confirme them in true religion and revoke them from your grosse superstition Thus much concerning the vncertaintie absurditie and blasphemie of your consecration Now the true Apostolicall consecration is this when the elements of bread and wine are set apart from their common vse and applied to a holie vse according to Gods word And when the lawful minister hath taught the prepared coÌ„municants the grievousnes of their sinnes What true consecration is which the Gospellers teach the â—â—â—nes of Gods wrath the sufficiencie of Christs ments fully to appease the same the nature of the Sacrament which is a commemoration of that passion the office of faith to appprehend and applie Christâ— meâ—â—s promised in the word and tendred in the due administration of the Sacraments then is there I say a right consecration of the Sacrament Now whether this consecration of yours is warranted by Christ his words let the indifferent Reader iudge and with the trueâ—h aâ—â—cionâ— opinion ioyne Transubstansiation Yet we contend with you not for names and words live for 〈…〉 Thus much concerning youâ— imagined new stamped consecration Now to your second piller which iâ— transubstansiation First I must tel you in this as in the former that the term is new lately invented coÌ„pounded by your selues as your consecration was never found in the new Testament so transubstansiation was never found in the â—â—â—â—us old No I do not remember that in al my Grammatical travels studies that ever â—ead it I can sâ—â—w you Dictionaries many Grammers â—â—â—e of divers priâ—â—â— and in diverse ages printed in severall Vniversities of Christendome but none of them makes mention of this word transubstantiure much lesse of the sence which is to chaunge substances of severall kinds one substance into another But brieflie as the word cannot be found in Gods booke nor auncient Doctor so the sence hath neither warrant from holie scriptures noâ— Catholicke writers For this is your opinion that after consecration which yet you know not what it is the substance of bread and wine should be converted into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ the accidents of bread and wine as whitnesse foundnesse breadth weight faâ—or and taste of them onely remaining You may assoone and to as good a purpose prooue a transaccidentation as a transubstantiation But as there is no change of the former so not of the latter but a meere Friers fable and therefore frivolous And whereas the Fathers vse these words change conversion mutation transelementation they alwaies expound themselues in their severall workes that it is a changing of the vse not of the substance neither can you shew anie one father that euer ment such a change of one substance into another for everie change of one thing into another carrieth not with it at all transubstantiation of one substance into another for there may be a change without conversion of substances but conversion of substances cannot bee without a change for there is as much difference betwixt change and transubstantiation as betwixt the generall the speciall for change is the generall and containes vnder 〈◊〉 transubstansiation but not contrariwise And as there is a change of substances so there is a change of accidents to wit of qualities of times of places of habits and such other like things according to their natures and to the predicaments vnder the which they are comprehended These Logicall ruâ—â—nuats I hope you haue not forgotten Our regeneration is a change not substantiall We confes a change of name of vse but onelie during the action not after to be a sacrament no more then water in the fond after that baptisme is finished by the minister but accidentall that is it is not a change of the substance of our bodies and soules into anie other substance but the change iâ— in qualitie which is from vice to vertue from sinne to righteousnesse c. and this our change now in question is sacramentall not substantiall of the vse of the creatures not of the substance But if you will needes haue a change of substances speake like schollers and tell me for my learning in what predicament I shall seeke it and yet I thinke I shall never finde it But I will not bee tedious in transubstansiation seeing the great Rabbynes of Rome can no more agree vpon this then they could about consecration as also because we haue confuted it in such places where we prooue bread to remaine after consecration for so manie fathers as prooue bread to remaine after consecration confute transubstansiation I will oneâ—iâ— giue the best minded Catholickes iuste of the rest of your late School-doctors by alleadging one Grand-captain in stead of the rest whose words be these magister Sent. lib. â— dist 11. pag. 58. Si tandem queritur qualis sic illa conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis di finire van sufficiâ— But if it be asked mee saith this your great Moderator what kinde of change is made in the Sacrament whether it be formall or substantiall or of anie other kinde I am not able to define it vnto you Will you heare your owne friend Cuthb Tâ—nustall Bishop of Dirrhâ—m deliver his opinion de mode de Eucharistia lib. 1 pag. 46. quo id fieret fortasie satius erat curiosum quemquâ— suae nelinquere coniectutae sicut liberum fuâ—t ante concilium Lateranum Of the maner of this change or conversion how it might be done perhaps it had been better to leaue every man that would be curious to his own opinion or coniecture as it was before the Councell of Laterane left at libertie Is this your antiquitie vniversalitie and consent you see it is a jarring noveltie voide of veritie Why then will you take vpon you to teach that which you never learned and perswade the Catholickes to beleeue that which the chiefest on your side maketh a doubt of nay all of your side cannot prooue nay which is in deed but a fable without trueth for one thousand two hundred yeares after Christ never heard of And therefore seeing it is neither Apostolicall not Catholicke Absurdities follow the granting of Transubstatiation no mans conscience is bounde to beleeue it Now J will onelie shewe some grosse absurdities that followe the graunting of it and so proceed to the rest This fable of transubstansiation overthroweth sundrie articles of our faith and therefore it is abhominable It teacheth a new conception of Christ to bee made of bread by a sinfull priest and every day in everie place where it pleaseth the priest contrarie to the Article of our faith which is that Christ was conceaved by the holie Ghost and borne of the blessed viâ—gin and but once for such a Christ as you tender to the poore ignorant Catholickes is not a true Christ neither can be for manie respects which are before in the beginning alleadged Secondlie if Christ be in the Sacrament he is
in them by his spirit as hath been plainelâ— handled before And now I will be bolde to vrge your owne Pope â— decrees against you Part 3. distinct 2. cap. 65. Qui discordus a Christo c whosoever dissenteth from Christ doeth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud but the wicked distent from Christ therfore they neither eat Christs flesh noâ— drâ—â— his bloud And cap. 69. following quie unque panem c. Whosoever eateth this bread the Lord shall live for ever but the wicked liue nor for ever therefore the wicked eate not this bread the Lord. Now Gentlemen I would faine see how you can disprooue these Fathers and old Popes and satisfie the Catholicks in this case but I shall haue a fâ—t place to speak of the vnreasonablenesse of this opinion in the title of the Masse where I must shewe to the Catholickes the Popes Priests and Iesuits shamefull opinions that you thinke it no inconvenience not onelie for the wicked but also for all such bruit beasts as cats or dogs rats or mice hogs or swine to eate the blessed bodie and drinke the precious bloud of Iesus Christ This you blush not to print but I protest my hand shakes and my heart quakes to write it because it is so monstâ—ous and beast â—e a blasphemie to that blessed bodie that precious bloud that suffered and was shed for my salvation Now for this second part of your Rhemish note vppon this place Chrysost Tom. 3. Hom. 60. 61. de lumâ—nâ—â—buâ— iudigne divina sancto mysteria praecipuâ— de caena Dominâ— de baptismate which is Hovv can a man bee guiltie of Christs bodie if he touch not Christs bodie I had rather Chrisostome vpon this text in one of his workes should aunswe e you then I his words be these Nam si Regâ—am contamiâ—antes purpuram similiter puniuntur sicut c. For if he that hath disteined violated or polluted the â—â—gs robes whether it bee of purple or some other â—â—ter shall be as severelie in iustice punished as if he had rent theÌ„ Even so it shall be with such as receiue â—he Lords bodie unpura mente with an vnprepared and â—â—lean mind they shall be punished with equall torments with such as nailed him to the crosse Out of which I obserue first that Chrysostome condemneth your carnall presence and corporall eating in â—â—ing you they must be eaten with the mind not with the mouth but of this we haue sufficientlie spoken of before Secondlie by comparison he sheweth you how you may bee guiltie of treason against the kings person though he neither touch nor hurt his person in offering disgrace but to his garments his person being abseâ—t And as he that contuineliously receiveth the princes seale though of waxe is guiltie of the Maiestie of the Prince not which he receiueth but which hee despiseth so he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cap of the Lord without due preparation as aforesaid considering they are seales of Christs promised benefits purchased in his bitter and blessed passion committeth high treason against Christ though in deed in substance they receiue but bread and wine And as a man may be guiltie of treason in renting defacing or â—â—pping the kings picture seale or coine though the king be not locallie in place so the wicked in the Sacraments which are Christs seales which being abused by them they are guiltie of Gods iudgements though Christ be not inclosed locallie in the bread wine And what Chrysostome speaketh heare of the Lords Supper the same hee doth of Baptisme and saith a man may be as well guiltie of the Lords bodie and bloud in contemning Baptisme which is but a seale of 〈◊〉 washing in the bloud of Christ though hee never washed but in water and alleadgeth Paul Heb. 10 1â— saying Of how much sorer punishment suppose yeâ— shal he be worthy which treadeth vnder foot the lonne of God counteth the bloud of the testameÌ„t as an vnholie thing c. These Fathers haue aunswered you and I hope will satisfie fullie the indifferent Reader Now three sorts of men are guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. The first are plaine Atheists that are without God or godlinesse in this present world and such eate this bread vnworthelie and therefore are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloud Three sorts of men guilty of the Lo â—die 2 The second sort haue a historicall faith and a generall knowledge and beleeue that whatsoever is taught in Gods booke is true but they lacke apprehension and application to make a particular and holy vse of the same and therefore if such come and eate of this bread they are guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. 3 The third sort haue a liuelie apprehending applying faith yet in their life they slippe and fall yea sometimes verie grievouslie yet they awake weep with Peter and repent for the same All these are said to eate vnworthelie but the first two sorts vnto their condemnation The third sort for their faults frailties negligences and vndue preparation are in this life of the Lord corrected least with the world they should be damned The two first sorts eateth onelie the outwardelements the last sort eateth the bodie of Christ and drinketh the bloud of Christ And now to your second proofe out of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10.16 The challice of benediction vvhich vvâ—â— blesse Catho Priestes is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ And the bread vvhich wee besse is it not the participation of his flesh GEntlemen yee wrong the Apostles text Rider first in your abuse of words Verse 21. secondlie in mistaking the sence Your words be these The challice of benediction Pauls words in Greeke that must be iudge betwixâ— vs and which wee doe follow if we will follow Christ are these The cup of thansgiving And the holie Ghost so expounds his owne meaning after calling it peculum Domini the cup of the Lord. But you are much to be blamed of all good men because you had rather follow some late corrupt translation vse some superstitious Inkhome-termes latelie devised and so forsake the olde Apostolical phrase which the holie Ghost vseth in that holie tongue and in which it is still recorded for our instructionâ— either confesse your ignorance in the Greeke or your malice against the trueth that the Catholickes bee no longer seduced by you that long trusted in you and to your doctrine Againe you say The bread vvhich vve blesse we say to Paul said and the holie Ghost pend The bread which vve breake Alasse alasse what sinne doe you commit in thus seducing Christs flocke and the Queens subiects who hitherto haue builded their saith vâ—pon your baâ—e words Is this plaine dealing with Gods heritage are you Catholicke Priestes I pray you certifie the Catholickes what tongue or translation hath it thus as you pen it The bread which vvee blesse
tormented for vs. Now examine Augustines exposition To eate corporallie reallie and substantiallie Christs flesh with our material mouths and to drinke his precious substantiall reall bloud with our bodilie lips is a horrible thing Therefore Christs words bee figuratiue So that by Augustines owne words your litterall sence and carnall presence is wicked and horrible howsoever you cloake it with fained titles to blinde the eies deceaue the hearts of simple Catholiques And if you would but read the fifth chapter of the foresaid booke you should see his Christian caveat he giues to Gods Church touching this point In principio cauendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad litteram accipiaâ— c. First of all you must beware that you take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter his reason followes for the lâ—tter that is the litterall sence killeth But the spirit that is the spirituall sence giveth life For vvhen one take the figuratiue speech for a proper speech vve make the sence carnall neither is there anie tâ—â—ng more fitlie calld the death of the soule Thus you see Aug. teacheth 〈◊〉 you would learne that if the speech be proper the sence must bee litteralâ— and carnall but if it be figuratiue it must bee misticall and spirituall and alleadgeth this your own text for the same So I would wish you either follow Augustines doctrine or else cease to vse Augustines and the rest of the fathers names for to vsurping their names and perverting their doctrine you abuse the Fathers Ber. Serm 3. in ps Qui habitat Fol 63 Col. 2. and deceiue the Catholiques Your Bernard also in later times condemnes your absurd vnchristianlike exposition of this your owne text Vnlesse you eate the flesh of Christ c. He asketh the question Quid autem est mandâ—â—are euâ—â— câ—â—nem bibere sanguinem nisi communicare passionibus eius caâ— conversationem imitari quam gessit in carne What is to eate Christs flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and to imitate his holie conversation in the flesh And then followeth Vnde hoc disignat illibâ—tum illud Altaris Sacramentum vbi Dominacum corpus accipimus vt ficut viditur â—lâ—a panâ—s foâ—ma in noâ— intrare sic noverimus peâ— eam quam in tâ—rris habuit conversation in ipsum intrare in not ad habitandum per fidem in cordibus nostris Whence also this text signifieth that pure Sacrament of the Altar where we receiue the bodie of Christ that as the foâ—me of bread is seen to enter into vs so we shâ—l know Christ entreth into vs to dwell in our hearts by faith by that holie and godlie conversation that he had being in earth Now examine Bernard your owne Abbot though livâ—ng in the palpablest time of the groâ—est superstition yet he vtterly condemnes your exposition of this place and showeth you that it doth not signifie Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament But as the Sacrament consâ—steth of an outward signe and inward grace so bread the outward signe entreth into the mouth and Christ which is the inward grace entreth into our hearts by faith So that your owne Author tells you it is bread that entreth the mouth it is Christ that entereth the heart and that by faith not by teeth by beleeving not by chamming or swallowing So that this your Bernard teacheth you that this your text must be taken for the diviner part of the Sacrament which is Christ with all his mercies to the soules and hearts of the beleevers not to or in the blasphemous mouthes and stinking stomackes of Jnfidells wicked men dogges cats or other beastes as your owne bookes most wickedly record And if your litterall exposition were true Grose absurdities follow the Priests expositions theÌ„ none could bee saved but such as eate your consecrated Christ made of bread then infants that die and communicate not should be damned Captiues that from their cradle â—â—â—e vnder Tyrant those that before Christ in Christes time and in the first thousand years after Christ before your new consecration was stamped are damned And contrariwise all that eate of your consecrated Oste be saved bee they never so blasphemous to God traiterous to their Prince and iniurious to their brethren But that both these extreames that spring from your litterall eâ—â—osâ—tion contrarie to scriptures and fathers be false horrible to christian ears no godlie man may doubt vnlesse he will denie Christ and his word the auncient Fathers and the Primitiue church and you shall never giue the Catholiques that haue hanged their precious soules vpon your bare sayings due satisfaction in this without publike and penitent recantation of this You follow neither scriptures not Fathers If with the Fathers you would but obserue duelie the circumstances of the fifth and sixth of Iohn you might see it cannot be meant of the Sacrament and therefore you are deceived in the Scriptures because the Sacrament was not then ordained Againe by the iudgement of Augustine the speech is figuratiue and therefore the sence spirituall And so Agustine stands with vs against you Olde Lyra saith that the sixth of Iohn Nihil directe pertinent c. speaketh not one word directlie pertinentlie of the Sacrament The Father saith nihil nothing directs directly yet you against Scriptures and Fathers will wrest theâ—e texts indirectlie and impertinentlie to speake of the Sacrament before it was a Sacrament If we should commit such palpable errours against Scriptures Fathers and common sence you would call vs common sots without learning or sence plaine murtherers and soule slayers from which sin the Lord deliver vs both Now I will aske your conscience this question how durst you cut off Christs words by the waste Verse 51. meant you plainly in that surely no for if you had recited the whole verse it had marred your market you onely set downe the middle of the sentence concealing the beginning of it and curtalling the end of it and so thinking that to serue your turne and blinde the eies of the simple But God willing I will discover the trueth which you seeke to cover and let the simple people see how farre and how long you haue deceived and misledde them to the great perill of their soules with wresting the scriptures and wronging the Fathers Christs whole sentence was this I am the living bread which came dovvne from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and this you cut off Then followes your proofe Iohn 6.50 The bread that I vvill giue is my flesh then you curt all the rest vvhich I vvill giue for the life of the vvorld If you had dealt plainly and delivered Christs words to Gods people without substraction as Christ delivered them vnto you then the people even the simplest of them would not haue so long beene deceaved by you For the former part of the verse and the later concealed by you expound
Readers good I wil repeat they be these If the scripture seem to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue as Except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Facinus vel flagitium videtur tubere â—â—ther can use S. â—â—â—â—d or confess your erroâ— the â—â—â—st â—â—possâ—le the second were commendable Christ seemeth to commaund a wicked act that is carnallie and grosly to eate Christs flesh c. it is therefore a figuratiue speech So that Augustine thus reasons against you To eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud corporallie is a hainous thing therefore Christs wordes be figuratiue so that if to eate Christes flesh with our mouths and teare his flesh with our teeth as also actually drinking of his bloud bee hainous and wicked why doe you so eagerly presse the litterall sence of theâ—e your two propositions against trueth against faith and the auncient Father â—ead it it coâ—taines but 6. or 7 lineâ— The marginall note there coâ—demes your litterall sence Agustine in that short 19. chap. of the same booke immediatly going before wisheth alwaies the interpretation of these and all other figuratiue speeches to be brought ad regnum charitatie to the kingdome of charitie to haue their true exposition Now if you expounde this litterallie and properlie you forsake Agustines rule charities kingdome and the Apostolicall and Catholike exposition It is but small charitie to devoure the food of a friend but to eate and devoure corporallie and gutâ—urallie the precious bodie and bloud of our Christ and Saviour Augustine would haue you catholicks but you wil bee Capernatis and Canibals it is no charitie Nay saith Augustine it is plaine impietie and a wicked and a most damnable fact And so to prooue the action lawfull the kingdome of charitie hath ever taken these and the like propositions to bee figuratiue and the sence to be spirituall Therefore if you will bee loyall subiects of charities kingdome shewe your subiection to her charitable and Catholicke exposition otherwise you will stand indited of spirituall and vncharitable rebellion Ambr. lib. 4 de Sacramentis cap. 5. Ambrose is of the same opinion with vs against you saying Fac nobit inquit oblationem ascriptam nationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sangaâ—â—is Domine nostri Iesu Christi make vnto vs saith the Priest this oblation that it may bee allowable reasonable and acceptable which is a figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ And Ambrose presentlie after saith the new Testament is confirmed by bloud in a figure of which bloud wee receiue the misticall bloud By these words the Reader may see that Ambrose and the Church in his daies tooke it not for the naturall bodie of Christ but for a figure of his bodie and therefore cease to bragge heereafter to the simple of Ambrose and Augustine set they are not of your opinion (a) â—â—noâ— Papae lib. tartius cap 12. Fol 148 there shal you see the foolish and phantasticall reasons the Pope giues for those said crosses Aug. in enarratione Psal â— pag. 7. col 1. Printed at Paris anno 1586 And in the Canon of the Masse you haue these â—â—â—ds of Ambrose in that part which begins Quam oblationem but you deale deceitfully with Gods people for you leaue out these words quod est figura corporis and there dash in fine red crosses and still teach the people it is Catholicke doctrine and the old religion but these iuglings with the Fathers must be left or else good men that follow those Fathers will doubt that Gods spirit hath left you And Augustine elsewhere saith Christ commended â—â—d delivered to his disciples the figure of his body â—â—d bloud And Origin saith not the matter of bread but the words recited over it doth profit the worthy receiver this I speake saith he of the typicall figuratiue bodie which is in deede the Sacramentall bread Vpon the 15. of mathew Augustine confuting Adimautus the Hereticke that hold that the bloud in man was the onelie soule of man aunswered it was so figuratiuely August tom 6 contra Adâ—â— cap. 12. not otherwise and to prooue it he vseth this proposition of Christ Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie saying Possum etiam interpretari illud praeceptum in signo posiâ—â—â— esse non enim dubitauit Dominus dicere hoc est corpuâ— meum cum singnum daret corporis sui I maye 〈◊〉 Augustine expound the precept of Christ figuratiuelie â—or the Lord doubted not to say this is my â—oâ—â—e when he gaâ—e the figure of his bodie Augustine saith Hoâ—â—â—st corpus meum is a phrase figuratiue you say no but it is litterall Now let the Catholicks take this Friendlie Caueat to heâ—â—â— for they haue no reason to follow you that forsake the Fathers and heâ—re may you see that our expositiâ—n is auncient Catholicke and Apostolicall yours new private and 〈◊〉 all Tertaâ—â— lib 4. contraâ— Mâ—recon pag. â—23 line 26. Tertullâ—â— an ancient Father saith Acceptum panem dâ—stributum discipâ—lis c. The bread which was taken and given to his disciples Christ made his bodie by saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie what could be more spoken of them for vs against you And Hierome calls it a representation of the truth of Christs bodie bloud Hierome super 26. math Ambrose on Cor. 11. not the body and bloud And Ambrose seconds his former sayings in these words In edâ—â—do c. in eating drinking the bread wine we doe signifie the flesh bloud which was offered for vs so that they doe but signifie the flesh and bloud they are not the flesh and bloud And Chrisostome saith Chrisâ— in hâ—â—a vpâ—n Hebr. sâ—per Cor. 11. Offermus quidâ—â— sed ad recerdaâ—â—â—nem and afterwards Hoc autem sacrificium exemplâ—â— est ellius c. We offer in deed but in rememberance of his death this sacrifice is a token or figure of that sacrifice the thing that we do is done in ten emberance of the thing that was done by Christ before c. Here is a manifest â—â—ace against you which you shall never aunswere Chris in hâ—n 11 â—â—rk â—â—â—ent Alâ—â— on paâ—â—go lib. 1. cap. 6 pag 18. line vlt. pag 19. lâ—ne 1. And elsewhere be saith in the soâ—e sanctified vessels there is not the bodie of Christ in deed bâ—â— a masterie of the bodie is contained And Clemens Alexandrinus who lived 1300. yeares agoe saith Comedite cornes meas bibite sanguinem â—eum c. Eâ—t ye my flesh and drinke my bloud meaning hereby vnder an allegorie or figure the meat drinke that is of faith and promise And the same reverend Father in his second booke and second chapter of his Pedagogs and 51. pag and line 21 22 23. hath these words Ipse quoque vine vsus
in the midst of a sentence Hoc neque regula neque consuetudo c. The sacred Councell is aduertized that in certaine places and Citties the Deaâ—ons doe reach and giue the sacraments to the Priests al this you leaue out and then followes your weake warrant Noe rule or custome doth permite c. I praie you what one word of this prooues your Carnall presence Let me knowe it for my learning and the Catholickes better Instruction if you would gather out of this word Sacrifice then you are deceued for that Councell in another place calles it Sacrificium Eucharisticum a Sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing not propitiatorie And if out of these wordes The bodie of Christ the councell expounds their meaning in that which you omitte and purposely conceale when they call that Sacrifice and the bodie of Christ by the name of Sacraments giuen by the Deacons to the priests for the Deacons deliuered them after Consecration to the priestes and still were Sacramenta Sacraments not the bodie or bloud of Christ made of bread wine by the Priest for the Sacrament and Christs bodie differ as much as the lambe the Passover circumcisioÌ„ the couenant the washing of new birth regeneratioÌ„ for the one is the outward seal the other the inward grace and here is another error of yours of the second and third kinde in referring that to the mouth which is proper to our faith and still mistaking the matter for the manner Catho Priests Concilium Ephesiuum in Epist. ad Nestorium Wee approach to the misticall benedictions and we are sanctified And this had 200. Fathers being partakers of the holie bodie and precious bloud of Christ THis your proofe is trulie quoted pag. 535. the Epistle beginneth thus Religioso Deo amabilâ— consacerdoti Nostorio Rider Cyrillus c. The Councell calleth it a misticall benediction no miraculous transubstansiation And this neither prooues your opininion nor disprooues ours for you say yee are made partakers of the holie bodie and precious bloud of Christ and so say we but you say with the late church of Rome that you are made partakers of that holie bodie and precious bloud by your mouth teeth throat and stomacke And we sey with Scriptures fathers and the old Church of Rome that we are made partakers of Christs bodie and bloud by the hand mouth and stomack of our soules which is a liuelie faith in Christ crucified as you haue heard before And thus you referre that to the visible parts of the bodie as your mouth teeth and stomacke which the scriptures and fathers meant of the invisible powers of the soule as our Euelâ—e he faith being the spirit all hand mouth and stomacke thereof And heere is your errour of the second k nde And so your two testimonies out of those two Councels are proofes neither proper nor pertinent brought onelie to dazell the eies of the simâ—le and oâ—mâ—â—e the minds of the weake But I referâ—e the the baâ—nesse of youâ— curse and the weaknesse of your proofâ—s nay your disproofes to the censure of the indifferent Reader Onelie giving the Reader this note by the way that these Councels were called by the Emperour not by the Pope nay the Pope was not president in these Councel but other Bishops chosen by the Emperour And in the Councell of Nice the Popes Legat had but the fourth roome no better account was made of him For in deed he then was no Pope but an Archbishop Thus the Reader may see that these Councels be against you And now to your testimonieâ— out of the fathers The flesh is fed by the bodie and bloud of Christ Catholick Priests Tertullian de resurrectione caruis floruit 200. that the soule might be fat in God OVt of this thus you frame an argument as sometimes an old Romane friend of yours did to maintaine your carnall presence The soule â—led by that which the bodie eateth Rider but the soule is sed by the flesh of Christ therefore the bodie eateth the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament I might as fitlie invert this argument vpon you as â—learned man of our side once inverted it saying As the soule feeds vpon Christ so doth the bodie but the soule is fed by faith therefore the bodie is fed by faith which is verie absurd and improper yet as partinent and as proper as yours And heere you should remember the olde distinction of the fathers spoken of before The Sacrament is one thing and the matter of the sacrament is another thing Outwardlie the bodie eateth the sacrament and inwardly the soule by faith feeds on the body of Christ As in Baptisme the flesh is washed by water as that old father saith in that place that the soule may be purged spirituallie so our bodies eate the outward Sacrament that the soule may be fed of God Againe it 〈◊〉 not generall is true that whatsoever the bodie eateth the soule is fed by the same And if you would propound but particularlie this instance of eating oneliâ— in the Sacrament then the argument proven nothinâ— standing vpon meere perticulers Moreouer the bodie and soule are fed by the samâ—â—ear in the sacrament but not after the same manner For the bodie is nourished by the naturall propertie of the Elements which they haue to nourish But thâ— soule by the sacramentall and supernaturall power aâ— they are signes and scales of heavenlie graces Anâ— we graunt that the soule is sed by the precious bodiâ— and bloud of Christ but not after a carnall maner aâ— you say but spiritualitie by saith Againe a mean Scholler in Gods booke may seâ— this phrase is figuratiue and therefore the sence spirituall For how can a soule be sat in God will yeâ— say it is a corporall fatnesse such as is proper to bodies I thinke yee will not I know you should not then this place is in pertine pille brought neither savoring of sence â—orâ—nâ—reable to that you alleadge it Foâ— if you would haue read the same Father in the samâ— booke following be would haue told you so for saitâ— he the word which was made flesh which is Christ Devorandus est 〈◊〉 page 47 printed 〈◊〉 paâ—â—â— 1580. â—uminandus intellellâ— f de aspereâ—â—â— This Lord Christ must be swallowed whole by heauing must be meditated vpon of remembred by vnderstanding digested by faith Now you see Tertullian of your owne Parts print aunsweres you expâ—nnâ—s himselfe And seeing no man can better expound Tertullian his meaning then Tertullian himselfe therefore haue brought him from your owne Catholicke Presse of Paris to condemne all Iesuits and Priest that sh ll set a litterall sâ—nce vppon an allegorâ—â—ll phrase onelie to deceiue the simple plaine Catholicks and to abuse the godlie learned Fathers by an ignoraâ—â— and foâ—tish construction And now to the rest of youâ— proofes that follow And in bless vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke Catholicke
and the miraculous aboundant gushing of water and bloud out of the image his side Like opinion like proofe that cured all diseases in all parts and places of the world to prooue your carnall presence of the Sacrament by your fained transubstansiation When fathers helpe not you bringe fables For aunswere to which first I say that you should fitter haue placed this proofe in the ranke of your fained miracles following or in your question of ymages hereafter But to cover the fooletie and forgerie thereof you couch it amongst the auncient Doctors and Fathers of the Church thereby hoping 〈◊〉 haue him passe with more credit But I will shew first that you haue not dealt well nor trulie with the Author of this fable not with the Catholickes of this kingdome because you haue left out such worâ—es as would wound both your credit in this case and spoile 〈◊〉 cause besides your Translation is nothing â—â—nd You leaue out in your two lines these foure words â—oc si per manus and spiritualiter you left out quaâ—â— because belike it was but an Adverb of likenesse and 〈◊〉 because omne simile is not idem you thought it â—ere better to leaue it behinde then to bring it to your hurt Secondlie you leaue out per manus for your â—â—bout saith per manus sacerdotum by the handes of the Priestes and you leaue them both out and say per sacerdotem least the people should thinke and say if onelie the Priest made it then it can neither haue flesh nor bloud and so the miracle were â—â—â—red And therfore it were better to leaue out per eâ—aâ—◠〈◊〉 to say per sacerdotem by the Priest for then might be vnderstood not onelie all the members of his bodie to intentions of his minde but also all the gesturâ—s and motions of both required to the conception of sâ—ch a woddâ—n Saviour And lastlie you leaue out spiritualiter sâ—iritualle hee saith not caâ—nallie and therefore this prâ—ofe is verie vnschollerlike alleadged when our question is of a presence carnall you produce a presence spirituall this word makes for vs but that wee sâ—orne and knowe it sinfull to bring in such forgerie for proofe in a question of divinitie For this you shoulde haue brought in thus vvhich is dailie made by the Priest spirituallie Now how this proofe fitteth you let others censure shame makes mee scilent This fable containeth seven chapters of the crucifying of the image of CHRIST done by the Iewes for envie to CHRIST who no sooner pierced the Image his side but Continue exiuiâ— sanguis aqua The word is Hydria which you may ses Iohn 2. verse 6. containes two or three measures or firkines a peece which shewes it to be a notable loudlie lewd legend forthwith gushed out both water and bloud in such aboundance that they filled manie vesseles with the same and this bloud was carried into all the parts of the world through Asia Affricke Europe and cured all manner of diseases Vpon sight of which miracle the cruell Iewes repented were baptised and presentlie there was a holie (a) Quinto Iduâ— Nouemb day made in rememberance thereof which was kept with no lesse solemnitie then the feast of Easter and the Nativitie of our Lord as the Author saith Then in the seventh and last chapter comes in your proofe which concludeth a peace amongst the Chargie touching the trueth of Christs bloud for now saith the Author there can no other flesh nor bloud of Christ be found in the vvorld then that vvhich is daylie made by the hands of the Priests spirituallie vpon the Altar But this your proofe is not trulie translated according to the Latten but because it is a loude lie I will neither reprooue you for your defectiue translation nor correct it for anie mans direction for I see no reason to bestow a true translation vpon a false miracle or forged fable Other circumstances as where this image was saide to bee kept and brought foorth (b) Like Translation like truth c. I referre the curious Reader to the foolish forged Author Bâ—t that all the Catholicks of this kingdome may see the reasons that mooue me to think it to be a fable be these all of them gathered out of Reason 1 the bodie of this fable falselie fathered vpon Athanasius So seuerall places persons falsly chaleâ—g to themselues that euery oâ—e hath a proper peece of Christs crosse Athanasius printed at Paris 1581. pag. 534 c. So our Iesuits and Priests novv vvould persvvade the Catho The first reason is the occasion for no small error sprung vp in those daies touching the bloud that issued saith of Christs side on the crosse one sort of Priests said that they had the right bloud and another sort of Priests in other citties said that they had Christs verie bloud that assured forth of his side and so the content on among the Priestâ— grew to bee verie hote as it is this day betwixt you Iesuits and Priestes about other matters wherevpon the whole Cleargie met togither 〈◊〉 Cesaria in Cappadotia for the appeasing of this dangerous broile The reverend Fathers were no sooner â—et but vpstart Don Petrus Bishop of Nicomedia said â—everend Fathers I haue a little booke heere of Athanasius which I greatlie desire to present to your fatherhoods view and consideration Sancta Synodus responâ—e place bene vt legatur optamus The holy Synode unswered wee are verie well pleased and desire it may be read Thus concerning the occasion which 〈◊〉 a solemne Synode to appease a foolish supersticion contention amongst the lying covetous Priests of that age when everie hedge-priest would perswade the simple people that he had in his viall the very bloud of Christ which was of force to pardon their sinnes The stile of this agreeth not with the booke which Reason 2 〈◊〉 knowne to bee Athanasius worke contra Idola a meane Grammarian may see it and discerne it and therefore it cannot be his worke Athanasius writ a most sharp tractate against Idolatrie Reason 3 when he was living and now they would father his fable vpon him after his death and therefore it â—â—not bee his worke for so wee should wickedlie â—arge that godlie father either with recantation of trueth contradiction in and with himselfe or open maintenance of palpable Idolatrie It was taken to be Athanasius worke onelie vpon Reason 4 he credit of the Popes Stipendarie chaplen Petrus â—ishop of Nicomedia as you may see in the title page â—34 and therefore is not his worke by open confession The time bewraies the forgerie for this thing should Reason 5 â—e done by report of your owne stories seven hundred and threescore yeares after Christ Sigebert in anno 755. vnder Constantine he fift yet coloured with Athanasius name as writâ—â— by him that was dead foure hundred yeares before this matter hapned and therefore plaine and palpable forgerie Reason 6 It was imagined
Eusebius Emissenus c. Saint Gregorie Nazianzen and saith it is impietie to doe the contrarie So that the brood being of such agreement vve haue the lesse occasion to embusie our braines to confute them GEntlemen by peeces you repeat some of their words not knowing as it seemeth the occasion and so you vtterlie mistake the sence which was this These godlie Martirs perceiving the flame of persecution to burne so fast and mount so high as it was neither bounded in measure nor mercie and onelie for a new vpstart opinion having no warrant from Gods word They in a Christian brotherlie discretion exhorted the learned bretheren onelie to preach that necessarie Article of our free iustification by faith in the personall merits of Christ And touching the Lords Supper to teach to the people the right vse of the same yet not to meddle with the manner of the presence for feare of daunger if not death but leaue it as a thing indifferent till the matter in a time of peace might be reasoned at large on both parties by the learned Provided ever that poisonfull adoration be taken away The premisses considered what can yee now gather that prooveth with you or disprooveth vs Nay heere is nothing but against you altogither For if you had dealt trulie with the dead Martirs or the living Catholickes these collections and not yours you should from hence haue gathered 1 First these Martirs taught with their breath and sealed with their bloud that your carnall presence and transubstansiated Christ was neither commandement given by God nor Article of our faith ever taught in the primitiue Church but a late invented opinion devised by man 2 Secondlie they wished the bretheren considering it was but mans invention and never recorded in gods booke that therefore they should not hazard tâ—â— lâ—â—â— of their liues which would tend so much to th◠〈◊〉 of Christs Church 3 Thirdlie they wished it to be taken for a season as a 〈…〉 yet not absolutelie but with these cautions 1 First that adoration or worshipping of the creatures were quite taken away which never was done by you and therefore they held it not absolutely indifferent 2 Secondlie till the Church of Christ had peace and test from your bloudle and butcherly slaughters wherein the matter might be decided not with faggots but scriptures which was not graunted in their daies and therefore you greatlie wrong the dead when you make them speake that thing absolutelie which was limitted by them with conditions Now I appeall to the indifferent Reader whether you deserue not a sharpe reproofe thus to dazell the eies and amaze the minds of the simple Catholickes by violent wresting the writings of the martirs perswading the ignorant that they should either dissent in this opinion amongst themselues consent with you or varie from vs. Whereas both they and we then and now consent with Scriptures Fathers and Primitiue Church in vnitie and veritie of doctrine against your dissentions pestiferous errours and open blasphemies And next you bring in another learned Protestant Chemnitius who you say alleadgeth Augustine Ambrose and Gregorie Nazianzen to approoue your adoration in your sacrament Intimating to the world that we should either allow that in you which publikely we preach against or else that we should be at a discord amongst our selues touching this your opinion But the matter being exactlie examined out of these Fathers themselues and not by your Enchiridions or hearesay the Catholickes shall see you wrong vs and abuse them And first it seemeth verie plaine you never saw or at least never read Chemnitius and my reasons bee these First you know not so much as his right name much lesse his precise opinion for you misspel his name Keâ—â—nitius for Cheâ—â—nitius which had been a small fault if you had rightlie alleadged him touching the matter For your â—ridentiue Canon commaundeth an externall or outward worship of Christ in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine And Chemnitius hee condemneth your outward worshippe for ydolatrous and teacheth onelie an inward spirituall worship And to prooue what I say I will trulie alleadge your Canon then Chemnitius his examination of it and then let the Catholickes but iudge indifferentlie whether of vs deal more trulie and syncerelie in this case â—qum pars 2. canon 6. page 434. This is your Canon Si quit dexerit in sancto Eucharistia sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultulatriae etiam externo adoranduÌ„ solemnitor circumgestandum c. Anathema sit That is if anie man shall say that in the blessed sacrament of thanksgiving that Christ the onelie begotten Sonne of God is not to bee worshipped with that outward and divine worship which is proper and due onelie to God as well when the Sacrament is carried about in procession as in the lawfull vse of the same page 435. 436. 437. let him be accursed Martyn Chemnius examining this your Canon first condemneth your fained Transubstansiation and sheweth the reason for saith he vnlesse the Church of Rome had devised this Transubstansiation you should haue been palpable ydolaters worshipping the creatures for Christ And therefore she imagined that the substance of bread and wine were quite chaunged into Christs bodie bloud no substance of them remaining lest the simplest should spie their ydolatrie Secondlie he expreslie condemneth your outward worship as ydolatrous page 444. lines 2. 3. 4 and sheweth there that Christ must be received by faith and worshipped in spirit and truth And afterwards hee saith comprehenditur antem veta interior spiritualis veneratio adoratio Christi iâ— ilâ—is verbis institutionis hoc facite c. for the true inward and spirituall worship of Christ is comprehended in the words of Christs institution Doe this in rememberance of me Now let the best minded Catholicks see your vniust dealing with both quick and dead pretending that either Chemnitius as you say allowed your outward worship in your Sacrament or that wee â—arre amongst our selues touching the same which both bee vntrue For you hold the worship to bee outward hee and we inward you carnall he and we spirituall and brieflie if you will yet read him diligentlie you shall find he vtterlie condemneth your carnall presence and your externall worship approoving the one to bee a fable the other blasphemie And thus much for your ignorance touching Martyn Chemnitius whom it seemeth you never saw but onely tooke him by the eares as Water-bearers do their Tankerds Againe you say that Chemnitius vpon the assurance of the real presence approveth the custome of the church in adoring Christ in the Sacrament by the authoritie of Saint Augustine Ambrose in Psal 98. by Euschius Emissenus Saint Gregorie Nazianzen charging as manie as doe the contrarie with impietie to everie of which thus I aunswere This Psal according to the Hebrew is the 99 Psal and vpon this place S. Augustine writ as I will a leadge him of
you no for in this you haue crackt their conscience do hazard their soules to maintaine your superstition But perchance you will perswade the Catholickes that though these Doctors grosly erred yet the Church of Rome ever held one manner of consecration but that is as vntrue as the rest For I will shew you plainlie Palse witnesses examined a sunder must needs be taken tripping founde liers for bovv should yee agree in that yee knovve not nay in that which is not that your late Popes and Church of Româ— since three hundred or three hundred and seventiâ— yeares last past knewe not what to hold â—or what tâ— affirme touching the fourme of consecration Anâ— therefore in this your new doctrine there is neither â—â—tie antiquitie vniversalitie not veritie with whicâ— termes you so long haue deceived the people a Distin 2. de Consecratione sub figura in sine The Pope Church of Rome as this Canon testifieth was of opinion that the Priest must recite verba Evangelistarum beginning at qui pridie c. in hâ—â— ergo creatur illud corpus The Priest must recite thâ— whole words of the three Evangelists beginning at the day before he suffered Out of which we may see that this Pope will hauâ— the words of the three Evangelists which containe thâ— causes and effects of the whole institution and not bâ— est enim corpus meum onelie c. Againe there is vsed a most shamefull and blasphemous word Creatur vnlesse you will haue Christ to be come a creature and the Priest to become a creator your maister the Pope was too forgetfull that this haâ—â— not been dashed into his Index expurgatorius But I must alleadge another Pope to con radict this Popes opinion De Conse distinct 2. Canon quia corpus page 432. In another age there was a Pope who with the Church of Rome held that there was an invisible Priest that consecrated and changed those visible creatures into the bodie and bloud of Christ noâ— by vertue of those knowne wordes Hoc est enim corpus meum nor by all the words of the three Evangelists aâ— the other Pope did but secreta potestate by a secreâ—â— and hidd n power which you visible Priestes knowâ— not This Pope will haue an invisible Priest to make a visible sacrifice and you Iesuits and Priests will haue a visible Priest to make the invisible bodie and bloud oâ— Christ What is more contrarie and absurd then this This Pope hath brained your hoc est enim corpus meum â—eing your ordinarie consecration and records all oâ—er Popes and you Iesuits and Priests for hereticks If this liscâ—â— of Pâ—â—â—â— â—n haâ—â—â—t â—rovvled in aâ—â—â—â— knovvne tounge the Catholicks had forsaken Pope Preiste and Rome long since 〈◊〉 holding that hoc est corpus meum doth consecrate But yet I will bâ—e so bolde to aske this Pope this â—â—estion Who is that invisible Priest where is that â—riest what is his secret power doâ—h it consist in speaâ—ng or crossing or both or in neither or in some oâ—her dumbe shewes The holie Scrip ures teach no â—ch Priest speake of no such secret power and so â—his is a fable as is the rest and no sure foundation for â—he Catholickes to sticke too therefore I wish that 〈◊〉 well minded Catholickes of this kingdome would 〈◊〉 beleeue this vncertaine vaniâ—ie but sticke to Christs written veritie I will adde one Pope more whose opinion I know 〈◊〉 will not gainsay for if you should I must come â—â—on you wiâ—h an old schoole point Contra negantem â—citia non est disputantium De sacre Aliaris mysterio lib 4. cap. 6. page 105. 66. This is Pope Innocentius â—e third of famous memorie vnder the warmth of those wings your transubstantiation in the Synode of Laterans was hatched at least one thousand and to hundred yeares after Christs ascention This Pope words three severall opinions touching consecration â—d one contrarie to another The first hold it is made 〈◊〉 Benedixit The second sort teach that after beneâ—tion when either it by the Priest made some print on the bread as it were by crossing some word spoken oâ—ter to the bread then hoc est enim coâ—pus meum conseâ—â—â—s whosoever saith nay And this sort hoâ— is that it is credibile credible that Christ first de ivered the bread and then consecrated the bread which things make your fingring and blowing vpon or over the bread more palpable because one must hold the Elements while you enchaunte them rather then consecrate them The third opinion crosseth both the other which is that Christ consecrated vertute divina by his divine vertue and afterward laid downe for posterities a forme after which they should blesse or consecrate Thus there were three severall opinions that this Pope spake of yet it seemeth he liked but one of them which was the second which he seemeth to iustifie in the chapter following Magister Sent. lib. 4. dist 8. fol 56. which are alledged out of Aâ—roses But magâ—cter Sententiarum commeth neerer the matter and asketh a question to make the matter plaine corsecratiâ— quibus fit verbis Attende quae sunt verba accipi tâ— comedite accipite bibite c. with what words it consecration made giue attention these be the words Take yee and eate yee all of this this is my bodie take yee and drinke yee this is my bloud drinke yee all of this Heere you see that this maister checks Pope Prelate for none of all these twentie and odde opinions ever put in these wordes Take yee eate yee take yee drinke yee as the words of Christ but as the words of your Canon And that these words be not necessarie parts of Christs institution but onelie shew the vse of the institution but that is neither Canonicall noâ— Catholicke And if you list at your leisure to read Cardinall Fr. Constantius Sarvanus his worke Printed at Romes 159â— pag. 144. 145. 146. intituled Summa Theologica dedicated to this Pope Clement the right now living you shall see that he repeats other severall juries that are now among your Romane Prelates â—â—uching consecration as contrarie as these and therefore as absurd as the former Now Gentlemen how can you saluâ— this sore and reconcile these jarres Doctours Schoolemen Canonists Text and Glosse Popes and great Prelates dissenting most shamefullie about consecration none of them relying vpon Christ â—lâ—ine institution and therefore be hold their desâ—rved confusion Now blame not vs for discovering your discords and for forsaking your errors but blame your Doctors Schoolmen Friers Monkes Legendaries Canonists your Popes Canons and your owne Masse-book these are come to our hands we haue read their workes and discovered some hundreds of their heresies and sent them to the view of the Catholickes But howsoever you blame vs God and the world will blame you in keeping the people from reading Gods booke and good writers which would instruct and