say that he brought forth Bread and Wine and not to God as an Oblation but to Abraham for his refection If he had offered vp Bread Wine as a Sacrifice to God how commeth it to passe that the Apostle comparing the Priesthood of Christ and Melchizedeck so particularly maketh no mention at all thereof For certainly the point being so materiall and the place so fit it must needs bee great ignorance or negligence to omit it To say nothing that if your owne reason be good the Sacrifice of Melchizedeck shall be inferiour to that of Aaron Bread and Wine being of lesse value and not so evidently representing the death of Christ as the slaying of Beasts doth Secondly you say that the true Flesh of Christ is contained in this Sacrament and that the ancient Fathers with one consent testifie the same which in your sense and meaning is vtterly false For neither is the Flesh of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread by Transubstantiation neither doth any of the ancient Fathers testifie it as in the sequele God willing shall more plainely appeare Thirdly where you say and many others as my Author setteth downe it seemeth that in this point you beleeue but by an Attornie pinning your Faith vnto the credit of I knowe not whom The true flesh of Christ say you is contained in the Sacrament How knowe you that By the ioint consent of Fathers And how know you they consent therein My Author tells me so And what may he be Peter or Paul or one of them vpon whom clouen tongues descended I trow no but some equivocating Priest or Iesuite A sure rock I promise you to stay your faith vpon You say lastly that the Bloud of the Testament described Exod. 24. Heb. 9. was fulfilled when Christ said This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud False For then hee did but institute the Sacrament of his death and fulfilled it the day following when really hee suffered death vpon the Crosse. And what reason haue you to thinke it was performed in a Commemoratiue sacrifice wherein your selues confesse there is no effusion of Bloud rather then in the true Sacrifice vpon the Crosse wherein the pretious bloud of the sonne of God was plentifully shed N. N. Out of all which Figures is inferred that for so much as there must bee great difference betwixt the Figure and the thing prefigured no lesse if we beleeue S. Paul then betweene the Shadow and the Body whose Shadow it is it cannot be imagined by any probability that this Sacrament exhibited by Christ in performance of the Figures should be only creatures of Bread and Wine as Sacramentaries doe imagine for then should the Figure be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured it selfe For who will not confesse but that Elias his Bread made by the Angell that gaue him strength to walke fortie daies vpon the vertue thereof was equall to our English Communion Bread and that the Manna was much better I. D. The Antecedent being as we haue shewed vntrue it is no matter what Consequence soeuer you deduce from it Neverthelesse let vs for the present suppose it to be true What inferre you therevpon The Real Presence and Transubstantiation How so I pray you Because otherwise the Figure would be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured which is absurd and contrary to the rule of S. Paul This indeed I confesse would bee absurd but how doe you shew it to be so in this particular By a double instance of Elias his bread and Manna whereof you say the one was equall the other more excellent then our English Communion Bread But still I deny the consequence the weaknesse whereof if you see not in this I hope you will in the like Argument The Cloud the Red sea and Circumcision were all as you say Figures of Baptisme and the Figure is euer inferiour to the thing Figured If therefore Baptisme be only Water and suffer no Transubstantiation at all the Figure is equall or more excellent then the thing Figured For the Water of the Cloud the Red sea was equall to the Water of Baptisme and the Foreskin in Circumcision is much better as being part of the Flesh of man What say you now Doth this Argument follow yea or no If yea then haue wee a Real Presence also in Baptisme by Transubstantiation of Water which I suppose you will not admit If no then neither doth it follow in the Eucharist for the reason is exactly the same in both Would you yet more plainely see your errour It is this your Disiunction is not sufficient either there is a Real Presence or the Iewish Figures equall our Sacraments For there are diuers other waies wherein our Sacraments excell theirs although there be no such Presence at all What waies will you say Verily not in the worth or value of the outward Elements for therein they may be exceeded nor in the thing signified for it is one the same in both even Christ Iesus Wherein then Even in these particulars First their Sacraments respected Christ yet to be exhibited in the flesh our Christ alredy exhibited Now as the Faith of things future is ever more languid and faint then of things past so is the adumbration and shadowing of them vnto Faith more obscure also Secondly although Flesh may perhaps seeme better to expresse Christs body then Bread the killing of the sacrifice his death then the breaking of Bread yet in regard of the word annexed vnto ours plainly declaring what they are to what end instituted and what proportion there is betweene the signe and the thing signified ours must needs be more evident and cleare then theirs Even as a Picture to vse S. Chysostomes similitude when it is perfected and set forth with liuely colours better representeth the person of the Prince then when no more but the first lineaments thereof are drawne or it is yet but darkly coloured Thirdly in the Eucharist are figured two things the Death of Christ our Communion with him That without this availes no more to our soules health then the sight of meat without touching it to the nourishment of our bodies That is shadowed by the breaking of Bread and powring out of Wine Not so expresly will you say as by the Leviticall sacrifices Suppose it though in regard of the Sacramentall words the cleare knowledge we haue of this mysterie it is far otherwise Yet this I meane our Communion with Christ is as exactly represented by the Eating of Bread and Drinking of Wine as nothing can be more Finally seeiâ—g the Iewes were strictly commanded to abstaine from Bloud and we on the other side are charged Sacramentally in the Wine to drinke Bloud and in the Bread to eate Flesh our Sacrament even in regard of the externall ceremonie is to bee preferred to the Iewish And thus you see wherein our Sacraments excell theirs Now where you affirme that
given him of his Father he may giue eternall life This I say properly and directly for accidentally he may be vnto some a rocke of offence and the savour of death vnto death namely to all those that shall presume to rise vp against that authority and power which his Father hath giuen him For the further vnfolding of this point foure things are here to bee observed Quid Vnde Quibus Quamdiu Quid what the gift is it is Life Vnde whence it is from the Sonne that hee may giue Quibus to whom it is giuen to as many as thou hast giuen him Quamdiu how long the gift lasteth it is eternall life And of these in order though not according to their worth and desert for who is sufficient for these things yet as it shall please God to enable and assist First Quid what is the gift It is Life Life is double Naturall and Spirituall Naturall is that which things liue by power of nature But this is not heare meant For the Father bestowes this generally on all men whereas the life here intended is to be conferred only on those whom the Father hath given vnto the sonne The Spirituall is likewise double Sinfull or Holy Sinfull is that whereby men liue vnto sinne But because they that so liue are dead vnto righteousnesse the wages thereof is nothing but death neither can this be here meant For this is to be counted rather a Death then a Life whereas the Life here-spoken of is the end wherefore so great power was giuen vnto Christ and so cannot bee but a happy and blessed life The Holy life is therfore here vnderstood a life which none can liue vntill he be dead vnto sinne and elevated by grace aboue nature even that life which in Scripture is called the new life and includeth in it both the life of grace and the life of glory Now because this Spirituall life is denominated Life from the proportion it holds with Naturall life especially that of man vnlesse we first know what this is distinct knowledge of that we cannot well haue any This we cannot know but by the direction of Naturall Philosophy For Naturall life is a terme properly belonging vnto it and the rule of Logicke teacheth that looke to what art the termes doe belong from thence are wee to fetch our demonstrations I must craue pardon therefore if I search a little into it Howbeit I resolue to be very briefe and to trouble you with no more then is necessary for clearing of what is intended Life is of some defined by motion and operation And so seemeth Aristotle to define it where he saith Vivere est intelligere sentire to liue is to vnderstand heare see touch and the like But this definition is more popular then proper For life is one thing the operations of life another and they differ as the cause and the effect Yet because it is best discerned by the operations thereof therefore haue they thought good so to describe it For those things are said to liue which any way moue themselues Moue I say for those things which moue not liue not And moue themselues by an internall principle of their owne For neither doe those things liue which are acted only by an extrinsecall and forreine principle such as was that statue or engine of which the Poet Duceris vt nervis alienis mobile signum and such as are also clocks and watches and the like devices The same Philosopher therefore elsewhere speaking more accurately of this matter defineth life by Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee to liue is to be Which is not yet Simply to be vnderstood as if whatsoeuer had being had also life but respectiuely vnto things that liue for their life is their being And so much doth the Philosopher himselfe insinuate saying more fully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life to things that liue is being But such a Being as naturally moueth it selfe Whēce it is not vnfitly defined by one to bee essentia parturiens actiones such a being as is in trauell with action This naturall life is threefold Vegetatiue Sensitiue and Intellectual The Vegetatiue is in Plants that Being whereby they grow and receaue nourishment The Sensitiue is of Beasts Fowles and Fishes that Being whereby they see heare touch tast smell and moue from place to place The Intellectuall is of Angels and Spirits that Being whereby they vnderstand and will These all of them are iointly and together in man For with plants hee hath growth and nourishment with beasts fowles and fishes sense and lation with Angels and Spirits vnderstanding and will Wherevpon it is that the Philosopher maketh the life of man a rule to all the rest And therefore is to be defined Such a Being as is able to produce all these operations but specially those that are Rationall because they are most properly Humane To come then to an issue by all that hath beene said it appeares that to the constitution of the natural life of man and generally of all natural life three things are required Esse Posse Operari being ability and operation Being that there may bee ability and ability that there may be operation For no life where no operation no operation where no ability no ability where no being And such is the naturall life of man Proportionably wherevnto as to me it seemes Spirituall life may thus be defined Such a new or spirituall being as enableth to produce spirituall or supernaturall actions In which definition all those three things necessarily required vnto life are as you see comprehended And first Being not naturall but spirituall superadded vnto nature Superadded then when we are first ingrafted and incorporated into Christ. For no sooner doe we subsist in him but forthwith old things passe away and all things are made new From thence forth become we new creatures new men renewed in the inner man and in the spirit of the minde hauing new hearts new affections new senses all new In a word then are we made Spirituall men not only conformed vnto but also transformed into the image of Christ himselfe Secondly abilitie For together with our new being we receaue also the Spirit of power whereby as while we were out of Christ wee were able to doe nothing so now being in him we are able to all things For then the holy Ghost is pleased to infuse and imprint on our soules the gratious habits of Faith Hope and Charity and the rest and all to facilitate the performance of spirituall duties Lastly Operation without which abilitie is but vaine For to what end is power if it be never brought forth into act Operate therefore it doth and bringeth forth the fruits of spirit loue ioy peace long suffering gentlenesse goodnesse faith meeknesse temperance and the rest All which S. Paul reduceth vnto three Pietie Sobrietie Righteousnesse
retaining the forme of bodily substance by invisible working proueth the Presence of Gods power to be there would you from hence conclude Transubstantiation I knowe you would not No more can you from this And indeed the word species which you translate Forme yea and outward Forme too though the word outward be not in the text doth not signifie shew without substance or Accident without subiect but in the writings of the Fathers vsually it signifieth the truth nature or kinde of a thing So Ambrose I see not speciem the truth of bloud speaking of the Lords Cup but it hath the resemblance which afterward repeating I see the resemblance saith he but I see not veritatē the truth of bloud Again the word of Christ changeth the species of the Elements What is that The Formes or Accidents of the Elements No for they you say remaine What then but the Elements or things thēselues And St Augustin Their meat was the same with ours but the same in signification not in specie that is in kinde So that when your Author saith it keepeth the species of bodily substance it is not necessary to render it by Forme that is Accident or Shew void of substance for you may as well turne it thus it still retaineth the nature or truth of its bodily substance N. N. This graue Father and Martyr doth plainely shew how Mr Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For the Popes and the Doctors of the Church did agree alwaies in matters of Faith notwithstanding the great shew M. Downe hath made to the contrary For here S. Cyprian sheweth you that this food of immortality keepeth the outward forme of the Bodily Substance but prouing that there is present a divine power which is confessed by Gelasius And therefore when Gelasius saith the nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not to be his meaning is the outward forme of the corporall Substance And with this agree many of the Fathers which are also wrested from their true meaning as appeareth manifestly by the manifold plaine places of the Fathers by me here set downe I. D. If to neglect the Premisses and to contradict the Conclusion by the right way of answering arguments then haue you taken the right course and made vp my mouth for ever replying vpon you For whereas M. Downe as you say hath made a great shew to proue that the Fathers disagree among themselues in some points you passing by all the proofes thinke it sufficient to affirme the contrary that the Popes and Doctors of the Church doe agree Wherevpon you farther inferre that M. Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For although hee haue proued by the expresse words of Gelasius that the Bread is not transubstantiated because the substance thereof stil remaineth yet is the conclusion false For Popes and Doctors Gelasius and Cyprian must needs agree But questionlesse if Cyprian for for the present wee will suppose him to bee the right Cyprian doe by Forme of bodily substance vnderstand nothing else but shew without Substance it is impossible to make him agree with Gelasius For Gelasius saith The Substance or nature of Bread and wine cease not to be and Substance cannot possibly be shew without substance So to interpret is to expound white by blacke and light by darknesse and would argue extreame either stubbornesse against the truth or brutishnesse But Cyprian by Forme vnderstandeth not as wee haue shewed Accidents miraculously subsisting without Subiect but them together with the Subiect or the verity and truth of the thing And so hee perfectly agrees with Gelasius and the rest of the Fathers and all of them against Transubstantiation For as for those manifold plaine places by you here set downe I hope by this time they appeare not so plaine vnto you but are all of them fully answered and that without wresting any one of them from his true meaning N. N. Therefore though the Fathers doe sometimes call the Sacrament a Figure or Signe Representation or Similitude of Christs Body death passion and bloud they are to bee vnderstood in the like sense as those places of St Paul are wherein Christ is called by him a Figure the substance of the Father and againe an image of God and farther yet appearing in the likenesse of man all which places as they doe not take away from Christ that he was the true substance of his Father or true God or true man indeed though out of every one of those places some heresies haue beene framed by ancient heretiks against his Divinity or Humanity so doe not the foresaid Phrases sometime vsed by the ancient Fathers calling the Sacrament a Signe Figure Representation or Similitude of Christs Body exclude the truth or Reality thereof I. D. That the Sacraments by the Fathers are called Signes Figures Representations Similitudes and the like is so cleare that you cannot deny it and I feare it greeueth you much to read it in them because it maketh so directly against you Wherefore to salue all some pretty shift or colour must be devised those tearms must bee vnderstood as St Paul meaneth when he saith Christ is the Figure of his Father the Image of God and appeared in the likenesse of man For as here they deny not either the Godhead or Man-hood of Christ so neither in the Fathers doe they exclude the Body or Blood of Christ from the Sacrament And doe they not indeed Why then when Cyprian ere while said Retaining the forme of Corporall Substance did you so hastily exclud Substance and fancy to your selfe shewes subsisting of themselues without it But let vs examine this a little farther A Symbole saith Maximus is some sensible thing assumed insteed of that which is intelligible as Bread and Wine for immateriall and divine nourishment and refection And againe These are Symbols not the truth Sacraments saith Augustine are signes of things being one thing and signifying another It were no figure saith Chrysostome if all things incident to the truth were found in it And Saint Augustine againe If Sacraments haue not a resemblance or Similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they are not Sacraments These sayings of the Fathers plainely shew that in Sacraments they never conceiued the Figure and the Truth to be one and the same thing but that the signe is one thing and the thing signified cleane another And herevpon in expresse tearms they affirme that they are two not one The Eucharist saith Irenaeus consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly And Saint Augustine The sacrifice of the Church is made of two and consisteth of two things the sacrament or sacred signe and the thing of the Sacrament And it is to be noted that they speake generally of all Sacraments so as in the Lords Supper the Figure is no more the same with the Truth then it is in Baptisme And indeed vnlesse you can make Sensible and Insensible Corporall and Spirituall Earthly and