priest For his person and action is wholy singular and so perforce you must either chaunge the wordes of Christs institution which is no way lawfull or increase the number of communicants which euerteth your priuate Masse We are all partakers of one bread saith Paul describing thereby the Lordes Supper and with you no man is partaker besides the Priest When you come togither to eate the Lords supper tarie one for an other that ye come not together vnto condemnation which the Apostle spake of this Sacrament as you hearde out of Augustine To liâ—le purpose stay you for them which shall eate nothing when they come The Lordes supper ought to be common to all because he gaue the Sacramentes equally to all his Disciples that were present and your Masse is priuate to the Priest alone Call you this an imitation of the Lordes Supper or a perfourmance of his will when you frustrate the very wordes which hee spake and neglect the chiefest thing which himselfe did at his table Doe this sayth Christ in remembraunce of mee that is neither omit nor alter you this institution but in all pointes doe that which I did before you which you doe not therefore as yet we see not how you can excuse your selues from a plaine contempt of Christ and his ordinance Phi. Is this all you can say Theo. This is more than you yet haue answered or as I think can for all your crakes Phi. It is answered with a word The. Such a word it may be that it will worke miracles but in the meane time how keepe you Christs institution Phi. All the circumstances of time person and place which in Christes action are noted neede not to bee mitated As that the Sacrament shoulde bee ministred at night to men onely to only twelue after supper and such like because as S. Cyprian epist. 63. nu 7. S. Aug. epist. 118. nu 6 note there were causes of those accidentes in Christ that are not nowe to bee alleadged for vs. Theo. That which you say is true but it serueth not your turn The circumstances of time as whether at night or in the morning of place as whether in church or in chamber of person as whether men or women twelue or any other number these things we grant be wholy in different The reason is The Lord neither in his speech nor in his actions which he commaunded vs to imitate did comprise any of these particulars He tooke bread he gaue thanks he brake it and eate it saieng this is my body The cup likewise he tooke and when he had giuen thanks he gaue it them drinke ye all of this this is my blood of the new Testament Do this in remembraunce of me These things be essential parts of the Lords supper commaunded by him to be followed of vs. These if you neglect you neither obey his precept nor celebrate his supper but prophanely and wickedly thrust his ordinance out at doores that your owne deuises may take place Phi. His words this is my body this is my blood of the new TestameÌ„t c. are essentiall parts of this mystery and so are the elements for in these two consist the matter and forme of the sacrament The. And what are his acâ—ions be not they likewise essential parts of his supper Phi. What actions meane you Theo. Giuing thaÌ„ks breaking giuing eating drinking wtout which it is not the Lords supper Phi. These be certain accidents which our Sauior then vsed they be not of the essence of the sacrament Theo. With what words did he command vs to continue this memoriall of him Phi. Do this for a commemoratioÌ„ of me Theo. Let it be in remeÌ„brance of me or for a coÌ„memoration of mee whether you wil so you take not commemoration for Dirges which Christ needeth not since he liueth raigneth in the glory of God his â—ather the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the remembrance of me but the first part of the sentence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do ye this Phi. It is so what then Theo. He that charged his Apostles
neither denying auoyding defeating nor answering What if not one of these fathers whose works you cite as thick as hops euer spake or heard of your external and real sacrificing the sonne of God afresh for the sinnes of the worlde but they vsing the wordes Sacrifice and oblation to an other purpose you force a priuate and peculiar sense of yours vpon their speaches against their meanings Phi. This is euer your wont when the woordes bee so plaine that you can not deny them to flie to the meaning Theo. In deede this hath beene not the least of Satans sleights in conueying your Religion from steppe to step point by point to keepe the speach and chaunge the sense of the learned and auncient fathers that what with the phrases which were theirs and the forgeries which were not theirs and yet caried their names hee might make the way for Antichrist to set vp his visible Monarchie of error and hypocrisie Phi. This is the way to rid your selues of all obiections Theoph. And the other is the way to drowne your selues in the deapth of all corruption but so long as wee holde their fayth and doctrine which were the lights and lampes of Christes church we can spare you their phrases here and there skattered in their writings you no whit the neerer the trueth of their beliefe Phi. You hold not their fayth in this or any other point of your Religion Theo. The greatest boasters bee not alwaies the greatest conquerours Let it therefore first appeare what they teache touching the Sacrifice of the Lords table and what wee admit and then it will soone bee seene which of vs twaine hath departed from them The fathers with one consent call not your priuate Masse that they neuer knew but the Lordes Supper a Sacrifice which wee both willingly graunt and openly teach so their text not your gloze may preuayle For there besides the sacrifice of praier and thankesgiuing which we must then offer to God for our redemption other his graces bestowed on vs in Christ his sonne besides the dedication of our soules and bodies to be a reasonable quicke and holy sacrifice to serue and please him besides the contribution and almes then giuen in the primatiue Church for the reliefe of the poore and other good vses a Sacrifice no doubt very acceptable to God I say besides these three sundry sortes of offerings incident to the Lordes table the very Supper itselfe is a publike memorial of that great dreadful sacrifice I meane of the death bloodshedding of our sauiour and a most assured application of the merites of his passion for the remission of our sinnes not to the gazers on or standers by but to those that with faith and repentance come to the due receiuing of those mysteries The visible sacrifice of bread and wyne representing the Lords death S. Austen enforceth in these words Hold most firmly neither doubt of this in any case that the only begotten sonne of God taking our flesh offered himselfe a sweet smelling sacrifice to god to whom with the father the holy ghost the Patriarks Prophets Priests vnder the old law sacrificed brute beasts to whoÌ„ now in the time of the new Testament with the same father holy spirite the holy Catholike Church throughout the world doth not cease to ofâ—er the sacrifice of breade and wine in faith charitie In those carnal Sacrifices there was a figuration of the flesh of Christ which he should offer bloud which he should shed for the remissioÌ„ of our sins In this sacrifice there is a thankesgiuing remembrance of the flesh which he hath offered and bloud which the same god hath shed for vs. With him agreeth Ireneus Christ willing his Disciples to offer vnto God the first fruites of his creatures not that god needed them but lest they should be found vnfruiteful or vnthankful toke the creature of bread and gaue thanks saying this is my body And likewise he confessed the cup which is a creature amongst vs to be his bloud teaching the new oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiuing from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the world We must theÌ„ offer to god in al things yeeld thanks to god the maker with a pure mind vnfaigned faith stedfast hope and feruent loue offering the first fruits of his Creatures and this oblation the Church only sacrificeth in purity to the creator offering to God of his creatures with thanksgiuing And this we offer to him not as if he stoode in neede of these presents but rendring him thanks for these his gifts and sanctifieng the creature This oblation of bread wyne for a thankesgiuing to God a memoriall of his sonnes death was so confessed vndoubted a trueth in the church of Christ till your Schoolemen beganne to wrest both Scriptures and Fathers to serue their quiddities that not onely the Liturgies vnder the names of Clemens Basil and Chrysostome do mention it We offer to thee our king and God this bread this cup according to thy sonnes institutioÌ„ tua ex tuis offerimus tibi domine we offer thee O Lord these thy gifts of thine own creatures Which sense Irineus vrgeth against valentine but also the very Missals vsed in your own Churches at this day do confirme the same These be the woordes of your own Offertorie Receiue holy Father God euerlasting this vndefiled host which I thine vnworthy seruant offer to thee my king and true God for my sinnes negligences and offences innumerable for al standers by yea for all faithful christians as wel liuing as departed this life that it may helpe me theÌ„ to attaine eternal life We offer to thee O Lord this cup of saluation intreating thy goodnes that it may be taken vp into thy sight as a sweet smell for the sauing of vs the whole world Receiue blessed Trinitie this oblatioÌ„ which we offer to thee in remeÌ„brance of the passion resurrection asceÌ„tion of Christ Iesus our Lord. We humbly beseech thee most merciful father through Iesus Christ thy son our Lord that thou accept blesse these gifts these preseÌ„ts these holy vndefiled sacrifices which we offer to thee first for thy Church holy and catholike c. For al true belieuers c. For al here present c. For the redemption of their soules and hope of saluation Certainely you speake these words long before you repeate Christs institution your Masse-booke doth apparently prooue that which I report if I mistake the secretes of your masse let the shame bee mine What then offer you in this place Christ or the creatures of bread wine By your own doctrine Christ is not present neither any change made til these wordes This is my body this is my blood be pronounced ergo before consecration the creatures of bread wyne keepe their
proper earthly substance when notwithstanding your selues offer thē to God in your masses for the remissiō of your sins redēption of your soules to profit the quick the dead by that oblation You teach the people that nothing is offred by the priest to god the father for remission of sins but Christ his son Your masse where this should be done conuinceth that you sacrifice not Christ but the creatures of bread wine Be you not more thā blind which see not that the praiers which you daily frequent refute the sacrifice which you falsly pretend Phi. As though the ancient fathers did not also say that Christ himself is daily offred in the church Theo. Not in the substance which is your error but in signification which is their doctrine ours Take their interpretation with their words they make nothing for your local external offring of christ Was not Christ saith Austen once sacrificed in himselfe and yet in a sacrament is he offered for the benefite of the people not euery Paschal feast only but euery day Neither doth he lie that whē the questiō is asked him answereth Christ is offred daily For if Sacraments had not a certain similitude of the things wherof they be sacraments they should be no Sacraments at al. And by reason of this similitude they vsually take the names of the things them-selues Christ is offred daily this is true saith Austen but how The communion is a sacrament of the Lords death sacraments haue the names of the things them selues from a certaine resemblance that is betwene them This doctrine differeth much from yours and yet must Austen stand for a christian and Catholike father when you by your patience shall goe for vpstarts Phi. S. Augustine spake this not of the liuely flesh blood of Christ which we sacrifice to god the father by the priests hands for the sins necessities of mē but of his death passiō represented at our masse by the holy mysteries The. In deed S. Augustin spake of that he knew as for your cōceit of sacrificing the liuely flesh blood of Christ in substance vnder the formes of bread wine by the priests hands neither he nor any good author was euer acquainted with it And to say the truth the very spring roote of your error is this that you seek for a sacrifice in the Lords supper besides the Lords death Marke wel the words of Cyprian The passion of the Lord is the sacrifice which we offer Of Ambrose Our high priest is he that offred on the crosse a sacrifice to clense vs the very same we offer now which being then offred cannot be consumed this Sacrifice is a sāplar of that we offer that very sacrifice for euer Of Eusebius Christ after al things ended offred a wōderful oblation most excellent sacrifice on the crosse for the saluation of vs al gaue vs a memorie therof in stead of a sacrifice we therfore offer the remēbrance of that great sacrifice in the mysteries which he deliuered vs. Of Chrysost. Bringing these mysteries we stop the mouthes of those that aske how we proue that Christ was sacrificed on the crosse For if Iesus were not slaine whose signe and token is this sacrifice Of Austen We sacrifice to God in that only manner in which he commanded we should offer to him at the reuealing of the new Testament the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was yeelded in verie trueth when Christ was put to death after his ascention it is now solemnized by a Sacramēt of memorie The verie elements and actions of the Lordes Supper conuince no lesse The bread which we breake what else doth it represent but the Lordes bodie that was broken for vs The cup which we drinke what els doth it resemble saue the Lordes blood that was shed for our sakes When the host is broken and the blood poured out of the cup into the mouthes of the faithfull what other thing saith Prosper is thereby designed than the offering of the Lordes bodie on the crosse and the shedding of his blood from his side As often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup you shewe forth the Lordes death till he come saith Paul There can be no question of this the spirit of god hath spoken it Then if the death of Christ be the sacrifice which the church offreth it is euident that christ is not only sacrificed at this table but also crucified crucified in that selfe same sort sense that he is sacrificed but no man is so mad as to defēd that christ is really put to death in these mysteries ergo neither is he really sacrificed vnder the formes of bread wine which thing your selues haue lately ventered rashly presumed without al antiquity The catholik fathers I can assure you say christ is offered christ is crucified in the Lords supper indifferently So Ierom Christ is euery day crucified to vs. So Chrysostom The death of christ is here performed So Gregory Christ dieth againe in this mysterie his flesh suffreth for the saluation of the people so to conclude Austen The gētiles now through the whole world tast lick the passion of Christ in the sacraments of his body blood If you can expound this you shall not neede to stagger at the rest The church hath no Sacrifice propiciatorie besides the death of her Sauiour and therefore as she doth kill him so she doth offer him in her mysteries If you can not learne by the direction of your own decrees what doctrin was taught in the primatiue church and euen in your own church for 1300. yeres touching this matter The offering of the Lords flesh by the Priests hands is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ Non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Not in precise truth but in a mystical signification or it your gloze delight you rather In this mysterie Christ dieth that is his death is represented his flesh suffereth that is his passion is represented In this very sense Christ is offred daily Chrysostom Do we not offer euery day we do but a memorial of his death We do not offer an other sacrifice but euer the same or rather we continue the remembrance of that sacrifice Ambrose Because we were deliuered by the Lords death we bearing that in mynd do signifie with eating and drinking the flesh and blood that were offred for vs It is a memorial of our redemption Eusebius Christ offered a wonderful sacrifice for the saluatiō of vs al we haue receiued a memorial of that most sacred oblation to be performed at the Lordes table according to the rule of the new testament Augustin Christ is our high priest after the order of Melchisedec which yeelded himself a slain sacrifice for our sinnes and gaue vs a
which we eate and cup which we drinke at the Lordes table these conclusions I saie standing good we receiue the foure and twentie places which here you huddle and the fourteene which the Pen-man of your Apologie hath shufled into his sixt chapter being for the most part the same that these are and the rest weaker than these and affirme that not one of them teacheth anie other sacrifice than we haue shewed and confessed and that is no such offering as you auouch and defend at this daie to be in your Masse For you will haue a reall externall and corporall kinde of offering the liue fleâ—â— of Christ by the Priests hands vnder the formes of bread and wine to God the father for the sinnes of men and this manual seruice or act of the Priest you auouch to be meritorious and propitiatorie for those that can purchase the Priests good will to be mindfull of them in his memento This is we saie a wicked inuention of yours not the assertion of anie father They celebrated and solemnized the Lordes death by sanctifying the creatures as Christ ordained and by diuiding them to such as were faithfull and thankeful to God for the redemption of the world in the blood of his sonne and this their incitation and prouocation of all men to faith praier thanks and obedience was the acceptable seruice and Sacrifice of the new testament To this we would recall you by telling you that God careth not for the Priests hands but for the peoples hearts and that he requireth not one mans crossing but the whole Churches calling on him with one heart and one mouth that he may be honoured and wee comforted in the death of his sonne And this was it that Malachie foretolde and not the Priests holding vp the Chalice or clenly conueighing the paten as he must in your Sacrifice Phi. The Prophet Malachie did plainly foretel our Sacrifice as S. Cyprian S. Iustine S. Ireneus and other most ancient Doctors and Martyrs doe testifie Theo. Why What saide the Prophet Malachie Phi. I haue no will to you saith our Lord of Saboth to the Iewish Priests and a gift wil I not receiue of your hands For from the rising of the sunne to the setting thereof my name is great among the Gentils and in euery place A CLEANE OBLATION IS OFFERED AND SACRIFICED TO MY NAME Theo. Malachie doth not say it shal be offred at the Altar or by the Priests hands or vnder the formes of bread wine but a pure oblation is offered vnto my name Phi. And what oblation can be so pure as the bodie and bloud of Christ Theo. Neither saith hee the purest but a pure oblation is offered Phi. What other oblation hath the new Testament but only that Theo. Sacrifice for sinne it hath none but that which the sonne of God made on the crosse mary yet the new Testament teacheth vs other oblations besides that though I confesse all our words and works euen our selues must bee washed and sanctified in that sacrifice before we or any thing that we say or doe can be acceptable vnto God Phi. What oblations doth the new Testament teach vs besides that Theo. You haue not forgotten I dare say what Peter saith And ye as liuely stones be made a spirituall house and an holy Priesthood to offer vp spiritual Sacrifices acceptable vnto God by Iesus Christ. Phi. Why may not S. Peter speake that of the annointed Priests and their true sacrifices Theo. So he doth but he meaneth all Christians and not your shauelings Phi. You would picke a quarell to holy oile but you bee not yet at rest from the sacrifice Why may not S. Peter I pray you speake of the blessed Masse Theo. Because hee speaketh to al both men and weomen and telleth them of a blesseder matter than your masse that is of the true spiritual sacrifices in which god taketh more pleasure than in your mumbling of fruitlesse Masses Phi. What are those Theo. S. Paul vttereth two of them almost in one sentence Let vs therefore by him offer the Sacrifice of praise alwaies to God that is the fruite of lippes confessing his name To doe good and distribute forget not for with such sacrifices God is pleased which liberalitie els where he calleth a sweete smelling odour and a sacrifice acceptable and pleasaunt to God A third kind of Sacrifice is that which he mentioneth to the Romanes I beseech you brethren by the mercies of God that you giue vp your bodies a liuing SACRIFICE holy and acceptable vnto God which is your reasonable seruing of God Phi. These were Sacrifices of the old Testament as wel as of the new For Dauid saith To thee will I sacrifice the offerings of praise and call vpon the name of our Lord and of the next He that sheweth mercie offereth a Sacrifice and so of the third A sacrifice to God is a spirit afflicting him-selfe with penance Theo. Keepe your penances to stuffe puddings The sacrifice to God is a troubled or a broken spirit We will not now striue for wordes These you see be Sacrifices of the olde Testament as well as of the new Theo. And therefore the truer and purer Sacrifices For the rest were shaddowes these were none and so those were abolished which these were not Phi. But Malachie speaketh of a new Sacrifice that was neuer before Theo. He speaketh of the true Sacrifice which from the beginning and so to the ende was and shall be more acceptable to God than the bloody and externall sacrifices of the Iewes Of a new Sacrifice that neuer was before he speaketh nothing for ought that I can see Phi. The sacrifice which Christ made of himselfe vnder the formes of bread and wine was a new sacrifice Theo. Uerie new if anie such were made Phi. Of that Malachie speaketh Theo. Who tolde you so Phi. S. Cyprian S. Iustine S. Ireneus and others Theo. You might doe well to speake more directlie for nowe wee knowe not whether you alledge them to expound the Prophet Malachie or whether you make them Prophets to tel what shall continew in the Church throughout all Christian Nations in steade of all Aarons offerings Phi. They will tell you the meaning of Malachie Theo. They will in deed but you neither quote them right nor applie them right if you cite them to shew that your Massing Sacrifice was forespoken of by the Prophet Malachie Phi. No whie Theo. Cyprian in that epistle maketh no mention of Malachie nor of his woordes Iustinus and Ireneus alledge him marie not for the Priests act in offering the sonne of God nor for Christs secret lodging vnder the formes of bread but for the praiers and thankes that all the faithful giue to GOD when they come to bee partakers of this mysterie Philand They say Malachies woordes are perfourmed in the Eucharist Theo. Not by the Priestes handes or gestures but by the
doubt arise not touching the creatures of breade and wine but touching the fleshe and blood of Christ which are the Principall partes of this mystery the solution and explication of euery such doubt must be fet from the place where the Lord first reuealed this secret rebuked the Capernites for the misconstruction of his words and taught his Disciples how they should be both fruitfull partakers of his flesh rightful interpreters of his speech Phi. You woulde faine haue it so but wee meane to barre you that chaâ—ce Theo. You cannot bar vs but you must bar Chrysostom Cyprian Cyrill Austen and others that confesse the same trueth before vs. How chanced saieth Chrysostome the Disciples were not troubled when they heard this take eate this is my body Because their master had debated the same matter largely and profoundly before For at first when he spake of these thinges many were offended at the very words So Cyprian To the sonnes of Abraham doing the workes of Abraham the high Priest bringeth foorth bread and wine saying this is my body There arose before this as we reade in the Gospell of Iohn a question touching the nouelty of this speech and at the doctrine of this mysterie the hearers were amazed So Cyrill The Capernites before they beleeue question busily with him Therefore the Lord did not tell them how that might be but exhorteth them to seeke for it with faith mary to the beleeuing disciples he gaue peeces of breade saying take yee eate ye this is my body Likewise the cuppe hee deliuered round saying drinke yee all of this Thou seest that to those which asked without faith hee did not open the maner of this mysterie but to those which beleeued yea when they did not aske hee declared the same And Augustine When Christ spake of the Sacrament of his body and bloode they saide this speech is hard Who can heare it You see by the constant opinion of these Fathers that our Sauiour in the sixt of Iohn taught his Disciples what manner of eating his flesh and drinking his blood they should expect at his last Supper and that they therefore started not at these words this is my body because they learned of him before what to looke for and well remembred his interpretation of himselfe when the Capernites staggered at the like speech Then perforce what sense the wordes of Christ in the sixt of Iohn doe beare the same must the wordes of the supper retaine but there Christ teacheth the spirituall eating of his fleshe by faith his wordes bee figuratiue ergo the Lordes supper doeth not import any corporal eating of his flesh nor literall exposition of his wordes And why The performance may no way differ from the promise The promise made by Christ in the sixt of Iohn the bread which I will giue is my flesh was figuratiue The wordes then of the Supper THIS which I now giue is my body perfourming the same must likewise be figuratiue For Seales doe not alter or infringe but strengthen and confirme that which was promised The creatures of bread and wine Christ ordained at his last Supper to bee Sacramentes and Seales of his former promises vttered in the sixth of Iohn ergo they change not his meaning expressed before That was spiritual figuratiue therefore the wordes of the Supper can not be corporall nor literall And the wordes of Origen expounding the sixt of Iohn are a iust proofe that if in the wordes of the Supper you follow the letter that letter killeth Phi. This can not be Christ in the sixth of Iohn you say teacheth a spirituall and figuratiue kinde of eating his fleshe and in deliuering the Sacrament we be sure he spake of a corporall not of a spirituall eating his body For when our Lord saide take eate this is my body did hee not meane they should take it with their handes and eate it with their mouthes And therefore either the one place doth not serue to expound the other or else in both places is prescribed a reall and corporall eating the flesh of Christ drinking his blood which we rather imbrace as the likeliest Theo. In those wordes take and eate spoken at the last Supper hee ment no doubt the corporall taking and eating of that creature which hee gaue them and when hee added this is my body which hee tolde them before they must eate if they would haue any life in them he recalled to their mindes as Chrysostom noteth the doctrine hee had taught them of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in which because they were wel instructed by the Capernites error and their masters declaration of himselfe that the wordes which he spake were spirite and life they neither started nor stumbled at his speech but presently perceiued the Lord was ordayning a Sacrament to confirme their faith and not hiding his fleshe vnder accidentes or any other couerts to enter their mouthes for which grossenes the Capernits were before reproued Christes exposition therefore in the sixt of Iohn was purposely made to confute the carnal Iewes who when they heard of eating mans flesh and drinking blood dreampt of no kind of eating and drinking but with their bodily iawes lips and for that cause murmured as if they had beene inuited to some barbarous brutish act next to teach the disciples that indured his words in what sort they should looke for a diuiner purer kind of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood by beleeuing hoping and reioycing in his fleshe that was wounded and blood that was shed for their sinnes This he assured and ratified vnto them by ordaining afterward a Sacrament which they shoulde visibly see but inuisibly vnderstand corporally receiue but spiritually interprete in beleeuing the same by the power of his worde and spirit to haue in it cary with it the fulnes of his trueth mercy openly sealed with those pledges of his promises instruments of his grace lest their faith should faint by reason of his departure absence from theÌ„ or their harts faile them as if they were destitute of his protection fauor amidst so many troubles as should inclose them Phi. If you will needes haue the sixt of S. Iohn to pertaine to the Sacrament then is there say we a reall corporall kind of eating established in that chapter For Christ in plaine speech saith my flesh is meate in deede and my blood is drinke in deede Theo. It is well that you bethinke your selfe at last you were about to dissent both froÌ„ the fathers from your own felowes For the fathers as I haue shewed you confesse that the Disciples were by the words of Christ in this place instructed how they should eate his flesh drinke his blood euen in the sacrament that made theÌ„ vnderstand him when he said take eate this is my body drink ye al
on his flesh and that they might thenceforth learne that the flesh of which he spake was celestiall foode from heauen and spirituall nourishment which hee giueth Augustine Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy bellie BELEEVE AND THOV HAST EATEN To beleeue in him this is to eat the liuing bread HE THAT BELEEVETH EATETH He is inuisibly fedde because hee is inuisibly regenerated He is inwardly a babe inwardly new In what part he is renewed in that part is he nourished Bernard that in respect of antiquitie liued but yesterday can teach you the meaning of this place When they heard him say except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud they saide this is an hard speach and departed from him And what is to eate his flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and imitate that conuersation which he ledde here in flesh The text it selfe doth in sight conuince so much The Lord often times expoundeth his owne wordes purposly to this effect Worke not for the meate which perisheth but for the meate which dureth to eternall life and this is the worke of God that you beleeue in him whom he hath sent I am that bread of life he that commeth to me not by walking but by beleeuing shal not hunger he that beleeueth in me shal neuer thirst Hunger and thirst are no way quenched but with eating and drinking Then how can the beleeuer but still hunger and still thirst except we graunt that he which beleeueth both eateth and drinketh Verily verily I say vnto you except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you He then which hath life per consequence eateth the flesh of christ and drinketh his bloud but he that beleeueth hath eternall life as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place with no lesse vehemencie Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life ergo he that beleeueth eateth the flesh and drinketh the bloud of Christ. For if eating and drinking in this place were referred to the mouth and teeth how could Iudas or any other of the wicked that is once partaker of the Lordes table perish The wordes of Christ be plaine Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and are dead If any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life But the wicked notwithstanding the corporal chamming of this Sacrament die the death of sinners ergo they neither eat the â—lesh of Christ nor drink his bloud not because their teeth or iawes faile them but by reason they want faith which is the right and proper instrument of spiritual eating Since then man beleeueth with his heart vnto righteousnes as Paul teacheth not with his iawes nor lippes ergo the soul of man which only beleeueth only doth eate the flesh of Christ and our bodies which haue no meanes to beleeue can neither eate nor drinke in that sort and sense that our Sauiour there speaketh of You cannot with honestie steppe from so manifest both Scriptures and Fathers as these bee that I haue brought or if you can dally with so good and graue witnesses in so weightie matters I trust the Godly will bee fully resolued that the manner of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloud which the Lord himselfe first proposed in the sixt of Iohn was not LITERALL NOR CORPORALL as the Capernites vnderstand him and were deceiued but ALLEGORICALL AND SPIRITVALL ALLEGORICALL in respect of the words which be not there precisely taken in their vsuall signification for grinding with the teeth and straining downe the throate but figuratiuely spoken and import as much as confessing imbracing with hart and inward affectioÌ„ SPIRITVAL because not our mouths but our minds not our bellies but our spirites are nourished with the flesh and bloud of Christ and that not by chewing or swallowing but by remembring and beleeuing that his bodie was wounded and his bloud shedde for our perfect and eternall redemption Now the Lords Supper is correspondent not contrarie to the first of Iohn as we saw before by the verdit of the fathers confession of your selues therefore the Lords table teacheth no literall nor carnal but a spirituall mysticall eating of the â—lesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud which you cannot obserue so long as you presse the letter of these wordes Take eat this is my body For taking and eating in the Supper bee corporall actions euen as breaking the bread and deliuering the cup are Then if the wordes this is my bodie bee literall the consequent is ineuitable that the flesh of Christ is really taken with hands actually brused with teeth corporally lodged in the belly But this error the Lorde in his own person confuted and the Catholike fathers refell as impious irreligious and haynous ergo the wordes of the Supper this is my body bee not literall but rather aunswerable to the doctrine proposed in the sixt of Iohn which is nothing lesse than literal Phi. You make but a double manner of eating Christes flesh where you should make a triple A carnal spirituall and Sacramentall A carnal which the capernites dreampt of when they supposed they should haue eaten raw flesh to sight and tast as they did other meates A spirituall by faith and vnderstanding in which sort euery good man may eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud at any time without the mysteries A Sacramentall as when wee eate the flesh of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine though we neither see nor â—ast flesh or blood Of these three sortes the sixt of S. Iohns Gospell refelleth onely the carnall which the Capernites grossely fell to when they heard our Sauiour speake of the Sacrament Theo. I blame you not if you bee loath to be counted Capernites They were reproued by our Sauiour as grosse mistakers of his speach and lewde forsakers of his fellowship but would God you were as willing to leaue their error as you be to refuse their name Phi. Wee be farder than you from their opinion And you be rather Capernites that aske how can he giue vs his flesh to eate and will not beleeue any eating of Christes bodie with the mouth except your eyes and tongues maie first discerne and tast the same Theo. We aske not him how he can doe anie thing that he will but wee aske you how you know that both his will and his worde are changed since he rebuked the Capernites for their grossenes Phi. We doe not say that either his will or his word are chaunged Theo. Then the doctrine of eating his flesh and drinking his blood which he delâ—uered in the sixt of Iohn remaineth in the same force and strength that it did at first when he reuealed it to his disciples Philand It doth
naught why should it haue chambers A christian Prince may not pardon or winke at your falshood S. Paul hath put in a caueat against that sleight of permitting which in truth is consenting Elie reproued his sonnes yet was he sharply punished of God for his indulgence which is all one with your conniuence S. Iohn saith he that lodgeth or biddeth an heretike God speede is partaker of his euill works Thē how can the Magistrate beare with your sacrilegious prophaning the Lordes supper or licence the rest of your blasphemies hope to be free from your plagues When Valentinian the yonger was requested to winke at the renewing of an altar for the Pagās in Rome S. Ambrose disswadeth him in these words All mē serue you that be Princes you serue that mighty God He that serueth this God must bring no dissimulation no conniuence but faithful zeale deuotion he must giue no kind of cōsent to the worship of Idols other prophane ceremonies For God will not be deceiued which searcheth all things euen the secrets of our heartes This earnest desire to serue God in hir Princely vocation without any shrinking or wauering hath bin so long plāted is so well setled in hir Maiesties deuoute minde that no possible meanes euer could as you presently finde euer shall as we trust in Gods mercy quench in hir Highnesse that religious affection Phi. This the Apostles confessors did often in the primitiue Church S. Cypriā testifieth that some did in his time S. Athanasius himselfe did with the Catholikes in Antioch Theo. What did they marchandize priuate Masses or feede men with demie Communions Did they mock the simple with praiers not vnderstood or weary them with empty gestures They did no such thing but Priest people ioyned togither to celebrate the Lords supper tasting al of one bread which was broken of one cup which was blessed offred thanks to God with one consent of hart voice for the flesh of Christ that was wounded blood y◠was shed for the remission of their sinnes This was done in prisons whiles persecution lasted in chambers if necessitie forced in those churches which the Christians frequēted Straine Cyprians words at your pleasure yet will they neuer be drawen to make for your vanities He warneth the people not to flock to the prisons in heaps least their resort be noted of Infidels by that meanes all accesse denied he rather aduiseth them that a Priest a Deacon by course should visite the Confessors To what end you shal find at large in a leter of his to Cornelius Let vs not leaue thē naked vnarmed whō we prouoke incite to the skirmish but defend them with the munitiō of the body blood of Christ our Eucharist hauing that vertue to safegard the receiuers How do we prepare thē to take the cup of Martyrdom except we first admit them in the church as cōmunicāts to drink of the Lords cup He that cōcludeth both kinds to be needful for such as were ready to spend their liues in the professiō of Christs name doubtles neuer ment to procure thē a priuate Masse that should keep thē frō receiuing of either Athanasius refusing Leontius the Bishop of Antioch for heresie did cōmunicate in priuat houses with such as fauored Eustathius It skilleth not where but what he did our Sauiour appointed neither time nor place to be respected in his supper but the word elemēts charging vs to do what he did which is to breake giue that all may be partakers of one bread to diuide the cup that all may drincke thereof Do that which he commanded to be done who first ordained this mystery Do that which S. Paul receiued of the Lord deliuered to the Church of Corinth do that I say which the primitiue Church of Christ alwayes did and as for places we wil not greatly striue The rigor of penal statutes searches of temporal officers watchfulnes of poore ministers doth maruelously trouble your spirits I wil not requite you with the flames you kindled in England to burne your brethren to dust with that holy house which your Friers haue planted in Spaine resembling the tortures of Neroes garden with the Massacres of Prouince Piemont and Paris Let passe with silence the cruel executions of your inordinate rages God giue you grace to repent your murders past and soften your vnmercifull harts in time to come you were brought vp in lambes lease belike that you startle thus at the fatherlie chastisement wherewith this Realme seeketh your amendment and sucketh not your blood Compare the penalties which you fret at with the lawes of former Emperours and you shall see that hir Maiesties gracious inclination to shew you fauour aboue your deserts hath eased the burden and tempered the sharpenesse of their auncient edictes which restrained such as forbare to communicate with the Church of Christ from buying selling disposing bequething goods or lands by will or otherwise yea from receiuing any legacies or enioying their fathers inheritance the place where schismaticall seruice was saide chappell or house to be forfaited and the Bishop and Cleargie-man to paie tenne pound weight in gold or to be banished S. Austen when it was expected by reason of the goodnesse of his nature that he should mediate for some part of these penalties to be released gaue this quick stout answere Yea marie what else I should gain-say this constitution that you loose not the things which you call yours you without feare spoile Christ of all his that the Romane lawes should permit you to make your last wils and you with cauelling reuerse that which God bequethed our fathers that in buying and selling your contracts might be good and you share that among you which Christ bought when he was solde that you might freely giue what you list and what the God of Gods hath bestowed on his owne children from East to West should be voide that you should not be banished from the place where your bodies rest and you driue Christ from the kingdom purchased with his blod to reach from sea to sea Nay nay let Princes on Gods name serue Christ in making lawes for Christ. You neede not complaine of rigour so long as our penall statutes be farre more fauourable than these lawes which the Christian Emperours established and the Catholike fathers commended Acquaint the world with the persecution that you suffer in England and your vntrue reports shall soone be conuinced The greatest brunt your friends did beare till this last reuolt which you procured if they ioyned therewithall no traiterous intent was imprisonment where no man was denied the freedom of his goods the comfort of his wife the succor of his friends the basest among them neuer knew what dungeon stocks or Irons ment yet say you They were chased from their houses spoiled of their goods and handled
mentio habetur In the said declaration of Pope Nicolas there is mention made of renouncing the proprietie only but none other right And so Ius aliud a proprietate habuisse potuerunt they might haue some other right besides the proprietie Phi. So they might Theo. As if Christ and his Apostles had been cunning in the ciuill Lawes to renounce the proprietie for a fashion and yet to reserue an interest in those thinges which they seemed to renounce so that they might both keepe and vse them at their willes This exposition that Christ taught men to renounce the proprietie of their goods and reserue the vse is as false and hereticall as the former assertion of Pope Nicolas that Christ and his Apostles renounced their right in al earthly things both in special and common and taught others to do the like Your gloze tumbleth a long while in the myre after he hath confessed the one to be expresly contrarie to the other at length submitteth himselfe to the Church of Rome though hee see not howe to loose the knot Nicolaus the second in a Councel of 114. Bishoppes appointed Berengarius to confesse that The very body of Christ is in trueth and sensually broken and brused in pieces with the teeth of the faithful this confession the Pope receiued allowed and sent to the Bishoppes of Italie Germanie and Fraunce as catholike which your owne gloze saith is a greater heresie than euer Berengarius held Phi. Hee saith it is vnlesse you vnderstand it soberly Lheo And that sober vnderstanding hee graunteth must bee cleane against the text For where the text affirmeth this of y◠very body of Christ excludeth the outward sacrament as the words declare your gloze sayth that vnlesse you vnderstand this of the outward formes of bread and wine and not of the bodie of Christ it is a greater heresie than that of Berengarius and so is it in deede a very palpable a brutish error and can no way bee salued except you take the woords cleane contrarie to themselues which conuinceth the Pope and his whole Councell of a monsterous error Phi. This was Berengarius fault in his confession but not the Popes iudgement or resolution Theo. You would faine wind out if the text it selfe did not hold you fast but there it is sayde that Pope Nicolas and the Synode deliuered this faith and assured it to be Apostolike and Euangelike And therefore if Berengarius erred in subscribing this fourme of confession the Pope his Councell erred in prescribing the same Phi. You take nice aduantages of words which men may soone misse Theo. The heresie of Arius differed but one letter from the truth and yet his doctrine wa◠very blasphemous One word may containe a whole kingdome of impietie Phi. The best is you find not many such ouersightes in the Popes decrees Theo. You print and publish none but such as you thinke your selues able to defend suppressing the rest that might bee chalenged and then you aske vs howe wee prooue that euer the Bishoppe of Rome gaue definitiue sentence against the fayth in open Court or Councel which refuge of yours is very ridiculous For what hath Christes prayer for Peter to doe with definitiue sentences and open Consistories If the Pope may beleeue defende and preach an error what neede wee care whether his sentence bee conclusiue or perswasiue definitiue or interlocutorie And so for the place what skilleth it where and in whose presence the words be written or spoken if they be certainely his And where you thinke it maketh much for the Bishoppe of Rome that wee can not proue these errors of Popes to haue beene definitiuely pronounced in their publike Consistories if that were true as it is not you shew your selues to be but wranglers For wee can name an infinite number of Bishoppes and Churches that neuer erred in this speciall precise maner which you propose Howe prooue you that euer the Bishops of Yorke or Durham in England of Poycters or Lions in Fraunce of Valeria or Carduba in Spaine of Rauennas or Rhegium in Italie of Corinth or Athens in Greece of Miletus or Sardis in Asia gaue definitiue sentence against the faith in their publike consistories A thousande others I coulde obiect on whom that thing shall neuer bee fastened which you crake can not be proued by the Bishop of Rome Heretikes haue been euer conuinced by their confessions writings not by their definitiue sentences or iudiciall proceedings And therefore if Popes haue erred in writing and teaching they were as right heretikes as euer were Arius Sabellius Nestorius Eutiches and such like which neuer gaue definitiue sentēce against the faith in Courts and Consistories but onely taught or wrate against the truth Phi. Though one or two Bishops of Rome were deceiued they erred not so often there as in other places Theo. Set Constantinople aside and in no one See did the bishops erre oftener than in Rome but this is not our marke If one or two haue erred why may not others Yea though none of them had erred heretofore yet that which is possible may happen hereafter and so long they can be no absolute iudges of trueth Phi. If they might erre they were no fit iudges of faith but because their Tribunall is the highest that is in the Church they must therfore be free from error Theo. You euer proue that which we doubt of by y◠which is more doubtful We denie the Popes Tribunal to bee the highest that is in the church Prouinciall and generall Councels by the Canons are aboue him And in matters of faith the highest Court that is in earth may misse therfore no man is bound to Pastor Prelate or councel farther than their decrees be coherēt agreeable with the faith For against God we owe neither audience nor obedience vnto the perswasions or precepts of any men Phi. No question we must as well in faith as in manners obey rather God than man and therefore if the iudgements of bishops and conclusions of Councels might be repugnant to the word of God duetie bindeth vs to preferre the preceptes of God before the pleasures of men but it is not possible that God should leaue his Church without direction and directed shee can not bee but by iudgement and in giuing iudgement the head must be highest and so the soundest left that peruert the rest and endanger the whole bodie Theo. The church of Christ neuer was nor euer shall bee without direction but that direction proceedeth from the word and spirit of Christ not from the courts and Consistories of Popes Assemblees of learned Bishoppes voyd of pride and strife are good helpes to trie the faith and moderate the discipline of the Church and the greater the better yet the direction of Gods holy Spirite and infallible determination of trueth is not annexed to any certaine places Persons or numbers
mingle your fansies with the precepts of Christ and when we reiect the one as we lawfully may you charge vs with contempt of the other which we exactly follow and this you vtter in such darke and doubtfull speach that it is harder for vs to vnderstand you than refute you Philand Do we not speake plaine enough when we say you imitate not Christ neither in vnleauened bread nor in mingling water with wine as he did Theoph. You deale now plainely if you dealt also truly but that you do not In what bread Christ ministred the Sacrament may perchance be coniectured but no such thing is expressed in the Gospell much lesse prescribed for vs to follow Since the Scripture saith he tooke bread and maketh no distinction what bread he tooke nor limiteth what bread we should take we be left at libertie so we take bread to take either leauened or vnleauened as occasion serueth vs. This conclusion Gregorie the first confesseth to be most true Tam azimum quà m fermentatum dum sumimus vnum corpus Domini saluatoris efficimur Whether it be leauened or vnleauened bread that we take we are made one body of our Lord and Sauiour The whole Church of Rome not yet an 150. yéeres ago cōfessed as much in the councell of Florence Their words are Item in azimo siue fermētato pane triticeo corpus Christi veraciter confici Sacerdotésque in altero ipsum Domini corpus conficere debere vnumquemque scilicet iuxta suae ecclesiae siue Occidentalis siue Orientalis consuetudinem We define the body of Christ to be truly consecrated in wheaten bread whether it be vnleauened or leauened and that the Priests are bound to consecrate the Lords bodie in either of the twaine euery man according to the custome of his Church be it West or East Phil. That custome you breake For where the west Church did alwaies consecrate in vnleauened bread and the East Church in leauened you renounce the order of the west Church in which you liue and to spite the supreme Pastor of the west parts yea rather of the whole world you follow the manner of that Church which is many thousand miles distant from you Theoph. We are reasoning of Christs institution not of customes or Churches and your holy Father himselfe affirmeth that to be no breach of Christs ordinance which you haue noted against vs in your Rhemish obseruations as a transgression of the first and originall institution of the Lords supper And so whiles you egarly and rashly persue vs to trippe vs in somewhat your owne Churches and Councels condemne you for wranglers Phil. In the other part of the Sacrament you contemne Christ and his Church much more impudently and damnably For Christ and all the Apostles and all Catholike churches in the world haue euer mixed their wine with water for great mysterie and signification specially for that water gushed togither with blood out of our Lords side This our Lord did saith S. Cyprian epist. 63. ad Cecilium nu 4.7 and none rightly offereth that followeth not him therein Thus Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. 1. Iustine Apol. 2. in fine and all the fathers testifie the Primatiue church did and in this sort it is done in all the Masses of the Greekes S. Iames S. Basils S. Chrysostomes and yet you pretending to reduce all to Christ will not do as he did and all the Apostles and churches that euer were Theo. Their faces must be well stéeled that are harder than yours the whore of Babylon that hatched both your frierly profession and religion hath taught you long since to leaue off blushing and fall to bragging We mingle not water with the wine which we consecrate this is impudently and damnably done say you You néede more water with your wine your toongs burne so hoat with your impudent lies and damnable lies that an whole streame will skant coole them Phi. Christ and all the apostles all catholike churches in the world haue euer mixed their wine with water you will not of very frowardnes do you not deserue to haue hoate words Theop. We forbid no man to temper his wine with water if he find either himselfe annoied with the vse of méere wine or the wine of it selfe to be headie and strong yea we rather wish all men if the wine prouided for the Lords table be hoat and fuming to delay it that it may be mild and temperate least that which is taken to sanctifie the soule happen to distemper and hurt the body and we greatly commend the wisedome of Christes Church in former ages where the wines were fierie and communions daily as in the noblest and chiefest partes of christendome in those daies for delaying her wine with water that the very element might serue for sobrietie as well as the word for increasing of sanctity But the Christ or his Apostles vsed water with the wine which they hallowed or commanded others to mingle both wine and water in this mysterie or that the Church of Christ euer taught it to be a necessary part of this Sacrament that we deny That if you proue we will acknowledge amend our error which as yet we take to be none by reason we find it a thing lawfull but not néedefull to be done and estéeme it in them as a matter rather of temperance than of conscience Phil. They did it for great mystery and signification as Cyprian in an whole epistle teacheth you and they tooke their paterne from Christ himselfe of whom Cyprian saith This our Lord did and none offereth rightly that followeth not him therein Theop. You peruert Cyprian as you do all things else that come through your hands Cyprian intendeth not in that epistle to prooue that Christ had water in the cup when he deliuered the same to his disciples but he refuteth the Aquarij that ministred the communion in water alone and against them he prooueth that Christ had wine and not water for the Sacrament of his blood and then inferreth to that effect which you alleadge This the Lord did that is he tooke wine to resemble his blood and none offereth rightly that followeth not him therein Phil. Nay Cyprian hath plaine words that Christ mingled wine and water both together His words are At enim non manè sed post coenam mixtum calicem obtulit Dominus Our Lord offered his chalice mingled with water and wine not in the morning but after supper And againe Qua in parte inuenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit By which part of Christes speech we find the chalice that our Lord offered was mingled with wine and water Theop. We doubt not that Cyprian calleth the cup which Christ offered mixtus calix but his meaning we say was to expresse that Christ had wine in the cup which he gaue and therefore if any man minister the Lords cup not mingled with wine he followeth not the Lords
with a strait and generall charge for the cup drinke yee all of this and Paul receiuing his instructions from Christ his master proposed the same to the Lay men of Corinth no lesse than to the ministers excepting none Iewes nor Gentiles bond nor free from this precept how dare you Philander and your late Conuents restraine the people from drinking of it The Lordes cup is the new couenant which he hath made with all beleeuers do none beleeue but Priests For the remission of sinnes are laie men no sinners as a memoriall of his death maie the people loose that remembrance It is saith Paul THE COMMVNION OF HIS BLOOD and the partaking of his spirite haue the people no right to the blood of Christ that was shed for them or will you claime his spirite as peculiar to Priestes which is common to all the children of God Philand The Church I warraunt you did ponder and consider these reasons when shee tooke this order and finding them vnsufficient shee decreed with vs that the cuppe was not necessarie for the Laie people Theoph. What Church I praie you The primatiue and auncient Church of Christ where catholicisme should beginne Wee can assure you no. They ministred in both kindes to Priest and people men and women without exception DIONYSIVS The breade that was whole being broken into manie partes and ONE CVP DIVIDED AMONG ALL the Bishoppe in these twaine perfiteth the holie Sacrifice The sacred Communion of one and the same breade AND COMMON CVP bindeth Christians to diuine concorde and likenesse of manners as being nourced vp together IGNATIVS There is but one flesh of the Lord Iesu and one blood that was shed for vs there is also but one bread that is broken for all and ONE CVP THAT IS DIVIDED AMONG ALL. ATHANASIVS If those be his expositions which you haue set forth in his name The dreadfull cup was deliuered by the Lorde TO ALL MEN ALIKE CYPRIAN How doe we prepare the people for the cup of martyrdome if we doe not first admit them in the Church to DRINKE THE LORDES CVP BY RIGHT OF COMMVNION AVGVSTINE Not onelie no man is forbidden but rather ALL MEN that seeke for life ARE ENCOVRAGED TO DRINKE And againe speaking to the people simul bibimus quia simul viuimus WE DRINKE TOGETHER at the Lordes table because we liue together CHRYSOSTOME as before One bodie is proposed to al and one cup. GREGORIE The blood of Christ is now not powred into the hands of vnbeleeuers but into the mouthes of the faithfull THEOPHILACT How happeneth thou drinkest alone whereas this dreadfull cup was deliuered to all men indifferentlie HAYMO The cup is called a communion by Paul because all men are partakers of it PASCHASIVS Christ gaue the cup and said Drinke ye all of this as well the Ministers as the rest of the beleeuers Infinite are the places which might be brought to make faith that for a thousand yeares in the Church of God the people were not depriued of the Lordes cup. The master of your sentences who liued verie neare twelue hundred after Christ knewe not this maiming and paring of Christes institution which now raigneth in your churches Therefore is the Sacrament saith he celebrated in two kinds that in Christ the taking of soul and flesh and in vs the redeeming of them both might be signified For the flesh of Christ is offered for our flesh and his soul for our soules It is taken vnder both kindes which profiteth both partes If it shoulde be receiued in one kinde onely that would declare that it auayled for the safegard of one part onely soule or body not for both ioyntly The gloze that followed an hundred yeeres after resteth him-selfe on the same reason with the same wordes and shrinketh not from the communion in both kinds but in the danger of sicknes or point of necessitie Insirmus vel sanus in necessitate potest sumere corpus sine vino a sicke man whome the drinking of wyne might hurt or an whole man in case of necessitie where hee can not choose may receiue the body without the wyne Then in the Church where prouision might soone bee made for all and no necessitie coulde bee pretended it was not as yet counted lawefull for the people to receiue the Sacrament in one kinde Philand But if the Church after vppon good deliberation sawe sufficient cause to chaunge that order who made you controllers of Christes spouse Theoph. That vnshamefast harlot which foureteene hundred yeeres after Christes ascention woulde both alter her husbandes will and defraude his children of that portion which their Lorde and Sauiour had allotted them did prostitute her selfe and bastardize her ofspring as much as lay in her and is no way woorthie to haue the honour of a mother or name of a spouse though shee paint her selfe neuer so freshly with youthfull colours And the reasons which mooued her so to doe were as ridiculous as the fact was impious Durandus sayth Non esset decens tantum sanguinem conficere nec calix capax inueniretur It woulde not bee decent to consecrate so much blood as must serue the people neither can there so bigge a chalice bee gotten Gerson beateth his braines to iustifie that which the councell of Constance did in taking the Lordes cup wholy from the people not yet nyne score yeeres agoe and when hee hath all doone hee commeth in with these toyes THE length of Laymens beardes the lothsomnes to drinke after others the costlynes of so much wyne the difficulties first of getting then of keeping wyne from sowring freezing and breeding of flies the burden in bearing and daunger in spilling it last of all the peoples vnwoorthynes to match Messere magnifico the Priest in the receite of this Sacrament Bee not these valiant inducements for you to chaunge the last Will and Testament of Christ Iesus and abrogate that which was orderly kept in the church for a thousande yeeres and vpward And yet these were the grauest and profoundest considerations that your friendes had to leade them to this attempt and these you knowe bee verie miserable Gerson I graunt shifteth what hee can to bring other proofes that both kindes are not simply needfull but why the councell of Constance tooke the cup cleane from the people which violence before was neuer offered them of this I say Gerson a chiefe agent in that councell labouring purposely to shewe the reason of their doings neither doeth nor could yeelde any better or weightier occasions than these which I nowe repeated and the reader shall find blazed with great confidence in the second part of the foresaid treatise O deintie fathers and sleeke diuines which for long beardes and vnsweete breathes for a litle paynes and no great charges for frostes in winter and flies in sommer thought best to correct Christes institution and not onely to forsake the
similitude image of that oblation to be celebrated for a remēbrance of his passiō in so much that we may see that which Melchisedec offred to God now sacrificed in the church of Christ throughout the world Emissenus Considering that Christ was to take his body from our eyes place the same in the heauens it was requisite he should institute the sacrament of his body and blood for vs at his last supper that it might alwaies be continued in a mysterie which was once offred for a ransom because the work of our redemption did neuer faile the sacrifice of our redemption might be perpetual and that euerlasting oblation of Christ on the crosse might remaine fresh in memorie and present for euer in grace Theodorete If Christ by his owne sacrifice on the crosse brought to passe that other sacrifices should be superfluous why doe the Priests of the new Testament execute the mysticall Lyturgie or Sacrifice It is cleare to them that are instructed in our mysteries that we doe not offer an other sacrifice but continue the memorie of that one and healthful Sacrifice For so the Lord himself commanded vs doe this in my remembrance that in beholding the figures we should remember the paines which he suffered for vs beare a louing heart towards him that did vs so much fauour and expect the receiuing of good things to come which he promised Theophilact Do we then offer vnbloody sacrifices No doubt wee doe◠mary by being a remembrance of the Lords death He was once offred and yet we offer him alwaies or rather we celebrate the memorial of that oblation when he sacrificed himselfe on the crosse Receiue this addition which they make and wee graunt you that oblation which they teach Christ is offered or rather a memorial of his death and oblation is celebrated This later correction doeth expound and interprete their former assertion You can require no plainer nor sounder doctrine They piese not Christ with their handes they shroud him not in accidences they pray not for him that God will vouchsafe to respect and accept him as hee did the giftes and external sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedec as you do in your Masses they neuer tolde vs the very fact and intention of the Priest were meritorious these bee your absurdities and blasphemies They did offer an vnbloody sacrifice not of flesh but of Spirite and mynd the selfe-same which Melchisedec did two thousande yeeres before Christ tooke flesh and therefore not the flesh of Christ a figuratiue sacrifice to witte Signes Samplars Similitudes and Memorials of his death and bloodshedding So that Christ is offered dayly but Mystically not couered with qualities and quantities of bread and wyne for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death of Christ but by the breade which is broken by the wyne which is drunke in substance creatures in signification Sacraments the Lordes death is figured proposed to the communicants and they for their parts no lesse people than Priest do present Christ hanging on the crosse to God the father with a liuely faith inward deuotion and humble prayer as a most sufficiēt and euerlasting Sacrifice for the full remission of their sinnes and assured fruition of his mercies Other actual and propitiatorie sacrifice than this the church of Christ neuer had neuer taught You beleeue not mee Well what if your owne fellowes and friends teach the same What if the master of your Sentences what if the Glozer of your decrees what if the Ringleader of your Schoolemen make with vs in this question and euince that for twelue hundred yeres after Christ your Sacrifice was not knowen to the woorlde will you giue the people leaue to bethinke themselues better before they call you or account you catholikes Then heare what they say Peter Lombard in his 4. booke and 12. distinction I demaund whether that which the Priest doeth bee properly called a Sacrifice or an oblation and whether Christ be daily offered or els were offered only once To this our answere is briefe that which is offred and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblatiō because it is a memorie representation of the true sacrifice holy oblatiō made on the altar of the crosse Also Christ died once on the crosse and there was he offred himself but he is offred daily in a sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once done Now what this meaneth Christ is offred in a sacramēt we need no fairer interpretation thā that which your own gloze oftē repeateth Christ is offred in a sacrament that is his offring is represented a memorie of his passion celebrated It is the same oblation which he made * that is a representation of the same passion Christ is offered euery day mystically * that is the oblation which Christ made for vs is represented in the sacrament of his body blood With these concurreth Thomas of Aquine Because the celebration of this Sacrament is a certaine Image of Christs passion it maie conuenientlie be called the sacrificing of Christ. The celebration of this Sacrament is termed the immolating of Christ in two respects First for that as Austen saith resemblances are woont to be called by the names of those thinges whose resemblances they are next for that by this sacrament wee be made partakers of the fruite of the Lordes passion Here find you no reall locall nor externall offering of Christ to God his father by the Priest for the sinnes of the people which is your opinion at this daie you finde that the celebration of the Lordes supper maie be called an oblation first for that it is a representation of Christs death and sacraments haue the names of the things which they signifie next because the merits and fruits of Christs passion are by the power of his spirite diuided and bestowed on the faithfull receiuers of these mysteries Nowe boast of your Catholike doctrine that your pratling Sophists and wandering Friers inuented but yesterday now call for your souereigne Sacrifice not onelie repugnant to the sacred Scriptures and auncient fathers but reiected by the Mint-master of your sentences refuted by the conclusions of your Seraphicall Doctor shunned by your rude Gloze-maker and cleane thwart to the Canon of your ordinarie Masse If you speede no better in the rest of your causes a worse name than fugitiues will become you and your companions well enough without perill of slaunder or breach of charitie These foundations lying sure to wit that the creatures of bread and wine are offered to God for a thanksgiuing when they be sanctified and receiued according to his sonnes institution and that Christ himselfe is daylie offered and crucified in a mysterie because the breaking of his bodie and shedding of his blood on the crosse are proposed and renewed by the bread
Christ then you giue them diuine honor as if they were Christ but if they be creatures still howe doth your false imagination excuse you from idolatrie Phi. Wee be sure they be not For Christ saide of them This is my bodie and this is my blood and therefore honoring that which the Priest holdeth in his hands and lifteth vp after consecration we be sure we honor Christ and not the creatures of bread and winâ— Theo. So S. Paul said The rocke was Christ and yet to worship that visible rocke with diuine honor had beene idolatrie Phi. The speeches be nothing like Theo. Then tell vs the difference Phi. Christ spake the one actiuely and presently the other was but a collectioÌ„ of things past long before made by S. Paul And again the one is in the new Testament the other in the old Theo. You might haue added that the one was stone the other bread the one in the desert the other in the city Philand Keepe your trifling distinctions for your selues Theo. They wil no way but be ioyned cheek by cheek with yours Christ you say spake the one who spake the other in Paul but Christ Paul said of himselfe that Christ spake in him and Christ saieth of his Apostles It is not you that speak but the spirit of your father that speaketh in you And therefore you must receiue that which Paul spâ—ke not as the word of men but as it is in deed the word of god that cannot went trueth because the word of God is truth Phi. We do not deny but he spake truth Theo. Then haue we plainer proofe that the stony rock in the desert waâ— Christ than you haue that the bread on the Lords table is Christ. For Christ doth not say in precise terms that the bread was his body but only this is my body And as for the diuersitie of the two testaments that maketh nothing to this issue For if the rocke of the old test were Christ the bread of the new Test. can be no more and therfore diuine adoration was as due to the rocke then as it is to the bread now Phi. By no meanes For the rocke was not transubstantiated into Christ as the bread is The. If Pauls words be true without chaÌ„ging the rock into Christ why may not the words of Christ be likewise true without turning the substaÌ„ce of bread into the substance of his body Phi. We tell you the reason The one is substantially conuerted into Christs flesh and so was not the other Theo. This is your fansie to dreame of a difference where none is the affrmations be like why should not the adorations bee like And if you could not worship the rock without coÌ„mitting idolatrie though the rock were Christ how can you giue diuine honor to the bread and wine since they bee Christ euen after the same sort that the rock was Or if that comparison do not please you why do you worship the pixe wherein the bread is so the chalice wherein the wine is not the priest that by your doctrine doth create eate Christ Phi. We worship neither the pixe nor the chalice but Christ that is contained in them both Theo. And is not the same Christ that was contained in them both inclosed in the priests body when he eateth and drinketh your sacrifice Phi. Yeas Theo. And as really contained in his body as in your golden boxe or gilden chalice Phi. But yet we adore not the flesh of christ after it is once entered the mouth of man Theo. You do not I know but why should you not Why suffer you Christ in any place to be without the honor that is due vnto him Wil you serue him where please you ourskip him at your discretions Phi. Should we adore him when we know not where he is The. You be as sure he is in the Priest as in the pixe for you see him in neither Why then do you adore him in the one and not in the other Phi. I think you would not haue vs adore our sauiour The. I would not haue you adore him wheÌ„ where you only list much lesse to adore a peece of bread in his steed be first sure you haue him then adore him wheresoeuer you find him Phi. So we do Th. You do not You adore him not in the priest Phi. We see him not The. Wil you not adore him till you see him How then do you see him in the chalice or in the pixe Phi. There we be certaine he is Theo. You be as certaine of the other Phi. The fathers wil vs to adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries but not in other meÌ„s bodies The. Do they wil you to adore the mysteries themselues I mean the mystical sacramental signes Phi. Not the signes theÌ„selues they bee but accidents not to be adored but the sacrament it self they teach vs to adore The. With diuine honor Phi. With what els The. Adoration if it be attributed in any father to the mystical signes is that kind of reuerence which we yeeld to things that be sanctified for Gods vse not godly honor Phi. I smel a rat The. You were best then looke to your host for that of all others that is a most dangerous beast to your deuotion Phi. Why The. I wil tel you that anon in the mean time what was it that troubled your wits Phi. With a sly distinction of twofold adoration you think to slip the fathers which we will bring against you for the worshipping of the blessed sacrament The. Is that al your feare Phi. That is a way to wrangle to make the people beleeue our doctrine touching adoratioÌ„ of the sacrament is not catholik The. Set aside one father whom your selues shall not deny but that he speaketh of the substaÌ„ce of bread wine in the rest which you bring we wil vse no such aduaÌ„tage Phi. What wil you not do The. We wil not choke you with that second acception of adoration shew that the fathers adored the sacrament or taught the people to so doe wee require no more Phi. That I will presently S. Austen saith ep 118. c. 3. that it is he that the Apostle saith shal be damned that doth not by singular veneration or adoration make a difference between this meat al others And again in Psa. 91. No man eateth it before he adore it And S. Ambro. li. 3 c. 12. de spi. sanct We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries S. Chrysost. hom 24. in 1. Cor. We adore him on the altar as the Sages did in the manger S. Nazianzene in Epitap Gorgon My sister called vpon him which is worshipped vpon the altar Theodoret Dial. 2. In coÌ„fes The mystical tokeÌ„s be adored S. Denys this Apostles scholer made solemne inuocation of the sacrament after consecration Eccl. Hierar ca. 3. part 3. in princip before the
Ea demum est miserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipere nec supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad â—auriendum aeternum lumen leuare non posse That is a miserable bondage of the soule to take the signes or Sacramentes as you doe for the thinges themselues and not to be able to lift vp the eye of the mind aboue the corporal creature to perceiue the eternall brightnesse Of adoration he saith Rectè scribitur hominem ab angelo prohibitum ne se aedoraret sed vnum Deum sub quo esset ei ille conseruus It is very wel recorded in the Scriptures that a man was prohibited by an angel to adore him but only God vnder whom he himself was a fellow seruant vnto God And therefore he saith Ecce vnum Deum colo Behold I worship adore none but God and thence he deriueth the name of religion Quod ei vni religet animas nostras Because it relieth our soules on him alone So that veneration you may giue to sacramentes adoration you may not and yet you finely conuey the one into S. Augustines text iointly with the other as if they were both fouÌ„d in his words which they are not Phi. He saith singular veneration Theo. You say so but he sayeth not so His words are Veneratione singulariter debita with that veneration which is due onely or singularly to this Sacrament Phi. And what is that but adoration Theo. If you might be iudges it should be nothing else but S. Augustine sayth Not to be contemned is the veneration due vnto it Contemptum solum non vult cibus ille that meate misliketh onele contempt that is either to bee dayly receiued without regard or to be still refused vpon pretence of vnworthynesse And that being the case of which S. Augustine disputeth your cunning serueth you in steede of examining theÌ„selues before they receiue it which S. Augustine meaneth to set the people not at all to receiue it but to fall downe and adore it with diuine honour in Christes place which is as wilfull a contempt of his ordinaunce and as shamefull an abuse of his sacramentes as can be committed Phi. The same father in an other place saieth of the Sacrament No man eateth it before he adore it Theo. Are you not desperatly set thâ—t to defile your selues with open idolatrie will force the Fathers to fit your â—umours against their owne speeches S. Augustine saith of Christes fleshe which hee tooke of the virgine Marie Nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit No man eateth that fleshe of Christ vnlesse hee first adore it you make no more bones at the matter but strike THE FLESH of Christ out of Sainct Augustines wordes and referre adoration to the corporall creature which the Priest holdeth in his fingers Is not this trowe you sounde dealing in the greatest mysteries of our saluation and imminent peril of your damnation purposely to shut your eyes least you shoulde see the truth or agnise the rashnesse of your newe founde adoration What haue Sainct Augustines wordes to doe with your adoring the mysticall signes when hee directly nameth the flesh of Christ which is both eaten with the spirite and adored in the spirite yea the very eating of it is the adoring of it since it is not eaten but by beleeuing hoping and reioycing in it which are the chiefe branches of Gods diuine honor Phi. As though the fleshe of Christ were not really closed in the forme of bread and corporally eaten with the mouth of man Theo. One errour must needes drawe on an other or rather your reall and carnall presence is the groundworke of all your errors and abuses in the Masse Phi. The deniall of it is the high way to all your heresies and blasphemies against the doctrine of the church and for our partes till you leaue that wee looke for no better at your hands Theo. Looke to your own feete least whiles you watch our hands your legges slip into the pit of destruction Phi. Wee bee past all feare of that Theo. And so be those that are past all recouery but yet for the sauing of other mens soules if not of yours we will first weigh the proofes of your adoration after not sticke to suruay the partes of your Transubstantiation Go on therefore with your former authorities Phi. S. Ambrose saieth We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries Theo. Uerily and so doe wee but the mysteries and sacramentes themselues wee doe not adore neither did Sainct Ambrose euer teach any man to adore them Phi. I see you mistake vs. You thinke we adore the formes of bread and wine where in deede we doe not but rather we adore Christ the sonne of the lyuing God and second person in Trinitie in those mysteries as Saint Ambrose sayeth or as wee speake more vsually vnder those formes of breade and wine Theo. I mistake you not I knowe you adore that which is locally and really inclosed within the compasse of your host and chalice supposing it in matter and substance to bee the glorious body of Christ apparelled with accidents of bread and wine as whitenesse roundnesse sweetenesse moystnesse and such like proprieties of bread and wine but your foundation wee say is false and therefore your building must needes bee ruinous Christ is present in the mysteries not by the materiall substaunce of his body closed within the formes of bread and wine but by a diuine and spirituall vertue and efficience not mixing 〈…〉 but entering the hâ—rtâ— of the faithâ—ull and nourishing them with his spirit and grace to eternall life the elementes abiding in their proper and former essence and substance And therefore when you adore them as if they were Christ in nature and substaunce which in trueth they are not you worship not Christ but giue his honour to creatures and in steede of washing your sins away by the death and blood of Christ you kindle the wrath of God against you by mystaking his sonne and adoring the elementes with diuine honor in lue of Christ. Phi. Tush we regard not these wordes of yours we haue assurance from Christ himselfe that it is his body and so long wee passe not for any thing that you can alleadge or obiect against vs. Theophil But if you misconster his wordes to make a deade and corruptible creature to bee the seconde person in Trinitie and giue it that honour which is due to the glorious and immortall God what assuraunce can you haue that Christ Iesus will put vp this reproach at your handes and not auenge himselfe on you as on proud idolateâ—s Phi. Are you well in your wits to vrge vs so often with open Idolatrie where as wee shewe you so plaine proofes of our defence Theo. Plaine quoth you In good faith they bee such as no meane Scholer woulde stumble at Christ you proue
here on earth though after an inuisible manner which wee take to bee vnder the formes of breade and wyne Theo. That Christ is present with vs here on earth wee firmely beleeue to our great comfort Where two or three sayth our Sauiour are gathered together in my name I am in the middest of them and againe Loâ— I am alway with you vntill the ende of the worlde but that hee is corporally present vnder the formes of bread and wine that is neither auouched by Chrysostome nor admitted by vs it is your vaine and fruitlesse fansie Phi. How can his body bee present but bodily Theo. These woordes of Chrysostom inferre not that Christes body is present but that Christ is present And since Christ consisteth of two natures the diuine may bee present though the humane bee not Christ absent sayth Austen is also present For vnlesse hee were present hee coulde not bee helde of vs our selues But because it is true that hee saith Lo I am with you for euer vnto the end of the world hee is both departed and yet here Hee is returned whence hee came and hath not yet forsaken vs. For his body hee hath caried into heauen but his diuine maiestie hee hath not taken from the world Neither is his diuine power onely present with vs but also wee haue his humane nature many wayes with vs in this worlde Habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In praesenti per fidem in praesenti per signum Christi in praesenti per Baptismatis Sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum Thou hast Christ sayth Austen in this worlde and in the next In this world by faith in this worlde by the signe of Christ in this world by the Sacrament of baptisme in this world by the meate and drinke of the altar By these things wee haue him in this worlde not really locally or corporally but truely comfortably and effectually so as our bodies soules and spirites bee sanctiâ—â—ed and preserued by him against the day of redemption when wee shall see him and enioye him face to face in that fulnesse and perfection which wee nowe are assured of by fayth and prepared for by cleanesse and meekenesse of the inward man The whole Church therefore neuer cried vppon the Sacrament Lorde I am not woorthy Lord beè mercifull to mee a sinner Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the worlde haue mercy on vs You doe sinnefully slaunder them they did exactly and precisely distinguish the corruptible creature from the eternal creator and taught all men to lift vp their hearts from the elements which were before their eyes to him that is in heauen and shall come from thence and from no place else to iudge the world Saint Austen wil haue the rude ones to be taught that the Sacraments are Signacula rerum diuinarâ—m visibilia sed res inuisibiles in eis honorari Visible scales of things diuine but the things visible to be honored in them And as if the case were so plaine that no man could well doubt thereof he saith Si ad ipsas res visibiles quibus Sacramenta tractantur animum conferamus quis nesciat eas esse corruptibiles Si autem ad id quod per illas agitur quis non videat non posse corrumpi If we looke to the visible things or elements by which the Sacraments are perfourmed who can be ignorant that they are corruptible But if we looke to that which is doone by them who doth not see that that can not bee corrupted Saint Ambrose saith Venisti ad Altare vidisti Sacramenta posita super Altare ipsam quidem miratus es creaturam Tamen creatura solemnis nota Thou camest to the Altar and sawest the Sacraments placed on the Altar and maruelledst at the very creature yet is it an vsuall and knowen creature Origen purposely creating what part of the Sacrament did sanctifie the receiuer saith Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur Nec materia panis sed super â—llum sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino commedenti illum Haec de typico Symbolicoque corpore The meate which is sanctified at the Lords table by the word of God and praier as touching the materiall partes which it hath goeth into the belly and so forth by the priuie neither is the matter of bread it that profiteth the worthy receiuer but the worde rehearsed ouer it This I speake of the typicall and figuratiue body For this cause the great Councell of Nice directed the whole Church to lift vp their vnderstanding aboue the breade and wine which they sawe and by faith to conceiue the lambe of God slaine for the sinnes of men and proposed and exhibited on the Lordes table in those mysteries Their woordes bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let vs not baselie bend our mindes on the bread and cup that are set before our eyes at the Lordes Supper but lifting vp our thoughtes let vs by faith beholde on or in the sacred table the Lambe of God taking awaie the sinne of the worlde Which admonition the Church euer after obserued by crying vpon the people to lift vp their hartes not to the Sacramentes which they saw but from them to him that liued and raigned in heauen whome they adored in equall degree with the father and the holie Ghost and whome they behelde and touched with the eyes and handes of their faith but not with their corporall limmes or senses Quomodo in caelum mittam manum vt ibi sedentem teneam Mitte fidem tenuisti Howe shall I sende vp my hande to heauen to reach Christ sitting there Sende thy fayth sayth Austen and THOV HOLDEST HIM fast enough Fide Christus tangitur fide Christus videtur non corpore tangitur non oculis comprehenditur By fayth sayth Ambrose Christ is touched by fayth Christ is seene hee is not touched with our body not viewed with our eyes And therefore Chrysostome saith Hee must flie not to the Sacrament but on hie that will come to this body euen to heauen it selfe or rather aboue the heauens for where the body is there also will the Eagles bee Phi. The councell of Nice sayth The Lambe of God is on the sacred table where then did they seeke him or made they prayers vnto him but on the Altar Theo. They lifted vp their heartes to him that sate in heauen and from heauen looke downe vppon them and their prayers before they could please God were directed to the same place and person that their heartes were You must therefore either fasten their hearts and faiths to the Sacrament or suffer their prayers together with their affections to ascend to heauen where Christ sitteth at the right hande of God
paines and to make a readier dispatch if you will be ruled by me Phi. What is it Theo. Bring vs but one father for 800. yeares that euer taught your transsubstantiation and wee will count it catholike Phi. What talke you of one You shall haue one hundreth of as auncient and catholike writers as anie were in the Church of christ for a thousand yeares after his ascending to heauen Theo. You were best take it when you be wel offered One faire and sufficient authority shall please vs better than a cartloade of names abused and places peruerted Phi. It is as easie for vs to bring them by whole hundreds A man that once supplied the same roome which you doe nowe hath produced two hundreth of them in his Diacosion Martyrion Vernierus an other of our side hath alledged 318. seuerall and sundrie writers as manie as there were Bishops in the great Councell of Nice Garetius a man of singular reading hath gathered foure hundred fourtie fiue good and substantiall Authors euen from Melchizedech to this present age besides Poets women Councels Miracles visions Iewes Ethnicks and heretiks which all beare witnes to our doctrine And if you haue not seene the bookes I will lend you them for your instruction I could be content I tell you to be at anie cost to win a soul and wish to you no worse than to my selfe Theo. Your kindnes without cause is but seruice without thankes I haue seene your Diacosion Martyrion your great vniuersal Councell militant touching the truth of the most diuine sacrament of the Eucharist assembled by Vernierus your nine orders Rancks of I know not whom digested by Garetius besides the labours trauels of many others your adherents And reading them all I find not one father that euer dreampt of your material corporal conuersion of the elements into christ for 800. yeres vpward Hyperbolical speaches I find in Chrysostom some hard similitudes in damascene others but a manifest testimonie for the real carnal presence which you defend I find none and as for the fathers which be any thing ancient they go clearely and exactly with vs in this question Phi. With you By this a man may perceiue you neuer saw them or at lest neuer read them My selfe can alleage you 500. places wherof you shall not answere one but by meere shifts iestes of tropes and figures and such like mockeries Theo. It were paynes better bestowed for you to vnderstand what you alleage than to alleage that which you vnderstand not You may wrest and misuse 500. places of the fathers as your friends before you haue done in this point your selues in other questioÌ„s haue shewed the like actiuitie But that the substance of the bread vanished by consecratioÌ„ the substaÌ„ce of Christs body really succeedeth vnder the same dimensions accidents of bread wine entereth our mouthes locally coÌ„prised within those formes for this you shal neuer shew vs any one father greeke or latin within the compas of 800. yeres after Christ. Phi. A thousand authorities can we bring you with a wette finger that shall clearly conuince the presence of Christ in the sacrament Theo. And not one of them shal conclude that maner of presence which you maintain Phi. As for the maner of his being there it forceth not much so you grant him to be really and verily present Theo. His presence there can do you litle good except the manner of his presence be likewise expressed and auouched by the places which you would bring Phi. If he be present ergo the substance of his flesh is present and that must needs be corporally locally coÌ„prised in the formes of bread wine Theo. What father saith so besides your selues Phi. They al say he is preseÌ„t Theo. And so do we Phi. In words you say it but when you come to the push you deny the truth and effect of his presence Theo. Wee do not looke you should vnderstand vs that vnderstand not your selues You haue framed of your own heades a certaine maner of Christes presence in the supper without the direction or consent of any learned or auncient father and that of al others the grossest and absurdest that could be deuised and nowe you no sooner heare the name of Christes body or blood in the mysteries but you straightway grow to a speciall conceite that your reall and carnall presence is there confirmed and confessed And this made your builders of Babel as they posted through the Fathers to note euery place and person that did but mention The body of Christ as a witnes for Transubstantiation where if it woulde haue pleased you and your fellowes to haue weighed the rules and cautions of the fathers together with their speaches and exhortatioÌ„s not to haue hunted after your owne fansies in their phrases but marked remeÌ„bred their instructioÌ„s how they would be takeÌ„ vnderstood wheÌ„ they speak of the christiaÌ„ mysteries you should haue saued a great deale of labor which now you should haue saued a great deale of labour which nowe you haue spent to no purpose gained securitie from this difficultie which hath sâ—tted your schooles and churches with a most pernicious and yet a monsterous error Phi. And wee say that you bee so blinded with presumption and rebellion against the Church of God that you will not yeelde to all the fathers that euer wrate of this matter since Christes time but because they nowe and then speake of signes and figures you turne all to tropes and metaphores as if neither Christ himselfe nor any of his Apostles or their successors the Godly teachers and Pastours of his church had euer spoken properly or plainely of this sacrament but al in clouds and riddles such as neither Priest nor people that should come after could possibly conceiue and none to this day had vnderstood till you came lately to trouble the world with heresie and inâ—quitie Theo. Take your pleasures your tongues bee your owne who can tame them if you will not containe them You haue learned of your fathers to whet them like swordes and to smite with them and to shoote foorth your arrowes euen bitter wordes but the mouth that rageth with lies slanders as the wise man forwarneth destroyeth the soule and in the meane time your errors are nothing diminished or excused by your taunts or teeth-gawles As touching the matter it selfe Sacraments of their owne nature and by their first and chiefe erection are visible signes of inuisible graces so that if they be no signes they bee no sacraments and though the signes must bee diligently distinguished from the thinges yet for good causes in teaching and writing do the signes beare the names of the things them selues whose signes they are in so much that no father speaking or writing of the bread or wyne after they be once made sacraments giueth them any other
name than the body and blood of Christ not that in earthly matter or essence they be really conuerted into those diuine things as you falsely gather but for that remaining in their former vsual both nature and substance they haue in them cary with them the fruite effect and force of Christs flesh wounded blood shed for the remission of our sinnes And because the people shoulde regarde not the creatures which they see but the graces which they beleeue therefore the Fathers euery where without exception call the elements by the names of the inwarde and heauenly vertues that are annexed to them and conferred with them by the trueth of his word power of his spirit This is the first rule which you should haue obserued The next is that whensoeuer they teach and propose the dignitie proprietie or efficacie of the Sacrament they meane not the creatures which our eies and tasts doe better iudge of than their tongues or wittes can teach vs but that other diuine lyfe-giuing and soule-sauing part of the sacrament which our heartes by fayth take holde on and possesse more really and effectually than if it were chammed in our mouthes or buried in our stomackes as you grossely conceiue of those thinges which bee most high and heauenly These two Rules remembred a very meane scholer may soone discharge the burden of all your allegations For either you mistake the one part for the other supposing that to bee corporall which in deede is spirituall or else you vrge the name which the signe beareth for similitude as â—arnâ—stily to all intents as 〈◊〉 were were the thing it selfe which causeth you to 〈◊〉 so many texâ—es and to straie so farre from trueth that no sound can recall you Phi. Away with your new found obseruations The catholike church hath the spirit of trueth promised for her direction and therefore the wil none of your wise inuentions to qualifie the fathers speeches Learne you rather at her handes to beleeue the wordes of Christ who first appointed this Sacrament and pronounced it to be himselfe without signe or figure when he saide this is my body and this is my blood not spirituall or metaphoricall but the same body which was broken and the same blood which was shed for remissioâ— of sinnes and that I trust you will confesse was his naturall and locall hath body and blood Theo. The question is not whether that were his naturall body which suffered on the crosse but when hee saide of the bread this is my bodie whether he substantially changed the dead element into himselfe made the creature become the creator or whether he annexed his trueth to the signe and grace to the Sacrament which required both the word of Christ to make the promise and his power to perfourme the speech And therefore we beleeue and acknowledge the wordes of our Sauiour to bee very needeful in ordaining this Sacrament euen in such manner and order as they were spoken that the signes might haue the fruites and effectes of his body and blood But that hee chaunged substances with the bread and wine or deified the creatures that his speech doth not inferre and that as yet we doe not beleeue except you can shewe vs howe the fleshe of Christ which was first made of a woman is nowe become to be made of bread and a dead and senslesse creature exalted to bee the son of God Phi. We do not say the bread is substantially conuerted into Christ or made the sonne of God but the bread is abolished in the place thereof commeth the glorious flesh of our Lord and Sauiour who is the Sonne of God And in that sense we hold the creator is now where the creature was but the dead element is not made the Sonne of God you woulde faine catch vs at such an aduantage Theo. How you can auoide it I yet perceiue not for if the bread bee nowe Christ which before it was not ergo the bread is made Christ and by consequent a dead element is nowe become or made the Sonne of God which I thinke will hardly stand with the very first groundes of Christian religion Phi. You presse the letter against both reason and trueth For the one is sayd to be conuerted or chaunged into the other because the one displaceth and succeedeth the other so is it a chaunge rather of the one for the other than a conuersion of the one into the other if you take conuersion properly as the Philosophers do Theo. Christ dâ—eth not say where the bread was there is nowe my body but this bread is my body And since before consecration it was not his body and now by repeating the wordes is become his body the conclusion is euident that by your opinion the bread is made Christ and so become the sonne of God Phi. You thinke to snare vs with schoole-trickes but setting your sophismes aside we plainly beleeue the Sacrament is Christ. Theo. You must beleeue the bread is Christ which as yet the Articles of our Creede will not suffer vs to doe I meane not to thinke that a dead and dumbe creature may bee God Phi. Do we say the bread is God Theo. You must auerre it if you stick to the letter of Christs words for he said of the bread as you inforce it this is my selfe now he was God Phi. I thought I should be euen with you at Landes end Christ did not say this bread is my bodie but this is my bodie where now is the force of your argument Theo. Euen where it was Phi. Why Christ sayd this is not meaning bread or any other creature Theo. That this must be somwhat else nothing was the body of Christ so you loose not only the bread but also the body Phi. Nay he said this is and that must needs be somwhat it can not be nothing Theo. It is well you haue found it I said so before you Then this is my body What this Was it bread that he spake of or somthing else Phi. He spake of that which he had in his hands Theo. You meane not long before Phi. In deede you say he had at that present when he spake the wordes nothing in his handes and so you would haue nothing to be his body Theo. Hinder not our course with matter impertinent to this place The demonstratiue THIS noteth that which Christ then gaue to his Disciples as wel as that which you thinke he then held in his hands Choose whether you wil of force the thing must be all one For that which hee helde that he gaue and of that which he first helde and after gaue hee saide this is my body Phi. He did so Theo. What was it Phi. Somwhat it was whatsoeuer it was Theo. What somwhat do you say it was Phi. What if I cannot tell Theo. Then must you seeke farther for your chaunging of substances The words of
hoc It is a common question what is ment by the pronoune THIS whether bread or the body of Christ Not bread for that is not the body of Christ nor yet the body of Christ for it appeareth not that there is any transubstantiation till the wordes be all pronounced To this demaund I say that by the word THIS nothing is ment but it is there put materially without anie signification at all Thus you turned and tossed the wordes of Christ so long till you brought all that the Lord did and saide at his last supper to plaine NOTHING With such vnchristian toyes were your scholes fraughted and the worlde deceiued such monsters you hatched when once you left the direction of the Scriptures and Fathers and fell to broaching your owne gesses But you must either admit our explication this breade is my body for the right ordering and perfitting of Christes wordes or else dissent from the manifest Scriptures from al the catholike Fathers and with shame enough from your owne fellowes and fansies Phi. Wee sticke not so much at the filling vp of the wordes which Christ spake as at the constering and expounding of them You delude them with tropes and significations as if Christ had beene speaking parables and not ordaining sacramentes Wee say there must be a reall truth and actiue force in them to perfourme the letter as it lieth For in Scripture so long as the letter may possibly be true we may not fly to figures Theo. In that you say right We must imbrace the sense which is occurant in the letter before all others if it agree with faith and good maners but if it crosse either of them we must beware the letter lest it kill and seeke for an other and deeper sense which must needes be figuratiue That direction S. Augustine giueth to al men when they read the Scriptures Iste omnino modus est locutionis inueniendae propriáne an figurata sit vt quicquid in sermone diuino neque ad morum honestatem nec ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest figuratum esse cognoscas This is the perfect way to discerne whether a speech be proper or figuratiue that whatsoeuer in the word of God can not be properly referred either to integritie of maners or verity of faith thou resolue thy selfe it is figuratiue Phi. That prescription is very sound but it furthereth not your figuratiue sense For the letter of these wordes which we stand for is neither against faith nor good manners Theo. The literall acception of these words as they lie this bread is my body is first impossible by your owne confession next blasphemous by the plaine leuell of our Creede and lastly barbarous by the verie touch and instinct of mans nature Phi. Charge you Christ with so manie foule ouersightes in speaking the wordes Theo. The wordes which Christ spake be gratious and religious we know but where there may be brought a double construction of them a carnall or a spirituall a literall or a SacrameÌ„tall the literall construction which you will needes defend to deface the other is we say reproued as no part of our Sauiours meaning by those three barres which we proposed Phi. You propose much but you proue litle Theo. I should proue euen as much as you do if I should proue nothing but that which I proposed shall not want proofe The first your owne friendes will helpe me to proue Your Lawe saieth Hoc tamen est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi Yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Why striue you then for that which your selues grant is not possible to be true Why forsake you the mysticall interpretation which is possible what greater vanitie can you shewe than to cleaue to that sense which you see can not stande If it be bread how can it be Christ If it be Christ how can it be bread The second is as cleare For if breade in proper and precise speech bee the flesh of Christ ergo bread is also the feede of Dauid ergo breade was fastned to the crosse for our sinnes ergo bread was buried rose the third day from death and now sitteth in heauen at the right hand of God the Father nay no questioÌ„ if bread be Christ then is bread the Sonne of God and second person in the sacred Trinitie which how wel your stomaks can digest we know not in truth our harts tremble to heare an earthly dead and corruptible creature by your literall carnall deuotion aduaunced to the Lord of life grace the maker of heauen and earth yea the liuing and euerlasting God and yet if bread be truely and properly Christ these monsterous impieties you can not auoide Thirdly what could you deuise more iniurious and odious to christian mildnesse maners than the letter of these words eate you this is my flesh drinke you this is my blood Had you bin willed in as plain termes to cruciâ—ie Christ as you bee willed to eate his fleshe you woulde not I trust haue presently banded your selues with the Iewes to put him to death but rather haue staggered at the letter and sought for some farther and other meaning Yee be now willed to eate his flesh drinke his blood which is a precept far more hainous horrible in christian behauiour and religion if you follow the letter as AusteÌ„ affirmeth It appeareth more horrible to eate mans flesh than to kill it to drinke mans blood than to shed it And againe The Capernites were more excusable that coulde not abide the wordes of Christ which they vnderstood not being in deede horrible in that they were spoken as a blessing not as a cursing They thought saith Cyrill Christ had inuited them to eate the raw flesh of a man and drinke blood which thinges be horrible to the verie eares Why then presse you the letter which is hainous forget that the speech can not be religious except it be figuratiue Uerily S. Austen concludeth the speech to be figuratiue for this only reason If the scripture seeme to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue Except ye eate the fleshe of the son of man and drinke his blood you shall haue no life in you facinus velflagitium videtur iubere Christ seemeth to command a wicked sinfull act figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion sweetly profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified wouÌ„ded for vs. If then the real eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes and actuall drinking of his blood with our lips be wicked and hainous why presse you the letter of these wordes eate you this is my body drinke you this is my blood against truth against faith against nature neither possibility nor christianity nor coÌ„mon honestie suffering your exposition to be good S.
Austen in plaine termes concluding It is therfore a figure of speech Phi. Sir you bee misconstered all this while The verbe which coupleth both partes of the proposition togither doeth not here signifie this to bee simply that but this to be really changed in that as if our Lord had said THIS breade is now become my body that is substantially changed into my body Theo. Sir you shuffle the words of Christ to serue your dreames yet you scape not the rockes which you thought to shunne If the bread must be changed in substance that is become no bread afore it be the body of Christ ergo breade is not the body of Christ and so your construction is a plaine contradiction to the letter which you would interprete For Christ said this bread is my body that cannot be true say you vnlesse the bread loose first his substance and ceaâ—e in deede to be breade and so where Christ saide this bread is my body you expound his wordes in this sort that it must first be no bread afore it can be his body Besides in absurdity there is no difference whether you say bead is Christ or bread is made Christ changed into Christ. For that which is made Christ without all question is Christ so the same blasphemies are consequent to this exposition that were dependant on the former Phi. Well yet the bread may be abolished and Christs body succeede in the place where the bread was without any of these inconueniences Theo. Thither are you faine to flie when you be hardly pressed with the sequeles of the literall sense but in the meane time you forget that you be cleane gone from the wordes of Christ which you pretended to folow He said this is my body you to expouÌ„d his speach say THIS must first vanish away and then my body shall succeede in the same place and be couered with the same accidents though THIS neither in shew nor substance be my body Phi. This is sophistry which the catholike fathers were neuer acquainted with Theo. If it be any it is yours not ours you first forsooke the exposition of Christs words which the learned and godly fathers with one accord witnessed deliuered then stuÌ„bling at the letter you hatched your carnal local presence against Scriptures and fathers and when the wordes of Christ would not sit your fansies you racked wrenched them til you brought both them to nothing and your selues to a maze that you knew not what you said where as if you had continued their interpretation you had cleared the wordes of Christ from all perplexities inioyed the fruites of the Lords table without perill of Idolatrie or impietie eased your selues of those absurdities which you be now plunged in vp hard to the eares Phi. What interpretation meane you Theo. That which the Fathers generally beleeued publikly taught in the church of Christ. Phi. And what exposition was that but the same which we now vrge you resist The. Shew but one ancient father that euer affirmed the wordes of Christ at his last Supper were properly spoken or literally to be taken and wee will receiue your sense Phi. What you will not Theo. What neede you repeate it when you heare vs offer it Phi. Not a father that euer auouched these words of Christ this is my body to be properly spoken or literally taken Theo. Not a father that is ancient Phi. How would you lie if you might be let alone I can name you presently a good number of them that in exquisite termes shal affirme the words of Christ to be literall Theo. Shal they be auncient Phi. I can not tel what you mean by auncient you would haue them belike before Christ was borne Theo. As though there were not difference both in the ages and credites of those writers that haue gone before vs in the church of Christ. Phi. They shall bee auncient Theo. Damascene perhaps Theophilact Phi. Yea Epiphanius Euthymius and many others The. Many others is a note aboue ela These foure affirme that Christ did not say this is the image or figure of my body but this is my body which we confesse was needefull for the first ordayner and institutor of the Sacrament to say Mary by those wordes our Sauiour did not meane to abolish the substance of breade or wine but to vnite the force and fruite of his flesh crucified and blood shed for our sinnes to the elementes that receiuing the one we might through faith bee partakers of the other by the working of his spirite and power of the word which he then spake much lesse did these later writers the eldest of them being more thaÌ„ 700 yeres after Christ intend to gainesay the fathers that were before them of greater iudgement and deeper knowledge howsoeuer in shew they seeme loth that Christes wordes should be recalled to a bare and naked figure which for our parts we do not Phi. A bare figure nay they will haue no figure in the wordes of Christ to that ende they vrge the very letter as excluding all tropes figures which you now take vp in a spleene to frustrate our proofes Theo. Did the Fathers meane to frustrate your proofes when they tooke vppe this doctrine many hundrethes before you or your reall presence were hearde of Philand Do they teache the wordes of Christ eate this is my bodie to bee figuratiue Theo. I haue shewed you causes sufficient to fray the godly from the letter which doth rather kill than quicken the carnal interpreters yet am I content to forgo them all if in expounding the wordes of Christ figuratiuely the catholike and ancient fathers do not make expressely with vs and against you directly Tertullian The bread which was taken and giuen to the Disciples Christ made his body by saying this is my body that is the figure of my bodie Why doth Christ call bread his bodie Marcion vnderstandeth not this was an old figure of the body of Christ speaking by Ieremie they laide their handes togither against mee saying come let vs cast wood on his bread that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightner of antiquities in calling the bread his bodie fully declared what he would then at his last Supper haue the bread to signifie Augustine discussing the wordes of Moses the soule of all flesh is his blood The thing saith he that doth signifie commonly taketh the name of the thing that is thereby signified as it is written the seuen eares of corne which Pharao dreampt of bee seuen yeres he said not they signifie seuen yeres the seuen kine be seuen yeres many such speeches So was it saide by Paul the rocke was Christ hee sayde not the rocke did signifie Christ but as if it had beene the selfesame thing which by substance it was not but by signification Euen so the blood because it signifieth the soule is
after the manner of Sacramentes called the soule I can interprete this precept to consist of a signe or figure for the Lord did not sticke to say this is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie And speaking in Christes person he sayeth This bodie which you see you shal not eate neither shal you drinke the blood which they that crucifie me shall shed I haue commended a Sacrament vnto you that Sacrament spiritually vnderstood shal quicken you It is therefore as you hearde before out of the same Father a figure of speech commaunding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion For the Lord at his supper saith he commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood Cypriā The Lord at his last supper gaue bread and wine with his own hands on the crosse he gaue his body to be wounded by the souldiers handes that syncere truth secretly printed in his Apostles might teach the Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood and how the causes agreed with their effectes and different names and kindes might be reduced to one essence and the signes signifieng and the thinges signified might be called by the same names Origen There is in the very Gospell a letter that doth kill not onely in the old Testament is there a deadly letter found but in the new Testament there is a letter that doth kill him which doeth not spiritually conceiue the thinges that be spoken For if you take this saying except yee eate my flesh and drinke my blood according to the letter this letter killeth And againe Not the matter of bread but the word recited ouer it doth profit the worthy receiuer This I speake of the typical and figuratiue body Ambrose It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried this therefore is the Sacrament of that true fleshe The Lord Iesus himselfe sayth this is my body Before the blessing of these heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing after consecration the body of Christ is thereby signified In eating and drinking at the Lords table We signifie the body and blood of Christ that were offered for vs. The new Testament is confirmed by blood in a figure of which blood We reciue the mysticall cup. The priest in the church seruice faith Make this oblation ascribed reasonable and acceptable for vs which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Hierom When the Pascal lambe was eaten Iesus taketh bread which strengthneth the heart of man and goeth to the true sacrament of the passouer that as Melchisedec had done offering bread wine in a profiguratiō of him so he likewise might represent the truth of his body blood For Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it transfiguring his body into the breade Chrysostom This table hath he prepared for his seruants that hee might euery day for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ shew foorth in a Sacramēt vnto vs bread and wine after the maner of Meschisedec Before it be sanctified we cal it bread but the diuine grace once sanctifieng the same by the ministerie of the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread coūted worthy to be called the Lordes body though the nature of bread continew there still So that in the sanctified vessel there is not the true body of Christ but a mystery of his body is there contained Nazianzene Let vs bee partakers of the passeouer figuratiuely notwithstanding as yet though this Passeouer bee more manifest than the former Theodoret. Our Sauiour in deed changed the names called his bodie by the name of the signe and the signe by the name of his body The reason whereof is manifest to those that are acquainted with the diuine mysteries He would haue the receiuers of these heauenly mysteries not looke to the nature of the things which are seen but hearing the alteration of names beleeue the chāge which is there made by grace For he that called his natural body wheat bread named himself a vine the same Lord honored the signes elements of bread wine which we see with the name of his body blood not changing the nature of the signes but casting grace vnto nature Prosper The diuine breade which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the body of Christ being in deed but the sacramēt of Christs bodie Which words your own law thus expoundeth The diuine bread which truly representeth the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly wherfore it is said after a sort which is non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in exactnes of truth but in a mysterie of signification So that this is the meaning it is called the body of Christ that is the body of Christ is thereby signified Bede The solemnities of the old Passeouer being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the church is desirous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in steede of the flesh and blood of a lamb he substituting the sacrament or sacred signe of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to be the same to whome the Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedec Druthmarus The Lord gaue his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sinnes that being mindfull of his deede they might alwaies in a figure do that which he was to do for thē not forget his loue This is my body that is in a sacrament Wine maketh glad increaseth blood and for that cause the blood of Chirst is aptly figured thereby Bertram That bread wine is figuratiuely the body and blood of christ the maner thereof is in a figure representation in mysterio non veritate in a mysterie not in truth plaine speech Phi. You thinke to winne the spurres but you may chance to loose bootes and all These places which you bring haue a shew before the simple but there is no pith nor substance in them and with one puffe wee can blowe them all away Theo. It must be such a puffe then as wherwith you first blew away christ and his gospel and brought in your own decrees to ouerrule both God and man with the breath of your mouthes Phi. You scoffe my meaning is that I can crosse them all with one answere Theo. If they were sprites you might driue them away with crossing but being ancient and godly fathers they will tell on their tales to your reproofe crosse you what you will or can in their wayes Phi. I will not crosse it in their way but in yours Theo. When you will wherefore serue my feete but to tosse it out of the way or at lest to step ouer it that it hinder not
my way Phi. Al these fathers affirme the bread to be a signe figure of Christs body This we grant and thereto adde that it is both a figure and the trueth it selfe You may be gone you haue your errand Did I not tell you I would soone dispatch you Theo. You be very pleasureable whatsoeuer the matter be but had you no better skill to dispatch men of their liues than you haue to defeate vs of ouâ— authorities many a thowsand should now liue that you haue slaine Philan. You would runne to by-quarrels but I must hold you to the stake Theo. In deede that was alwayes the surest answere that you gaue vs. The rest was nothing no more is this For first it is apparently false that in Sacraments the signe the truth may be all one thing Next if that might be yet doth it not disappoint any one of these testimonies For they do not only witnes that the bread is a sign of christs bodie but also that christes wordes were figuratiue and that in deliuering the mysteries he called the bread his body by way of signification similitude representation after the maner of Sacramentes in a signe not according to the letter but in a spirituall and mysticall vnderstanding and if you respect the precise speech improperly and figuratiuely And though the signe might happily be one thing with the truth it self as you affirm wtout al truth yet may not a figuratiue speech be properly takeÌ„ nor the letter vrged against the spirituall meaning least that which was spoken to quicken the inward man subuert the faith and indanger the soul which in mistaking a figure of speech must needs insue as S. Augustine sheweth In principio cauendum est ne siguratam locutionem ad literam accipias Ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait Apostolus litera occidit spiritus autem viuificat Cum enim figurate dictum sic accipitur tanquam proprie dictum sit carnaliter sapitur Neque vllamors animae congruentius appellatur The first thing that you must beware is this that you take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter To that belongeth the Apostles admonition the letter killeth the spirite quickneth For when wee take that which is figuratiuely spoken as if it were properly spoken it is a carnall sense Neither is there any thing more rightly called the death of the soule In vaine then doe you thinke to shift off the matter with this foolish conceite that one and the same thing may be both a trueth and a figure For were that so yet can not a figuratiue speech bee literally taken without killing the soule and the Fathers which I produced affirme the minde and speech of our Sauiour in calling the bread his body was spirituall figuratiue and mysticall by way of signification such as is vsed in Sacramentes not literall nor carnall according to the strict sâ—und and order of the wordes Marie now your answere besides that it is altogether idle is vtterly false For in this sacrament as in al others there is great difference betwixt the signes and the things theÌ„selues and the distinct properties of ech are so sensible that if your wits be not laid vp for holy daies you can not but perceiue theÌ„ The signes are visible the things inuisible the signes are earthly the things heaueÌ„ly the signes corruptible the thinges immortall the signes corporall the thinges spirituall The signes are one thing the trueth is not the same but an other thing and euen by plaine Arythmetike they be two things and not one The Eucharist as Ireneus teacheth Consisteth of two things an earthly an heauenly This is it that wee say this is it that we seeke by all meanes saith Austen to approue to wit that the sacrifice of the church is made of two and consisteth of two thinges sacramento re sacramenti of the sacred signe and the thing it selfe For sacramentes are signa rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia signes of truthes being one thing in themselues and signifieng an other It were no figure saith Chrysostome if all thinges incident to the truth were to be found in it much lesse if it were the truth it selfe Sacraments haue a certaine similitude but no identitie with the thinges whose signes they be If therefore To take the signes for the thinges bee a miserable seruitude of the soule as Austen noteth what is it to affirme the signes to be the things themselues but a wilfull blindnesse of heart choosing rather to rush into any brake with daunger both of credit and conscience than to acknowledge the truth once disdayned and refused Phi. I haue yet an other answere in stoare Theo. If that be no better than this your stoare is little worth Phi. The most part of the Fathers which you bring speake not of Christes wordes when hee did institute the Sacrament but declare his meaning in the sixth of Sainct Iohns Gospell when the Capernites stumbled at his doctrine Theo. You may keepe this still in stoare for the goodnes of it Tertullian Austen Cyprian Ambrose Hierom Chrysostom Theodorete Prosper Bede Bertram Druthmarus and your own law speake directly of the sacrament and so doth Origen when he calleth the bread on the Lords table the typicall and figuratiue body onely that place of his mentioneth the sixt of Iohn where he saith If you take this saying according to the letter this letter killeth Phi. Mary Sir that place is the chiefest how closely you could conuey it in amongest the rest to make men beleeue he spake that of the sacrament which is nothing so Theo. Why doth not the 6. of S. Iohn foretel and declare the same kinde of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloode which was after perfourmed by Christ at his last supper wheÌ„ he said This is my body this is my blood Phi. Doth it say you Theo. I do not say Christ speaketh in the sixth of Iohn of the materiall elementes of bread and wine which were then first ordained to bee pledges of his inuisible graces when the Supper was first instituted and therefore not spoken of before that time but this is it which I affirme and in this the learned and auncient Fathers agree with mee that where this mystery consisteth of two partes an earthlie matter and an heauenly vertue the sixth of Sainct Iohn treateth not of the signes but of the thinges them-selues not of the figures representing but of the trueth represented not of that which is corporally proposed but of that which is Ghostly receiued in the Lordes supper which is the better and diuiner part of this Sacrament and that the Disciples there learned in what sort themselues and all the faithfull after them should eate the Lords flesh and drinke the Lords blood at his table to be thereby quickned norished and incorporated with him as members of his mysticall body So that if any
mysterie that Christ is eaten vnder the formes of bread and wine Theo. None at all if you set your teeth and iawes on worke to eate him as the Capernites thought they should when they peruerted the wordes of Christ. Phi. They supposed they should haue seene and tasted mans flesh which is horrible Theo. Eating as I haue shewed you doth consist not in seeing or tasting but in chamming and swallowing since you therein consent with the Capernites though you could alleadge twentie diuersities betweene their maner of eating yours yet both are corporal and contrary to that doctrine which Christ deliuered in the sixt of Iohn â— For that as I haue proued was intended and referred to the soules and spirits of men not to their throats or entrals and therefore well in couering the body of Christ and deluding your senses you may differ from the Capernites but in preparing your teeth and iawes for the flesh of Christ and in drawing his wordes from their mystical and figuratiue sense you ioyne with the Capernites against all the Catholike Fathers that euer wrate in the Church of Christ. Phi. Haue we thinke you no fathers with vs as well for the literall construction of Christs wordes as for the corporal eating of his flesh in the Sacrament Corporall I call it not because we see it or tast it as we doe other meates but because we be sure it entereth our mouthes when we receiue our rightes and is really contained in our bodies Theo. You may abuse some fathers to make a shew but otherwise you haue no ground in them either of your literall vnderstanding Christs speach or corporal eating of christs â—lesh Phi. Haue we not S. Damascen S. Epiphanius Theophilact Euthymius and others earnestly presse the literal construction of christs words against your signes and figures and as for eating the flesh of Christ with our very mouthes S. Austen S. Chrysostom S. Leo S. Gregorie S. Cyril Tertullian others are resolute whoÌ„ I trust you wil not condemn for Capernites By this way the simple learne what to looke for at your hands that wil out-face so plaine a trueth Theo. He that will be good at outfacing let him studie your Testament and hee neede none other teacher but what trueth is it that we outface Phi. Neuer father you said auouched the literal sense of Christes wordes Theo. I said no ancient father of which number I do not account these late Grecians to be And therefore if they did contradict that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others did teach long before them wee would not regard them but as yet I seeâ— no such thing proued by them Phi. The proofe is easie S. Damascene rehearsing the wordes of Christ This is my body immediately addeth not a figure of my body but my body not a figure of my bloud but my bloud S. Epiphanius likewise Christ said take eate this is my body Hee saide not take eate the Image of my body And Theophilact Bread is the very bodie of our Lord and not a figure correspondent For he said not this is a figure but this is my body And so Euthymius Christ said not these are signes of my body but these are my body These be manifest places and yet such is your impudencie that you affirme no father euer vrged the literall force of Christes words And so for the corporall eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes S. Augustine saith It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in the honour of so great a Sacrament our Lordes bodie should enter into the mouth before other meates And S. Chrysostome Our mouth hath gotten no small honour receiuing our Lordes bodie And S. Gregorie The bloud of the lambe is sucked not only by the mouth of the heart but also by the mouth of the body And S. Leo That is receiued by the mouth which is beleeued by the heart And Tertullian Our flesh doth feede on the bodie and bloud of our Lord And S. Cyril It was needfull that this rude and earthly body should be recouered to immortalitie by touch tast and foode of the same kind with it selfe You aske for fathers here they be both many in number and auncient in time to discharge vs that we be no Capernites and to refell your foolish vaunt that all antiquitie were of the verie same mind that you are now It may bee you neuer heard the places before If you did not I will pardon your ignorance so you repent your rashâ—es Theo. Yeas sir I haue seene them and â—â— may bee weighed them better than euer you did And notwithstanding your magnificence it will appeare you be not free from ignorance whatsoeuer you be from impudencie Phil. I will burne my cloathes to my shirt if euer you answere them Theo. But saue your skinne from the fire though you spare not other mens blood nor bones Phi. We vse you but as heretikes should be vsed Theo. If it be heresie for vs to serue god according to the Gospel of his sonne what is it for you to serue him with your own medlees Phi. You would flie the fielde rather than your life but I must keepe you to it Theo. You runne so fast from God and your Prince that you may soone ouer-goe vs if we would flie but as yet I see no cause Damascene Theophilact and Euthymius presse the letter of christes speach not to deriue thence your carnal and guâ—tural eating of christs flesh nor to controll that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others men of farre greater learning and authoritie than these taught long before them in the church of God but to shew that bread and wine be not only tokens and bare signes of christes fleshe and bloud but also cary with them and in them the vertue power and effect of his death and passâ—on Euthymius Christ said not these be the signes of my body and bloud but these are my bodie and bloud We must therefore NOT LOOKE TO THE NATVRE of the giftes which are proposed BVT TO THE VERTVE Against them which defend that this Sacrament doth only figure not offer signifie not exhibite grace the letter may wel be forced to proue the diuine power and operation of the mysticall elemenets Against vs which hold the visible signes in substance to bee creatures in signification mysteries in operation and vertue the things themselues whose names they bearâ— this illation concludeth nothing Yet for the better explication of him selfe and others vsing the like kind of speach Theophilact addeth this worde ONLY Marke that the bread which is eaten of vs in the mysteries Non est TANTVM figuratio quaedam carnis Domini is not an only figuring of the Lords flesh but the Lords very flesh For he saide not the bread which I will giue is a figure of my flesh but is my flesh Their meaning was as we see
by their own words to teach more than idle signes or ONLY figures in the Lords supper because together with the name goe the vertâ—es and effects of Christes flesh bloud vnited in manner of a Sacrament to the visible signes And this their assertion neither troubleth our Doctrine nor strengthneth your error Againe these writers may very well say the Sacraments of the Gospell BE NO FIGVRES but TRVETH IT SELFE in that respect as figures bee taken for samplers of things to come Such were the figures of the law which did premonstrat the coÌ„ming of christ in flesh ceased at his coÌ„ming And so the mysteries of the Lords table were not figures of things expected but euidences of the truth there sitting in persoÌ„ the next day to be nailed to the crosse therby to fulfil abolish al figures our sacrameÌ„ts are now not signes of farther promises but memorials of his mercies alredy performed Do this saith christ not in figure of an other truth to come but in remeÌ„brance of me which am come for memorie you know stretcheth only to things past and doone and in this sense the letter may bee safely pressed and your carnall conueyance nothing relieued I find a third cause that might induce them to force the letter in this sort yet no way confirming your grosse supposall which is this When the Greeke church fell at variance for Images they which held that Christ ought not to be figured after the likenes of our bodies amongest other reasons alleadged this for one that the Lord at his Supper for a true and effectuall Image of his incarnation chose the whole substance of bread not any way like the proportion of a man lest it should occasion Idolatry The defenders of Images whose side Damascene tooke pressed with this obiection durst not flee to your annihilation of the substance of bread and adoration of the Sacrament with diuine honour which no doubt they would haue doone with great triumph had those two points of your Doctrine beene then counted catholike but yeelding and by their silence confessing that the substance of bread remayned in the supper and was not adored for so the contrarie part opposed at length for very pure neede came to this shift that the mysticall bread was not ordained to resemble and figure Christs humane nature nor so called by christ at his maundie who said not this is a figure of my body but my body nor a figure of my bloud but my bloud and when Basil and Eustathius were produced affirming the bread and wine to be figures and resemblances of Christs flesh and bloud the Patrones of Images replied that was spoken alwaies before neuer after consecration Wherefore Damascene first beganne this myncing and straining the wordes of Christ not to build on them any reall or corporall conuersion of the bread into the flesh of christ but in fauour of his artifical pictures and Images he could by no meanes abide that the mysteries should after consecration be called Images and figures of Christs bodie The next that traced this path after Damascene was Epiphanius not that auncient and learned Bishoppe of Cyprus but a pratling Deacon in the bastard Councell of Nice whose furious and fanaticall answer to the Councel of Constantinople that made this obiection declareth more tongue than witte more face than learning Christ did not say take ye eat ye the Image of my bodie Reade whiles thou wilt saith hee thou shalt neuer find that either the Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers called that vnbloudie Sacrifice which the Priest offereth AN IMAGE Thus doth he braie foorth defiance to the whole worlde without trueth without shame For Chrysostome saith If Iesus were not once dead whose image and signe is this Sacrifice This Sacrifice is an image and samplar of that Sacrifice And Gelasius Surely the IMAGE and resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries We must therefore so thinke of the Lord Christ himselfe as we professe and obserue in his IMAGE And likewise Theodoret. Ortho. The mysticall signes which are offered to god by his Priests whereof doest thou call them signes Eranist Of the body blood of the Lord. Ortho It is very well saide Conferre then the image with the paterne and thou shalt see the likenes Dionysius calleth it both an image and a figuratiue sacrifice Nazianzene excusing himselfe How should I saith he presume to offer vnto God that externall sacrifice the image of the great mysteries Clemens Offer you in your churches the image of the royall body of Christ. Macarius In the Church are offered breade and wine the images of his flesh and blood The 〈◊〉 â—aâ—hers keepe the same word the same sense Ambrose In the law was a shadow in the Gospel is an image in heauen is the trueth Before was offered a lambe or a calf now Christ is offred here in an image there in truth where he intreateth his father as an aduocate for vs. AusteÌ„ Christ gaue an image of his burnt offering to be celebrated in the church for a remembrance of his passion The rest say the like but what neede we farther refutation of so ridiculous and vnshamefast a bragge such causes such councels such poppets such Proctors The very children in the church of God knowe that the diuine mysteries by the generall definition of a Sacrament be visible signes of inuisible graces and as Augustine interpreteth the word Sacramentum id est sacrum signum a Sacrament that is a sacred signe So that vnlesse they be signes they can possibly be no sacraments neither sacraments nor signes can they be without or before coÌ„secration which this stout champion had not yet learned therfore his verdict in matters of religion except his cunning were greater may be wel refused As Damasene and your prating Epiphanius were more than 700. yeares after Christ so Theophilact and Euthymius are farre younger The first of them was Bishoppe of the Bulgarians who were conuerted to the faâ—eth 868. yeares after Christ the second your owne chronologie placeth after Gracian and Lombard 1100. yeares short of Christ. Were then these later Grecians wholy with you what gaine you by them If you woulde oppose them to Tertullian Origen Cyprian Austen Gelasius Thedorete others of purer times and sounder iudgements you could winne nothing by that bargaine the choice were soone made which to take which to leaue but in deede you do them wrong to returne them for transsubstantiators they neuer knew what it ment They say the mysteries of the Lords table be not only figures but haue the truth annexed No figures of grace differed but seales of mercy perfourmed in Christ and inioyed of vs no called figures or images of Christes flesh after consecration but bearing as well the names as the fruits and effects of the things themselues whose
sacraments they bee This maketh nothing for your locall inclosing of Christ vnder accidentes neither for your corporal mingling of his flesh with your flesh which are the two points that we chiefely detest in your reall presence Thus the greatest storme from which you thought no roose could rescue vs is halfe ouerpast and no hurt done if the rest fal as faire besides vs it wil be high time for your to leaue disputing and fall to practising as the rest of your fellowes do which bee lurking at home to infuse a rebellion or stirring abroad to boile it vp to his highth Your kingdom will neuer reflorish by pen and paper you must lay more plots and make new mariages Your time is short your rage great Phi. When you be confuted by reason then beginne you to charge vs with treason but answere the places which we bring you or I will leaue you I haue somewhat else to doing Theo. I thinke it bee the truest word you spake this moneth but an answere if that be all you looke for you shall not lackâ— The fathers whom you alleage for eating the real naturall flesh of Christ drinking his blood with your mouthes throates are fowly abused their words ignorantly misconstered if not purposely peruerted Phi. Are you there at host I see by your winding you wil run to their meaning Theo. What wroÌ„g is that if by their own rules I recal you to the right conceiuing of their wordâ— Phi. If you may make rules for religion we shall haue some wise worke of it I dare vndertake Theo. If themselues made rules to direct their hearers least their words should happily be mistaken you shew both your religion wisedom in refusing the same Phi. We refuse theÌ„ not if they be theirs Theo. If they be not you may the sooner repel theÌ„ Phi. Wel then what are they The. There shal not be many of them one will serue this turne Phi. That one then what is it The. The signes haue the names of the things themselues therfore out of the places which you haue brought you may not conclude that the naturall flesh of Christ is actually eaten with teeth or his blood really drunk with your lips but rather that the visible signes elements which are corporally receiued into your mouthes stomackes haue the vertues of those thinges whose names thâ—y beare after consecration Phi. I thought we should haue some such shift but trust me this of all others is the fondest absurdest that you could make For what ground of faith shal persist vnshaken if you giue men this scope to confesse the nâ—mâ—s but not the thinges So the Iew may reply when Christ is proued to be the true Mâ—ssias that he is so called but not so in deede So any heretâ—k may delude the whole scriptures if words shal stand as empty sounds without their sense See to what miserie you be driuen whiles you withstand the blessed Sacrament how far better were you to adore the same with vs catholâ—ks than to run into such hereticall briers The. Your sumptuous exhortatioÌ„ is but a ridiculous Iudification of your selues others We do not say that in matters of doctrine words may be receiued without their natural due signification but in Sacramentes we say the signes remaining in their former substance are called by the names of the thinges themselues therfore you must take good heed that you do not rashly conclude that of the one which was spokeÌ„ of the other least you fall into that seruitude sicknes of the soule which S. Austen warned you of before Phi. Would you appoint wheÌ„ the fathers words shal be consâ—ered of the signes wâ—en of the things The. Neither we nor you themselues are the â—ittest men to limit what they spake of the signes what of the things Phi. And do they say they spake this which I alleage of the signes The. They do Phi. â—f I should stay here til that be proued I should neuer go hence Theo. The matter is not so hard to be proued as you make it For if they mainly teach that Christs flesh is not eaten with teeth not swalowed with iawes not receiued into the coÌ„passe of the belly they must eithâ—r contradict theÌ„selues which they do not or those speeches which you bring must be vnderstood of the signes called by the names of Christs flesh blood though in truth they be not those things but sacraments of them as they by their own cautions wil instruct you Phi. I can not abide this going about the bush Theo. Indeed madmeÌ„ wil through the midst though they tear their flesh to the boanes for their labor Phi. Do you think vs mad The. It is greater madnes to sâ—ea your own soules with the rigor of other mens phrases when they giue you warning to the contrary than to wound your owne bodies with the sharpnes of any thornes Phi. We presse not their speeches against their prescriptions you rather would frustrate their meaning with your figures The. Let them tell their owne tales what they teach concerning the parts of this Sacrament then it will soone be seene whether you or we peruert them There be three thinges in the bread by like proportion in the wine that may be douted of the name the substance the power operation When we see which of these three be changed and which vnchaunged the myst of error will soonâ— be scattered The name we prooue to be chaunged by the generall confession of all the fathers Our Sauiour saiâ—h Theodoret changed the names and called the signe by the name of his bodie Christ called bread his bodie saieth Tertullian The signifying elementes and the thinges signified are called by the same names saith Cyprian Before the wordes of Christ saith Ambrose that which is offered is called bread when once the words of Christ be rehearsed it is now called not bread but his bodie The bread saith Prosper is called the bodie of Christ being in trueth the Sacrament that is the sacred signe of Christes bodie Chrysostom After sanctification it is discharged from the name of bread and counted worthie to beare the name of the Lords bodie notwithstanding the nature of brâ—ad still remaine Rabanus Because bread strengthneth our bodies therefore is it â—itly termed the bodie of Christ. Bertram The signes be called the Lords body blood by reason they take the name of that thing whose sacraments they be The general rule is plainely set downe by the famous Clarke S. Austen in these wordes If Sacraments had not a certaine likenes and resemblance to the things whose sacraments they are they should be no sacraments at all And for his similitude they commonly beare the names of the things themselues As therefore the Sacrament of christs body is after a sort the bodie of christ and the sacrament of christes blood
after the same sort the blood of christ euen so the sacrament of faith meaning thereby baptisme is saith We he buried saith Paul with christ through baptism into his death Hâ— saith not we signifie that his burial but he saith plainly we 〈…〉 The sacrameÌ„t of so great a thing he would not cal but by the 〈…〉 thing it self Upon this verie ground be concluded as you heard 〈…〉 Lâ—â—d doubted not not to say this my body when he gaue the signe of his body What maâ—uell then if the catholike Fathers vsed often the names of the body blood of Christ where the materiall elementes of bread and wine must be vnderstood since this is the certaine rule of al sacraments and the common order of all ancient diuines writing of the Lordes supper to call the giftes proposed at the Lordes table the body and blood of Christ. The wilfull contempt of which obseruation hath miserably snared and hampered you and your fellowes euerie where referring and forcing that to the naturall fleshe of Christ which by the learned and godly fathers was spoken and ment of the visible signes called by the names of the body and blood of Christ. The second thing that you sticke at is the substance of bread which we say remaineth and abideth as well after consecration as before You wil haue it either vanish to nothing or else to bee turned and conuerted into the very fleshe of Christ there present God maÌ„ vnder the whitenes roundnes such like shewes appearances of bread left only to content the sight and palate least the raw flesh of Christ should displease your eyes or offend your tast This is your doctrine and this we say is not catholike The church of Christ neuer held that the substance of bread perished or ceased after consecration it is a late deuise you can bring no father that is ancient for this assertion they neuer taught they neuer heard they neuer dreampt any such thinges They taught that the mysticall signes were creatures well knowen not straunge and miraculous accidentes that the substance of bread was not changed but remained still after consecration and this they taught in as plaine words as heart can imagine or tongue expresse lette the Reader bee iudge if I â—aye not the truth Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome for his antiquitie reuerenced of vs for his place not to be refused of you writeth thus against Eutiches The sacraments which we receiue of the body blood of Christ are a diuine thing by them are we made partakers of the diuine nature yet for all that ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread wine to be Theodoret The mystical signes do not after sanctification depart from their own nature for they remaine in their former substance figure forme Ambrose Thou camest to the altar â—awest the sacraments theron wonderest at the very creature yet it is a â—olemn known creature Ireneus Christ counseling or willing his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of those creatures tooke that bread which is a creature gaue thankes saying this is my body We must therefore in all thinges be found thankefull to God the creator offering the first fruits of those creatures which be his and this oblation the Church onely maketh in puritie to the creatour offering to him of his own creatures with thankes giuing Origen The Lords bread according to the material partes thereof goeth into the belly and thence to the draught so that it is not the matter of breade that doeth proâ—itte the râ—ceiuer but the worde rehearsed ouer it Epiphanius That which our Sauiour our tooke in his hand and saide this is my body wee see to bee neither proportional nor like to his image in flesh nor his inuisible Deity for this is of a round figure hath no power of sense but our Lord wee knowe to bee wholy sense wholy sensitiue Cyprian Since the Lord said do this in my remembraÌ„ce this is my flesh this is my blood as often as with these words this faith we do that he did this substantial bread cup sanctified with a solemn blessing is profiâ—able for the life safegard of the whole man being both a medicine to heal our infirmities a sacrifice to clense our iniquities Chrysostom After coÌ„secration it is deliuered from the name of bread reputed worthy to be called the Lords body nothwithstanding the nature of bread still remaine Austen These things are therefore called Sacramentes because in them one thing is seen an other thing vnderstood That which is seen speciem habet corporalem hath a corporal shape or kind that which is vnderstood hath a spiritual fruit This is of al other a miserable seruitude of the soule to mistake the signes for the things themselues not to be able to lift vp the eye of the minde aboue the corporall creature to behold the light that is eternall The councell of Constantinople Christ commaunded the whole substaunce of breade chosen for his image to bee set on his table least if it resembled the shape of a man idolatrie might bee committed Bertram The signes as touching the substances of the creatures are the same after consecration which they were before Can you looke for plainer or directer witnesses Do they not all ioyne together in one profession and succession of truth that the mysticall signes after consecration be knowen corporal and senselesse creatures abiding in their proper and former yea their whole nature and substance Be not these wordes significant and pregnant directly conâ—uting your reall inclosing and corporall eaâ—ing of Christ vnder the shewes and accidentes of bread and wine The third thing that I saide was to bee considered in the elementes of bread and wine is their power and operation For since the substance of the creatures is not chaunged the signes coulde not iustly beare the names of the thinges them-selues except â—â—e vertue power and â—ffect of Christs fleshe and bloode were adioyned to them and vnited with them after a secrete and vnspeakable manner by the working of the holy Ghost in such sort that whosoeuer duelie receiueth the signe is vndoubtedly partaker of the grace offered vnto all but inioyed onely by those that with fayth and repentance clense the inward man from that corruption of flesh spirit which Christ abhorreth Cyprian of Sacraments in generall writeth thus To the elements once sanctified not now their owne nature giueth effect but the diuine vertue worketh in them more mightily the trueth is present with the signe and the spirit with the Sacrament so that the worthines of the grace appeareth by the verie efficiencie of the things Of the Lordes Supper in speciall thus he saith b There is giuen the foode of immortalitie differing from commoÌ„ meates Corporalis substantiae etmens speciem retaining the kind or truth
of a corporal substaÌ„ce for your shewes without substance were not yet known but by secret efficiencie prouing the presence of the diuine vertue This common bread chaunged into flesh and blood procureth life and groweth to our bodies so by the vsuall course of these things the weakenes of our faith is succoured and â—aught by a sensible argument that the effects of eternal life is in the visible SacrameÌ„ts that we be vnitâ—â— to Christ noâ— so much by a corporal as by a spiritual transitioÌ„ Ambrose Perhaps tâ—ou wilt say I â—ee the likenes I see not the truth of blood But it hath a resemblaÌ„ce For as thou tookest a resemblance of his death so doest thou drink a resemblance of his precious blood to this end that there should be no horror of blood and yet it might worke the price of our saluation and the grace of our redemption might remaine Therfore for a similitude thou receauest the Sacrament sed ver ae naturae gratiaÌ„ virtuteÌ„que consequeris but thou obtainest therby the grace vertue of the true nature Gelasius By the sacraments which we receiue wee be made partakers of the diuine nature they truely represent to vs the vertues and effects of that Principal mysterie Hilarius These things tasted taken bring this to passe that Christ remaineth in vs this is The vertue of that table to quicken the receiuers Leo In that mystical distribution of the spirituall nourishment that is giuen this is taken that receiuing the vertue of the heauenly meate we may be chaunged into his flesh who was made flesh for vs. Chrysostom Let vs come to the spirituall dugge of this chalice and suck thence the grace of the spirit Austen The Sacrament is one thing the vertue of the Sacrament is an other thing Euery man receiueth his part whereby grace itselfe is called parts and where the Sacraments were common to all grace was not common to all which is the vertue of the Sacraments And againe The Capernites thought he would haue giuen them his body but he told them hee would ascend to heauen no doubt hee ment whole When you shall see the sonne of man ascendingâ— where hee was before surely then shal you see that he doth not giue his body that way which you imagine surely then shal you perceiue that his grace is not consumed with biting Euthymius He doth change these things vnspeakably into his very body that quickneth and into his very precious blood and into the grace of them bothâ— We must therfore not looke to the nature of the things proposed at the Lords table but vnto the vertue of them Wherefore Theodoretes wordes are most true The signes which are seene Christ did honor with the names of his body and blood not chaunging the nature or substance of them but casting grace vnto nature And so did Ambrose meane when hee sayde If there bee so great strength in the word of the Lord Iesu that all thinges beganne to bee when they were not howe much more shall it bee of force that the mysticall elementes should be the same they were before and yet bee chaunged into an other thing The same in earthly matter and substaunce which they were before chaunged in vertue power and working whereby wee see they beare not onely the names but also the fruites and effectes of those thinges whose Sacraments they bee This is their doctrine touching the visible part of this Sacrament which is seene with eyes felt with handes and â—rused with teeth of that there is no doubt but it entereth our mouthes and resteth in our bowels and that for the causes which I before rehearsed aâ—â—er consecration is euâ—ry where called by thâ—m the Lordes body but that the naturall fleshe of Christ which is thâ— other and inwarde part of the Sacrament entereth the mouth or abideth the teeth or passeth downe the throate or loâ—geth in the stomack this is a position wholy repugnant both to Fathers and Scriptures Doe you not know sayth Christ that whatsoeuer thing from without entereth into a man can not defile him because it entereth not into his heart but into the beâ—lie Then by the iudgement of our Sauiour nothing can enter â—oth the hâ—aâ—t the bâ—lly but the flesh of Chrisâ— entereth into the hâ—art ergo 〈…〉 The bellie saieth Paul is for meates meates for the bellie and God will destroy both it and them the bodie of Chrâ—st Gâ—d wâ—ll not destroy it is therefore no meate for the bellie If not for the â—â—lliâ— then not for the mouth because eueâ—ie thing that entereth the mouth goeth into the bellie and so foorth to the â—raught But so basely to thâ—nk of the flâ—sh of Christ is apparent and 〈◊〉 wickednesse eâ—go the fleshe of Christ neither fillâ—th our bellies nor â—ntâ—râ—th ouâ— moâ—â—â—â— For nothing that entereth the mouth can either defile or sanctifie Meatâ—s saith Paul whiâ—h passe by the mouth doe not commend vs vnto â—od neither doeth the kingâ—om of God which is our sanctificationâ— conâ—â—â— of mâ—ats and drinkes but Christ with his blood doeth sanctifie the people and hee that â—atâ—th my flâ—sh drinketh my blood saith â—e remaineth in mee and I in him and hath eternall life ergo neâ—ther his fleshe nor â—â—s blood enter ouâ— mâ—utheâ— To be short Christ dwelleth not in bellies by locall comprehension but in our hearts by faith his flâ—he seedeth not â—ur bodies for a tiâ—e but our soules for euer his wordes were spoken not of our mouthes which beâ—leâ—ue not â—ut of our spirites which haue no fleshe nor boanes and consequently neither teeth to grinde nor iawes to swallow but onely â—aith and vnderstanding Lette all this bee â—â—â—de if the learned and auncient Fathers doe not conclude the same Chrysostome Care not for the nourishment of the bodie but of the spirit Christ is the bread which â—eeâ—â—th not the bodie but the soule and filleth not the belly but the minde Ambrose Christ is in that sacrament because it is the bodie of Christ. It is therefore no bodily but Ghostly meate NOT THIS BREAD which entereth into the bodie but the bread of eternall life is it that vpholdeth the substaunce of our soule Cyprian As often as we doe this wee wheâ— not our teeth to bite but we breake the sanctified bread with a sincere faith Cyril Let vs therefore as our Sauiour saith labour not for the meate which goeth into the bellie but for the spirituall foode which confirmeth our harts and leadeth vs to eternall life Austen It is not lawfull to deuoure Christ with teeth Prepare not your iawes but your harts We take but a morsel our hart is replenished Therfore not that which is seen but that which is beleued doth feed Why prouidest thou thy teeth thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten Beâ—traÌ„ At
the Lords table we look not on that which is brokeÌ„ in peeces which is pressed with teeth which feedeth the body but onely that which is taken spiritually by faith Doth the meate which the faithful receiue in the church as touching that which is corporally taken that which is chammed with teeth that which is swallowed with iawes that which is closed in the compasse of the belly put vs in assurance of eternall life This way no question it feedeth our flesh which shall dy neither yeeldeth vs any kind of incorruption For this which the body receiueth is corruptible that which fayth beholdeth feedeth the soule and perfourmeth vs euerlasting life If these fathers be not able to remoue you from the corporal eating of christs flesh with teeth iawes heare in how plaine termes your own Law doth check this grossenes of yours The flesh of Christ is not incorporated with vs descendeth not into the stomacke passeth not into the nourishment of the body for it is the food of the soule not of the body And where Pope Nicholas draue Berengarius in his recantation to say that the flesh of Christ was truely chaÌ„med between the teeth of the faithful Your Gloze could forebear no longer but cried out Nisi sanè intelligas except thou take good heede to these words thou shalt fal into a greater heresie than euer Berengarius held Then blame not vs Philander for saying this your assertion is not catholike the Prouost Mareschall of your owne side not long since sayde it was hereticall Phi. Haue you done Theo. I haue if you list to begin Phi. What a stirre is here to bring beggers to the stockes al not worth a straw Theo. In deede Friers are the neerest kinsmen that beggers haue they both liue by shifting gaine by dissembling saue that Friers are alwaies within doores when beggars are without But what is it that doth so much offend you in my speech Philan. You runne along with Scriptures and Fathers as if all were yours Theophil I shew you a trueth confirmed by the Scriptures auouched by the Fathers and confessed by your owne fellowes If that displease you your mouth is out of tast Philand Haue you the trueth so hath the Diuell for you bee his members in that you bee Heretikes Theo. This is but a iades tricke when you feele the spurres to fling out behind The more you reason the more you finde that you haue runne the race of your owne deuises without the fathers and now you can not resist you fall to reuiling and cursed speaking Phi. We can with one lifte lay all your authorities in the miâ—e Theoph. Your can is great but your liquor small I dare promise for you that you will struggle what you can to bee rid of the burden Phi. With three bare words I wil answere your three parts and all your proofes Theo. They may be so bare they will doe you no good but at aduenture what are they Phi. That the signes after consecration carie the names and effectes of the things themselues I graunt it to be very true but it answereth not the places which I did obiect And as for the substance of bread remaining which sâ—me Fathers seeme to affirme wee say substance is there takâ—n not for the very substance it selfe which is really changed into the body of Christ but for some other thing Theo. What other thing Phi. Not for that which you meane Theo. Let my meaning alone and speake you to their assertion that say the breade and wine remaine after Consecration in their former and proper nature and substance Phi. Substance is there taken for nature Theo. Nature is so general that it compriseth both the substance accidents of euery thing If then the signes remaine in their former nature they must retaine both their former substance and their former accidents Phi. Their substance they doe not their qualities they doe as sight tast bignes and such like properties Theo. But the places which I cite affirme they retaine both and namely their proper and former substance Phi. That is their former qualities Theo. Doth substance signifie qualities Phi. In these places it doth Theo. Why more in these than in others Substance in all learning is diuided against accidents how then commeth substance by your learning to be taken for accidents Phi. It is so For otherwise those sayings were all one with heresie if substance should be taken in his proper signification Theo. Yea marie now you come to your right colours If the fathers words should not be violently wrested from their perpetual naturall signification you cannot possibly auoide but they taught â—hat doctrine for Catholike which you now reiect for heresie Phi. They neuer taught it The. Themselues be dead and do not speake their words in which they spake whiles they liued make as directly for vs as we can spake any vnlesse you turne all that euer they said the vpside downe and take figures for truths substance for accidents creatures for shewes teeth for faith heauen for earth Which priuilege of interpreting scriptures and fathers cleane contrarie to the sense if you can procure or iustifie I will be your suretie all the Protestants in Christendome shal neuer touch the least haire of your heads in all the follies which you defend Phi. We doe not force them against their meaning Then shew your exposition to be true by other points of their doctrine and partes of their writings which must infallibly force you to that construction Phi. So we doe Theo. With places as shamefully abused as these Phi. No by inumerable and ineuitable authorities Theo. Bring but one father that shall say the substance of bread and wine is ceased or abolished by consecration and you shall haue free leaue to doe what you will with all the rest Phi. We can bring infinite Theo. You may the sooner choose out one Philan. You would put vs to bring other proofes before you haue answered those that are alreadie produced I brought you sir fathers affirming the flâ—she and bloud of Christ were receiued with our mouthes you would leape to new matter and shake them off at your fingers end but I will none of that First make euen with the old scores before you enter on a new reckoning Theophi You were the cause of that digression and not I. You replied to my proofes and persued not your owne And yet you neede not say your places are vnanswered your selfe haue confessed the weakenes of your owne authorities yeelded them as vnsufficient to beare the weight of your conclusion what other answere would you haue Phi. Haue I dissabled mine owne proofes Theo. Your owne conclusion you haue Phi. Would you make me so madde Theo. I thinke you were more sober then than now For then you agâ—ised a trueth and now you resist it againe Phi. What did I agnise Doe you thinke I was a sleepe that I
peruert the meaning of Leo and if you did but vnderstand the right course of his reason you would suppresse both his voice and your vaunt for verie shame Phi. He that will trust your sayings shall haue manie false fiers when he should not Theo. And he that will credit your doings shall feele manie quick flames when he would not Phi. You be better at quipping than at answering Theo. You are lothe we should encroch on your common But returne to Leo. Can you tell against whome he wrote Phi. Against such as you are that denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Were they men without names or names without men Phi. Mock not they were your auncetours Theo. They say it is a wise childe that knoweth his owne father Doe you But in sadnes whome did Leo traduce in that sermon Phil. Mary Eutiches and such like heretikes Theoph. You saie well for Leo nameth him but a litle before in that sermon and against his opinion he reasoneth Philand I am content with that Theoph. What was his error Phi. He denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Who told you so Phi. I gather it by those that refute him Theo. By them you shall learne his error but this it was not Philan. What was it say you Theo. Eutiches affirmed that Christes humane nature and substance was not onely glorified by his ascension but consumed and turned into the nature immensitie of his Godhead Against him wrate Theodorete Gelasius and others and one of the cheefest argumentes which they bring against him is that which Leo here toucheth in a woorde or two Phi. That argument cleane confoundeth your sacramentarie Sect. Theo. Yours or ours it must needes confound for this it is As the bread and wine after consecration are changed and altered into the bodie and bloud of Christ so is the humane nature of Christ conuerted into his diuine after his resurrection ascension but the bread and wine are not changed neither in substance nor forme nor figure nor naturall proprieties but only in grace and working ergo Christs humane nature is not changed into his diuine EITHER IN SVBSTANCE circumscription or forme but only endewed with glory and immortalitie Phi. This is no Catholike reason but sauoreth altogether of your hereticall poison Theo. They which first framed and vrged this reason against Eutiches in your opinion were they heretikes Phi. No father euer vsed it Theo. If they did must not they be doubbed for heretikes as the first proposers of that reason or at least you for affirming now the quite contrarie For you reiect both their assumption conclusion against Eutiches as starke false and whose ancetour then is Eutiches but yours Phi. They do not vse it as you report it Theo. Looke you offspring of Eutiches whether Gelasius Theodoret and Augustine do not vrge it in those verie pointes and wordes which I repeate Thus Gelasius framed his reason against Eutiches An image or similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is therefore apparant and euident enough that we must holde the same opinion of Christ the Lord which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image That as those signes by the working of the holy Ghost passe into the diuine substance and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature Euen so that verie principall mysterie it selfe whose force truth that Image assuredly representeth doth demonstrate one whole and true Christ to continue the two natures of which he consisteth properlie remaining And lest you should not vnderstand what he ment by this The signes still abide in the proprietie of their owne nature he expoundeth himselfe an saith Non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not or perisheth not When Theodoret had made an entrance to the very same reason by laying this foundation Oportet archetypum Imaginis esse exemplar the Originall must be answerable to the Image the heretike caught the words out of his mouth and said It hapned in good time that you did mention the diuine mysteries for euen thereby will I prooue the Lordes bodie to be chaunged into an other nature As then the signes of the Lordes bodie and blood are other thinges before the inuocation of the Priest but after they are chaunged and become other than that they were so the Lords bodie after his assumption is chaunged into his diuine substance The maior being good such as Gelasius and Theoderet did both auouch that as the signes were changed after consecration so was Christes humanitie after his assumption if your opinion had then beene taught in the church that the substance of bread and wine were changed by consecration the conclusion had beene infallible for Eutiches error that the substance of Christes humanitie had beene changed by his ascention into his diuinitie and not only both these Fathers had had their mouthes stopped but Eutiches error had beene inâ—olâ—ble as beeing grounded on a Maior that was a confessed and famous trueth and on a Minor that was as you thinke the vndoubted saith of the Church Mary the Minor in deed was apparantly false though you now defend it for Catholike Doctrine and with the plaine deniall of that as a manifest vntrueth Theodoret inferreth the contrarye that because neither the Substance nor naturall proprieties of the bread and wine are chaunged by consecration as the whole Church then beleeued and confessed therefore neither the substance nor shape nor circumscription of Chrisâ—es humane nature were changed by his ascention but his body remaineth in the â—ame substance quantitie and forme that he rose from death and ascended vp withall and with the very same forme and substance of flesh shall come to iudge the worlde These are his wordes Thou art caught saith Theodoret to the heretike with the same nets that thou laiedst for others The mysticall signes after sanctification doe not depart from their own nature For they remanie in their former substance and figure and forme c. Conferre then the Image with the originall and thou shalt see the likenes betweene them For the figure must be like to the trueth That body therefore of christ in heauen hath his former shape and figure circumscription to speake al at once his former substance Lay all your heades together aâ—d graunting the Maior which the whole Church held auoide the conclusion of Eutiches withâ—ut the denying the Minor as Theodoret did which yet is your faith and beleefe at this day and we wil grant you to be Catholiks and our selues heretikes If you cannot see how far you be falleÌ„ from the doctrine of Christs church and that in no lesse point than the greatest and chieâ—esâ— Sacrament on which you haue wickedly founded your adoration oblation halfe communion priuate masse and barbarous prayers without
example without warrant of God or man Phi. Theodoret hath set you vppe in your Ruffe but I would you knew it in this case we care neither for Theodoret nor you if that were his opinion as it is yours Theo. And who hath put you into your ruffe that you not only despise that learned and auncient Bishoppe but the whole Church in him which then so beleeued and you cannot auoide at this day except you will bee Eutichians Phi. The Maior is not altogether so sâ—und as you thinke it Theo. Yet did Gelasius and Theodoret confound that error with that comparison and S. Augustine long before thâ—m did vrge the same This is it that wee say this is it that by all meanes we labour to confirme to witte that the Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible kinde of elementes and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ the Sacrament and the thing of the SACRAMENT euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for so much as euery thing containeth the nature and trueth of those things of which it consisteth By which rule it is certaine there musâ— be in the sacrament the nature truâ—th and substance of bread and wine euen as in Christes person either nature hath his trueth and substance without confusion or distraction Phi. We haue fathers to the contrary if the time did serue to produce them as anon I will In the meane while what is this to Leo Theophil Leo in few words abbridgeth the sumâ— of this reason and saith the followers of Eutiches doe in vaine with their mouthes receâ—ne the Sacrament since with their hartes they doe not beleeue the tâ—ueth of Christs humane nature and answer AmeÌ„ to no purpose so long as they dispute against that which they would seâ—m to enioye by receiuing the seale and pledge thereof in the church with others Phi. This is your Commentarie besâ—des the text his wordes are The selfe same bodie which wee beleeue with faith is receiued with mouth Which you cannot interprete to be mâ—ant of the bread For the breade is not beleeued with hart and against the trueth of Christs bodie not against the bread did the followers of Eutiches dispute Theo. Doth Leo â—aie the selâ— same bodie Phi. He saith Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur that is receiued with the mouth which with our faith is beleeued and that cannot be the bread The. Much lesse maie it be the natural bodie of Christ. For then Leo had mightilie confirmed not confuted Eutiches opinion His error was that the humanitie of christ after his ascension was swallowed vp of his diuinitie and so changed that it was now no naturall bodie Against this if Leo should haue opposâ—d your reall presence in the Sacrament where Christs body is without quantity shape circumscription distinction of partes and all other conditions of a naturall body he had beene a Proctour â—or Eutiches impiety not a confuter of it Neither could Eutiches himsâ—lfe haue wished a better defence for his heresie than the confessâ—on â—f such a bodâ—e as you imagine in the sacrament and therfore you haâ—k that HOC ilfauouredly when you make Leo rather a consenter with Eutiches than a disprouer of him with your fantasticall presence which is an approbation and no refutation of Eutiches error Phil. What a slander this is that the reall presence should be a refuge for Eutichâ—s error Theoph. Such a slaunder as with all your cunning you shall neuer wipe awaie Phi. Doe we not affirme the substance of Chrisâ—es humane flesh to be in the Sacrament The. Such a substance as Eutiches him selfe imagined hauing neither proportion of shape nor position of parts nor repletion of place nor anie condition incident to a naturall bodie but the godly fathers were farre from vrging such a substance against Eutiches They pressed him with the bodilie shape circumscription extension and perfeâ—â—ion of Christes flesh as well in all other requisites as in substance and to prooue this amongst other arguments they brought as I haue shewed the Sacrament for a resemblance and demonstrance of both natures in Chrisâ— that as the bread after consecration keepeth his quantity quality shape and substance notwithstanding it be vnited and annexed to the heauenly grace that worketh in the sacrament so the bodie of Christ after his assumption retaineth his former perfection proportion figure and substance loosing no poinâ—â— nor part of his humane nature but only replenished with immortall glorie This must be Leoes Hoc if he will do any good with alleaging the Sacrament against Eutiches as I haue proued by Austen Gelasius and Theodoret Otherwise if he do but mention your real presence he openeth the gappe and leuelleth the way to Eutiches furie and runneth headlong against the rest of his fellow seruants and successours that vsed the same argument to confute Euâ—iches with a manifest contradiction of your reall presence Phi. I bring you Leoes wordes Theo. Leoes wordes haue nothing in them to crosse that sense which I establish Hoc signifieth any thing and hath no relation to Christes flesh in the sacrament but to the proportion rather betweene Christ the sacrament in that they beleeued no other thing of Christ than they saw with their eyes receiued with their mouths in the Sacrament to wit the perfect shape substance of bread after Consecration consequently they must holde the same opinion of Christs humanitie after his ascension Phi. If you vse this trade you may peruert all the fathers writings and make what sense you list to their sayings Theo. Peruert them no more than we doe and you shall neuer euert the maine doctrine as you haue doone We measure â—heir wordes by their owne warrant and suffer nâ—t a phrase here and there which may bee well reuoked to their rules to vndermine the chiefe grouâ—des of their faith Phi. No more doe we Theo. Why then rage you to heare vâ— say that these few places which you haue brought for eating christs bodie with your mouthes and iawes may be referred to the signes called by those names as well as to the things themselues Phi. You take vpon you to bee Iudges and to pronounce at your pleasures when the wordâ—s shall belong to the one and when to the other so that no father shall say any thing against your heresie but yet will by and by turne it and wind it I knowe not whither Theo. Nothing more hindereth the search for trueth than a desire to lye We shew you the general admonition of the fathers themselues that after consecration they call the visible signes no longer by their woonted names but by the names of those things whose signes they are and whose vertues they haue This Rule we say is then to take place when the speach which we find in a father if it should be referred to the things themselues would be both absurd and repugnant to
the thinges themselues whose signes those are Philand It were Theophil Why then since corporall eating serueth only for corporall nourishing and hath a continuall and naturall coherence with it doe you confesse the trueth in the later and not as well in the former part of that action why doe you not expound them both alike Philand To say the immortall fleshe of Christ is conuerted and turned into the quantitie and substaunce of our mortall flesh is an horrible heresie Theophil And so say that his fleshe is eaten with our mouthes and â—awes lâ—â—th in our stomacks is the verie pathway right introduction to that heresie or at least to as brutish and grosse an erour as that is Philand The Fathers affirme that his body is eaten with our mouthes Theophil And so they affirme that his bodie and blood doe increase and augment the substaunce of our mortall and sinnefull bodies Philand But that can not bee Theophil No more can the other Philand Howe shall our bodies rise at the last day if Christes body bee not in them Theophil Our resurrection dependeth not on the act of eating his flesh but of nourishing our fleshe with his as Ireneus telleth vs and the thinges which wee eate are not the causes but as the great Nicene councell admonisheth the pledges of our resurrection Their words be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must beleeue these to bee the signes or pledges of our resurrection Philand S. Chrysostom earnestly inforceth the eating of Christs flesh And sayth wee doe not onely eate it but euen * fasten our teeth in his fleshe Theo. In deede hee saith so but if you did not auert both your eyes and eares from the trueth you would perceiue by that verie sentence both the maner of his other Fathers speeches of that Sacrament and the right intent of their Doctrine in those cases His wordes are Non se tantum videri permittens desiderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desiderio sui omnes impleri Christ suffering himselfe not only to bee seene of those that are desirous but to bee touched and eaten and our teeth to bee fastned in his flesh and all to be satisfied of their longing after him Phi. Lord me thinketh these words be verie plain words He suffereth our teeth to bee fastned in his fleshe Theo. Uerie plaine they bee but very false also vnlesse you either take the flesh of Christ for the signe called by that name or else referre teeth and biting to the soule and faith of the â—â—ward man aâ— wel as you do the eyes hands wherewith we see him touch him Phi. Look what an â—â—â—sion you haue since gotten Theo. Nay looke what a subuersion of all truth and saith you be since fallen to Phi. Doth not this Father say wee fasten our teeth in his flesh Theo. Doeth hee not also say We see him with our eyes touch him with our handes Phi. That is referred to our faith as S. Ambrose teacheth Fide Christus videtur side Christus tangitur By faith Christ is seene by fayth Christ is touched Theoph. And why shall not the next which is more vnlikely to bee true bee referred to faith as well as the former Sainct Ambrose likewise saying Comedat te cor meuÌ„ panis sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee O holy bread O liuing bread O pure-bread come into my heart enter into my soule and Cyprian calling it the proper norishment of the spirite besides infinite others that for a thowsande yeares taught that doctrine in the church of God not your gutturall eating of Christ with teeth and iawes Phi. Was your maner of eating Christes fleshe which you defende in the sacrament taught in the church for a thowsande yeares Theop. Euen ours was and when yours came first to be proposed your schoolemen ran euery man his way fighting and scratching one an other â—ho should fal fastest and farthest from the truth Philand Blush you not to auouch two such monsterous lies Theop. A lyar will easily suspect any man as knowing him-selfe to delight in lies but GOD bee thanked that lyes with you bee truethes with vs and with all that haue any knowlegde of GOD or care of his truth The things which I affirmed be manifest truethes and such as you will blush at for verie shame if you be not sworne to your holie Father against Christ as well as you bee against your Prince Origen commenting vppon these wordes of the Supper this is my bodie this is my blood this breade sayeth hee which Christ confesseth to bee his bodie is the worde that nourisheth our soules and this drinke which hee confesseth to bee his blood is the worde that moysteneth and passinglie cheereth the heartes of such as drinke it Thou which art come vnto Christ sticke not in the blood of his fleshe but rather learne the blood of his worde and heare him saying to thee this is my blood which shall bee shedde for the remission of your sinnes Hee that is partaker of the mysteries knoweth the flesh and blood of the worde of God For the bread is the word of righteousnesse which our soules eating are nourished with and the drink is the worde of the knowledge of Christ according to the mysterie of his birth and death The blood of the Testament is poured into our heartes for the remission of our sinnes Athanasius Howe fewe men woulde his bodie haue sufficed that this shoulde bee the foode of the whole worlde Yea therefore doeth bee warne them of his ascension into heauen that he might drawe him from thinking on his bodie and they thereby learne that the flesh which he spake of was celestiall meate from aboue and spirituall nourishment to bee giuen by him The wordes which I spake to you are spirite and life which is as much as if hee had sayde this bodie which is in your sight and delyuered to death for the worlde shall bee giuen you for meate that it may bee spiritually distributed in euery one of you and be an assuraunce and preseruatiue to raise you to eternall life Cyprian writing of the Lordes Supper Eating and drinking saieth hee bee referred to the one and same end with the which as the substance of our bodies is increased and preserued so the life of the spirite is maintained with his proper nourishment What foode is to the fleshe that faith is to the soule what meate is to the body that the worde is to the spirite working euerlastingly with a more excellent vertue that which bodily meates doe for a time and vntill a season Ambrose approaching to the sacred communion which you intitle a prayer preparing to Masse amongest other thinges speaketh thus to Christ himselfe Thou Lord saydst with thine holy and blessed mouth the bread
which I will giue is my fleshe giuen for the life of the world Hee that eateth mee shall liue through mee hee abideth in mee and I in him I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer Most delightful bread heale thou the tast of my heart that I may feele the sweetenesse of thy loue Let mine heart eate thee and with thy present relesse let the bowels of my soule bee replenished Angels eate thee with full mouth let man that is a pilgrime on earth eate thee as his weakenesse will suffer him that hee faint not in the way hauing this prouision for his iourney Holy bread liuing bread beautifull bread which camest from heauen and giuest life to the worlde come into my heart and clense mee from all filth of flesh and spirit Enter into my soule heale and sanctifie me within and without No man earnester in this point than S. Austen This visible bread confirmeth the stomack confirmeth the bellie There is an other bread which confirmeth the hart because it is the bread of the hart There is a wine that doth rightly cheere the hart can do nothing but cheere the hart Therfore vnderstand so of the bread as thou doest of the wine inwardly hūger inwardly thirst blessed are they which hunger thirst after righteousnes for they shal be satisfied That breade is righteousnes that wine is righteousnesse is trueth and Christ is the trueth I am saieth hee the liuing bread which came from heauen and I am the vine you are but braunches To beleeue in him this is to eate the liuing bread hee that beleeueth eateth Man is inuisibly fedde because hee is inuisibly regenerated He is inwardly in soule a babe inwardly in minde renewed Looke in what part man is newe borne in that part is hee fedde The vnbeleeuing Iewes were farre from this heauenly breade neither knewe they howe to hunger for it the iawes of their hearts were dull and this bread requireth the hunger of the inward man Take heed brethren eate you this heauenly bread spiritually bring innocencie to the altar Eate life and drinke life For then is the bodie and blood of the Lord life to each man when that which is visiblie taken in the Sacrament is in very trueth spiritually eaten spiritually drunken When Christ is eaten life is eaten neither when wee eate him doe wee make peeces of him In deede in the Sacrament it is so and the faithfull knowe howe they eate the fleshe of Christ euerie man taketh his peece Wherefore grace it selfe is termed peeces Christ is eaten by peeces in the sacrament and yet hee remaineth whole in heauen hee remayneth whole in thine heart Prouide not your iawes but your heart Thence is this Supper commended Beholde wee beleeue in Christ wee receiue him with our fayth In taking wee know what wee should thinke wee take him but a litle and our heart is replenished Macarius In the church is offered breade and wine the samplar of his body and blood and they which are partakers of the visible breade doe spiritually eate the Lordes fleshe Emissenus When thou goest vppe to the reuerende Altar to bee filled with spirituall meats by fayth beholde honour and wonder at the sacred bodie and bloode of thy God touch it with thy mynde take it with the hand of thyne heart and chiefely prouide that the inwarde manne swallowe the whole This Doctrine continued eight hundreth yeares after Christ. Bertram then liuing is witnesse sufficient The bodie and blood of Christ if thou consider the outward appearance is a creature subiect to mutation and corruption but if thou waigh the vertue of the mysterie it is life performing immortalitie to those that receiue it As touching the visible creature the mysteries feed the body but by the vertue of a mightier substance they feede sanctify the soules of the faithful What we should eat what we should drinke the holy Ghost expresseth by the Prophet Tast and see howe sweete the Lord is Doeth that breade corporally tasted or that wine sipped shewe howe sweete the Lorde is whatsoeuer tast that hath it is corporall and pleaseth the iawes Hee doeth therefore inuite vs to vse the relesse of our spirituall tast in that breade and drinke to dreame of no corporall thing but to conceiue all to bee spirituall This meate confirmeth our heart and this drinke cheereth the heart of man sayeth the Prophet By the which it is euident that nothing in this meate nothing in this drinke must bee corporally taken but the whole spirituallie considered For the soule which is ment by mans heart in this place is not fedde with corporall meate or drinke but is refreshed and nourished with the worde of God Faith beleeueth that which is not seene and spiritually feedeeth the soule and cheereth the heart and giueth eternall life whiles wee marke not that which feedeth the bodie not that which is pressed with teeth not that which is brused in peeces but that which is spiritually taken with faith For this is a spirituall foode and a spirituall drinke spiritually feeding the soule Paschasius commeth after Bertram in age but ioyneth with him in the same confession of trueth The diuine mysteries our inwarde man receiueth through the grace of Christ with vnderstanding and by them is hee made one bodie with Christ through the power of faith The fleshe and blood of Christ because they bee thinges spirituall are fullie receiued by fayth and vnderstanding It is not lawfull to eate Christ with teeth Christ is the meate of Angels and this Sacrament is truely his fleshe and his blood which fleshe and blood man eateth and drinketh spirituallie And so by what food the Angels liue by that also man liueth because in this that man receiueth all is diuine and spirituall Wee drinke spiritually and wee eate the spirituall flesh of Christ in which is beleeued to bee eternall life All that wee eate is spirituall The power of faith and vnderstanding which doubteth nothing of Christ doeth tast and relesse the whole spiritually Otherwise but for faith and vnderstanding what finde they which tast these thinges besides breade and wine The visible quantitie must not bee esteemed in this mysterie but the power of the spirituall Sacrament Wee must not respect howe much of the quantitie is pressed with our teeth but how much is receiued through faith and loue Therefore my sonne when thou commest to the participation of this mysterie OPEN THE BOSOM OF THY MINDE cleanse thy conscience and receiue thou not what a morsell containeth but AS MVCH AS THY FAITH APPREHENDETH Fulbertus a thousand yeres after Christ treadeth the same path That which appeared outwardly to be the substance of breade and wine is nowe made the bodie and blood
Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera manducare corpus Christi eius sanguinem bibere The Lord sheweth what it is to eate the flesh of christ drinke his bloud not by way of a sacrament but in deede As if he had said hee that remaineth not in me and in whom I doe not likewise remaine let him neuer say nor thinke that he eateth my flesh or drinketh my bloud That which here he calleth Sacramento tènus before in the same Chapter hee called solo Sacramento opposing against it reuera maÌ„nducare prouing that neither heretikes nor wicked Christians do in deede eate the bodie of Christ but only the Sacrament that is the sacred signe of his bodie They rightly vnderstand that he must not be said to eate the bodie of christ which is not in the body of christ as heretikes be not and of wicked liuers though they keepe in the Church he saith Nec isti dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quia nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Neither are these that liue wickedly to bee saide to eate the bodie of christ since they must not be counted the members of Christ. Phi. Not spiritually but Sacramentally they do eate the bodie of Christ though they be wicked and so Sainct Augustine teacheth Theo. Keepe the wordes and sense which S. Augustine hath you shall be free from this error which now you are in He that remaineth not in Christ and in whom Christ abideth not without all doubt doth not spiritually eate his fleshe nor drinke his bloud though carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie and bloud Sacramentall eating is the carnall and visible pressing with teeth the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud it is not the reall eating of Christ himselfe Phi. The Sacrament is Christ we say Theo. But so said not Sainct Augustine He diligently distinguisheth Sacramentum rem Sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing which is the other part of the Sacrament interpreting the Sacrament to be Sacrum Signum a sacred Signe and the thing it selfe to be the bodie of Christ. The Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two parts Sacramentâ— re Sacramenti id est corpore Christi of the sacrament the thing of the Sacrament which is the bodie of Christ. There is therefore the Sacrament the thing of the Sacrament to witte the body of Christ. Of the Sacrament he saith It is receiued at the Lordes table of some to life of some to destruction Res vero ipsa cuius Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit But the thing it selfe whereof that is a Sacrament is receiued of all men to life and of none to death whosoeuer is partaker of it The rest ioyne with him in that assertion Heretikes saith Hierom doe not eate his fleshe whose fleshe is the meate of the faithfull Whosoeuer saith Ambrose eateth this bread he shall not die for euer and it is the bodie of Christ. None is partaker of this lambe saith Cyprian that is not a right Israelite The worde saith Origen was made fleshe and true meate the which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer Quem nullus malus potest edere whom no wicked person can eate The Sacraments that is the sacred signes of Christes bodie and bloude the wicked doe eate Christ him-selfe they doe not And why The Sacraments are carnally pressed with teeth which they are partakers of as well as the Godlie but Christ him-selfe is not eaten with teeth and therefore the wicked wanting both spirite and faith by which he is receiued cannot possibly eate his fleshe or drinke his bloud though they come to his table neuer so often Phi. If Christ be really contained in the visible Sacrament how can they receiue it but they must receiue him also Theo. If hee were locally and substantially there inclosed it could not be auoided but receiuing the one into their mouthes they must needs also receiue the other into the same passage but because neither he is eaten with teeth nor entereth the bodies of the wicked as where hee abydeth not therefore wee rightly conclude that hee is not corporally couered with the accidentes of bread and wine as you grossely conceiue Phi. The lambe of God lieth on the Altar by the very profession of the first Nicene Councel we aske you now where and how if not vnder the forms of bread and wine Theo. The best handfast you haue in fathers or Councels for this cause is a few speeches wrested and forced from the inward man to the outward from the soul which they ment to the bodie which you vrge thereby to settle your reall and bodily presence but all in vaine For as we doubt not that Christ is alwaies present on his table in trueth grace vertue and effect if we open the eyes of our faith to beholde him and mouth of our spirites to receiue him so the local and corporal hiding of his humane substance vnder the shewes of breade and wine was neuer taught by any Catholike father or councel least of al by the first Nicen Synode exhorting vs in those mysteries or on that sacred table by faith to consider the lambe of God that tooke away the sinnes of the world Whâ—ch if any doe not both professe and perfourme he is not worthie to be counted a Christian. Phi. How saith S. Chrysost wilt thou stand before the tribunal of Christ which inuadest euen his own bodie with wicked hands and lippes Theo. This is not the way to seeke for trueth but to shadowe the same with phrases of speeches And yet in these and al other your allegations out of Chrysostom and others you coÌ„mit these two grosse ouersightes You vnderstand that of the sensible creatures in the sacrament which was spoken of the insensible grace you refer that to the visible parts of our bodies which was inteÌ„ded to the inuisible powers of the mynd with these false fouÌ„dations you run along the fathers peruerting euerie place that you quote as a meane diuine may soone perceiue Phi. These be your shifts to auoide the fathers which we bring because you will not acknowledge the real corporal presence of christ in the sacrament Theo. First proue that Christ is really and corporally present vnder the forms of bread and wine then reproue vs if we do not â—cknowledge it Phi. Doubt you that Theo. Can you proue that Phi. What That Christ is present in the sacrament Theo. Is that the thing which we deny Phi. For ought that I see you graunt not so much The. God forbid we should deny that the flesh bloud of christ are truly present truely receiued of the faithfull at the Lords table It is the doctrine that we â—each others and comfort our selues with Wee neuer
doubted but the trueth was present with the signe the spirite with the sacrameÌ„t as Cyprian saith We knew there could not follow an operation if there went not a presence before Set a side your carnal imaginations of Christ couered with accidences his flesh chammed betweene your teeth and say what you will either of his inuiâ—â—ble presence by power and grace or of the spiritual and effectuall participation of his flesh and bloud offered and receiued of the faith-full by this Sacrament for the quickening and preseruing of their soules and bodies to eternall life we ioyne with you no wordes shal displease vs that any way declare the trueth or force of this mysterie Your locall compassing of Christ with the shewes and fantasticall appearances of bread wine your reall grinding of his flesh with your iawes these be the points that we deny to be Catholike these doe the fathers refute as erroneous and in these your owne fellowes be not yet resolued what to say or what to hold Phi. Be not we resolued what to hold of Christes reall being in the Sacrament and the corporall eating his flesh with our mouthes Theo. How you be secretly resolued I know not your iudgementes laid downe to the world in writing are cleane contrarie Phi. Ours Theo. Whose said I but yours Phi. Howsouer in other thinges we retaine the libertie of the Schooles to dispute pro con yet in this you shall finde vs all together Theo. Together by the eares as dogges for bones Omit your contentions what the pronowne H O C supposeth what the verbe E S T â—ignifieth when and how the bread is abolished whether by conuersion or annihilation what bodie succeedeth and whether with distinction of parts and extension of quantity or without what subiect the accidents haue to hang on whether the aire or the body of Christ what it is that soureth and putrifieth in the formes of bread and wine whether it be the same bodie that sitteth in heauen and if it be how so many contradictions may be verified of one the same thing Omit I say these with infinite other like contentions the corporall eating of christ with your mouthes are you all agreed about it Philan. We are Theo. Your two Seminaries are perhaps because they hearken rather for sedition in the realme than for Religion in the Schooles But the great Rabbins of your side are they in one opinion concerning this matter Phi. Great and small consent togither against you Theo. Against trueth they doe but in their owne fantasticall error they doe not The cheefest Pillours of your church when they come to that point which is now in handling wander in the desert of their owne deuises as men forsaking and forsaken of trueth Your Gloze is content if a man gape wide that the body of christ shall enter his mouth but he holdeth it for an heresie that the teeth should touch the same and therefore when the iawes beginne to close he dispatcheth away the body of christ in post towards heauen Certum est It is no coniecture but certaine that as soone as the formes of bread be pressed with the teeth tam cito presently the bodie of christ is caught vp into heauen Durandus is more fauourable to the teeth and will haue christ present in the mouth chamme he that list till his â—awes ake but hee is as strait laced against the stomack as the glozer is against the teeth and wil by no meanes haue the bodie of christ to passe thither building himselfe on these wordes of Hugo Christ is corporally present in visu in sapore whiles wee see or tast the sacrament As long as our bodily senses are affected so long his corporall presence is not remooued but when once the senses of our bodie beginne to faile that we neither see nor tast the formes then must wee seeke no longer for a corporall presence but retaine the spirituall because christ passeth from the mouth neither to heauen as the Gloze said nor to the stomack as the rest affirme but to the hart And better it is that he goe straight to the mind than descend to the stomacke Others is whome Bonauenture more inclineth will no way but Christ must take vp his lodging as wel in the stomacke as in the mouth maâ—y thence they suffer him not to wagge neither vpward nor downward whatsoeuer become of the accidentâ—l forms of bread and wine And lest it should be â—hought as Durand and Hugo say that the bodie of Christ goeth to the hart he repâ—ieâ—h that Quantum ad substantiam corporis certum est quod non vadit in meâ—tem sed vtrum sic vadâ—t in ventrâ—m dubium est propter diuersitatem opinionum as touching the substance of his bodie it is cleare that he passeth not to the mind but whether he so come that is in the substance of his bodie from the mouth to the belliâ— this is yet in doubt by reason of the diueâ—sitie of opinions in so great varietie what to hold is haâ—d to iudge Yet he liketh not that Aut mus in ventrem traijceret aut in cloacam descenderet the bodie of Christ shuld goe into the bellie of a mouse or be cast foorth by the draught because the eares of well disposed persons would abhorre that sidiceremus haeretici infideles deriderent nos irriderent and if we should defend that the heretiks and infidels would iest at vs and laugh vs to scorne This notwithstanding Alexander de Hales in spiâ—e of al heretikes and infidels â—entereth on it If a dog or an hogge saith he should eat the whole consecrated host I see no cause but the Lords bodie should goe therewithall into the bellie of that dog or hog Thomas of Aquine sharpely reprouâ—th them which thinke otherwise Some haue saide that as soone as the Sacrament is taken of a mouse or a dog streight way the bodie and bloud of Christ cease to be there but this is a derogation to the trueth of this Sacrament In â—auour of Thomas Petrus de Palude Ioannes de Burgo Nicolaus de Oâ—bellis with the whole sect of Thomists neither few in number nor mean in credite with the church of Rome defend the same yea where the master of the sentences seemed to shrinke from this loathsome position It may wel be said that the bodie of Christ is not receined of brute beasts the facultie of diuines in Paris with full consent gaue him this check here the master is refused And for feare lest the field should be wonne without him in steppeth Antonius Archbishoppe of Florence and recompenseth his late comming with his lewd writing First hee telleth how Petrus de Palude dressed the Glâ—ze for saying that Christ is caught vp to heauen as soone as the formes of the sacrament are pressed with our teeth Quod dicere est haereticum which
to say is hereticall And therefore they ioyne both in this that the bodie of Christ may not only be eaten of a Mouse but also it may be vomited vppe by the mouth and purged downe by the draught say Bonauenture what he will or can in detestation of their folke These be their words Igitur corpus Christi sanguis tam diu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu species manet Et si specieâ— incorruptae euomuâ—tur illa autem qâ—andoque non corrùpta emâ—ttuâ—tur vt in habentibus fluxum ibi est vere corpus Christi Therefore the bodie and bloud of Christ remaine in the bellie anâ— stomacke or in vomite and in whatsoeuer course of nature so long as the shewes of bread and wine remaine And if they be vomited or purged before they be altered as sometimes in those that are troubled with the fluxe euen there is the true bodie of Christ. O filthie mouthes and vncleane spirites What Capernite what heretike what Infidel was euer I say not so carnall and grosse but so barbarous and brutish Is this the reuerence you giue to the sacred and glorious flesh of Christ Is this the corporal presence that you striue for Shal Mice Dogges and Swine haue eternall life that you bring them to eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of our Sauiour The rest of your sluttish diuinitie no religious hart can repeate no Christian eares can abide let your neerest frindes be iudges whether this kinde of eating doe not match not only the Capernites but also the Canibals This vile and wicked assertion you will beare men in hand you did euer detest and so think to discharge your selues but you cannot scape so The church of Rome whose factours and attournies you be must answere to God and the worlde for suffering admitting and strengthning this sacrilegious blasphemie For when these things were first broched what did she Did she controle the doers and condemne the filthines of their error Did she so much as note the men or mislike the matter No Philander she proposed the question in her sentences Quid igitur sumit mus vel quid manducat What then doth the mouse take or what doth he eate And with her colde and indifferent answer Deus nouit God knoweth she set the schoole men on work she laid vp the ashes of those mice next her altars for reliques she fauored aduanced and canonized the spredders of it Thomas of Aquin was her only Paramour Hugh of Cluince who commended a Priest for eating the sacrament which a leaper had cast vp Cum vilissimo sputo was Saincted of her she made Antonius no worse man than an Archbishoppe What Call you this the quenching or kindling the suppressing or increasing of heresies No maruaile if you recken Rebels for Martyrs your holy mother the Church of Rome hath the cunning to make saints of blasphemers Returne returne for shame to grauitie trueth and antiquitie Learne to distinguishe that which is seene in this Sacrament from that which is beleeued I meane the visible creature from the grace which is not visible HADST THOV BEENE saith Chrysostome WITHOVT A BODIE Christ WOVLD HAVE GEEVEN THEE HIS INCORPORALL GVIFTS NAKEDLY that is without any coniunction of corporall creatures BVT NOW BECAVSE THY SOVL IS COVPLED WITH A BODIE THEREFORE IN THINGS THAT BE SENSIBLE THINGS INTELLIGIBLE ARE DELIVERED THEE AS BREAD saith Cyril of this sacrament SERVETH FOR THE BODIE SO THE WORD SERVETH FOR THE SOVL. It is neither nouâ—ltie nor absurditie to say that the bread of the Lorde as touching the material substance may bee deuoured of beasts digested of men and will of it selfe in continuance mould and putrifie Such is the condition of all creatures that serue to nourish our bodies and this is a creature well knowen and familiar to our senses But the word of God which is added to the corporall elements the grace which is annexed to the visible signes and the flesh of Christ which quickneth the soul of man by faith these thinges I say be free from all violent and vndecenâ— abuses and iniuries For they be no corporall mortall nor earthlie creatures but spirituall eternall and heauenly blessings and therefore in no case subiect to the greedines of beasts vncleanes of men or weaknes of nature The element is one thing saith Ambrose the operation is an other thing That which is seene in all Sacraments is temporall that which is not seene is eternall If wee looke to the very visible thinges wherein Sacraments are ministred who is ignorant saith Austen that they be corruptible But if wee consider that which is wrought by them who doth not see that that cannot suffer any corruption Of the Lordes Supper Origen affirmeth that the bread as touching the matter or materiall partes thereof goeth into the bellie and forth by the draught but the praier and blessing which is added doeth lighten the soule according to the portion of faith The sacrament that is the sacred element is one thing saieth Rabanusâ— the power of the Sacrament is an other thing The Sacrament is receiued in at the mouth with the vertue of the Sacrament the inwarde man is filled the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the bodie by the vertue of the Sacrament wee attaine eternall life This doâ—trine your schoolemen either wilfullie reiected or foolishly peruerted to make Christ substantiallie present in your Masses and for that onely cause felâ— thâ—y to the locall shutting of him within the formes of bread and the corporall eating his flesh with their teeth Which grossenes once preuailing in your Church of Rome Thomas Alexander Antonius and the greatest Clarkes of your side were by the consequent of your reall presence forced to conâ—â—sse that the flâ—sh of Christ might be subiect to the teeth and iawes as well of beastes as of vnbeleeuers For wickednes is worse than sluttishnes and the bodies of sinnefull men God more detesteth than he doth the bowels of vnreasonable creatures Since then by the generall consent of your Church Christ doeth not refuse the bellies and intralles of faithlesse persons why say they should he not be verily contained in the capacities and inwardes of brute beastes if by mischaunce they deuoure the Sacrament This hold fast your gloze layeth hands on Si dicatur quodmus sumat corpus Christi non est magnum inconueniâ—ns cum homines sceleratissimi illud sumant If it be said that a mouse taketh the bodie of Christ it is no great inconuenience seeing most wicked men doe receiue the same and this Bonauenture setteth downe for the chiefest motiue to that vile assertion Phi. To tel you truth I like not that position Theo. So long as you defend Christs humane substance to be locally present in your host you cannot for your hart auoide it but either by mocking your sâ—lues and deluding your senses or
wil thinke you madde if you fall to these positions that Christ in the host hath an humane shape and yet the host which couereth him fully round that he is there in the iust length and breadth of a man and yet exactly enclosed in euery cromme of the bread drappe of the wine that he is * circumscribed with place and yet contained in no place that he * consisteth of skinne fleshe and bones and yet breaketh in shiuers and is poured out like liquor these with infinite other such outragious and enourmous absurdities and contrarieties will declare rather the weakenes of your braines than the maner of his presence You shall do well therefore either to shew vs what father euer taught these things before you or els keepe this confusion of al religion learning for those that list to ieopard their souls vpon such iests The Realme of England is not yet minded to admitte thâ—se monsters into their Creede Phi. We teache not these things without good grounds and such as the Catholike Fathers before vs embraced and allowed Theo. If you follow their steppes then shew vs their writings for that you affirme Phi. Can wee not thinke you Theo. What you can doe I care not you do not I see Phi. What one thing defend we which we haue not their witnes and warrant for Theo. You haue not one father for this whole question Phi. Not for the real presence Theo. You may runne on with some misconstructions of the Fathers which are as soone answered by vs as obiected by you but an euident testimonie for any of the partes which I haue proposed you haue none Phi. What partes Theo. Your head is wandring that you haue since forgotten them That Christ spake not of the bread when he said this is my body or that the sense of his wordes was literall or that the substance of bread ceaseth after consecration so as nothing remaineth of the former elements but accidents or that the corporall eating with the mouth of which the Fathers speak must be meant of the things themselues and not of the signes called by those names and hauing those vertues after sanctification or that the material substance of Christs natural body may be present in many places at one time or that it is no heresie to defend the body of Christ after his ascension may lack circumscription extension or shape For any of these bring vs but one sufficient and auncient authoritie we will omit the rest and admit your Masse Phi. Will you stand to that worde Theo. If you will vndertake the proofe Philand I will Theo. And what if you performe it not will you bethinke your selfe how lewdly you seduce the people of this land vnder a pretence of pietie and resist the annoincted of God vnder a colour of blind deuotion and zeale to your holie Father the worker of al this wickednes though the founder of your two Celledges Phi. If I perform not that I will do any thing marie prouided alwaies you shall not cauill at the Fathers workes when I cite them and say they be forged Theo. Prouided also that you produce the Fathers workes themselues and not the bare reportes of your fellowes that haue falsely conueied many thinges in the Fathers names Philand You shall haue their owne workes Theoph. Then keepe on your owne course Phi. The rest of the points which you propose I am alreadie past only traÌ„substanâ—iation which you most impugne I kept to the last to giue you the list But if I proue it so as you shall not deny it will you be as good as your promise and become a catholike Theo. A Catholike if I were not I would bee with a good will but not of your making For if you cannot shew me one Father that euer taught your Transubstantiation wel you may call your selues catholiks and christes own fellowes if you will but all that be Godly and wise will take you for deceitful if noâ— for desperate heretikes But why spend you time with triâ—ling thus It were better your fathers were on foot at lest if you haue them Phi. Haue them Such as shall amaze you when you heare them Theo. Your vaine is in A stourdie preface doth ill become an hungrie Oratour Phi. Marke the end Theo. I would see the man that I might marke him Phi. S. Austen shal be the man Theo. Was he a Transubstantiator Phi. Fairly flatly fully Th. So was the moone first made of green cheese Phi. You wil not beleeue him til you heare him Theo. He is not long in comming â—hath he not yet learned his lesson or are you scant resolued whether it be he or not Phi. It is euen he and these be his wordes Non dubitare debet alâ—quis cum panis vinum consecrantur in veram substantiam Christi ita vt non remaneat substantia panis vel vini cum multa alia etiam in operibus Dei non minus miranda videmus Hominem enim substantialiter mutat Deus in lapidem vt vxorem Loth in paruo artificio hominis faenum filicem in vitrum Nec credendum est quod substantia panis velvini remaneat sed panis in corpus Christi vinuÌ„ in sanguinem conuertitur solummodo qualitatibus panis vini remanentibus No man ought to doubt when bread wine are consecrated into the trew substance of christ so as the substance of bread wine doth not remaine whereas we see manie things in the works of God no lesse maruelous than this A man God changeth substantially into a stone as Loths wife in the small workmanship of man hay ferne into glasse Neither must we beleeue that the substance of bread or wine remaineth but the bread is turned into the bodie of Christ the wine into his bloud the qualities or accidents of bread wyne only remaining What say you to this check is it mate or no Theo. The words are sufficient if the writer be ancient Phi. Then are you gone for the author is S. Austen Theo. He seemeth to haue beene some glassâ—maker rather than S Austen for he saith the working of glasse is as wounderful a feate as the turning of bread into Christs bodie Phi. You would disgrace the writer but he will not so be put out of countenance Theo. I think he will not for had he or you any shame left he would haue blushed al his while to beare S Austens name which was none of his you would haue had some remorce to deceiue the worlde with such apparent euident treacheries Phi. I thought where we should haue you Now you cannot shifte the wordes you 〈◊〉 the place for a forgerie but this is against the first prouiso which I made with you Theophi Then shew vp where you find it in his workes for that was the second prouiso which you agreed to Phi. I assure my selfe these
wordes are Saint Austens Theophil Your assurance is not currant Shewe vs where that wee may finde them Phi. What if I haue not the booke in a readmeâ— Theo. Name the place and it shâ—ll suffice Phi. Perhaps it is not printed Theo. By whome then is it reported Phi. By such as would not lye Theoph. By Walden the frier that wrate against Wicleff Phil. What if he were the reporter Theophil Where had he it Phi. In an old copie written with an auncient and set hand Theo. Which neuer no man sawe besides himselfe Philand That you cannot tell Theoph. Nor you but where is that copy now Philan. Why aske you me out of S. Augustine he had it Theo. Shew vs the booke and beare the bell Philan. He saith it Theo. As though your frierly practises and manifolde forgeries vnder the fathers names were not too wel knowen to trust a Romish Coruester vpon his bare worde in a matter of such importance Phi. In my conscience hee woulde not wilfullie belye S. Augustine Theophil Your conscience is no good consequence In my knoweledge there was no such doctrine taught in the Church as these woordes import whiles S. Augustine liued nor fiue hundreth yeares after his death but the contrary was earnestly maintained and auouched as I haue prooued by Gelasius Theodoret and others And therefore either Walden must make it of his owne heade or ignorantly light on a patch of Anselmus or some such late writer vnder the name of Saint Augustine which was common in your Abbayes and is at this day confessed by your owne fellowes Philand If you thinke Saint Augustine were mistaken you shall haue in venerable Bede as plaine woordes for this point as in Saint Augustine Theophil And as plainely forged as Saint Augustine was Philand Heare what he saieth before you iudge Theophil I am as ready to heare as you to speake Philand His woordes are Ibi forma panis videtur vbi substantia panis non est There the forme of bread appeareth where the substance of bread is not Theophil These places hit your handes as patte as if your selues had framed them Philand You were best saie this is forged Theophil I neede not It saith so much of it selfe creept you can shewe where it is written Philand In his booke de mysteriis missae Theophil There be extaâ—t eight tomes of his workes is it in any of them Philand It maie be it is not Theophil Did he euer write any such booke as de mysteriis missae Philand What else Theo. Who saith so Phi. This is alledged out of that booke Theo. But is he neuer wrate anie such booke how can thiâ— be allâ—dged out of him Phi. If he did not you saie something but how prooue you that he wrate no such booke Theo. Nâ—y you must prooue he did We hauing the Catalogue of his labours witnessed by Triâ—â—emius and others of your owne friends and eight tâ—mes of his writinges at this day extant find no such booke named as Walden mentioneth Philand All this notwithstanding he might write such a booke Theo. He might is not enough you must prooue he did before we acquite you of corruption Phi. Walden repeateth those wordes as out of his booke Theo. We had too late experience of Walden in S. Austen to beleeue either him or you Phi. You will deny all things Theo. You yet bring nothing but that which is no where found in the fathers workes if it be not lewdly forged in their names Thinke you with such trumperie to trie your selues Catholikes Phi. We haue found and good records Theo. Bring out those for these be worse than rotten A frier fourteene hundreth and thirtie yeares after Christ to come with new places out of Austen and Bede cleane contrarie to the rest of their writings and such as neuer any man alledged before him and neuer any man saw them after him who but seducers would bleare the world and blinde themselues with such authorities Phi. Wee did but alledge them to sound what you would say Theo. Then leaue them with shame since you see what they are and get you to other if you haue anie Phi. You would haue them auncient Theo. Would you prooue your selues Catholikes by men of your owne faction Phi. If you count that a faction all the fathers were of our faction Theo. You may soone make them to any faction if you follow frier Waldens fashion but bring vs their workes that we may iudge of their woordes or els you striue in vaine Phi. Hereafter I will Theo. Then haue you a cold sute of this question For of accidentes without subiect or abolishing the substance of bread neuer father spake one word Phi. Yeas S. Chrysostome â—aith Doest thou see bread doest thou see wine Doe these thinges goe to the draught as other meates doe Not so Thinke not so For as when waxe is put to the fire nothing of the substance remaineth nothing redoundeth so here also thinke thou the mysteries consumed with the substance of the diuine bodie Heare you this Theophilus Nothing of the former substance remaineth but the same is consumed with the presence or substance of Christes bodie Theo. I heare it well Philander if you would take it right When you put waxe into the fire nothing neither shew nor substance remaineth this is so true that it will doe you small good Phi. Will it not So it is in the mysteries saith this father Theoph. You would haue it so But Chrysostome saith so thinke when thou commest to the mysteries Phi. And should wee thinke a falshood when wee approch to the mysteries Theo. No but pull both your hartes and eyes from the materiall elements as not regarding them and fixe your cogitations on the celestial grace and vertue that preuaileth and worketh in the mysteries Phi. He would haue vs thinke the mysteries to be consumed Theo. If any reall mutation were to be concluded by this place your holie formes and accidents of breade and wine must be packing as well as the substance For when waxe is throwen into the fire what accidences can you â—et vs remaining doe they not perish togither with the substance If you consult the Schooles they will tell you the accidentes onely perish the matter doeth not So that Chrysostomes similitude maketh litle for your conuersion of substances without accidences his illation certainly maketh lesse Thinke saieth he that the mysteries in like â—ort be consumed The substance of bread which you say is not can no way be taken with you for the mysteries but the shewes and formes of bread and wine by your opinion must be counted in this and all other places the sacred mysteries and therefore if any mysteries be consumed your accidences can neuer scape the brunt of these wordes Howbeit Chrysostomes true meaning was not to turne the bread and wine from their former qualities or substances but the communicantes from all vnworthy and
The bread hauing the inuocation of God is nowe no common bread but an Eucharist or thankesgiuing consisting of two things a terrestriall a celestiall So Ambrose The Sacrament is not that which nature hath framed but that which blessing hath halowed They do not auouch the Sacrament to bee simply no bread they teach it to bee no naturall nor vsuall bread because the vertue power and force of Christes flesh is vnited to it and receiued with it though to sight and taâ—â— it keepe the shewe of nothing else but bread Phi. What is species panis which the Fathers speake of but the vtter appearance of bread when the substaunce is altered Theo. Doeth species signifie a â—hape without substaunce Philand It signifieth the shape and not the substaunce Theo. Euerie creature hath his substaunce ioyned with his sensible shape and forme and therefore though the one doe not signifie the other yet the one inferreth the other by the verie necessitie of nature neyther hath GOD giuen vs any perfecter triall of substaunce than by sight and sense which is sure enough because shewes without substaunce are no creatures Philand But this in the Sacrament is miraculous and that is the reason why species in the Fathers doeth signifie a shewe without substaunce or as our Schooles rather like to say for perspicuities sake accidentes without a subiect Theophil Your Schooles were perspicuous as the Lande of Aegypt was light-some when it was couered with palpable darkenesse but where doeth any Father speaking of the Saâ—rament take species for a shewe without substaunce Philand That is â—uerie where the meaning of the word when they applie it to the Sacrament Theo. How proue you that Phi. It needeth no proofe the very word doeth â—o signifie Theophil The worde species doeth no more exclude the subâ—taunce of breade and wine in the Sacrament than species humana the shew shape and forme of a man which you haue doth take from you the â—ubstance truth of mans nature Which if you thinke it doeth looke what answere you will make to him that shall aske what lieth vnder the shape of a man in you it must be the substance of a man or some worse thing And if you can keepe both the shape and substaunce of man why may not the bread and wine do the like for all the word species which is verified of men and other creatures aswel as of the bread and wine in the mysteries Phi. The comparison is not like For the bread is changed and so am not I. Theophil Doe you not often change both the inward and outward man I meane the state of body and soule Phi. I change as others doe Theo. You can be no christian if you be not changed from the state in which you were born You were born the child of Gods wrath and seruant of sinne if you be renewed and freed from that then are you wholy changed Phi. This is no substantiall change such as we affirme to be in the bread Theo. If you would proue that which you affirme you might happen to conclude that which now you can not Phi. That is soone prooued Theo. I maruell then you stay long before you doe it and faint so often when you begin it You auouch that the word species in the Fathers signifieth your shewes without substance and accidents without subiect and when the very shew of men which you beare about you conuinceth that follie you presume a substantiall change to be in the bread to helpe foorth the vse of the word which you imagine against all learning reason was their meaning For the worde species though it bee diuersely vsed among the Fathers and often iterated in this matter of the Sacrament yet shall you neuer bring vs any one place where it is taken for a shew without substance and therefore by that worde you can hardly inferre the bread to be changed in substaunce and nothing to be left besides the accidentes Sainct Ambrose sayeth it importeth as much as an euident sight and trueth Speciem pro veritate accipiendam legimus Specie inuentus vt homo Wee read this word species to bee taken for the verie trueth of a thing As Christ was found not in shew but in trueth like a man And of the Lordes cuppe Perhaps thou wilt say speciem sanguinis non video sed habet similitudinem I see not the trueth of blood but it hath the resemblance Which obiection Ambrose repeateth shortly after in these words Similitudinem video non video sanguinis veritatem I see the resemblance I see not the truth of blood Where note that species is not onely contrary to the onely likenesse and appearance of any thing but equiualent with the trueth and nature of euery thing Then are shewes without substaunce your fansies without iudgement you neuer receiued any such doctrine from the Catholike Fathers your selues haue deuised it of late since barbarisme preuailed in your Schooles and Antichrist was exalted in your churches Philand So species is nowe and then vsed but doeth that inferre that this is the generall signification of the word wheresoeuer we finde it Theo. This sufficeth to exclude your shewes without substaunce vnlesse you can bring some better inforcement than the very word which you can not And yet Sainct Ambrose giueth an other vse of the worde and that treating of the Sacramentes which vtterly subuerteth your accidental shewes Creaturae non potest esse veritas sed species quae facile soluitur at que mutatur No creature can bee said to be a trueth but a shew or appearance which is soone dissolued and abolished In this sense species is all one with any creature or substaunce which soone decaieth as euerie mortall thing doth and the learned Fathers writing of the Sacrament continually vse the worde to signifie the nature and kinde of euerie creature and not the naked shewes or accidentes Sainct Ambrose Ante benedictionem alia species nominatur before it be blessed it is called an other not shewe but kinde Grauior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The kinde or nature of Iron not the shewe of yron is weightier than the liquor of water If the word of Elias were able to fet fire from heauen non valebit Christi sermo vt species mutet elementorum shall not the word of Christ be of strength to change the kindes not the shapes of these elementes So doeth Augustine likewise Non sic habendam esse speciem benedictione consecratam quemadmodum habetur in vsu quolibet the kinde or element consecrated with blessing must not be so reckoned of as it is in common vse Idem cibus illorum qui noster sed significatione idem non specie the Fathers of the old Testament had the same food which we haue but the same in signification not in external kinde Aliud illi aliud nos sed
specie visibili they dranke one thing we drink an other thing but in visible kinde Ibi Petra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est To them the Rock was Christ to vs that is Christ which is set on the altar of God If you looke to the visible kinde it is an other thing than that they dranke In these places you can not interprete species a shewe without substance vnlesse you wil transubstantiate Manna which the children of Israel did eate the rocke which they dranke of the hatchet which Elizeus made swâ—m the bread that is in common vse without before consecration for these things Austen and Ambrose comparing them with this Sacrament do call visibiles species visibles kindes as they do the bread and wine proposed to the faithfull at the Lordes table And were you so peruerse that against the meaning of the Fatherâ— â—nd signification of the word you would needes haue species to bee taken for your miraculous and mysticall accidences I can tell you they are like to shrinke in this change as well as the substaunce For Ambrose saith Sermo Christi mutat species elementorum the word of Christ changeth by your interpretation the shewes of the elementes which is so apparantly false that your selues dare not abide it And therefore species must stand not for the outward formes and shewes but for the thinges themselues As Sainct Augustine speaking of the Sacramentall bread sayth vt sit visibilis species panis multa grana in vnum consperguntur Manie cornes are kneaded togither to make not the shew but the visible kinde or creature of bread By which it is euident that species with auncient writers in their discourses of this Sacrament is not a shewe without a substaunce as you vainly suppose but a kinde or creature which is far from accidentes hanging in the ayre you know not how by miraculous geometrie Philand Wee ground not our selues so much on the bare name of species as on the change of the bread and wine made by vertue of consecration as all the Fathers witnesse Theo. It is a verie simple foundation to builde on a bare word which hath many significations besides that and any signification rather than that which you conceiue and yet that is one of the best foundations you haue for your newe founde shewes without substaunce and as for the chaunge of the sacred elementes made by the wordes of Christ and mentioned in the Fathers if you did not vrge your fansies on their phrases but examine their doctrine you should soone spie your error which nowe you will not you bee so wedded to the preiudice of your owne opinion Phi. Doe not all the Fathers with one voice confesse a change to bee made in the elementes by the words of Consecration Theo. Doe not we acknowledge the same How could vsuall bread taken of the fruites of the earth and seruing only to feede the bodie become a Sacrament instrument of heauenly grace and life to quicken and strengthen the soule of man but by some great and maruelous chaunge Phi. Such as none coulde perfourme but the mighty finger of God himselfe For so S. Ambrose and others to perswade this chaunge haue recourse to Christes eternall power and trueth Theo. Yea verily Phi. That confession is suffâ—cient to confute the doctrine which you defend Theo. I see not how Phi. If the bread were not changed from his former substance it could neither bee miraculous nor neede the omnipotent power of Christ. For figures similitudes men may make but this mutation is wrought by the mightie power of the holy Ghost and the manner is vnsearchable Theo. Greater power truth are required for the finishing of one Sacrament than for the working of many miracles Miracles not only the godly but also the wicked haue diuerse times wrought The Sorcerers of Egypt did some wonders Antichrist hath his miracles and those not a few But Sacramentes no Sainct no not the chosen and elect Angels of heauen can institute For who dare promise who can performe the spirituall and celestiall graces of God to bee annexed to the visible signes but only God How could water regenerate the soule if the worde were not God How could bread and wine norish to life euerlasting vnlesse the same God had likewise spoken the word We must in al sacraments be fully persuaded of Christs infallible truth alsufficient power before we can either beleeue or inioy the promises If his word might lack truth or want power then should our faith vanish these outward elements perish without profiting vs but with him is no changing neither can any thing defeate his wil therefore when wee bee taught to looke not on the weaknes of the creatures which be corruptible but on the perfection of his heauenly word which is puissant predominaÌ„t ouer al things what doth this helpe your real corporal coÌ„uersion of bread into Christ What maketh this for TraÌ„substantiation God is wonderfull in this and all other his sacramentes not by casting away substances and leauing accidences but by working that in our hearts by the mightie power of his spirit aboue nature which the visible signes import to our senses and this is more maruelous in any wise mans eye than your accidentall shewes without a subiect Phi. God is maruelous in all his workes but in this more than in any other because the substance of the bread wine is changed where the qualities are not Theo. That change you dreame of but who auoucheth it besides your selues or what ancient father euer mentioned any such Phi. They all confesse the change which we speake of Theo. You bee so deepe in your empty shewes that wee take your all to bee as much as none Phi. Thinke you as you list wee knowe what wee haue Theo. If your stoare bee so great why make you such curtsie to name vs one Phi. You will quarell with him when I bring him Theo. Your selfe mistrust him before you offer him Phi. I mistrust your carping not his writing Theo. If mine answere bee not sound wherefore serue you but to refute it Phi. Wel then Eusebius Emissenus hath an euident testimony for this matter Recedat omne infidelitatis ambiguum quandoquidem qui author est muneris ipse est etiam testis veritatis Nam inuisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis sui verbo secreta potestate conuertit ita dicens Accipite comedite hoc est corpus meuÌ„ Et sanctificatione repetita accipite bibite ait Hic est sanguis meus Ergo sicut ad nutum praecipientis Domini repente ex nihilo substiterunt excelsa caelorum profunda fluctuum vasta terrarum ita pari potestate in spiritualibus Sacramentis vbi praecipit virtus seruit effectus Let all doubt of infidelitie
Friers vnder the names of ancient and learnâ—â— Fathers Phi. Whatsoeuer he was ancient he was and taught the same doctrine without all question which we doe Theo. His antiquitie you know not and his doctrine you vnderstand not For though we like not your shuffling and exchanging of names with the fathers and broaching your fancies and heresies vnder their 〈…〉 this whâ—le sermon we can and doe admitte as hauing nothing either dissident from true antiquitie or repugnant to that which we teach Phi. Will you say that doctrine of his is not repugnant to yours Theo. Why should I not Phi. Wil you confesse that the visible creatures are turned into the substance of christs flesh by the secret power of his word The. His words I say make nothing for your abolishing the substance of bread and wine and leauing the accidents Phi. He saith the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud Theo. But he saith not the substance of the visible creatures is turned into the substance of christs flesh Phi. How can one creature bee turned into the substance of an other but by loosing his former substance Theo. In natural mutations it is so but this is nothing lesse than natural Phi. It is diuine and supernaturall Theo. And so is it likewise spirituall and mysticall not really changing the matter and substance of the elements but casting grace vnto nature Phi. Nay he saith the substance of the creatures is changed Theo. Where saith he so Phi. He saith which is al one that the visible creatures are changed into the substance of christs body The. But by no material nor corporal change Phi. How can the creatures be turned into christs substaÌ„ce but by a material corporal change Theo. That is your error not your authors addition Phi. It is not possible to be otherwise Theo. What if your own writer in this very case and place reproue you for a liar Phi. That earthly creatures shoulde be turned into Christs substance without a materiall and substantiall change Neuer say it it cannot be Theo. Will you looke but two lines farther and you shall see this great impossibilitie auouched by your own author Quomodo tibi nouum impossibile esse non debeat quod in Christi substantiam terrena mortalia conuertuntur te ipsum qui in Christo es regeneratus interroga How this to thee should neither be strange nor impossible that mortal earthly creatures are turned into Christs substance aske thy selfe which art regenerated in Christ. Somtimes since thou wast farre from life excluded from mercie and banished from the path of saluation as being inwardly dead suddenly initiated by the lawes of christ renued by the healthfull mysteries thou didst passe into the body of the church not by sight but by faith thou which wert the sonne of perdition obtainedst to be made the adopted child of god by a secret puritie remaining in the same visible measure thou grewest inuisibly without increase of quantitie being thy self the very same that thou wast before in processe of faith thou becamest another in the outward man nothing was added al changed in the inward Taking this spiritual immaterial change of euery christiaÌ„ in baptism to shew in what sort how he ment that mortal earthly creatures by consâ—â—ration are conuerted into the substance of christ which is far froÌ„ a corporal substantial change such as you would vrge by preteÌ„ce of his words in yâ— creatures of bread wine Phi. This construction cannot stand that creatures should be turned into an other substance and yet remaine in their owne and former substance For then how are they chaunged Theo. In your physical conceits it cannot but if you consult those Fathers that were the first introducers of this speeche you shall finde it may Gelasius ioyneth them both together in one sentence the one to expound the other In diuinam transeunt spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae The sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ passe into a diuine substance by the working of the holie Ghost and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature And lest you shoulde cauell that they kept their former qualities and not their substance in expresse woordes he saith tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini and yet for all they passe into a diuine substance the former substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not nor is abolished no more than the manhood of Christ was chaunged from his former substance when after his ascension it was replenished with diuine glorie Phi. You frustrate the sayings of the fathers with your comparisons Theo. They be their owne comparisons principal intentions in those places where they speake these wordes and therefore if you will rack the one to your length and not respect the other you may soone force some phrases to feede your fansies But this is not the safest way for you to walke in matters of faith nor the rightest course for you to take to come by their meaning You must looke how far they presse their own words what they would conclude not what you lâ—st to conceiue or imagine of their speaches Howsoeuer they mention a change of the bread into the diuine essence substance no father auoucheth any corporal material or substantial change of the elements into the bodie blood of Christ but a spirituall mystical and effectual annexing vniting the one to the other either paâ—t retaining the trueth of his former and proper nature and substance This is apparent by those very places sentences which you bring to prooue a chaunge the fathers teach not the one without the other as you saw for eâ—ample in Gelasius and your Eusebius and so in Cyprian Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread which the Lord gaue to his disciples chaunged not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh and lest you should dreame of any materiall or substantiall chaunge as your manner is the verie next wordes in the same sentence are Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essentia and as in the person of Christ his humanitie was seene his diuinitie was hidde and secret so in the visible sacrament the diuine essence doth infuse it selfe after an vnspeakeable manner Phi. Did you bring this place for vs or against vs you could not haue lighted on a fitter for our purpose if you shuld haue sought these seuen yeares The. I knowe it is one of your best authorities as you make your account and yet it is no way preiudiciall to vs if
you suffer the father him-selfe to tell out his owne tale and bee content to heare as well the ending as the entring of it Hee saieth the bread is chaunged in nature into the flesh of Christ by the almightie power of the woorde expressing in what into what and by what the bread is chaunged moe parts you cannot make Phi. Wee need not Theo. And yet all these notwithstanding he meaneth no materiall nor corporall change of the bread or wine but that as in the person of Christ there were two distinct perfect substances vnited and ioyned the one his manhood that was seene the other his godhead that was hid euen so to the visible Sacrament persisting in his former substance doth the diuine essence infunde it selfe after a secret and vnsearchable manner proouing the presence of an heauenly vertue to bee there by the inuisible efficience Philand If you will haue the bread keepe his proper and perfect both nature and substance what change is there made in the bread Theoph. This chaunge is not the casting awaie of any thing that was in the bread either nature or substance but the casting vnto it of an heauenly and inuisible grace and so Theoâ—orete expresseth the mutation that is in this sacrament Non naturam ipsam transmutans sed naturae adiiciens gratiam Not changing or casting away nature it selfe but adding grace vnto nature And that is S. Ambrose his meaning when hee saieth Sunt quae erant in aliud commutantur The bread and wine are the verie same that they were both in nature and substance and are changed into an other thing Philand How can this be that they should be changed and yet continue the same but as wee expound it that in substance they be chaunged and yet in shew continue as they were before Theoph. This is your fansie wee know but the learned fathers by their change meane no such thing they teach not any detraction or diminution of that which was but an adiection and apposition of that which was not And therefore they witnes both as well the permanence of the elements in their former nature as their change into an other Chrysostome said as you heard before The bread sanctified is counted worthie to be called the Lordes bodie etsi natura panis in ipso permansit though the nature of bread remaine there still and Theodoret Neque enim signa illa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à sua natura those mysticall signes doe not by Consecration depart from their nature And Gelasius Non tamen desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini and yet the substance or nature of bread wine doth not cease or perish And to this verie sacrament S. Austen applâ—eth this Rule Omnis res naturam veritatem illarum rerum in se continet ex quibus conficitur Euerie thing containeth or keepeth the nature truth of those things of which it consisteth Phi. You refuâ—â— Cyprian you doe not expound him He saith the nature of the bread is changed you prooue it remaineth be not these contrarie Theo. Bâ— your exposition they are by ours they are not For the nature of bread wee say remaineth and is in nothing diminished but encreased with an heauenly vertue that is added to it And this though it be a chaunge to that which it was not yet is it no change from that which it was Philand That is properly chaunged which is altered from that it was Theo. And that is as properly saied to be chaunged which is increased with that it was not though it be not altered in substance from that it was The soule of man is often chaunged but neuer in substance The bodie from the cradle to the graue hath many increases and changes but in substance persisteth the same that it was before it came into the worlde Euerie thing that groweth keepeth that it had atchiueth that it had not and yet is that a change But what neede we other examples since the fathers themselues doe both by their words similitudes shew what changes they ment A childe is changed by baptisme not in loosing or altering the substance of bodie or soul which hee had but in attaining the grace blessing of God which he had not The Lorde himselfe is changed in person by his ascension not that the trueth shape or circumscription of his flesh are abolished but endued with immortall glory So shall he alter our vile bodies not by spoiling them of their substance but by imparting to them of his brightnes and as S. Paul writeth We shall not all sleepe but we shall be changed Phi. S. Pauls wordes are nothing to the Sacrament Theo. They are somwhat to the vse of the word which I proposed and yet Ireneus doth not sticke to resemble the change in the Sacrament to the verie hope and assurance which our bodies now haue of that glorie before they be changed or haue cast off their mortal and earthly corruption As saith he the bread which is of the earth receiuing the inuocation of god is now no common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthlie an heauenlie so our bodies receiuing the Eucharist be now not corruptible that is not wholly destinated to corruption as hauing hope of resurrection Phi. But S. Ambrose repeateth examples of corporall and substantial changes when he would proue that blessing in this sacrament ouerbeareth nature Theo. S. Ambrose doth not say that the bread is changed after the same manner but meaning to shew that praier and benediction worketh where nature cannot yea many times altereth nature hee bringeth seauen examples whereof fiue are no substantial changes in the end concludeth that if the praiers speech of meÌ„ could turn alter things aboue against nature much more can the word of christ bring to passe that the elements shal bee that they were yet be changed into that they were not and which by nature they are not Phi. He hath no such wordes in that chapter Theo. His conclusion there is this Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant The worde of Christ who could of nothing make that which was not can hee not change those things which are into that which before they were not And in the next booke intitled De Sacramentis assuming the same matter and producing almost all the same examples and arguments he resolueth in these wordes Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu vt inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur If there bee such force in the worde of the Lord Iesu that the things which were not at his worde beganne to be how much
more can it worke this that they shal be the same they were yet be changed into an other thing And to shew vs an example how a thing may be that it was yet be changed he forthwith addeth Tu ipse eras sed era◠vetus creatura posteae quam consecratu◠es noua creatura esse caepisti Vis scire quam nouae creatura Omnis inquit in Christo nouae creatura Accip◠ergo quemadinodū sermo Christi creaturam omnem mutare consueuerit mutat quando vult instituta naturae Thou thy selfe wast but thou wast an oulde creature after when thou wast Baptised thou begannest to be a new creature Wilt thou know how true it is that thou art a new creature Euery one saith the Apostle is in Christ a new creature Learn then how the word of Christ is accustomed to chaunge euery creature and when he will he altereth the course of nature ◠keeping the same similitude of Baptisme for the explication of himselfe that the rest do thereby declaring he meaneth nothing lesse than that the matter and substance of the bread and wine should be changed For he that is baptised suffereth no materiall substantiall nor corporall chaunge though hee bee borne a fresh and putte on Christ and euen so the sacred elements are turned into the fleshe of our Sauiour without abolishing their former nature or substance Phi. If these places of S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose conclude not for vs certainly they conclude nothing against vs and therefore you cannot refell our assertion by them Theo. I doe not I shew the places which you take most hold of haue no such sequel as you surmise so your transubstantiation is your late and priuate imagination without all antiquite Phi. Call you that late or priuate which hath beene the generall and constant confession of all Christendome for these fifteene hundereth yeres Theo. It doth you good to crake though there be neither trueth nor sense in that you say Hath al christendom for these fifteene hundereth yeres confessed the substance of bread and wine at the Lords table to be changed into the reall natural body bloud of Christ Phi. It hath Theo. How shal we know that Phi. You may find it in their writings Theo. How chanceth then you can not shew one that for 800 yeares made that confession Phi. We can Theo. You do not as yet Phi. Yeas we haue done it S. Augustine told you plainly the substance of breade and wine did not remaine but only the qualities and venerable Bede said there was the shew but not the substance of bread Be not these direct and faire proofes Theo. Fairely forged they be but otherwise the writers themselues were neuer of that opinion Phi. I haue proued by S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril that it is no bread Theo. No bare nor common bread as our sense doth iudge but yet the nature of bread still remaineth though endued with a more diuine and mightie grace Phi. The bread is chaunged as S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose teache Theo. Not by loosing that it had but by annexing that it had not Phi. It is conuerted into the substance of Christ. Theo. But by no materal nor corporall chaunge of the former substance Phi. This is your deluding of fathers The. That is your abusing of them Phi. You recal their wordes to your liking Theo. And you inforce thē against their meaning Phi. Who shall iudge of that Theo. Not you Phi. Nor you Theo. Let their owne mouthes be trusted Phi. I am well contented Theo. Then are you condemned For where their wordes beare our exposition as wel as yours you vrge a corporal and substantial change on their speaches in euery place which they in plaine wordes protest to be no part of their faith Phi. Where find you that protestation Theo. Is your memorie so short that I must now make a new repetition Phi. You went about to prooue that the substance of bread remained The. And that which I professed I performed you may turne back view the words The substance of bread doth not cease to be the signes remaine in their former substance As touching the substances of the creatures they are the same after Consecration that they were before And that was Cyprians meaning when he said Corporalis substantiae retinens speciem retaining their kind of corporall substance as also this substantiall bread This is warrant sufficient in any Christian mans iudgement for vs so to interpret the fathers words as we do not abolish the substance of bread which they confesse remaineth Phi. Had that beene their doctrine would their after-commers thinke you haue so soone swarued from their faith Theo. They did not That verie confession that the substance of bread remained after consecration dured almost a thousand yeares in most parts of the West Church and namely in this realme Omit Bertram that liued 830. after Christ whose booke is extant purposely and largely treating of this matter Walafridus an other of that time giueth flat euidence against your chaunging of substances in the sacrament when hee saith In caena quam ante traditionem suam vltimam cum Discipulis Christus habuit post Paschae veteris solemnia corporis sanguinis sui sacramenta in panis vini substantia eisdem Discipulis tradidit In the supper which Christ had with his Disciples last before hee was betraied after the solemnities of the olde Passeouer he deliuered to the same disciples the sacraments of his bodie and blood in the substance of bread and wine And so doeth Druthmarus reporting our Sauiours act at his last supper in these words Transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus suum vinum in sanguinem Christ chaunging the bread into his bodie and the wine into his bloode spirituallie And so Paschasius though you haue here there enterlaced that book to help your selues and printed it vnder the name of Rabanus as well as of Paschasius Panis confirmat cor hominis vinum letificat c. propter quod in eadem substantia iure celebratur hoc mysterium salutis Bread confirmeth and wine cheereth the hart c. wherefore in that substance is this mysterie of our saluation worthily celebrated Waleramus Bishop of Medburg a thousand yeares after Christ continued the same doctrine though some Italians then beganne to fortifie their new conceits of shewes without substance His wordes are Materiae vel substantia Sacrificij non simpla est sicut nec pontifex solius diuinae vel-humanae solius substantiae est Est ergo tam in Pontifice quā in sacrificio diuina substātia est terrena Terrena in vtroque est illud quod corporaliter vel localiter videri potest diuina in vtroque verbum inuisibile quod in principio erat Deus apud Deum The matter or substance of the sacrifice is not single as also the high priest
himself is neither of a diuine substance only nor of an humane only There is then as wel in the high Priest as in the sacrifice an heauenly substance there is also an earthly substanceâ— The earthly substance in theÌ„ both is that which may corporally locally be seen The heauenly in them both is the inuisile word which in the beginning was God with God The Church of England euen to the conquest held the same Doctrine and taught it to the people of this Land in their publike homilies which are yet to be seene of good record in the Saxon tongue The sermon then read on Easter day throughout their Churches is a manifest declaration of that which I say where amongst others these words are occurrent The holy font water that is called the welspring of life is like in shape to other waters and is subiect to corruption but the holy Ghosts might commeth to the corruptible water through the Priests blessing and it can after wash the bodie and soul from all sinne through Ghostly might Beholde now we see two things in this one creature After true nature that water is corruptible water and after Ghostly mystery hath hallowing might So also if we behold that holie housell after bodily vnderstanding then see we that it is a creature corruptible mutable if we acknowledge therein ghostly might theÌ„ vnderstaÌ„d we that life is therein and that it giueth immortalitie to them that eate it with beliefe Much is betwixt the inuisible might of the holy housel the visible shape of his proper nature It is naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine and is by might of Gods word truly Christes bodie and his bloud not so notwithstanding bodily but Ghostly Much is betwixt the bodie Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housell The body truely that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud with bone with skinne and with sinewes in humane limmes with a reasonable soul liuing and his Ghostly body which wee call the housell is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without limme without soul. And therefore nothing is to be vnderstood therein bodily but al is Ghostly to be vnderstood Phi. What care we for your Saxon recordes Theo. Lesse care we for your Romish Monckish recordes so lately and grossely forged as we haue proued yet this to your inward grief you may now see shal an other day to your vtter confusion feele that your nouelties touching the Sacrament were neuer hard of in the Church of England nor in the Church of Christ til Lancfrancus Anselmus other Italians a thowsand yeres after christ came in with their AntichristiaÌ„ deuises and inuentions expounding Species and forma panis for the qualities accidents of bread without any subiect or substance which once taking place you fel amaine both to sacrilegious sophismes against trueth and rebellious practises against Princes ceased not til you brought them to their hight in your late Laterane Councell vnder Innocentius the third 1215 yeares after Christ. This is your Catholicisme that you so much vaunt of which the Christian world was vtterly ignorant of for almost a thousand yeares and to the which you would now reduce the simple with a shew of holines pretending greate grauitie and admirable antiquitie with bolde faces and eger speaches though you be void of both if you were well examined Phi. Were the doctrine of elder ages in some doubt which we knowe to be fully for vs yet you confesse these last fiue hundreth yeares are cleare on our side Theo. The miter and Scepter were yours the mysterie of iniquiiie working as was foretold and infecting the West Church with hypocrisie and heresie as fast as the Turke oppressed the East with rage tyrannie Yet in euerie of these last most corrupted ages God raised a number of innocent and simple men with the confession of their mouthes and expence of their liues to witnesse his trueth against the pride and fury of their aduersaries whome your holie father hanged burned and otherwise murdered for repining at his proceedings that whome with honour and ease he could not allure at lest he might quaile with terror and torment Phi. Shoulde wee leaue the fellowship of holie Popes famous Prelates mighty Princes learned and Religious Moncks and Friers yea Saints and ioyne our selues to a fewe condemned and infamous heretikes as you doe Theo. That which is pretious and admirable before men may be odious detestable before God The dignities of men cannot deface the truth of Christ the higher their states the greater their falles if they did oppose themselues against the highest Phi. You say they did Theo. I doe not but this I say that if the respect of their externall and temporall glorie be the ground of your conscience you haue a wicked affection as well as Religion To follow men against God is to magnifie them afore God Phi. You condemne them for cast-awaies Theo. I am not their iudge He that made them might be mercifull to them amiddest the defects and dangers of those daies as he hath been to some in all ages and places yet that is no safetie for you to defend their open errors and wilfully to continue their wickednes Phi. Were not our fathers religious and holy men Theo. Iustifie not your fathers against God lest their mouthes condemne you for a pernicious ofsprng God will be glorified when he iudgeth say you and your fattherâ— what you can to the contrary Reprooue not the sharpnes of his iustice which he neuer sheweth but for great and vrgent cause submit your selues rather and acknowledge it is his vndeserued and yet not vnwoonted mercie that you be not consumed as your fathers were before you but haue yet time and warning to repâ—nt Phi. And are you such Saints that you â—eede no repentance Theo. Wee desire to liue no longer than we confâ—sse before heauen and earth that as God hath beene righteous in reuenging the sinnes and iniquities of our fathers by taking his trueth from them and leauing them to the power of darkenes and kingdome of Antichrist so he might most iustly for our vngodlines vnthankfulnes haue wrapped vs in the same confusion and destruction saue that of his infinite and vnspeakeable mercy he woulde haue his Gospell preached afresh for a witnes to all Nations before he come to iudgement to make all men inexcusable that haue either not beleeued or not obeyed the truth And this causeth vs not onely with all that is within vs to giue glorie to his name for so great a blessing but to beseech him that though we be lighted on the ends of the world when charitie waxeth cold and faith is skant found on the face of the earth we may not be caried away with the error of the wicked to perdition especially not to followe the way of Cain that
sacrifice 693 The Iesuits heape vp fathers for a shew though they make nothing for them 694 The Sacrifices of the new Testament be spirituall 695 What sacrifice it is that Malachie speaketh of 696 The Lords Supper is a sacrifice for diâ—ers respects 699 The Priests act can not applie the death of Christ 700 The Iesuits sacrifice 701 The word Sacrifice is not vsed by the holy Ghost 702 S. Paul maketh nothing for the sacrifiâ—e of the Masse 703 Adoration of the sacrament 705 The Sacrament must not bee adored 706 The Iesuits proofes for adoration of the Sacrament 707 No Father teacheth the adoratioÌ„ of the sacrament 708 S. Austen was far froÌ„ adoring the sacrament 709 Christ adored in the misteries 710 Chrysostome did not adore the sacrament 712 Nazianzene doth not say that his sister adored the sacrament 713 Dionysius made no inuocation of the Sacrament 714 Dionys. corrupted by the Ies. 715 The whole church slaundered by the Iesuites 716 Origen Chrysâ—st lengthned by the Iesuits to serue the adoratioÌ„ of the Sacrament 718 Origens words 〈◊〉 719 Christ 〈◊〉 our roote 719 Christ dwelleth in vs more truely than in the Sacrament 719 The Church directed her prayers to Christ in heauen 722 The Sacrament is a corruptible creature 722 We must not basely beÌ„d our minds on the visible creatures 723 The mystical signes must be reuerenced but not adored with Godlike honour 724 The signes remaine in their former Substance 725 The Real presence 726 Why the Iesuites mistake the fathers in this matter 728 The bread is made God by the Iesuites constructions of Christs wordes 729 Christ said of the bread this is my bodie 730 The Papistes say THIS in the words of Christ is taken for nothing 732 The causes why the wordes of Christ at his last Supper were not literal 733 For what cause S. Austen concludeth the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue 734 The Iesuits caÌ„not tel how to make the letter agree with ther opinion 735 The figuratiue sense of Christes words auouched by the fathers 736 The signe in the Sacrament caÌ„not be the trueth 739 The 6. of S. Iohn expoundeth the words of the supper 740 The fathers refer the 6. of Iohn to the Lordes supper 741 The fathers themselues refer the 6. of Iohn to the sacrament 742 The words in the 6. of Iohn are figuratiue because the actioÌ„s are spirituall 744 To eate christ is to beleeue and abide in Christ. 745 In S. Iohn the manner of eating is spiritual the manner of speaking is allegorical 746 What the Capernits error was 746 How the Ies. differ from the Capernites 748 What fathers the Iesuits haue for their literall sense corporall eating 750 What the late Grecians ment by pressing the letter 751 The Sacrament is a signe of christ on the crosse 753 In sacraments the signes haue the names of the thinges theÌ„selues 754 The signes remain in their former substance 756 The power and operation of tâ—â— signe is changed 75â— The substance of christs flesh doth not enter our mouthes 759 Christ is not eaten with teeth 759 The Iesuites narrowly driuen wheÌ„ they must take substance for accidents 761 Christ is not eaten with teeth or iawes 762 The refutation of Eutiches error ouerthroweth traÌ„substantiatioÌ„ 764. Eutiches error is not refuted but confirmed by the real presence 766. Leoes words do not import the reall presence 767 The iesuits make the fathers contradict themselues 769 That body which entereth our mouths increaseth the substaÌ„ce of our flesh 770 What manner of eating Christ in the Sacrament the Church taught for a 1000. yeares 772 The spirituall eating of Christ in the Sacrament excludeth the corporall 776 What the Sacramentall eating of Christ is 778 The wicked do not eat Christ. 779 The Church of Rome is not yet resolued of her corporal eating of Christs flesh 780 The first Authors of their corporal eating condemne ech others opinion for heresie 680 The grossenes of Papistes worse than carnal oâ— capernitical 782 The ElemeÌ„ts may putrify the flesh of Christ cannot 783 Their sluttish diuinity is a necessiry sequele to their real preseÌ„ce 783 We must ascend to heauen where Christ sitteth in his glorie 384 Our harts must be lifted vp to heauen not â—o the heâ—â— 785 The true flesh of Christ is in heaueÌ„ and absent from the earth 786 The manhoodâ— of Christ is not in many places at once 788 The substaunce of Christes bodie must be coÌ„tained in one place 790. Christes manhoode is not euery where by the verie principles of our faith 792 How one the same christ is euerywhere present 792 The power of God doth neuer crosse his will 793 Contradictions bee as impossible as falshoods be 796 The Iesuites haue not one father for their transubstantiatioÌ„ 797 S. Austen horribly forged by frier walden 798 Bede vsed in the same sort by the same frier 799 In what sense Chrysostome saide the mysteries are coÌ„sumed 800 How the Sacrament may be saide to be no bread 801 Species doth not signifie shewes without substaunce 803 The Persons of men cannot preiudice the truth of God 817 The happines of our times is gods goodnes not our worthines 818 The Iesuites religion is like their subiection 819 The Iesuites positions bee both trayterous and hereticall 820. Faultes escaped The first number noteth the page the second the line m. margent c. correction Page 9. line 18. safely read falsly p. 20. l. 25. mercy The breath r. mercy the breach p. 25. l. 30. Anastasius r. Athanasius p. 37. l. 38. Tiberius r Liberius p. 63. l. 33 cunning r. cumming p. 64. l. 30. you can r. Phi. You can p. 66. l. 14. Seneca r. Semeca p. 72. l. 9. Athanasius r. Anastasius p. 82. m. 4000. r. 1000. p. 93. l. 12. Burdeaus r. Burges p. 97. l. 24. cattels r. chattels p. 120 l 41. coÌ„uert r. coÌ„triue p. 128. l. 32. and if r Theo. And if p. 149. l. 34. Maximus r. Mariaus p. 173. l. 23. do you not r Phil Do you not p. 180. l. 38. whâ—ch spoken r. which is spokeÌ„ p. 201. l. 1. adiudge to haue r. theÌ„ to haue p. 204. l 41. they do r. they may do p. 228. m. whether the Pope r. while the Pope p. 229. l. 38. nec ipse nec alteruÌ„ r. nec ipse possit alteruÌ„ p. 240. l. 13. goodline r godlines p. 259. l. 8 dare r you dare p. 270. l. 23 Protopius r Procopius 276 12. sound r. found 280. l. 3. resist r. sist. 26 r. Theo. Sure p. 301. l 3. there r. three 303. 3 your r our 35. l. 28. writing r. vttering 318. l. 2. reasonable r. treasonable 333. l. 31. perceiue r. â— perceiue 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 39 shaken r. not shakeÌ„ p. 337. l. 1. you do r. you not do p. 339. l. 28. the defence r. you defend 350. l. 19. maintaining r. maiming p 364. l. 42. christian princes r. christians
which we vse How we are said to blesse the elements at the Lords table * How the Iesuits blesse the cup. How we blesse it * How the Iesuits blesse the cup. How we blesse it * How the Iesuits blesse the cup. How we blesse it Our blessing is consonant to the words and rules of the scripture theirs is not Their massing gestures ouer the cup. Praier blesseth the cup and not our fingering or breathing on it Christ tooke bread to giue it and gaue it out of his hand before he spake the words of consecration Matth. 26. Christ did consecrate when the bread was in his disciples hands what did he then ouer or vpon the bread can you tell * Fol. 452. Num. 24. This is ConsecratioÌ„ taketh effect from Christs words not from our fingers or gestures The Rhemish Test. pag. 452. These wordes this is my bodie must be applied by way of rehearsall what Christ said If the priest say of himselfe this is my bodie he blasphemeth most horibly and therefore he must speak them by way of report what Christ saide Here is much adoe with actiuely and presently and yet the cunning sophists neuer tell what is required to actiue and present application This application the Iesuites may do well to tell vs which way it must be made The words of their Masse booke are distinctè secretè attentè If they take breath in pronouncing Christs words their application is quite marred for they must do it vno spiritu nulla pausatione interposita A wise obiection when both the elements and our praiers witnes for vs in the eies of God and the whole church why we repeate the woordes of Christ you Iesuits cannot tell whether we iest or no. If this be not application we would gladly know what it is The Rhemish Testament pag. 452. nu 24. this is Tract 80. in Iohan. The word commeth to the element when it is seriouslie pronounced and religiouslie beleeued Application is made with hart and not with breath or fingers August in Iohan tracta 80. The rehearsing of the word is necessary to grouÌ„d our faith on his promise but faith maketh application This negatiue ouerthroweth the Iesuits actiue application The Iesuits knowing that we would charge them with the breach of Christs institution which they cannot answeare thought best to charge vs with the like though the points be neither material nor prooued by them to haue been vsed by Christ. The Rhemish Test. fol. 452. nu 23. bread Greg. in Regist. Concil Florent sess vltima in literis vnionis We professe our selues to be at libertie for vsing either and thâ— rather because he would tie vs of his authoritie to the one The Rhemish Test. fol. 452. nu 23. bread The delaying of the wine with water in the Lords cup began first for sobrietie not for any mysterie It cannot be prooued that either Christ or his Apostles vsed water with their wine by any good record Cypr. epist. 63. ad Caecil Cyprian doth not alleadge Christs institution for water but for wine Cypr. epist. 63. ad Caecil Ibidem Cyprian proueth that the Lords cup must be mixed with wine Cypr. li. 2. epi. 3. â—d Caecil * Ibidem Cyprian vrgeth Christs example for wine which he calleth a mixture by reason it was both lawfull and then vsed to temper it with water Epist. 63. ad Caecil Ibidem Reuel 17. Cyprian alloweth water in the Lords cup sheweth what it may signifie but he doth not deriue it from Christs example * Cypr. lib. 1. epist 6. ad Magnum * Ibidem * Aug. de Baptis lib. 7. ca. 50. a Ex sermo ad Infantes Citatur à Beda in 1. Cor. 10. Ibidem The wine signifieth the people better than water doth The Iesuits themselues receiue not the saying of Cyprian Can the Iesuits tell how the people are in the cup after consecration Their owne schooles are against them b Mat. 26. c Chrysost. in Mat. homil 83. d Thom. part 3. quaest 74. articl 7. Scotus in 4. senten distinct 11. quaest 6. Innocen de officio missae part 3. ca. 4. affirme the same Cypr. lib. 2. ep 3. Ibidem Ibidem Cyprians proofes are all for wine The question is not whether water was then and now may be vsed but whether it were a part of Christs ordinance Iacobi Missa The Church of Rome proueth the most part of her religion by such forgeries Dist. 15. § Sancta Romana Manie things forged in the Apostles names and yet reiected by the church of Christ. Basilij Missa These three Masses be all of one sort The Greeke word for miscens doth not euer import the mixture of water Apocal. 14. Eras. annotat in 14. Apoc. * Concil in Trull sub Iusti. cap. 32. Iames his Masse neuer receiued nor vsed in the Church as his * Concil in Trull sub Iusti. cap. 32. Iames his Masse neuer receiued nor vsed in the Church as his Ibidem cap. 32. Laurent Surius toâ— Concil 2. admonitio ad lectorem de Canonibus qui sixtae Synod dicuntur Ibidem This councell is prouinciall and late and vehementlie suspected by themselues Chrysostoms Liturgie mingleth water with wine after consecration for the people to coÌ„municate Chrysost. Missa Sodde water poured into the wine after consecration could be no mysterie The translation which their owne men haue set foorth hath the words which I cite * No maruell to see the Church of Christ mixe her wine with water at her dayly communions wheÌ„ the people were fasting since the soberer sort of heathens in those countries durst not drinke those strong wines without some delaie Polyd. de inuentoribus reâ—um lib. 5. ca. 9. The seuenth Bish of Rome from Peter first mingled water with wine at the Lords table The Armenians for a 1000. yeares and vpward mixed no water with their wine * Otho â—risingens lib. 7. cap 32. Their obiections be so farre from trueth that their owne schooleâ— go cleare with vs against them The Iesuites Testament is as full of poiurie as it is of heresie These be 5. as deepe wounds in the worde of Christ as euer the Iewes made in his flesh These be 5. as deepe wounds in the worde of Christ as euer the Iewes made in his flesh These be 5. as deepe wounds in the worde of Christ as euer the Iewes made in his flesh These be 5. as deepe wounds in the worde of Christ as euer the Iewes made in his flesh The Priestes sole receiuing Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. As needfull to giue as to breake the bread a August epist. 59. These wordes be spoken in the plurall nuÌ„ber of other mens persons b 1. Cor. 10. c 1. Cor. 11. d Epist. 118. e Hieron in 1. Cor. 11. f Luk 22. 1. Cor. 11. The Rhemish Test. sol 451. nu 23. in the night Christes actions and words are necessarie though the circumstances be not Matth. 26. * Luk. 22. * The sanctification of
diuels sacrifices that their Masse is a sacrifice No man partaker of their sacrifice besides the Priest because nâ— man eateth of it but the Priest To eate and drinke at Christes table is Christs ordinance to sacrifice is not Adoration of the sacrameÌ„t The Iesuites pretending to adore Châ—ist adore the creatures of bread and wine No difference betweene these two speaches the Rocke was Christ and this is my bodâ—e * 2. Cor. 13. * Mat. 10. * 1. Thes. 2. We haue plainer wordâ—s that the Rock was Christ than they haue that the bread is Christ. Pauls speach doth interpret Christs words Whie do they not adore the Priest as well as the pixe That which was contained in the pixe is inclosed in the Priests bodie Christ must not be adored at our discretion but at all times and in al places If a rat should eate the host it would make a foule worke among the Iesuits No father teacheth that the SacrameÌ„t should be adored The Rhe. Test fol. 453. nu 29. not discerning the bodie Halfe this would serue if anie part of it were to the purpose * A smoothe tale of Robin Hoode will prooue the adoration of the sacrameÌ„t as well as this that here ensueth Epist. 118. ca. 6 * The Pharisees and the Iesuits meete iust in this kinde of holineâ— This number is sufficient if they speake to the matter They suppose creatures to be Christ and then at all aduentures they adore them in his steade All these fathers are impertinent to this purpose Not one of them besides Theodoret speaketh of the externall Sacrament It is one to adore Christ which is in the mysteries an other to adore the mysteries themselues which no father teacheth The Rhemish Test. sol 453. Epist. 118. ca. 3. S. Augustine peruerted by the Iesuiâ—s Aug. â—e Doâ—tr Christ. li. 3. ca. 9. Ibidem S. Aug. alloweth veneratioÌ„ but not adoration to this or anie other Sacrament Ibidem li. 3. cap. 5. Not to distinguish the signes from the thinges is a miserable seruitude of the soule August de vera Religio c. 54. AdoratioÌ„ due onelie vnto God * Ibidem Ibidem August ep 118. What veneration is due to this Sacrament In Psal. 98. What S. Aug. spake of Christes flesh the Iesuites turne to their host The true eating of christs flesh is all one with the adoring of it The ground of all their errors abuses in the Masse is their reall presence * De spir sanct lib. 3. cap. 12. * We adore Christ in theÌ„ we adore not the mysteries themselues The accideÌ„ts of bread and wine be absurdities they be no mysteries How Christ is present in the mysteries This is not to adore Christ but the creatures The misconstruction of Christes words leadeth them to this Idolatrie Christ is adored in the mysteries though he be not locallie inclosed in them We shut him not vp in the compasse of the host but by faith wee behold enioy his presence at his table This presence is fruitful and effectuall theirs is not We must lift vp our harts not to the host but vnto heauen Chys in 1. Cor. homil 24. Nazianz. in epitaph Gorgoniae Christ is honoured and serued on the Altar though he be not corporallie fastned to the host Chrysostom corrupted by the Iesuits Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. We must get vp to heauen with the wings of faith before we can rightlie adore Christ as Chrysostome would haue vs to adore him We maie behold the host with lesse adoe if that had beene Chrysostoms meaning Nazianz. in epitaph Gorgoniae Christ is truelie said to be honored on the altar because his mercies are theÌ„ce deliuered vnto vs and our prayers from thence offered vnto him sitting in heauen Ioan 4. * Exod. 3. Christ is honored on earth and yet that doth prooue him to be personallie on earth Nazianzens sister had the Sacrament about her which she did not adore but him that was serued on the sacred table Eccles. Hierarch cap. 3. * We will shewe you where you haue corrupted this father in expresse wordes * If these be not his words then you be furiously bent to forge You neuer read them once The Iesuits say this inuocaetion of the Sacrament was made after consecration as if Dionyâ—ius had beene mumbling a Masse and not writing a booke If the Greeke woorde had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is not that was no cause for you to wrest it to the Sacrament a 2. Thes. 2. b Apoc. 17. There are manie mysteries which are not the sacrament of the Altar c Colos. 2. d 1. Tim. 3. e Ephes. 6. f 1. Tim. 3. The diuine humane natures of Christ are most wonderfull mysteries g Mat. 13. h 1. Cor. 4. i 1. Colos. 1. The Iesuites ignorance in wresting Dionysius The Iesuits meanes to defend their errors be as wicked as their errors He maie treat of the Sacrament yet speake to Christ because Christ is the trueth and perfection of the Sacraments Do you noâ— peruert the words when you force them for adoration of corruptible creatures against the authors mâ—â—ning A second exposition of Dionysius his words Dionysius distinguisheth the elements from that which he speaketh to Ios. 10. 3. King 13. Esa. 1. Psal. 24. The imperatiue moode is no praier except the person beâ— such as we maie not otherwise speak vnto but by praier Christ is not reallie couered with the vailes of bread and wine but figuratiuelie represented and truelie receiued by them Dionys eccles hierarâ—h cap. 3. The Rhe. test fol. 453. * This is right Iesuiticall religion to crie thus vpon a dumb dead creature No blasphemie Iere. 2. The Iewish heathen Idolaters were neuer so grosse If it be a figuratiue speach as anon shall be prooued you shall cough me the ranckest Idolaters that euer were on the face of the earth The Iesuites crake they haue the whole church with them when they haue not so much as one father for the greatest points of their religion The Rhe. test pag. 21. nu 8. Domine non sum dignus * Liturg. S. Chrysost. Graec. sub finem Origen and Chrysostome abused for inuocation of the Sacrament Look the places when you will and you shall finde it to be otherwise How Christ at this daie entereth our roofe Orig. hom 5. ad diuers Christ entereth the soule and not the mouth of maÌ„ We must saie Lord I am not worthie to Christ not to the Sacrament for the Centurion saide it to Christs persoÌ„ Christ is more truelie and substantiallie in vs than in the Sacrament That Christ dwelleth reallie and corporallie in vs See Chrysostome homil 83. in Mat. Cyril in Iohan. lib. 10. cap. 13. li. 11. ca. 26. Hilarius de Trinitate lib. 8. but that he dwelleth so in the Sacrament the Iesuits shall neuer prooue Christ entereth not our mouthes when he commeth vnder our roofe * Iâ—an 14. * â—phes â— Christ dwelleth in vs as trulie by his
word as by his sacrameÌ„ts * Hier. in Psal. 147. The flesh of Christ is eateÌ„ more truely in his worde than in the sacraments * De Cons. dist 2. § vt quid paras August de ciui 〈◊〉 21. ca. 25. No such words are found in Chrysostoms Liturgie The woordes may be there yet not spoken to the sacrament a Pag. 21. l. n. 12 pag. 463. lin 11. b Pa. 452. li. 30. The Iesuites bid vs see the fathers but they doe not tell vs what we shall finde there It is not enough to will vs to see the fathers they must saie to what end they alledge them Chrysostome praieth to Christ in heauen not to the sacrameÌ„t * Liturg Chrys. Ibidem He woulde haue Christ behold the people from heauen not from the sacrament Mat. 18. Mat. 28. How Christ is present with vs. August in Iohan tract 50. His diuinitie is present with vs. Idem Ibidem His humanity present with vs manie waies though not in substance The Rhe. test pag. 453. The auncient Church did exactlie distinguish the sacrament from Christ. a De Catech. rudibus cap. 26. b De Baptis lib. 3. cap. 10. c Ambr. de Sacrament li. 4. cap. 3. d Orig. in 15. Matt. The whole Church cried on the people to lift vp their harts e Concil Nice * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in as well as on f August in Iohan tract 50. Christ is both seene and touched by faith g Ambr. in Luc. li. 6. ca. 8. de filia princ Synag vesiâ—â—ci h Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. * Ibidem Christ is on the table because his death is solemnized in the mysteries on the table i Colos. 3. k Phil. 3. Theod. dial 2. Not one of the fathers which they bring speaketh of the externall sacrament saue onelie Theodoret The mysticall signes must be adored but not with diuine honor These men caÌ„ plaie with shadowes verie pretilie The mysticall tokens remaining in their former substance must be adored Theod. Dial. 2. If they will adore the substance of breade Theodorets wordes will helpe them forward but not otherwise Adored is sometimes as much as â—eueâ—enced De cons. dist 3. § venerabiles in glossa ¶ cultu The Iesuits authorities for adoration of the Sacrament prooue no such thingâ— The reall presence This is my bodie doth not infer the reall presence Not the words but the exposition of the wordes is the thing that we striue for The Iesuites maie soone bring a thousand authorities for this point and not one to the purpose The papists in this question thinke to conquere with number if not with strength of places The papists beap vp places for their reall presence by hundreths not one to the purpose It were more wisdome for them to vndeâ—staÌ„d what they alledge than to alledge they know not what We striue not for Christs presence in the mysteries but for the manner of his presence The presence which the Iesuits hold the fathers neuer heaâ—d of Garetius Vernierus and the rest if a father do but name the body of Christ bring him in by and by for a witnes on their side and then they muster them by hundreths * You turne all fâ—â—m the thing themselues to the signes that is the cause of your error a Psalm 64. b Ierem. 18. Wisd. 1. These â—wo rules must be obserued in reading the fathers touching this matter els we shall infinitely erre To mistake the signes for the thinges themselues must needes bread a monsterous error Aâ—l their allegaâ—â—ns are answered with theâ—e two obseruations The literall prâ—ssing of those wordes is the gâ—ound of alâ— their error Christ did make the bread a God but added grace to the signe that it might becom a sacrament If bread be not made the sonne oâ— God then sure the bread is not made Christ. If the breade be Christ it must needs be made Christ for before it was not Christ. Christ doth not saie this is chaunged for or with my bodie but this is my bodie If the breade be Christ ergo it is God for he is God THIS in Christs words must needes note somewhat This must bee this somwhat and not this nothing The Iesuits be loath to tell vs what is meÌ„t by this in the wordes of Christ. This indeede is the right literall sense of our sauiours wordes and since that is apparently false the figuratiue sense must take place Matth. 26. The connexion of the gospell reâ—erreth THIS to the bread in the wordes of Christ. THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore must be guided by the circumstances of the text a 1. Cor. 11. b 1. Cor. 10. a 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul in plaine speach ioynethâ— THIS to the bread Al the fathers referre THIS to the bread c Iust. Apol. 2. d Tertul. aduer Iedaeos e Idem li. 4. contra MarcioneÌ„ f De cons. dist 2. § qui maÌ„ducas g Cypr. de vnctio Chrismat h Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. i Idem li. 4. c. 57 k Hier. ad Hedibiam quaest 2. l Athan in 1. Cor. cap. 11. m Epiph. in Anchorato n Cyril catechis mystag 4. o Theod. â—ial â— The Iesuites loose all hope of their transsubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ if THIS in the wordes of Christ do not note the bread p De canâ— disâ— 2. § ante benedictioâ—eâ— Glâ—ssa ibidem q Gerson contr Floretum li. 4. r Gard. contra diabolic sophist s In his Marc. Antoni Consr. t Occam in 4. sâ—ntent dist 13. u De cons. dist 2. § timâ—rem Glossa ibidem Then haue the Iesuits small hold in the literall sense of Christs words for their transsubstantiatioÌ„ That this is the right purport of Christs words it cannot be doubted So long as the letter is true we maie not flie to figures but if that be false we kill our soules except we â—lie to figures * Aug. de dâ—â—tr Christiana lib. 3 cap. 10. When the speach must be figuratiue The literall coherence of these wordes this bread is my bodie is impossible blasphemous and barbarous To reprooue the misconsterer is to reuerence the speaker z De cons. dist 2. § panis est in Altari Glossa ibidem Not possible by their owne confession that breade should be the bodie of Christ. To saie that bread is christ in proper speach is horrible blasphemie To eate flesh in proper speach is against nature and far from all pietie a August contra aduers. legis Propheta lib. 2. cap. 9. b Idem contra eundem lib. 1. cap. 14. c Cyril in Iohan. lib. 4. cap. 22. d August de doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. To eate flesh is an hainous act ergo Christs words are figuratiue This is S. Austens reason if the Iesuites can reâ—ure him let them Where Christ said this bread is my bodie the Iesuits say this must be no bread before it can be my bodie It is as great blasphemie for the bread to be turned into Christ as to be Christ.
The Iesuits would faine shift to haue the letter stand true but it will not be The Iesuites vrging the letter stâ—ppe fardest from the letter It is a world to see their Schoolemen tosse the woordes of Christ from post to pilloâ— and at length to leaue them as men in a Maze Not one of the auncient fathers euer affirmed the woordes of Christ to be literall Those later grecians that preâ—le the letter doe it to far other purpâ—ses than the Iesuits doe Whie Christ was to saie this is my bodie and not this is the figure of my bodie All the auncient fathers with one consent affirme the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue a Tertul. lib. 4. contr Marc. b Aug. in Leuit. quaest 57. Idem contra Adimant cap. 12. The manner of SacrameÌ„ts is to haue figuratiue speaches d Idem in psal 98. e Idem de doctr Christ. li. 3. c. 16 f Idem in psa 3. g Cypr. de vnctio Chrismaâ— The Lorde taught his disciples at his last supper howe the signes and the things might haue the same names h Orig. in Leuit. homâ—â— 7. i Idem in cap. 15 Matth. k Ambros. de iis qui initiaÌ„tur mysteriiâ— cap. 9. l Idem in 1. Cor. 11. m Idem de Sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 5. n Hyer in 26. Matth. o Idem in 14. Marci p Chrysost in psal 22. q Idem ad Caesarium Monachum r Author operit imperfect in Mat. homil 11. s Nazianz. in oratio de pasch Theod. dial 1. Our Sauiour at hâ—s last supper chaunged the names not the substances of the elements theÌ„ must needes the speach be figuratiue u De consecrat dist 2. § hoc est Prosper Glossa IbideÌ„ y Beda in LucaÌ„ cap. 22. z Christ. Druthmar in Mat. a Bertram de corp sang Dom. Though the Iesuites haue not one ancient father for their literall sense yet they will help the matter with bragging The Iesuits will haue the figure the trueth to be al one Though the figure might be also the trueth as it cannot yet a figuratiue speach can no waie be proper Will it please the Iesuits to learne that the speach is figuratiue â—rgo not proper b De doct Christiana li. 3. ca. 5. To take a figuratiue speach according to the letter killeth the soul. The signe in no sacrament can be the thing it selfe The signe the trueth must be two things c Ire li. 4. ca. 34. d De cons. dist 2. § hoc est e August contra Maximinum li. 3. ca. 22. f Chryso in Genes hom 35. g Aug. epist. 23. h De doct Christiana lib. 3. cap. 5. The sixt of S. Iohns Gospell directeth the wordes of Christ at his last supper The 6. of S. Iohn doth not teach the eating of the signes at the Lordes table but the eating of the thinges themselues The thinges themselues that are proposed and receiued at the Lords table were fully declared by our Sauiour in the 6. of S. Iohn The fathers are all of that opinion i Chrysost. hom 83. in Mat. The same matter before debated k Cypr. de caenae Domini The same speach handled in the 6. of Iohn l Cyril in Iohan. lib. 4. cap. 14. m August contra aduers. legis Prophet lib. 1. cap. 24. If the flesh of Christ be â—aten in the Lordes supper as he taught it should be in the 6. of Iohn then must the wordes of the supper be expounded by the 6. of Iohn and the one being figuratâ—iue the other cannot be literall The breade must be eaten corporallie at the Lordes table though the flesh of Christ cannot be eaten there or elsewhere but onlie spirituallie The bread must be eaten corporallie the flesh of Christ spirituallie ergo the bread is not his bodie but by a figure of speach vsuall to this other sacraments The Lordes Supper addeth Seales and assurances to the promise made in the sixt of Iohn but altereth not the doctrine You must needes haue it so except you will dissent from all your fellowes and from the fathers Ioan. 6. The Papistes verie greedily tie the 6. of Iohn to the sacrament little thinking it would ouerthrow their real presence o Artic. 5. diuis 2. contra episcop Sarunt p Part. 3. obiect 1. In Marco Constantio That Christ perfourmed this promise ONLIE in the supper is as false as it is true that he did there perfourme it The Rhe. test fol. 236. nu 53. you shall haue no life If the 6. of Iohn be figuratiue then the wordes of the supper are also figuratiue but the 6. of Iohn is figuratiue ergo Clemens Alex. 〈◊〉 lib. cap. 6 Teâ—tulaâ—â— resuâ—rectis carnis Orig. in Leuit. hom 7. The figuratiue sense is the spirituall sense the literall is carnall Chrysost. in Iâ—han homil 46. To vnderstaÌ„d the woordes simplie as they lie is to vnderstand them carnallie The woordes in S. Iohn are figuratiue because eating and drinking are referred not to the bodies but to the soules of the faithfull u Basil. in psal 33. The inwarde man eateth the flesh of Christ. x Orig. in cantica canticorum homil 2. The soul must relesse the bread of life y Tertul. de resâ—â—rect carnis This waie Christ is eaten and not with teeth iawes x Cypr. de caenâ— Domini What it is to eate Christ. a Athan. in hec quicunque dexerit verbum in â—ilium hominis b August tract in Iohan. 25. c Ibidem tract 26. d Bernard in psal qui habitat sermo 3. The verie text confirmeth the fathers speaches Iohannis sexto e vers 27. f vers 29. g vers 35. Non ambulando sed credendo ad Christum currimus August tract 26. in Iohan. h vers 53. Beleeuing prooued to be eating i vers 47. k vers 51. l vers 54. The wicked doe not eate though they grind with their teeth swallowe with their iawes neuer so fast m Rom. 10. The manner of eating Christes flesh is spirituall by faith and vnderstanding the wordes expressing it be allegoricall If the Supper be correspondent to the doctrine of our Sauiour in the 6. of Iohn the maner of eating Christes flesh must be spirituall by faith not corporall with teeth the wordes this is my body figuratiue This is a poore shift for sacramentall eating is no more but eating the sacred signe of that heauenlie foode The Iesuits would faine gâ—t from the Capernites if they coulde tell how What Christ spake of the soul the Capernites vnderstood of the body let the Iesuits therefore dresse and hide the â—lesh of Christ how they can from their â—ight and tast so long as they will eate it with teeth iawes they shal be Capernites It skilleth not how Christes flesh be couered but with what part it is eaten soul or bodie Man hath but two kindes of eating as him selfe consisteth of two parts for ech part one n Iohn 6. Which of those twaine will the Iesuits choose but they must either
forge their corporall eating with teeth or ioine arme in arme with the Capernites Then you differ from the Capernites in seeing but not in eating the flesh of Christ. Whether a man maie not carnallie eate that which he neither seeth nor tasteth let the Iesuits consult the Cookes o Athan. in illud quicunque dixeris verbum in filium hominis p Chrysâ—n IohaÌ„ homil 45. q Orig. in Leuit. hom 7. Theophi in 6. Iohannis r Cypr. de caena Domini s August in psalm 98. t Oecume in 6â— Iohannis u Beda in 6. Iohannis If Christ meÌ„t the soule of man should eat his flesh by faith they be capernites that bring their mouthes to eate it though they neither see it nor tast it There may be manie differences in eating but al eating the flesh of christ with teeth iawes is Caperniticall * Not one that is auncient * For that you misconster some that be auncient but their true meaning is against it * Mo Saintes than euer were in the Kalendar Four late grecians vrge the letter but to no such end as the Iesuits doe Damasâ—ib 4. cap. 14. Niceâ— Synod 2. actio 6. Theophil in 26. Matth. Euthymius in Matth. cap. 64. Aug. â—pist 118. Chrysost. homil 29. in 2. Cor. De cons. dist 2. § quid sit Leo. serm 6. de ieâ—â—io 7. meÌ„sis Tertul. de resurrect carnis Cyril lib. 4. cap. 14. in Iohanâ— It may be you neuer vnderstood them * It is no sâ—ame for vs to suffer as Christ did nor glorie for you to doe as Iudas did The meaning of Damascen and others after him in pressing the letter Euthymius in Matth. cap. 64. He vrgeth the wordes lest the signes should seeme to be without vertue Theophil in 6. Iohannis Not a figure onely that is not an idle signe without fruite and effect No figures of thinges to come All figures abolished by the comming of Christ in flesh The defeÌ„ders of Images would not haue the sacramenâ— called an Image of Christ. * Extat in 2. Synod Nicen. actio 6. The cause whie the Gretians pressed the letter is nothing neere the Iesuites real presence Damasce lib. 4. cap. 14. This Epiphanius was as earnest for painted and carued Images as the elder was against them * Nicen Synod 2. actio 6. * This Epiphanius might haue beene a Iesuit for his lustie craking a Chrysost. in Matt. hom 83 b Idem hom 17. in epist. ad Heb. c Gelas. consra Eutichen d Theod. dial 2. Dyonis ecclesiast hierach cap 3. Nazâ—anz in Apologâ—â—â—â— â— Apostâ—l consâ—â—â— li. 6. ca. 3. Macar hâ— 27. Amâ—râ—s dâ—nâ—fâ—â—ie E. 1. ca. 48. k August oâ—â—ogintarum quaeâ—ionum cap. 61. The sacrameÌ„t is an Image of Christes death and passion l De cons. dist 2. § Sacrifiâ—ium Sigebert in an 885. Regino li. 2. an 868. Chrono Canâ—â—â— If these Grecians had beene of the Iesuits opinion the matter had not beene great but now they are not How the late Grecians that presse the letter may be vnderstood The Iesuites trust more to their practises then to their authorities otherwise their holde were verie slender The fathers abused thâ—t are allâ—adged for the â—eâ— eating the fleâ—h of christ with teeth and â—aweâ— The rule in interprâ—teth al the fathers that seeme to say the fleshe of Christ is eaten with our mouths This Rule for the signes to beare the names of the things themselues is proper to Sacraments Their owne rules in all reason are to limite their own speech This must be vndeâ—stood of the sâ—gnes not of tâ—e things themselues oâ— els there is a contâ—adiction in the â—athers Three things that may be doubted of in the sacrameÌ„t The names of the elements changed after conâ—ecration a Theod. dial 1. b Tertul. aduer Iâ—daeos c Cypr. de vnct Chrismatis d Ambr. de Sacramentis lib. 5. cap 4. e De consecrat dâ—st 2 ¶ hoc est quod f Chrysost. ad Caesar. Mâ—nâ—â—l g Rolaâ— de Ins. clâ—riâ— lib. 1. cap. 31. h Bâ—rtram de corp saâ—g Dom. i August ad Boniâ—ac episâ— 23. Can there be a plainer rule to keepe vs fâ—om rasâ— mistaâ—ing the fathers k Contra Adimant cap. 12. The fathers after consecration neuer called the bread by anie other name thaÌ„ the body of Christ though the substance of bread still remained The bread remaineth after consecration in his proper and former natuâ—e and SVBSTANCE l Gelas. contra Eutichen m Theod. dial 2. n Ambros. de sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 3. o Iâ—en li. 4 c. 32. p Et cap 34. q Origen in 15. Matth. r Epipha in Anchoraâ—o s Cypr. de Caenae Domini t Chrysost. ad Cesâ—r Monach. u Aug. serm ad infantes x Idem de doctr Christ. li. 3. ca. 5. y Extat in 2. Synod Nicen. actio 6. z Bertram de corp sanguine We our selues can speake no plainer words than the fathers did before vs against the Iesuits error The power operation of the signes Their power and operation chaunged causeth the change of their names though their substance remaine a Cypr. de vnctio Chrismâ—â— c Ambr. de sacramentis lib. 6 cap. 1. d Ibidem li. 4. cap. 4. e Ibidem lib. 6. cap. 1. f Celâ—s contra Eâ—tichen g Hilar. de Triâ—it lib. 8. h Idem in psal 127. i Leo de cons. disâ— 2. â— in quibus k 〈◊〉 hom 83. in Mâ—â—â—h l August traâ—t in â—â—â—an 26. m Iâ—em de cons. dist 2. § qui manducat n Idem in psal 77. o Idem tâ—act in Iohan. 27. p Euthym. in Maâ—â— cap 64. We must not looke to the substance of the signes but vnto the vertue of them q The â—d dial 2. r Ambros. de sacraâ—enâ—is â—ib 4. cap. 4. The naturall and true flesh of Christ is eaten with teeth s Mark 7. Nothing can enter both tâ—e hart and the bellie t Cor. 6. u Mat. 15. x Mark 7. 1. Cor. 8. Rom 17. a Heb. 13. b Ioâ— 6. c Ephes. 3. d Châ—â—sost hom 43. in loâ—n e Idem ex variis 〈◊〉 in Mat 9. f Ambros. de ijs qui â—â—steriis 〈◊〉 g De consecrat 〈◊〉 2 â— non esâ—aâ—is h Cyprian de Caena Doâ—â— i Cyril lib. 3. in Iâ—han cap. 28. k Augâ—le cons. dist 2. § verum sub sigma b Idem de verbis Domini in Eâ—â—â—g Lâ—câ—â— sermo 33. m Idem tract in Iohan. 25. n Bertram de corp sanguine Domini Christ is pressed with teeth swallowed with iawes or receiued into the belly Their owne law deâ—esteth it for an heresie o De cons. dist 2. ¶ non isle panis ¶ â—ribus gradibus Glossa ibidem p De cons. dist 2. ¶ ego Berenganius Glossa ibidem You must not onely answer but your answers must be sound and good A man may better take hot for cold and â—ower for sweet thaÌ„ substance for accidentes * And so chalk doth signifie cheese * First their wordes bee plaine and their
meaning is plainer as shall appeare when we come to the drift of their conclusion Neuer Catholike father saide the substance of bread was abolished by consecration as the Iesuits saie If the signes bâ—aâ—e tâ—e nâ—mes of the things themseluâ—â— â—hen the leâ—â—â—s authâ—â—â—ties are vnâ—uâ—ficient to conâ—lude thâ—t Châ—â—st is eaten wiâ—h our teeth We must ascâ—nd to heauâ—n before we eate Christ which with our mouthes we cannot If the fathers of â—â—ne that Christ is not eaten wâ—th teeth as they do â—hen these plâ—â—es must be â—nderstood of â—he signes and noâ— of the thâ—â—gs themsâ—lâ—es As many as theâ—e be â—â—â—es in the ball of myne eye 〈…〉 â—18 b 〈…〉 23. 〈◊〉 a â—dimant cap. 12. d 〈…〉 29. 〈◊〉 2 Cor. e Idâ—â— aâ— Câ—sar Mâ—nach f g Idâ—â— contra 〈◊〉 lâ—b 4. The Iesuâ—â—s hâ—ue no hold in these â—athers but only because they call theÌ„ signes by the names of the thingâ— which is as commoÌ„ with them as sand with the Sea h Cyriâ—l lib 4. cap. 14. in Iâ—h By cognato tacti◠〈…〉 ciâ—o Cyâ—il meaneth the suâ—stance of bread and wine nâ—t of Christs bodie i De censâ—â—râ—t â—ist § 2. quid sit * As â—â—ough in strict and 〈…〉 any thing could be druÌ„k both by the soule and the bodie k De cons. dist 2. ¶ species in hom Pascha l â—eo de ieiunio 7. mensis sermo 6. * Leoes wordes examined * But Eutiches against whome Leo spake imagined that Christes body had neither shape quantitie nor circumscription and so doe the Iesuites dreame of Christ in the Sacrament If Leo refel Eutiches he must also refel the Iesuits for they spoile Christ of the naturall conditions of a bodie as Eutiches did By this argument it is euident in what sense Theodoret Gelasius vse the word substaÌ„ce when they saie the substance of bread remaineth The Iesuites reiect the maior minor conclusion of the auncient fathers against Euâ—iches be they not then quarter masters in his shippe Gelas. contra Eutich If Christ consist of two substances diuine and humane the sacrament likewise coÌ„sisteth of two substaÌ„ces an heauenlie and an earthly Theod. dialog 2. If the sacrament be traÌ„ssubstantiated so must the humanitie of Christ be likeâ—wise changed Theodorets conclusion against Eutâ—ches Theod. dial 2. If Christs humane nature in heaueÌ„ keep his former substance so doth the bread which is an Image of that mystery Both their Seminaries cannot answâ—re this aâ—gumeÌ„t but by condemning Gelasâ—us and Theodoret foâ— hereâ—ikes or at least themselues De consecrat distinct 2. hoc est quod dico Therâ— must be two different substancâ—s in the Sacrament as there are in the peâ—son of Christ. Leoes words wâ—râ— intended against the Eutichians Hoc doth not signifie the selfe same bodie but the selfesame pointeâ— of â—aith or propoâ—tion of the image and the original The real presence had beene the next way to help Eutiches error The substaÌ„ce of it you affirme in wordes but you spoile â—t of all naturall shape quantitie and circumscription Christs bodie in the Sacrament is euen such a bodie as Eutiches did imagine Leo doth not saie that Christs bodie was enclosed in the host but they ought to beleeue that of Christs bodie in heauen which they saw in the elements receiued with their moutheâ— to wit the perfect continuance of their former substance We doe not interpret the fathers as pleaseth vs but we take heede that we subuert not their maine doctrine by some of their phrases which by their owne rules maie be reuoked to a good sense * If this be not lawfull in expounding the fathers I maruell what is You are angry because the fathers doe not serue your follies no better It cannot be now mistaâ—iâ—g they have so often beene tolde of thâ—ir error they still deferâ—d it as they did before Vide supra fol. 760. This is spoken of the thinges theÌ„sâ—lues ergo the Iesuitâ—s places must be ment of thâ— signes called by â—he names of Chrâ—sts bodie and blood â—r elâ—e there is a maniâ—â—st contradiction in the fathers Weâ—e we not wisely occupied to followe the Iesuits in this pointâ— Eating is in vaine without nourishing If then Christes flesh doe enter our mouthes it must nourish our bodies * We would not haue it so but if you vnderstand the fathers when they say the one why doe you peruert them in the other a Iust. Apol. 2. b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. c Idem lib. 5. d Ibidem * So Cyprian saith panis in carnem sanguineâ— mutatus 〈◊〉 vitam increâ—entum corporiâ—â—â— A man would thinke this were plaine enough for farre yonger scholers than the Iesuites would seeme to be Our resurrection doth not depend vpon the touching of Christes flesh with teeth for then the wicked should â—ise to eternal life Concil Nicen. 1. c Hom. 45. in Iohannem f Chrysost. hom 45. in Iohan. As Christ is seene touched so is he eaten and digested Both these speaches the flesh of Christ entereth our mouthes and increaseth the substance oâ— our flesh haue oâ—e and the selâ—esame construction Ambros. in 9. Lucae li. 6. § 〈◊〉 vir cui nomen Iairus h Idem in precatiâ— praeparaÌ„t ad Mâ—ssaâ—â— i Cypr. de caena Domini That eating of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t which wee teach the Church helde for a 1000. yeares theirs is not yet agreed on amongst themselues What manner of eating Christ in the Sacrament the fathers taught k Origen tract 35. in 26. Mat. l Idem in Leuit. hom 9. m Idem tract 35. in 26. Mat. n Athana in illud quicunque dixerit verbuÌ„ * Not corporally lodged in the stomacks but spiritually distributed to your soules o Cypr. de caena Domini This nourishment is proper to the spirit ergo not common to the bodie p Ambros. in oratio praeparan ad Missam 1. How hapned S. Ambrose had quite forgotten his mouth and his iawes in all this long praier before his approching to the mysteries q Aug. in psal 103. * Not the stomack nor the bellie r Idem tract 26. in Iohan. * The bodie is not regenerated the body therefore is not fed with the true flesh of Christ. s Idem in serm de corp saâ—guine Domini Ciâ—â—tur à Beda in 1. Cor ca. 10. t Aâ—st in serm de verbis Euangelij Citatur à Beda ibidem Idem in Euang Luc. serm 33. x Macar ho. 27. Euseb. Emissenus de cons. dist 2. ¶ quia corpus * Not with the hand of thy bodie * What shall the mouth haue if the inward man must swallowe the whole a Bertram de corpor sang Domini * Not accidents without a subiect b Ibidem c Ibidem d Ibidem e Ibidem The flesh of Christ then is neither pressed with teeth nor broken in peeces Ibidem g Paschas de corp sang Domini ca. 9. h Cap. 11. i Cap. 12. k Cap. 14. * Doe the Angels eat flesh