Iohn 8. and got him out of the citty swearing he would neuer returne and become bishop againe After the death of Iohn 8. Martin 2. absolved Formosus of his oath restoring him to his former dignity not long after Formosus was created bishop Stephan succeeded being carried with a stronge hatred towardes Formosus not knowing or not beleeuing that Pope Martin had absolued him of his oath decreed publikly in a counsel of bishops that Formosus was neuer lawfull Pope and therfore his acts to bee frustrate This dealing displeased many therfore 3. Popes in order Romanus 1. Theodorus 2. and especially Iohn 9. called an other counsel of bishops declaring that Formosus was lawful Pope and revoked the sentence of Stephan But Sergius the thirde did in all things as Stephan before him had donne Moreouer Stephan tooke vp the carcasse of Formosus out of the graue cut of 3. of his fingers cast it into the streame of Tiber an inhumane and barbarous deed yet may hee bee a saint in respect of some that follow after Plat. Fasci Sonne vnto Sergius the Pope Platinâ— in vit cius De Rom. pone l. 2. c. 29. r. 310. Polid. Vergil de invent reruÌ„ l. 5. c. 8. De Rom. pont l. 4. c. 12. fol. 535. ann 900. Ex lactant l. 5. c. 16. fine de officio viri iustâ—Ì„ Iohn 12. was a moÌ„ster of monsters for pride whoredomes adulteries symonies sacrileges blasphemies in cest murders periuries and such others Bellarmine saith Fuit iste Ioannes omnium pontificum ferè deterrimus Almost the worst of all Popes was Iohn 12. Silvester 2. as saith Polidore Vergil gat the Popedome by no good meanes in his desire to rule hee consulted with the diuel about the length of his life Hee did the devil homage saith Wernerus The age wherin hee liued was an vnlearned and vngodly age saith Bellarmine There is no way that I see to safe the honour of these bishops in this sea of Rome at this time except we will aduenture to say of these bad men in a word as Euripides did of Good Quae hic mala putantur haec suÌ„t in caelobona Who are here reckoned for naught are in heauen esteemed vertuous D. Saunders maketh a digression from his ordinary businesse in hand Saund. de visib monar l. 7 fol. 420. anno 895. vsque ad 912. Rom. 12.21 The corruptioÌ„ and bad life of the Popes is brought in as an argumeÌ„t to confirme the good estate of the church of Rome is the sicknes in the head a proofe of the bodies perfection Here hath Bellarmine lost 2. of his principall notes of his church that is The agreement and kniting of the meÌ„bers with the head And holynes of life nether of which by their own confessioÌ„ was at Rome in those times And yet hee maketh them notes marks of the catholike church and consequently of the church of Rome Bel. de notis eccles l. 4. c. 10. 13. Stil the ill Popes are his best proofe of the goodnes of the church Hereby the chaire he must meane the chaire of Wood at Rome or the people liuing there if the first it is ridiculous if the later we neuer doubted but the christian people who are the church may well stand florish without such an head as he hath described many of theÌ„ to be in excuse of the Popes advanced in these times in devoureth to proue that the church of Rome hath endured al manner of Tentations and in the end obtained victory I trow he meaneth such a victory as those haue had who haue bin overcome of evill sold themselues as slaues to iniquity First the persecution stood saith hee by the heathen Emperours then by heretike Emperours and their adhereÌ„ts and then by the Popes themselues vnderminding that sea most of all doing what in them lay to overthrowe the church for ever His words be these Tunc enim Pontifices Romani After saith he followed the Roman bishops whose glory ambition mouing them carried with a desire to crosse each other gaue manifest testimony that no kinde of temptation was omitted which did not indeauour to ruinate that sea Nether without these things had that promise bin so admirably performed in the eies of al when it was said The gates of hell shall not prevaile against the Rock set there by Christ whether by the gates of hell we vnderstand the tyranny of the prince of this world or heresies and schismes or sinnes lewd maÌ„ners except the seate of Peter had bin assaulted by all those means wheÌ„ yet it cold not be vtterly overthrown by al these But now after so many persecutions of the Emperours after so many domesticall schismes which even for the sea of Rome the Popes themselues did stirre vp and raise after so many heresies abroad by which the sea of Rome hath bin atteÌ„pted tamen cathedra successio Petrinon modo aliqua est verum etiaÌ„ stat yet the Chaire and succession of Peter is not only somewhat but also standeth florisheth hetherto raigneth wheÌ„ the other Patriarchal seates are fallen Vnde iste honor Cathedra Romana But whence commeth this honour to the Chaire of Rome What from the deserts of the Popes I beleeue it not saith he For they although for these 800. yeeres almost they haue bin very good yet at this present and often afterward they deserued very ill insomuch that if you look vnto the deedes of the men it seemeth that that church should haue bin buried in perpetual obliuion An impudentlie for hee knoweth and they all confesse Liberius was an Arrian heretike and Honorius was a Monothelite heretike if any trust bee to bee giuen to generall couÌ„sels Popes or ancieÌ„t writer For scarse is there any sinne but heresie which may bee imagined but that sea hath bin defiled with it And why it hath not fallen into heresie no reasoÌ„ can bee giuen but that Gods goodnesse preserueth it For seeing heresie which is accompanied with blindnesse of hart is neuer the first offence of any man but a punishment of greater which had gon before I doe not thinke that any more greivous sinns haue bin either in the seas of Alexandria Antioche or Constantinople then in the sea of Rome And therfore saith he seeing every man even the bishopp of Rome also is by nature a liar even so touching his owne person he shall bee so accounted by mee yet God in the meane time should bee so far forth credited to bee true that wee shoulde thinke as the matter is apparant indeed that he hath set the seate and succession of Peter on a most sure rocke How agreeth this conclusioÌ„ with those premises Sciant igitur heretici Esay 5.20.23 Every man is a liar Saund. Every maÌ„ may er in the faith Alp. a Castro adv haeres l. 1. c. 4. Fidei catholicae propugnator Genebra chr l. 4. f. 1126. The Pope may fall into heresy on which no
that sacrifice which the ancient Church of God 1400. yeares before those of Trent spake of was not so caled properly according to the rigor of the word with them the celebration of the Lordes supper is called an oblation for that it is a representatioÌ„ of Christs death sacraments haue names of the things which they signifie because the merits fruits of Christs passion are by the power of his spirit devided bestowed on the faithful receauers of these mysteries Thomas of Aquine was in his time of greater credit with them then the Master of the sentences Acutè diuus Thomas vt omnia Camâ— rat 9. argutissime Canus l. 12 to 408. Melius diuus Thomas vt omnia dixit Allen fol. 419. p. 3. q 83. art I resp dicendum ex Aug. ad sim pl. quest 3. If Thom. had thought that Christ had bin killed sacrificed to God his father as D. Allen disputeth l. 2. c 11 he needed not to haue hand led it as here he doth Camp rat 5. Duraeus eaâ—… fol. 265. Art 17 cont luel fol 206. b. 207. a. though in time later the Master is not euer allowed by them but Thomas they saie hath done all things acutly well yet hee saith as we say in this In two respects saith hee celebratio butus sacraements dicitur immolatio Christi the celebratioÌ„ of this sacrameÌ„t may be called the sacraficing of Christ First because as S. Augustine saith resemblances are wont to be called by the name of those things wherof they are resemblances therfore the celebration of this sacrament is a certaine representatiue Image of the passion of Christ which is his true sacrificing Secondly touching the effect of Christs passion quia scilicet per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus dominicae passionis because by this sacrament wee are made partakers of the fruite of the Lords passioÌ„ This of Thomas were ceaue against their reall external corporal kinde of offering the liue flesh of Christ to God the Father by the Preists handes vnder the formes of bread wine as now they teach they doe With what facilitie of language D. Harding D. Stephan Gardiner proceeded in this question I will now also shew you and the rather because Campian Durâ—us both doe highly commeÌ„d D. Harding his worke he hauing spoken something of the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse done with shedding of blood in his owne person as the scripture witnesseth commeth to shew how he is handled in their Masse saith Sacramentally or in a mysterie Christ is offered vp to his Father in the daily sacrifice of the Church vnder the forme of bread and wine truly indead not in respect of the maner of offering but in respect of his very body blood really present And after recitinge the words of the Evangelists Luc. 22 how that Christ at his last supper took bread gaue thankes brake it said take eate this is my body which is giuen for you and this is my blood which is shed for you in remission of sinnes out of which he would proue his sacrifice saith they are wordes of sacrificing offering they shew and set forth an oblation in act deed though the tearme it selfe of oblatioÌ„ or sacrifice be not expressed therfore belike seeing nether any tearmes nor words to make for it there afterwards vpon more deliberation he peeceth out the Euangelists S Paul for Christ said Doe yes this in my remembrance he readeth doe yee or make yee this in my remembrance Reioynder f. 283. 305. Tully de natur deotum l. 1. feâ—e fine Elephanto belluarum nullaprudentior at figuraÌ„ quae vastior Of beasts saith Tully none is more wiser then the Elephant in shape none more deformed M. Harding was thought for that time to haue dealt substantially against his aduersary in substance of matter none more weake Who can explaine how Christ is offered really in their Masse yet not in respect of the manner of offering what manner what respect is this Or what words of sacrificing and offering did Christ vse at his last supper without any tearme of oblatioÌ„ sacrificing Hoc non est considerare sed quasi sortiri quid loquare Tull. ibid. This is not to speake with discretion but as it were by lot hap-hazard But the truth is Christ vsed noe word tearme or act of sacrificing at his last supper we maruaile not then though M. Harding say hee expressed it not by any tearme Yet the farthest of from al truth is Hard. Ibid. fol 209. A necessary point of Christian doctrine yet without al manner of Religion that which in the prosecution of this article he deliuereth which is that Christ at the very same instant of time that he offered himselfe on the Crosse with shedding of blood we must vnderstaÌ„d for a necessary point of Christian doctrine that he offered himselfe invisibly as concerning man in the sight of his heauenly father bearing the markes of his woundes and there appeareth before the face of God with that thorne prickt naile boared speare perced other wounded rent torne body for vs. Here are 4 sacrifices made of one The same Christ sacrificed at his last supper the same Christ on the Crosse the same Christ at the same time sacrificed in heauen the same Christ sacrificed in the Masse How M. Harding can bring Christs sacrificed into heaueÌ„ without his tormentors is hard to conceaue Aâ—…as Caiphas Iudas Pilate the rest of that damned crew indeed for without those wretches Christs blood was not shed and without shedding of blood there is noe remission of sinne Where M. Harding shold euer findany such doctrine deliuered before him I cannot iudge Heb. 9. l. 12. fol. 421. a incruentam oblationem Christus in cae lis fecit In his explication assertion of the true catholike faith l. 5. fol. 144 b. Noe iteration of Christs sacrifice except he did allight vpon it in Melchior Canus who amongst other idle vaine discourses of their Masse insinuateth such a thinge speaking of an vnbloody sacrifice in heauen offered there by Christ Stephan Gardiner sometime Bishop of Winchester a sure card to the posters at Rome writing purposly of the sacrifice of the Masse beginneth wel saith it is agreed by the scriptures plainly taught that the oblation sacrifice of our sauiour Christ was is a perfect worke once consummate in perfectioÌ„ without necessity of iteratioÌ„ as it was neuer taught to be iterate but a meere blasphemy to presuppose it This is sound Catholike if he would abide by it but within two leaues after hee saith wee must beleiue the very presence of Christs body and blood on Gods board and that the Priests doe their sacrifice and bee therfore called sacrificers If the Preists doe there sacrifice Ibid. fol. 146. b verie sacrificers theÌ„ doe they either iterate Christs sacrifice or
haue an other An other they wil not say they haue then must they needs iterate Christs which indeed as he saith is blasphemous to thinke on And againe he would inferre out of Lumbard Ibid. 148. b. that the same most precious body and blood is offered daily that once suffered was once shed And yet in the next page he saith Ibid. 149. b. The Catholike doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christs most precious body blood to bee an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the Crosse Ibid. 149. b. Of the vertue of the sacrifice of the Masse and of Christs on the Crosse Gard. Ibid fol. 149. b. Christs sacrifice on the Crosse was is propitiatory but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice sheweth it also before the eâ—es of the faithfull and refresheth the effectual memory of it What should any cockle doe amongst this corne why should he presently insert that the catholike doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in Esseâ—c that was offered on the Crosse once Come to the comparison betweene the sacrifice of the Masse and that of the Crosse of the strenght vertue force of the one and of the other they knowe not what to say The offering on the crosse saith he was is propitiatorie satisfactory for our redemption remission of sinnes Note well Ibid 150. a. The masse is propitiatory also so they make 2. propitiatory sacrifices which can noe more staÌ„d together theÌ„ if they should make 2 almighties wherby to destroy the tyranny of sinne the effect whereof is giuen dispenced in the sacrament of Baptisme The daily offering meaning the Masse is propitiatory also but that it is not in that degree of propitiation for to call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstanding that signifieth not the action of the Preist but the presence of Christs most precious body blood the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory satisfactory for all the world And yet not ten lines after in the same page he saith that the act of the Preist done according to Gods commandement must needes be propitiatory prouoke Gods fauour and ought to bee trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect with God Tantae molis er at RomanaÌ„ coÌ„dere genteÌ„ Here any man may see what a businesse hard worke it is to patch these popish doctrines together what absurdities they fal into therby One while hee saith that the act of the Preist must needes bee a sacrifice propitiatory And now to haue an vnderstanding for the same hee is driuen to a very shamfull shift that he must either say cleane contrary that it is not the action of the Preist but the presence of Christ or else that the action of the Preist is noe otherwise satisfactory then al other Christian mens workes be for so he averreth that all good workes good thoughts and good me ditations may bee called sacrifices and the same bee called sacrifices propitiatory also D. Allen hauing shewed by some reasons that both the sacrifice of Christ at his last supper and that on the crosse stand well together De euch sacrif l 2. c. 10. f. 544 Quam hodie cuiuslibet sacerdotis sacruÌ„ in ecclesia and are in their natures very commodious addeth but it is saluo meliori indicio according to his own opinioÌ„ that that sacrifice which Christ himselfe offered at his last supper had not any other effect or greater strength then the Masse of euery Preist performed in the Church now hath wherby without quesion is confirmed the action of the Preist or else Gardiners staggering is in vaine And yet me thinketh Ibid. post c. 23. fol. 596. Allen himselfe stumbleth at this againe when he would haue the sacrifice of the masse to be held not an absolute and independent sacrifice but to be referred as all the Iewish sacrifices were to the only fountaine of sacrifices the death of Christ why should it not be absolute independent since you say that Christs sacrifice at his last supper had noe greater effect then that of your masse done by the Preist that of your masse being the same in essence with that of the Crosse what blasphemy is it in Allen to coÌ„pare it with those sacrifices of the Iewes râ—ferre it to the fountaine that is to it selfe Againe is it any maruaile if Gardiner shew himselfe vnconstant in these kinde of questions Mirum vero impudenter mulier si facit meretrix Ter. in And. act 4. seen 4 Gard. ib. 151. b 152. a. The pure sacrifice of the Church saith he is there offered for the effect of the increase of life in vs as it was offered on the crosse to atcheiue life vnto vs. And yet in the verie next page out of Cyrill he wold haue the sacrifice of the Church to be vinificum a sacrifice giuing life And yet he addeth which is more wouÌ„derful that that caÌ„ be only said of the very body blood of Christ so that one where he deuideth our redeÌ„ption betweene the Preists sacrifice Christs Intollerable blasphemy the one to giue life the other to increase our life that is noe lesse then flat blasphemy For al Christians doe beleiue that the sacrifice made on the crosse doth both giue vs life also increase continue the same the Priests oblation doth neither of both for our redemption eternall saluation standeth not only in giueing vs life but in continuing the same for euer as Christ said that hee came not only to giue vs life but also to make vs increase and abound therin Iohn 10. Gal. 2. And S. Paule saith the life which I now liue in flesh I liue by the faith of the sonne of God who loued me gaue himselfe for me And therfore if we haue the one by the oblation of Christ the other by the oblation of the Preist then deuide we our salvation betweene Christ the Preist shal haue our saluation redemption as much by the sacrifice made by the Preist as we haue by that of the Crosse done by Christ himselfe If any man rescue him by saying he referreth vinificuÌ„ that sacrifice gyuing life to the body blood of Christ whether on the Crosse or sacrificed in the masse then ouerthroweth he his owne distinction made before of giuing and increasing life maketh the masse an independent and absolute sacrifice which Allen wil none of Thus haue you a breife of what Gardiner hath said touching the sacrifice of the masse where you see he runneth too fro so astonied amased as if hee were at his wits end knewe not what to say For one while the Preist maketh a sacrifice propitiatory an other while he doth not now hee giueth life now hee giueth none nowe is Christ the ful sauiour satisfactioÌ„ now the Preist hath halfe
thinge was it which Christ tooke all men agree The words of the institution examined This bread is my body it was bread What blessed hee bread What brake he bread What gaue he bread then said take eate this what bread is my body We say by this it is cleare that when Christ said Take eate this is my body he spake of the bread as if he had said Take eate this bread is my body One the other side they expound it Take eate this nothinge is my body wee knowe not what Or this invisible thinge Or this thinge I haue in my hands but in noe case this bread is my body For you must vnderstand that in the triall of this one word standeth all our whole controuersie both of the reall presence Transubstantiation the sacrifice of the Masse if Christ spake of the bread when he said Take eate this is my body This reason hath his force in nature confessed by al mē both they we are agreed that the substance of bread remaineth so nothinge on their side wil fal out right the reason is one contrary thinge as bread body cannot bee spoken of or be said to be an other thinge but in and by a figure so that to say of the bread this is my body must needes intend a figure And because they woulde avoid the figure they doe violate the eternall law of Reason which intendeth that if a man say take this hee must meane somthinge which he giueth or hath in his hand The evidence of this is so cleare that I could confute thē diuers waies but according to my first institution I will opēly shew by their owne darke perplexed speeches that did they not striue to vphold a thinge once apprehended they might more easier yeild then defend their errors Iuell art 24. The Reuerend Bishop of Sarum made this one of his questions at Paules Crosse publikly enough whether the people were euer taught to beleiue that when Christ said This is my body the worde this pointed not the bread but somthinge in generall they knewe not what M. Harding who seemed to say somthinge to every of those articles denied by the Bishopp said least of all to this which argueth he had not what to answere least he should haue runn himselfe vppon on shelfe or other there is so many diuersities of opinions amongst them in this How this worde Hoc in that saying of Christ is to bee taken and what it pointeth Hard cont Iuel art 24. f. 2 28 we knowe saith M. Hardinge who haue more learnedly more certainly and more truly treated therof then Luther Zuinglius Caluin Cranmer P. Martyr We knowe or any their ofspringe We knowe saith he But what hee knewe touching this point nether he whilst he liued Gard. in his explication fol. 39. b. referreth the word this to the inuisible substāce In his detectiō of the deuills sophistry fol. 29. b. Now it demonstrateth the bread nor his freinds since he died would neuer let vs knowe vnkinde as they are Freindlier yet hath D. Gardiner dealt with vs in this same case who hath yet giuen vs words though we knowe not his meaning When Christ said this is my body there is noe necessity saith he that the demonstration this should bee refered to the outward visible matter but may be referred to the invisible substance what outward visible matter what inuisible substance is there Is Christs body that invisible substance Then the speech will bee This body is my body yet was not the same man alwaies of the same opinion though hee would be called Marcus Constantius Allen de euch sacrif l. 1. c. 34. fol. 420. Disparata sūt opposita quorum vnū multis pariter op ponitur sic homo arbor lapis ciu smo di res infinite disparantur nec eadem res potest esse homo arbor lapis Ra mus de disparatis Ib fol. 419 421 Hoc demōstrat corpus vt sit sēsus hoc corpus meum est corpus meum This is it indeed that moueth vs. Bread wine are there indeed Vagè indefinite nec per sehocaut illud exacte demōstrare donec compleatur oratio AEneid l. 4. Staplet returne of vntruths against M. Iuell art 1. fol. 16. b. For before he had thus written Christ spake plainly making a demonstration of the bread when he said this is my body If it be plaine why are they so obscure For they dare not say what it meaneth neither one thinge nor other A third of theirs a country mā of ours reprouing the Protestants for referring the word this to the bread saith it is absurd both in philosophy diuinity that two thinges different distinct in nature substance should be affirmed spoken the one of the other It is true it cannot be without a figure So Dureus Quid obsecro stultius quam disparatorum vt dialectici appellant alterum dies de altero ac si lignum esse lapidem aut murem Elephantum deceret What is more foolish I pray you saith hee then as the Logitians vse to speake that one contrary should be spoken of an other as if a mā should saya peece of wood were a stone or an mouse an Elephant These men to avoid the figure rectifying what is amisse in vs haue made that crooked which before was straight Allen saith the word this demonstrateth the body But saith hee if there be any man whome it doth trouble how the word This can demonstrate the body blood which are not there present when the worde This is spoken Or that they should not shewe the bread and wine which are there indeed let him read not the scriptures for those ouerthrowe you Guimūdus Thomas who haue largly elegantly subtilly treated of these things To amend al he saith the safest best way is to take the worde THIS in the beginning of the sentence wandringly without any certainty nether to signifie this thinge or that exactly vntill the speech be ended Stapleton is as variable as the best we need not so much remember the Poet varium mutabile semper foemina a womā is an vnconstant and changable creature as maruaile at these Doctors in their vncertaine speches Now M. Iuell saith he doe you thinke it an vntruth to say that in Tertullians time Christian folke or the olde Fathers called that bread the body of Christ so consequently our maker re deemer By Stapleton here Christ spake of the bread whē he said this is my body But what saith our sauiour himselfe in the Gospell Doth not he saie of that bread which hee tooke into his hands which hee brake blessed This is my body Doth not he in these wordes call it his body To this we agree we desire noe more let him stand to this the controuersie is ended We say as Stapletō saith that Christ did say of that bread which
he tooke in his hands which he brake blessed This is my body Staptlet ibid. art 2. fol. 41. b. Now hee will not haue it sig nify the bread But hee will not abide by this he goeth from it in the examination of the second article for there he reasoneth after this manner The scripture saith Hoc ost corpus meum this is my body which this M. Iuell Can you say this bread is my body you knowe Hoe this is the neuter gender panis bread is the masculine Was it not bread which he blessed Then what this This forsooth which Christ had blessed made saying This is my body Thus far Stapleton Doth not his secoÌ„d affirmation frustrat his first his first the second In the first he is plaine Christ spake of the bread which he brake blese sedâ—n the second he wrangleth about the genders and maketh interrogations when he knoweth wel enough what it is as hee in the Poet that said Sed quid hoc pner herclè est Ter. Andr. act 4. scen 4. 1. Reioyn fol. 304. 2. Tonstall fol. 58. 3. Bellar. de sac euch l. 2. â— 6 fol 155. 4. Dureus consur resp Whirrat 9. fol. 657. 5. Hard cont Iuel art 17. fol 210. b. 6. Bell. de missa l 1. c 10. fol. 687. Hard Reioynd pag 305. a. in noe case he wil not haue this to point to the bread M. Hardinge comming as neere the truth as 4. and 4. is to 8. dare not yet stand vnto it he telleth vs out of Ireneus that Christ tooke the creature of bread or that which by creatioÌ„ it bread gaue thankes saying this is my body Can any man in his right witts imagine that Ireueus did not thinke writing so plainly as he doth that Christ spake of the bread wheÌ„ he said this is my body And saith himselfe in the next page that for signification of mystery they brake distribute also vnto others that heauenly bread in the forme of commoÌ„ bread I hope to salue this they wil not saie that they breake the reall fleshly bodie of Christ breake bread they doe though heauenlie heauenlie bread we doe not denie but the bread of the holy communion maie be called when it is sanctified made holy by the word of God and prayer put apart for that holy vse Dureus cont whit rat 2. f. 114 Stapl. reto art 1. fol. 12. Reioyn fol. 149. b. but yet bread and such bread as of which the substance of our flesh is increased consisteth as they all teach with one ioint consent out of Ireneus also I hope they are not come to that degree of blasphemy as to say that our substantial naturall bodies are augmented doe consist of the real and naturall body of Christ Therfore he must needes meane by their own trauises out of him that Christ both spake meant the bread when he said this is my body Quam vterque est similis sui Teren. in Phor act 3. scen 2 act 1. scen 5. such bread as is in vse amongst vs. You shall see further how like they are in this one to an other Ecce autem similia omnia omwes congruuni Vuum cognoris omnes noris all feathers of one winge knowe one knowe al Tradunt mutu as operas They help one an other but bringe their causes to noe good passe Lib. 1 fol. 18. Saunders saith Christ spake of the bread GratiaruÌ„ actio Fractio panis bene dicti This conuinceth plainly he spake of the bread L. 7. fol 629. Now hee cannot tel what to make of it Nec ad visibileÌ„ corporis Christi formaÌ„ nec ad hunc paneÌ„ velut qui maneat panisnec simul ad hune panem hoc corpus nec c D. Saunders in his visible monarchy treating of the sacrament saith verie plainly Christus de pane quem Apostols nonduÌ„ acceperant dixit Christ said of the bread which the Apostles had not yet receaued This is my body then he handleth his giuing of thankes after commeth to the breaking of the consecrated bread which I hope they wil not verifie of Christs reall body And a little after the words of our Lord saith he in the Eucharist are referred to the Elements for that saying This is my body is referred to the bread This is my blood to the Cup. But after yet a great while after so that wel he might forget himselfe in the same worke treating of the same matter he hath these words Disparata sunt panis triticens Corpus Christi Bread the body of Christ are saith hee two seperate diuers thinges so that wee iustly saie that the pronoune hoc this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ nether to the bread as it should remaine bread nether to the bread to gether with the body nor to the whole action of the supper but only to the body of our Lord iam tum de substantia panto factum euen then made of the substance of bread exhibited vnder the forme of bread Thus doth Saunders here make Christ haue two seuerall bodies one visible their present the other made of bread to that body there made of substance of bread hee referreth the worde this in the sentence this is my body so hee maketh the sence thus This body made of the substance of bread is my body which is a very vaine speech to noe purpose For by that exposition Christs body should bee there before the words of coÌ„secration were pronounced so there should be noe force and vertue in consecration or rather there should be consecration before consecration so consecratioÌ„ without consecration And a little after he saith At nunc pronomeÌ„ hoc But now the pronowne hoc this which she weth the whol substance rei proposita of the thing that is proposed or shewed What thinge you are afraid to call it any thing doth demonstrate noe other thinge then the body of Christ not remembring what hee said in the first booke as I even now recited that Christ spake of the bread which the A postles had not yet receaued when he said This is my body If he spake of the bread he spake not of his bodie if he spake of his body hee spake not of the bread and yet Saunders avoucheth both Saunders ibid l. 7. fol. 633. Marke this that he cofesseth the blessing came before the break ing In an other place going about to proue that the word this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ saith thus Cum Christus post acceptum panem benedictionem interpositam Seeing Christ after the taking of the bread and the blessing comming betweene did breake and giue to his disciples saying take eate this is my body it is cleare by the order course of the sentence that hee called that thinge his body which he gaue which
vs Notwithstanding this saith he it must not be dissembled that there are some diuines amongst whom is Bonauenture Caietane Dominicus Soto who affirme that Christ did not blesse by the wordes of Consecration therfore to blesse the bread and to consecrate the bread was two diuers things in the action of Christ so the chāge was not made by the blessing but after by the sacramentall wordes Which opinion saith he although it may probably be defended may seeme to be agreeable to the vse of the Church which nowe blesseth the bread by the signe of the Crosse before it vse the word of Consecration and may lesse trouble the order of the Evangelists who after the mention of blessing doe put the breaking distributing then in the fourth place the word of the sacrament it bringeth also some reuerence to the sacrament for if bread should bee broken by Christ after it were consecrate some small mites of the cōsecrated host might by likely hood haue fallen away These reasons saith he although they be waighty yet the safer opinion more agreeable to antiquitie and in euerie Church almost allowed which the Tridentine counsel doth in their catechisme follow is that whē Christ blessed he consecrated the things set before him That we ought so vnderstād that Christ blessed by saying This is my body 1. Hee tooke bread 2. Blessed it said 4. This is my body 3. He brake gaue Cicer. offic l. 2. although the Euāgelists by an inverted order of the speech or seting that after which should goe before doe put the distributing the breaking betweene the blessing and the forme of the sacrament which as it is very likly was done after the consecration or else euen as Christ did speake the words Facta omnia celeriter tanquam floscule decidunt This trecherie and deceipt cannot any lōger be hid it is apparent to all mē Neither is it any maruel that they who make of the Gospell as a thing made to bee handled as they thinke good should lose themselues in the labarinth of their owne druises as if reason had euen purposly forsaken them who of purpose forsake God the author therof For haue they these 1605. yeares been mounted on the stage of arrogancie out brauing a better cause then their owne and crying the Gospell the Gospell you Protestants heretiks both denie depraue it now doth D. Allen tell vs freely and vnconstrianedly that the Gospell will not serue their turnes as the Euangelists haue deliuered the order of the Lords supper What shall now become of Campians bragge Agedum pagella scripta superiores sumus ac sententia scripticontenditur Camp 2. ratio Goe to saith he we haue the better of it by the written word now we must debate the meaning No saith Allen the Gospel is not for vs And I say nether the writing nor the meaning of the writing is any for you And therfore Christo proprior ab hac lite remotior that age or antiquity which is nearest to Christ is farthest of from thē in this controuersy And for that one hand washeth an other they both wash the face often one foote strengthneth an other and they both stay the body so the testimonie of Cardinall Caietane in this case shall stay D Allen that hee be not vtterly ruinated because of his large graunt which they both haue yeelded in confirming the truth Caiet commēt super Tho p. 3 q. 75. art 1. Caietane in his Commentary on Thomas Aquinas vpō this question whether in the sacrament there be the body of Christace cording to the truth of it saith that touching that present demaund the rest following for the more manifest cleare vnd erstanding of the difficulties in them it is to be considered that touching the being of the body of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist there is nothinge writtē in the holy scripture but the words of our sauiour This is my body and those words must be true And because saith he the words of the scripture are expounded two waies ether properly or figuratiuely Vel propriè vel metaphoricè the first error about those wordes is of them that did interpret them figuratiuely which both the M. of the sentences Thomas doe proue in this article Ft consistit vis reprobationis in hoc the strēgth of the reproofe resteth in this that the words of the Gospell are vnderstood of the Church properly I say of the Church beecause there is not any constraint in the Golpell to cause vs to take them properly ex subiunctis siquidem verbis There is nothinge in the Gospell to cōstraine vs to take these wordes properly without a figure De lapsis ser 5. Cont. haeres l. 3. c. 11. fol. 237 Parisijs anno 1545. Allen vt ante l. 1. c. 16 Reciteth 4. seuerall opiniōs amōgst them touching the words of consecreation The iudgment of that Pope is refused who determined transubstantiation for thē for truly by the words following which shal be giuen for you in remission of sinnes it cannot bee concluded euidently that the former wordes This is my body are to be vnderstood properly So here be two cardinals Allen Catetaine who say that not the Gospel but the Church maketh for them Is there a Church where the Gospel is not Non iungitur Ecclesia qui ab Evangelio separatur he is not ioyned to the Church saith S. Cypriam who is separated from the Gospell S. Ireneus saith Columna firmametum ecclesie est Evāgelium spiritus vitae The Pillar and stability of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life But the truth is there is on their side in this question neither the Church nor the gospel nor any antiquitie at all To proceede with D. Allen in the other Chapter specified before by me wherein he laboureth to proue that the words of Christ This is my body are the words of Consecration he is further willing to let vs knowe what differences there hath bin amongst their schoole diuines who euer haue bin the vpholders of popery about the words of Consecratiō which they should be The first opinion is of Innocentius the third who called the great councel of Lateran and decreed Transubstantiatiō who said that Christ did consecrate by his divine power when he blessed and vsed therein the power of his might doing that without forme of words which we cannot do without a prescript order so that after he had consecrated he deliuered to vs these words This is my body by which words the Church should euer after consecrate This opinion of the Pope is reproved by Thomas Aquinas as beeing directly against the words of the scripture and by Allen as being vntrue The second opinion is of some who thought that Christ when hee blessed did consecrate 2. but with other words thā those where with he taught vs to consecrate But
of bread as also the natural property of nourishing feeding the body which is proper to bread Is it called bread because it hath the shew of bread by what figure Hath it the naturall properties of bread yet is it not bread say againe say truly it is called bread therfore it is bread It hath the naturall properties of bread feeding nourishing as also the accidents sauor waight tast colour and al and therfore it hath the name is indeed very bread They are so farre remoued from the center of trueth in these points that rather then they wil leaue their wils shut vp the streame of their owne affections they will leaue all hope of a sound beleefe What eateth the mouse if she or he I know not whether chance to catch of the cōsecrated host Lumb l. 4. dis◠13. a fine Aske the schoolman it becommeth their grauities to treate such questions It cannot bee said saith Lumbard that the body of Christ is eaten of bruite beastes although it seemeth so to bee when the mouse eateth then what eateth hee Deus nouit God knoweth that and hee that saith otherwise God knoweth that is adiudged an hereticke How then escapeth the Angelicall Doctor Quidam autem dixerunt 3. p. 80. q. art 3 ad 3. Some haue saide faith hee that as astone as the sacrament is touched by a Mouse or a Dogge the body of Christ ceaseth to be there But this derogateth from the truth of this sacrament neither must we say that a bruit beast doth eat the body of Christ sacramentally but it must bee saide that the Mouse eateth by chance Ibid. fol. 24. 2. as a man that shoulde eate the consecrated host vnknowne vnto him Now Gardiner saith contrary that no creature can eate the body and bloud of Christ but only man I let passe the rest of Aquinas prodigious base discourses touching some other cautels belonging to this sacramēt Ib. q. 83. art 6 ad 3. as if a spider should fall into the consecrated wine or poison should therewith be mingled which although with warrant good enough I might lay thē before you Tuberius because I am by al honest direct courses to warne you to beware you drinke not at that fountaine The maine scope of this treatise discourse whose fairest Streames are so filthy and loth some yet I will omit him now returne to some hand somer discourse and shew you that as they are found to faulter touching the particular drift of every word in the institution of the Lordes supper as the blessing breaking This is my body so if those were granted vnto them to bee as they would lay thē downe themselues that we should agree and say with them that the reall and substantiall body of Christ is present in the Eucharist yet can they not tel you neither the manner of the presence Art 5. cont Iuell fol. 127. b. Christ gaue his diciples the same body which suffered on the crosse the same body is there corporally carnally and naturally but not after a corporal carnall or natural wise but in visibly spiritually diuinly by way to him onlie knowen The maner of his presence is not locall or natural but such as God only knoweth Art 6. fol. 136. Corporally yet spiritually Carnally yet diuinely Naturally and yet supernaturally and by al these waies yet by none of these God only knoweth the way nor according to what body that presence is as whether according to that wherein hee lived heere in earth or whether as it is now qualisfied and glorious in heaven Whether with parts or without parts neither are they agreed how hee is eaten D. Harding saith it is cleare by many places of holy scripture that Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples his very body even the same which the day following suffered death on the crosse which haue ministred iust cause to the godly learned fathers of the Church to say that Christs body is present in the sacrament really substantially corporally carnally and naturally by vse of which adverbes they haue ment only a truth of being so that we may say that in the sacrament his very body is present really that is to say indeed substantially that is in substance and corporally carnally naturally by which words is meant that his very body his very flesh and his very humane nature is there not after corporall carnall or naturall wise But invisibly vnspeakeably miraculously supernaturally spiritually divinely and by waie to him onlie knowne Againe Concerning the māner of the presence saith he being of that bodie bloud in the sacrament they that is the fathers we acknowledge and confesse that it is not locall circumscriptine definitiue or subiectiue or naturall but such as is knowen to God only In the next article The body of Christ saith he is made present in the blessed sacrament of the Altar vnder the forme of bread wine not after a grosse carnal maner but spiritually supernaturally yet substantially not by locall but by substantiall presence not by maner of quātitie or filling of a place or by chāging of place or by leaving his sitting on the right hand of God but in such a manner as God only knoweth and yet doth vs to vnderstand by faith the truth of his very presence far passing all mens capacities to comprehend the manner how Historia maxima nascitur do nihilo If M. Hardinge knowe not how it was in him an idle diligence to bee so copious in striuing to expresle the manner how Hath not he told vs He hath expressed our beleefe his owne two which is more then the manner how Corporally Carnally naturally saith he spiritually dininely say wee And yet he saith all confounding substantially spiritually God doth vs to vnderstand saith he by faith the truth of the presence What need faith sale I It is taken into the hād from the hād conferred to the mouth there they fasten their teeth Bellar. de sac euch l. 1. c. 2. f. 28. 29. and from thence to the stomacke The senses of sight feeling haue their offices here faith hath none nether is it hard to comprehend all this and more two Here is also one the same Christ with proportion of body members distinct each from other also without distinction of mēbers parts which ouerthroweth the truth of a naturall body and yet so they make him at one and the lame time at the table and vnder the shew of bread not by local but by substantiall presence not by maner of quantity or filling of a place and yet the same mā did saie before Art 5. fol. 130. b. Put laid Fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mēsa agnum illū dei sunt verba magni Niceni Synodi ex Cut Tonstall lib. 1. de euchar fol. 40. Bellarm. de sacra
euch l. 2. c. 10. f. 183. Step. Gard. f. 21. b. that the reall body of Christ is on that holie table put and laid the better to signifie the reall presence Put and laid as all men knowe according to the natural signification require scituation of place and bodily description How doth hee not fill a place when he is put laid there Stephan Gardiner is as far at odds with his owne reason in this matter as D. Harding WheÌ„ we acknowledge by faith saith hee Christs body present although we saie it is present truly really substantially yet we saie our senses be not priuie to that presence ne the maner of it but by instruction of faith and therfore we say Christs body is not locally present nor by maner of quantitie but in visibly and in no sensible maner but marueilously in a sacrament mysterie truly and in such a spirituall maner as wee cannot define determine and yet by faith we knowe his body present the parts of which be in themselues distinct one from an other in their owne substance but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of vs. What Mr. did Gardiner follow in this Christs body is not locally present and yet hath distinction of parts Christs bodie hath distinction of parts and yet not by circumscription of severall places to be comprehended of vs. Thomas of Aquine denieth this The determinate distance of parts in a natural bodie P. 3. q. 76. art 3. ad 2. Distance of parts is in the true body of Christ but not in that bodie which is in the sacrament is in respect of the dimensiue quaÌ„titie such a distaÌ„ce of parts saith he is in the true body of Christ but according to that distance of parts he is not in this sacrament but he is there according to the manner of his substance Here besides the disagreemeÌ„t of Thomas from Gardiner Thomas hath framed such a Christ as indeed is no Christ hee hath nether quantitie nor proportion of body nor distance of parts yet he confesseth that his true body in heauen hath so and if his bodie in the sacrament haue not so then ether he ouerthroweth the truth of Christ body or else it will Ineuitably follow without any qualifications ifs or ands that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament Gardiner saith The body of Christ is there in no sensible maner as before AlleÌ„ saith Corpus Christs est sensibiliter in sacramentâ— The body of Christ is sensibly in the sacrament Allen vt ante fol. 435. Againe within three pages doth Gardiner contradict himselfe twise verie directly In the first he saith Christ in the sacrament giueth truly his flesh to bee eaten Fol. 87. b. the same which he tooke of the Virgin Next wee receane not in the sacrament Christs flesh that was crucified being so a visible mortall flesh but Christs flesh glorious incorruptible impassible a godly spirituall flesh And yet so constant is he in the very next page Fol. 89. a. he striueth to proue out of S. Ierome others that they doe not meane that we eate the flesh of Christ as be sitteth in heauen raigning Some Ioseph or Daniel must expound these dreames First wee receaue not the flesh that was crucified Lastly we receaue him not as hee sitteth in heauen raigning and is glorified So by this reckning nether first nor last doe we receaue him at al. De Euch. sac l. 1. c. 2 fol. 24. How can Bellarmine saie and saie trulie That the body of Christ hath his naturall maner of being in heauen but in the sacrament it hath not his naturall but sacramentall which we also say and yet that sacramentall maner to be expressed by the word substantially And againe to saie That whersoeuer the bodie of Christ is Ibid. l. 3. c. 7. f. 317. 320. there hee hath his forme humane shape scituation of parts order which he hath in heauen and that he is in the sacrament aswel as in heauen yet in the one to fill a place and haue distinction of parts And in the other to fil no place and yet haue his dimensions distinction of parts which is verie hard Ibid. l. 1. c. 2. fo 26. 27. A gaine he teacheth that the bodie of Christ in the Eucharist is veruÌ„ veale naturale animatum quantum coloratum c. A true bodie reall natural hauing life bigge or greate coloured yet we maie not saie that it is sensible visible to be touched stretched out although it be so in heauen Bellarmine in this controversie is like Turnus in the skirmish with Eneas petit aequor a Tornus he traverseth the field Virg. in AEnei l. 12. as though he would do much but incertos implicat orbes but his turnings and rounds fore-shewed his ill successe nam perfidus â—…sis frangitur in modiâ—que ardentem desâ—ritictu His treacherous sword brake and left him burning in rage in the heate of the conflict so doth Bellarmines owne wordes confute his cause Hath the body of Christ wheresoeuer it be his forme humane shape and scituation of parts and yet may we not saie it is extensum extended into place and yet may we say that he wanteth not his dimensions nor is without shape countenance in the Eucharist Nos non dicimus Christi corpus in Eucharistia dimeÌ„sionibus aut facie carere In sermone de sancto Martino twise cited by Bellar. l. 1. c. 2. fol. 27. l. 2. c. 11. f. 186. What should hold in the extensioÌ„ Allen alloweth the word sensibiliter sensibly Bellarmine refuseth it and so doth he corporally which Harding and some of the rest vseth Bellarmine holdeth the word spiritualliter spiritually as a man holdeth a wolfe by the eares where there is danger in holding him and danger in letting of him go Hee confesseth that S. Bernard vseth it and opposeth it to carnaliter carnally speaking of the sacrament tamen non videtur hac vox multum frequentaÌ„da yet that word saith he seemeth not much to be vsed because there is danger in it Thus must Bellarmines conceipt be the modell whereto our faith must be framed He saith further That the counsel of Trent expressed the maner of Christs presence in the sacrament by the word Realiter really Really substantially vsed by the Trent Counte opposed against the tearmes vsed by the Calvinists opposing it against the counterfeit terme of Calvin who will haue him so present that he be apprehended by faith and so S. Bernard saith also in the same place Bellarmine quoteth vnto vs And that they vse the word substantialiter substaÌ„tially against the Calvenists also who teach that the body of Christ according to the substance is only in heauen but I know not saith hee what vertue and power they deriue from thence to vs. Will they stande to this Strange it were they should sup vp their owne