deserueth with no other then equal disdaine and contempt For it hath abundantly beene manifested to the world that as in the goodnesse of our cause wee are every way superiour vnto you so in all kinde of learning both Humane and Divine wee are no way inferiour to the best of you Howbeit seeing I am put in good hope by some of your best friends that you carry a minde prepared to imbrace the truth if at any time it shall bee discouered vnto you and your selfe haue freely professed vnto mee that your meaning is not any way to contest with me but only to be instructed by me I am content laying aside all advantages whatsoever to enter the lists with you by framing vp a short yet full answere to endeauour your best satisfaction God grant that as it is intended so it may redound first to his glory and then to the reducing of your straying soule from the servitude of Babylon into the liberty of Ierusalem which is from aboue and the right Mother of all true Beleeuers N. N. Catholike grounds for the Article of the Real Presence I. D. This title prefixed vnto your Writing intimateth that you craue resolution in the article as you terme it of the Real Presence and the Grounds thereof For the better performance whereof and to cleare the way of all rubs before vs you may be pleased to know that we denie not either the Presence or the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Not the Presence For seeing therein his Body is delivered receaued eaten as the Scriptures testifie and that can no way be deliuered receaued eaten which is every way absent we cannot but beleeue with the heart confesse with the mouth that Christ is present Nor the Reall presence For seeing Eating betokeneth our Vnion and Incorporation with Christ whereby we are so closely joyned and joynted vnto him that wee are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones certainely vnlesse wee will question either the power of Faith or whether God be able to worke such an effect we cannot well doubt but that the Presence is True and Real not Imaginarie and Fained According herevnto S. Chrysostome Christ offereth himselfe vnto vs in these Mysteries not onely to bee seene but also to be touched and felt And S. Augustin We cannot with our hand feele Christ sitting in heauen but by Faith we may touch him Agreeing therefore in the Thing that there is a Real Presence wherein lies the difference betwixt vs It lies partly in the Manner of Presence and partly in the kinde of Change whereby the Presence is wrought As touching the Manner of Presence wee acknowledge it to bee double the one Sacramentall the other Spirituall The sacramentall is a Relatiue Presence of the thing signified vnto the signes partly for that they are significatiue represent Christ vnto vs even as the word spoken vnto the eare represents the thing signified thereby vnto the minde and partly because they are Exhibitiue God in them offering vs his Sonne vpon condition of Faith And in regard hereof it may also well be called a Pactionall presence The spirituall is a presence of Christ vnto the Faith of the Receauer or which is all one vnto the Receauer by Faith whereby we seeke him not here on earth in with or vnder the Accidents of bread but aloft in heauen where hee sitteth at the right hand of his father For where the carcase is thither saith Christ will the Eagles resort Whence S. Chrysostome He must climbe vp on high whosoeuer commeth to this Body And S. Augustine How shall I convay my hand into heauen that I may hold him sitting there Send thy faith thither and thou holdest him Now if any farther demand how this sacramentall and spirituall presence is wrought I answere it is done by a Change in the Elements of Bread and Wine By a change I say yet not of their Nature and Substance but of their Vse and Vertue For they are now no longer common but consecrated Bread and Wine ordained by Christ to bee effectuall symbols and Pledges of our Vnion and Communion with his Flesh and Bloud So saith Theodoret The visible symbols hath hee honoured with the name of his Body and Bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature And so the rest of the Fathers But all this little contents you except withall we yeeld you a Corporall and Locall Presence of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread and Wine and that by way of Transubstantiation Transubstantiation a terme as lately devised so also inconvenient Lately deuised for it is but foure hundred yeares old or thereabouts bâ—ing forged in the Lateran councell vnder Innocent the third Inconvenient for properly it imports a Productiue kinde of Conversion by which one Substance is produced out of another or whereby one Substance is turned into another such as was the turning of Water into Wine by the power of Christ at Cana in Galilee But you vnderstand thereby an Adductiue kinde of Conversion by which as Bellarmine defineth it the Body of Christ which before was only in heaven is now also vnder the Accidents of Bread So that more fitly it might haue beene tearmed Cession or Succession or Substitution or Translocation or some such like rather then Transubstantiation the meaning you giue vnto it being no other then a succeeding of Christs Body into the roome of Bread vpon the abolishing of the Substance thereof Yet is it not so much the Newnesse and Inconvenience of the terme as the Impietie of the Doctrine intended thereby which we condemne For it crosseth the truth of Scripture ouerturneth the Articles of Faith destroyeth the Nature of a Sacrament gainesayeth the perpetuall consent of antiquity and implieth in it innumerable contradictions all which God willing shall in due place be demonstrated In the meane season hauing thus briefly stated the Question I come now to examine the particulars of your Writing and whether the passages you quote in such abundance reach home to that Corporall and Locall Presence which you hold or passe no farther then that Sacramentall and Spirituall Presence which we maintaine N. N. The first ground that Catholike men haue for these and all their mysteries of Christian Faith that are aboue the reach of common sense and reason is the Authority of the Catholike Church by which they were taught the same as Points of Faith revealed from God I. D. If by the first Ground you vnderstand the first introduction vnto Faith I grant the Authority of the Catholike Church to be the first ground that by it wee are taught the same But if thereby you meane as vndoubtedly you doe that highest Principle into which all the Mysteries of Faith are finally resolued and by which the Mind is staied and freed from farther doubting I deny the Catholike Church so to be the first ground For as Bellarmine truly writeth Faith beginneth from
much strengthens and confirmes you I. D. By Catholike you still meane Roman for Catholike Roman are now growne convertible tearmes a mystery that the Primitiue Church never so much as dreamed of But what No outward face in England for so many hundred yeares together but Roman What face then I pray was it which it bare some 650 yeares since when the Saxon Homilie of Aâ—lfrick Abbot of Malmsbury not only agreeing with Bertram in this matter of the Sacrament but also for sundry passages expresly translated out of him was publikely appointed to be read vnto the people vpon Easter day before they receaued the Communion Or when the Bishops at their Synods deliuered vnto their Clergie the same doctrine out of two other writings of the same Aelfrick the one whereof saith thus That housel is Christs body not bodily but spiritually Not the body which hee suffered in but the body of which hee spake when he blessed the bread wine to housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed bread this is my body and againe by the holy wine this is my blood c. The other likewise saith thus The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering and saith that the bread was his owne body and the wine was truely his bloud halloweth dayly by the hand of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in spirituall mystery as we read in bookes And yet notwithstanding that liuely bread is not bodily so nor the selfe-same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy wine is the Saviours bloud which was shed for vs in bodily thing but in spirituall vnderstanding Both bee truely that bread his body and that wine also his blood as was the heavenly bread which we call Manna that fed forty yeares Gods people and the cleare water which did then run from the stone in the wildernesse was truly his blood as Paul wrot in one of his Epistles Thus he Tell mee now good Sir was the face of the English Church Roman when such doctrine so crosse vnto Transubstantiation was by publike authority deliuered to the Clergie and commanded to be read vnto the people or was it at that time other then a Roman face truely Catholike and Orthodoxe You haue heard I suppose of those Christians whom anciently they tearmed Wâ—ldenses and Leonists Your Ranerius saith of them that they had beene of very long continuance even from Pope Sylvesters time or as some say ever since the Apostles so Vniversall also that there was scarce any country wherein they abounded not finally that where other Sects most fearefully blaspheamed God these made faire shew of religion liued honestly among men beleeued all things rightly touching God and all the Articles contained in the Creed onely they blaspheamed hated the Church of Rome What Was the face of this Church also Roman How so being so opposite vnto it Certainely it was rather the face of our Church For as your Poplinerius testifieth they differed very little from vs and in this point of the Sacrament they perfectly agreed with vs. It is true they were charged with many foule opinions but enviously and maliciously as appeareth by the publike Confessions of their Faith and by the testimonie of Cardinal Sadolet others who by commission were commanded to examin it It is true also that they were most barbarously and bloudily persecuted by the Roman Synagogue But what saith Michael Cesaenas who flourished some 250. yeares since There are two Churches the one of the wicked flourishing in which the Pope doth raigne the other of the godly afflicted Whence it plainely appeareth that there hath heretofore beene another face of the Church besides Roman if not visibly glorious yet at leastwise visibly persecuted You adde it is vncharitable to thinke that all this time there was no knowledge of the meaning of Scriptures and Fathers vntil Luther brought in the true light True neither is there any man that saith so Neverthelesse bee it spoken to the glory of God and the honour of the present times the meaning both of Scriptures and Fathers was never better knowne shall I say never so well knowne as now This I haue elsewhere proued both by the causes thereof and the testimonie of your owne men As for your nine hundred yeares questionles they were not the learned'st times The knowledge of languages quickly decayed and blindnesse and barbarisme crept in apace insomuch as by the testimonie of Genebrard Bellarmine Baronius there was never age more Vnlearned and vnhappy then the ninth Century wherein were no men famous either for wit or learning and whosoever studied the Mathematicks or Philosophie was presently counted a Magician Neither were some of the after times over much amended when the chiefest of their Schooles scarce knewe whether Saint Paul wrote in Greeke or in Latine as Ludovicus Vives saith and to haue skill in Greek was suspicious but in Hebrew almost heretical as Espencaeus But blessed be God who in the midst of these blindest times hath still preserued the light of his truth and though envy burst and split at it blessed be his holy name for that greater light of his Gospel which we haue receaued both by Luther and since Luther Hee was a noble champion of Christ Iesus and gat so much ground of the Papacie as I hope will never be recouered againe vntill by the brightnesse of our Lords comming it be vtterly destroyed If England in these latter times haue yeelded such learned men of your side you may be pleased to knowe that it hath afforded on our side also as learned Clarks in the knowledge of tongues all kind of literature whatsoever as any in your Church wheresoeuer if not excelling them Yea but yours were content to forgoe all their meanes and hopes for their conscience And did not ours trow you doe so also in Q. Maries daies Nay did not Archbishop Cranmer and sundry other Bishops to speake nothing of those of inferiour ranke chuse rather to loose their present honours and estates and themselues cruelly to be martyred in the fire then to perish their coÌ„sciences by subscribing vnto the Romish Apostacy As for your vnkle whose domestical example so much confirmes you I thinke hee was a man of no great note sure I am of no great fame either at home or abroad Yet were his deserts far greater I am not vnprovided of a domesticall example able every way to match him yea and over-match him too My mothers Brother I mean that vnvaluable Iewel whose name is renowned throughout all the Churches Who being Fellow of Corpus Christi Colledge in Oxford and Bachelour in Divinitie possessed also of a Benefice neere the Vniversitie and by reason of his eminence in learning as likely to rise as any yet hee readily forsooke Fellowship Friends Benefice Hopes and all for Christs sake and put himselfe into a voluntary exile all the raigne of Q. Mary
els would not Calvin haue cavilled at those words Vnlesse a man be borne againe of Water c. Is not the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament necessary Yet how many expositions of this is my Body So is that of Iustification yet twenty expositions of Scripture about the formall cause thereof So also is the doctrine of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity and humanity yet Ebionits Arians Nestorians Eutychians Valentiâ—ians Monothelites and Apollinarists holding heresies against them proue them all to their thinking out of Scripture Ergò Scripture is not so easy as I make it For where all things are plaine there men commonly agree I. D. The truth is being demanded the rule of Faith I named the Scripture and being farther demanded a rule whereby to know the sense of Scripture I answered two things First that all things necessary to salvation are so expresly and plainly set downe that there needs no farther rule secondly that those places which are more obscure are to be expounded by those that are more plaine and that sense which disagreeth is to bee reiected that which agreeth may safely be admitted Safely I say for although haply it may not be the right yet dangerous it cannot be as long as it accords with the Analogy of Faith This I declared somewhat at large in the writing sent to Mr Bayly which I perceaue hath come to your hands also yet satisfies not Otherwise you would not thus dispute against it But know you against whom you dispute Certainly not against me only but the ancient Fathers who affirme the same that I doe For touching the Perspicuity of Scripture in things necessary thus St Augustine In those things which are openly laid downe in Scripture are to be found all things which containe Faith and manners of liuing to wit Hope and Charity And St Chrysostome All things necessary are open and manifest so that there needed not homilies or Sermons were it not through our owne negligence And Cyril of Alexandria To the end they might be knowne to all both small and great he hath delivered them vnto vs in such familiar speech that they exceed no mans capacity So the rest And this is so true that your Gregory of Valentia confesseth it Such verities saith he concerning our faith as are absolutely and necessarily to be knowne and beleeued of all men are plainly taught in the Scriptures themselues So Sixtus Senensis also and others of your side As touching the interpretation of darker places by the plaine thus Saint Basil those things which seeme to bee ambiguous and obscurely spoken in some places of holy writ are enlightned by those which in other places are open and perspicuous And St Augustine There is nothing almost among these obscurities but in other places one may finde it most plainly delivered And St Chrysostome The Scripture every where when it speaketh any thing obscurely interpreteth it selfe againe in another place And this is the common voice of all the rest So that the answere I gaue you being no other then that wich I had learned of the Fathers you cannot reiect it but you must reiect the Fathers with all But let vs heare your reason The Doctrine say you of Baptisme of the Eucharist of Iustification of Christs two natures are necessary yet some texts vpon which they are grounded be litigious Grant it be so yet some againe are clear and evident That Christians are to be baptized what more plaine then that Goe teach all nations Baptizing them That the Eucharist is to be administred and receiued is clear by the institution of our Saviour and the practise of his Apostles That wee are iustified by Faith without the workes of the law wee haue the evident testimony of Saint Paul That Christ is God the very first words of Saint Iohns Gospell testifie In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and that word was God And lastly that hee is Man also what more expresse then those words of Saint Paul There is one God and one Mediator betweene God men the Man Christ Iesus If other places be not so plain they are to be expounded by these or the like But it may be your Doctrine of Baptisme is the absolute necessity thereof vnto salvation If so then certainely that place of S. Iohn is not cleare enough for it For it is not necessary it should be vnderstood of Christian Baptisme which was not yet instituted or it must be meant of those that are Adulti such as Nicodemus was to whom our Saviour spake In like manner if your doctrine of the Eucharist be Transubstantiation neither is that other place plaine enough for it For it is manifest both by the circumstances of the Text and the testimonie of the Fathers that the Relatiue This hath reference to Bread Now Bread in proper speech cannot bee Body as your owne men confesse Then is it so tropically and consequently no Transubstantiation The same doe I say of the errours about Iustification which should particularly haue beene shewed if you had quoted any particular place As for those Hereticks they were such as the Prophet speaketh of who in seeing saw and yet perceaued not hauing closed their eyes that they might not see And therefore it is a foule fault in you to excuse their obstinacy by charging the Scriptures with obscurity That Rule is sufficient which is able to convince the Conscience and satisfie all those who loue the truth and are ready to acknowledge it when it is made known though it stop not the mouths of refractary stubborne Hereticks This perhaps your living judge by vertue of fire and fagot may bee able to effect but the other if evidence of Scripture cannot nor he nor his Church will ever be able to performe More of this see in the Treatise sent to Mr Baylie N. N. If as I write to M. Baylie you may not relye too much on the authority of the Fathers because of their differences in opinions much lesse may you vpon the authority of our men being worse divided For they differ not in essential points we doe They wrote not so bitterly one against another as we doe Lastly they differed in matters as yet vndefined by a generall Councell and so not dangerous but wee haue no Councells nor any other meanes to decide our causes So that you cannot knowe which of vs giueth the true sense of Scripture I. D. That the Fathers are no way a sufficient ground of Faith I haue so strongly proued vnto M. Baylie that me thinkes none of you is in hast to answere it Among the rest of my reasons this I confesse was one that they varied so much in opinion one from another yea and are now made to vary from themselues through your intolerable abusing of them This I declared at large wherevnto for farther evidence I now adde an example or two S. Ambrose or whosoever is author of
one and the very same according to his humane substance absent from heauen when he was in earth and forsaking the earth when he ascended to heauen And a little after how could he ascend but as a locall and true man evidently employing that he cannot be a true man who is not Locall and circumscribed in one place And indeed if the Body of Christ be aboue in Heauen and in many places here on earth at one time as at London Paris Rome else-where and not in the severall spaces betweene either it will follow that there are as many distinct bodies of Christ as there are places wherein it is or that his Body is many hundred miles off and separated from it selfe either of which is most vnreasonable and absurd For as Saint Paul saith there is but one Lord and heauen and earth are many miles asunder Besides it would follow that the Body of Christ is out of that which containeth it consequently that that which containeth it containeth it not which is a meere contradiction Nay if that Mathematicall principle be true as vndoubtedly it is that those bodies which touch the same point doe also touch one the other it will necessarily follow that the Priests fingers which touch the Body of Christ in London must needs at the same time touch his fingers who holdeth the same in Rome And so shall not only the Body of Christ be in divers places at once but by vertue thereof those things also that are many hundred leagues a sunder shall actually touch one the other Vnto these and the like absurdities for the saluing of them you haue nothing to oppose saue only the Omnipotence of God to whom nothing is impossible But withall you forget that this hath beene the ordinary refuge of the heretiks who as Tertullian saith faine what they list of God as if he had done it because hee could doe it whereas we should not because hee can doe all things therefore beleeue he hath done it but rather search whether he haue done it or no. True it is God is omnipotent but by doing what he will as Augustine saith not by suffering what he will not Whence also some things he therefore cannot doe because he is omnipotent He cannot deny himselfe saith Saint Paul and it is impossible that he should lye And This impossibility saith Ambrose is not of infirmity but of maiesty because his truth admitteth not a lye nor his power the note of inconstancie So that whatsoever is repugnant to the Nature and Truth of God because he is Almighty he cannot doe And such are all contradictions both the parts whereof cannot possibly be true at once but if the one be true the other must needs be false Hence it is held for an vndoubted Maxime in Schooles that God cannot doe those things that imply contradiction the reason because so he should be false himselfe Now this Doctrine of yours implies in it innumerable contradictions as by and by shall be demonstrated among the rest this that the same Body at the same time shall in heauen haue shape quantity distinction of parts circumscription and all other essentiall properties of a Body and yet in the Sacrament shall be destitute of them all Both of which if vpon presumption of Gods Omnipotence you will needs still beleeue I must plainely tell you that to build on his Power with impeachment of his Truth is not Faith but Infidelity Thirdly it destroyeth the Nature of a Sacrament For proofe whereof I will vse no other grounds then those which your owne men and Bellarmine in particular haue laid for me To the constitution of a Sacrament of the new Testament three things among sundry other saith he are necessarily required First there must be a Signe that is as Saint Augustine defineth it a thing which besides that shape or kinde that it offereth unto our sences of it selfe causeth some other thing to come into our minde Whence it followeth both that the Signe is something knowne and that it is a thing differing from that which it signifieth or whereof it is a signe Secondly that this signe must be sensible or visible For a Sacrament is intrinsecally and essentially a ceremony of Religion and a Ceremony is an externall act Wherefore the Fathers every-where teach that Sacraments are certaine Footsteps or Manuductions vnto things spirituall Invisible Thirdly that the signe must hold due analogie and proportion with the thing signified according to that of S. Augustin If Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were altogether no Sacraments And hence is it that the Fathers call them Anti-types that is things of like Forme and liuely expressing that which they present These things being thus granted out of them I frame this argument That which destroyeth the signe in the sacrament by confounding it with the thing signified making it invisible and insensible and holding no analogie or proportion with that whereof it is a signe destroyeth the nature of a Sacrament But your doctrine of the Reall Presence by Transubstantiation doth all this Ergo it also destroyeth the nature of the Sacrament The Major or first Proposition is by you as wee haue now shewed yeelded vnto vs and cannot bee denied The Minor or second Proposition I thus proue in every particular And first that it destroyeth the signe For if any remaine either it is bread or the Accidents of bread or the body of Christ for there is not a fourth But bread it cannot bee for the Element is not a signe vntill it be consecrated and bread is no sooner consecrated but forthwith it ceaseth to be And if it be not then neither is it a signe for of that which is not nothing can be affirmed Againe the Accidents of bread as Colour Savours measure and the like are not it For besides that it is impossible that Accidents should haue any subsistence without their subiect the Being of an Accident being to be in its subiect it is very strange and vnconceauable if they could how the meere Accidents of bread should represent and signifie the body of Christ. The rather because the signe was ordained by Christ to bee a helpe vnto our Faith and to lead vs as it were by the hand vnto the thing signified Whereas the Accidents of bread without the substance thereof are rather lets and hinderances vnto vs and with no more reason can bee called signes of Christs body then a darke cloud that keepeth off the light of the Sunne from our eyes may bee called a signe or Representation of the Sunne Adde herevnto that such a signe is required as is materiall and elementall according to that of S. Augustin The word being added to the element it is made a Sacrament So Hugh so Bellarmin so the rest Now to call Accidents by name of Elements is a new straine of Philologie vncouth
possibly be true at once For truth evermore agreeth with truth and never crosseth it and whatsoeuer resisteth or contradicteth truth is Falshood Hence the rule and the infallible rule of your owne Schoole that God cannot doe those things that imply contradiction For contradiction is not in the bosome of God seeing he is essentially Truth it selfe And being not yea and nay but yea and Amen hee cannot say yea is nay or nay is yea And if hee cannot say it neither can he will it to be so If he cannot will it neither can it be so For what God cannot will cannot bee done Neither doe we herein derogate from the Power of God for whatsoeuer is against his Truth is against his Power and therefore as St Augustine saith Powerfully hee cannot doe it Which being so let vs see whether this Doctrine of yours imply such contradictions or no. First you say that Bread is made the Body of Christ and yet that the Body of Christ was before Bread was made his Body Now if to vnmake that which never was imply contradiction by the same proportion to make that which already is implies it also That which is not made as yet is not and that which is already made is and is and is not be direct contradictories Is it possible to kill a dead man Or to beget the child that is already borne As impossible is it to make him of Bread who was long before he is pretended to be made Secondly to be locally in a place and not locally in a place is a contradiction But that Christs Body is locally in heauen you all confesse and that at the same time he is not locally in the Sacrament you likewise acknowledge Can you reconcile this contradiction Besides what confusion of speech is this Christ is in a place but not locally or as in a place As if a man should say such a one is reasonable but not reasonably or as reasonable and learned but not learnedly or as learned How then Certes as vnreasonable and vnlearned Thirdly I hope you will not deny vnto Christ as much power as you grant to every pettie Masse-Priest But you grant power vnto them to reserue the consecrated Hoste vntill the next day yea vntill it beginne to corrupt and putrify If then our Saviour instituting his supper the even before his Passion had deliuered vnto his Apostles any part of the Eucharist to be kept vnto the end of the next day I demand whether the Body in the Pixe should haue beene scourged crucified thrust through and slaine together with that which was fastned to the Crosse If no as your Church concludeth then haue we here another contradiction Christs Body is at the same time scourged and not scourged crucified and not crucified thrust through and not thrust through slaine and not slaine Fourthly you say that the Body of Christ is contained vnder the Accidents of Bread yea that the whole Body is in every the least crum of the Hoste Yet you say it is much greater then that which containeth it and elsewhere besides the Accidents You say also that Christ at his last supper ate himselfe and swallowed downe his owne body into his stomacke so that his stomacke containing himselfe hee was both within and without himselfe Which in effect is a meere contradiction the Accidents the stomacke containeth and not containeth Christs Body is contained not contained Fiftly you confesse that the Body of Christ then when hee celebrated his Supper did see and heare and moue and breath was weake and passible and subiect vnto death Yet you say that the same time the Body of Christ in the Eucharist could neither see not heare nor moue nor breath but was vtterly insensible impassible and without infirmitie And is not this a manifest contradiction If you say he is passible in the Sacrament but after an impassible manner you shall pardon vs if we answer it with no other then laughter For it is as if you should say the crow is blacke after a white manner or that the world is square after a round manner Sixtly before Transubstantiation was invented it went for currant in Philosophie that the very essence and being of an Accident is to be in the subiect Yet you say that in the sacrament the Accidents of Bread are in no subiect But for an Accident to be and not to be is a contradiction for not to be in is not to be As well may you say a substance subsisteth not or the shining shineth not or the liuing liueth not as that the Accident doth not accidere or befall the subiect Seauenthly every creature is measured by time and place If therefore it bee a contradiction to say such a thing is and yet is in no time it is as cleare a contradiction to say such a thing is and yet it is limited in no place Neverthelesse you say that the body of Christ in the Sacrament occupieth no place Againe if it be a contradiction to say that a man at the same instant of time liueth in the fifteenth and sixteenth hundred yeare of Christ because there is a great distance betweene them and they are not the same number as palpable a contradiction is it to say the Body of Christ is at once both in Heauen and Earth seeing earth is not heauen nor heauen earth and there is such a vast space betwixt them Eightly Aristotle maintaineth that vacuity or emptinesse is impossible if you should grant it infinite contradictions would follow But your doctrine establisheth it For what is vacuitie but a space vnfilled by a Body I aske then when the Cup is consecrated wherewith is it filled With wine So indeed it seemeth but after consecration you say it is not Wine that which is not there filleth it not With bloud then Nor that For that which filleth the Cup must every way be as large as the hollow surface of the Cup. But the bloud is not so for it wanteth Dimensive quantitie Unlesse therefore the Accidents help and they cannot being no Bodies the Cup must needs bee empty and void which cannot but imply contradiction For voidnesse as the Philosopher saith is the root of infinite contradictions Ninthly and lastly if one and the same Body may be in mo places then one at once why not in a thousand And if in a thousand why not in a thousand thousand millions If so then a little point or droppe continuing still in the same Quantitie may occupie as much space as the greatest mountaine or the whole Ocean For so many may the severall places be that all put together may make a greater space then which what plainer contradiction Vnto these few I might easily adde six hundred other as grosse absurdities as that Christ at the same time is to himselfe both neere and farre off aboue beneath within and without before and behind at his right and at his left hand that he is also elder and younger sooner and
later shorter and taller broader and narrower thicker and thinner greater and lesser then himselfe and such like of the same garbe But I study to be briefe it is high time to remoue my hand as they say from the Table Onely I must forewarne you that if being vnable to vntie these knots you shall attempt to cut them asunder with the sword of Gods Omnipotence you shall but loose your labour For if they be contradictions as vndoubtedly they are your Angelicall Doctor can tell you that they fall not within the compasse of Divine Power So that of force you must either demonstrate that these things are not contradictorie which I am sure you can neuer doe or as becommeth Christian ingenuity you must for ever bid farewell to Transubstantiation and yeeld vnto the truth discouered vnto you And thus at length by Gods assistance haue I finished the taske you haue laid vpon me fully answered whatsoeuer here you haue alleaged in maintenance of your Reall Presence My desire now is that laying aside all prejudice you will but with indifference read what I haue replied therevnto Which if you shall vouchsafe to doe I perswade my selfe it will make you to remit much of that confidence you had in this cause when first you sent this Schedule vnto me Especially if withall you consider that the wittiest and subtlest heads amongst you could never finde it so clearely and strongly grounded either vpon Scripture or Fathers as you pretend Scotus sirnamed the subtle Doctor affirmeth that there is extant in Scripture no place so expresse as without declaration of the Church can evidently constraine a man to admit of Transubstantiation And this saith Bellarmine is not altogether vnprobable For although the scripture may seeme vnto vs so clear as it may constraine a man that is not froward yet it may iustly be doubted whether it be so seeing most learned and witty men such as Scotus specially was haue thought the contâ—ary The same Scot farther saith that were it not for the authority determination of the Roman Church the words of Christ and of the Fathers might more simply plainely truly be vnderstood and expounded Nay hee yet farther addeth and your Cardinal Bellarmine confesseth it that before the Lateran Councell Transubstantiation was not a doctrine of Faith and he wondreth that being no principle article and such as exposeth the Christian Faith to contempt it could be receaued and beleeued The Cardinall of Cambray also doubteth not to avouch that that manner which supposeth the substance of Bread still to remaine is possible neither is it contrary to reason or the authority of scripture Nay it is easier to conceaue and more reasonable then that which saith the substance doth leaue the accidents And of this opinion no inconvenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And he addeth that the opinion which holdeth the substance of Bread not to remaine doth not evidently follow of the Scripture nor to his seeming of the Churches determination Cardinall Cajetan is as peremptory that there appeareth nothing in the Gospell that can force a man properly to vnderstand these words This is my body and that were it not for the interpretation of the Roman Church they might very well admit another sense as that of the Apostle the Rocke was Christ. To these Cardinals may wee ioyne another Cardinall though happily he neuer ware the Cap I mean Fisher Bishop of Rochester who expresly averreth that in that place of Mathew where the institution of the Sacrament is recorded there is never a word whereby it may bee proued that there is made in the Masse the true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ. Gabriel Biel also The Scriptures may be salved and expounded after a more easie vnderstanding And Occam This doctrine that the substance of bread remaineth is subiect to lesser inconveniences and is not so repugnant to reason the Scriptures And Durand It is great rashnesse to say that the body of Christ cannot by divine power be in the Sacrament but by converting bread into it Howbeit if that way which supposeth bread to remaine were indeed true many doubts which meet vs holding it not to remaine were dissolued The Master of the Sentences also freely confesseth that if it be demanded what that conversion is whether formall or substantiall or of another kinde he is not sufficient to define From these your Iesuits swarue not very much Gregory de Valentia saith that the Fathers spake of Transubstantiation somewhat obscurely simply as thinking they could not be vnderstood of Catholikes but Catholikely and least they should haue exposed the mystery to be laughed at of Infidels if in their popular Sermons they should haue vnfolded their minds Your Secular Priests affirme that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Societie and what Catholike would not beleeue them that the Fathers haue not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation Finally not to muster vp any more it is well knowne that divers of your Priests being demanded if after sentence of death pronounced vpon them that very morning when they were to be executed they might haue leaue to say Masse to the intent they might be certaine of their owne intention to consecrate and not doubtfully depend vpon anothers whether after consecration for the confirmation of our Faith in the point of Transubstantiation they durst to say thus vnto the multitude Vnlesse that which is now in this Chalice whose Accidents you see be the very selfe same bloud which issued out of the side of Christ hanging on the crosse let mee haue no part either in the bloud of Christ or in Christ himselfe for ever and so with these last words bid farewel vnto the world being I say demanded whether they durst adventure to doe so they all with one voice denied it And Father Garnet in a conference with the Deanes of the Chappell Pauls and Westminster being in particular asked the like answered very perplexedly not daring to hazard his saluation therevpon All these testimonies duly pondered and considered you must needs acknowledge vnlesse you see better then these quick-sighted Eagles that you haue not so strong hold either in Scripture or Fathers or right reason as you imagined and that not only the name but the Doctrine also of Transubstantiation hath beene but of late created an article of your Faith It remaineth that I entreat you these things vndoubtedly being thus that you suffer not your selfe any longer to be beguilded with novelties vnder pretence of antiquitie but rather that you open your eyes and stretch forth your armes to embrace the truth now that she offereth her selfe so manifestly vnto you And this I intreat the more earnestly because of the great danger that followeth vpon this errour For if Christ bee not present in the Sacrament in such sort as you hold there
Mutation and the like I. D. Had you attentiuely read my Answer you would never haue said I excepted to two or three Passages only For I excepted to all the passages of Ignatius Cyril of Hierusalem in his Catechismes Ambrose de Sacramentis and Mysterijs initiandis Eusebius Emissenus Cyprian de caena Domini the Canon of the Nicen counsell and Magnetes as suspected by your owne Rabbies not to be the men whose names they beare Againe of Damascen Theophylact Euthymius Nicephorus and Rupertus as being Punies and too young to be Fathers besides those many Passages which are miserably either curtald or rackt or falsely alleaged Neither are their words so plain for you as you pretend For I haue made it to appeare that some of them say nothing at all for you some speak rather against you then for you and to those that seeme to say any thing I haue opposed a whole grand Iury speaking farre more plainely on our side For what words can be more plaine then these This is my body that is the figure of my Body that Christ said This bread is my body which your owne men grant cannot bee true vnlesse figuratiuely vnderstood that Bread and Wine still are what they were that the Nature of bread continues that the nature of bread and wine cease not to be but continue in the propriety of their nature that the signes after consecration depart not from their proper nature but remaine in their former substance figure and forme and suchlike many But perhaps your Fathers speake as plainely Let vs try that They say that the Body flesh and bloud of Christ is truly in the Sacrament Ergo a Reall Presence Who denies it Transubstantiation is that which you should proue which Reall Presence inferres not This you say you vnderstand not The more is your dulnesse For Really and Corporally are not all one and that which is Spiritually present is Really present vnlesse you will say that a spirit is Nothing Is not the Bloud of Christ really present in Baptisme to the washing away of sinne Is hee not Really also present to the Faith of every true beleever even out of the Sacrament Doubtlesse he is and none will deny it but he that never felt the vertue and efficacy thereof What should let then but the Flesh of Christ may bee present in the Eucharist Really and yet not after the Corporall manner Nay what if I should yeeld you a corporall presence Would that necessarily inferre a Transubstantiation Nothing lesse For it may be by consubstantiation the flesh being there together with the Bread without turning the Bread into Flesh. Neither may you deny this to be possible vnlesse you will deny the Omnipotency of God and your Transubstantiation withall for therevpon doe you build it Transubstantiation therefore and the Reall presence are not all one Yea but the Fathers vse the tearmes of Conversion Mutation What then Ergo Transubstantiation A pittifull consequence For this is to argue from the Generall to Speciall as if you should say It is a colour therefore it is blacke there being many colours besides blacke Learne then that Change is a generall word and there are divers kindes thereof of Substance by Generation and corruption of Quality by Alteration of Quantity by Augmentation and Diminution of Place by Lation Now he that affirmeth a Change doth not presently affirme Change of Substance for it may be some other either of Quality or Quantity or Quantity or Place The Fathers therefore speaking of a Change in the Sacrament may as well meane a Change of Alteration in the Vse and Uertue of the Elements as of Substance by way of Transubstantiation And so for ought the Fathers say Transubstantiation may still be a brat of the Lateran Councells disputed of perhaps before but neuer beleeved as an Article of Faith till then N. N. I allow no authority after 600. yeares Ergo I acknowledge the next 1000. to be contrary in this and all other controversies betwixt vs. I. D. To speake plainely I allow no Authority at all as Infallible but only that of Christ and his Apostles Those that afterwards succeeded were all of them subiect vnto errour and cannot be the ground of our Faith as I haue elsewhere answerably demonstrated Howbeit those of the first 600 yeares wee reverence more and rather admit then those of the 1000 following because they were freer from errour as liuing neerer the Apostles times and before the first discouery of Antichrist which was about the yeare 607. when Boniface the third purchased of that bloudy tyrant Phocas the title of Vniversall Bishop and with it the supremacy over all Churches Whereof his predecessor Gregory the great seemed to prophecy when writing against Iohn B. of Constantinople for vsurping that title he gathereth from thence that the times of Antichrist are at hand After which discouery although errours every day crept in apace yet wee yeeld you not that all your opinions instantly and at once leapt into the Church For as Rome it selfe was not built in a day so neither was that huge heape of Romanish impieties raised in one age It was a good while after this before Transubstantiation began to appeare Damascen in the East not contenting himselfe with the old language of the Church fell a coyning of new Phrases yet reached not home to Transubstantiation A hundred yeares after Amalarius in the west maintained in plaine tearms that the simple nature of Bread and wine is turned into a reasonable nature to wit of the body and bloud of Christ. And herein was he seconded by Paschasius Radbertus and others Yet could they not carry it so clearly but that they were mightily opposed by the most famous writers in their times whose names you haue in mine Answer But specially by Bertram vnder Carolus Calvus of whom Turrian the Iesuit thus to cite Bertram what is it other then to say the heresie of Calvin is not new And a good time afterwards againe by Berengarius on whose side many disputed both by word and writing and those not of one nation only but English French and Italians as Mathew of Westminster saith But all these Antichrist who was now in his height bare downe and at length anno 1215. vnder Innocent the third in the Lateran Councel was the Idol set vpon its base and adored So lately with so much adoe was your doctrine of Transubstantiation brought in and established N. N. For 900. yeares was no outward face of a Church in England but the Catholike In which it were vncharitable to say that none knewe the meaning of Scriptures and Fathers as well as we or all liued in ignorance till the true light came in with Luther Yet in this last age England hath yeelded many learned men among others an vnkle of yours and Master of Arts who left all his hopes for his conscience and would not bee perswaded to returne to his great possibilities which
tradition of the Fathers was no more but Memoriam facite keepe the memory as we may see evidently in Cyprian Nothing of all which I trow maketh any whit for your meaning N. N. Dr Morton citeth out of Bibliander that it was a most common opinion among the Iews that at the comming of the Messias all the legall sacrifices should cease but the sacrifice of Thoda in Bread and Wine should not cease Wherevpon he is forced against Mason and his directors to say The Protestants acknowledge in the Eâ—charist a sacrifice Eucharisticall He might as well haue acknowledged with those of Basil Frankford and Stancarus what this Sacrifice should be For they cite these words of the Rabbins the sacrifice that shall be made of wine shall not only be changed into the Substance of the bloud of the Messias but also into the substance of his Body And in the sacrifice that shall be made of bread notwithstanding it be white as milke the substance shall be turned into the Substance of the body of the Messias Thus R. Cahana who liued long before Christ and so R. Iuda R. Simeon and others whose testimonies saith Dr Morton are so direct for Transubstantiation as no Romish Doctor for a 1000 yeares after Christ is so expresse yea they are more pregnant then the sayings of Transubstantiaâ—ors themselues I. D. I am very sory that I haue not Dr Mortons booke now at hand by me For I am very confident that where your Author found his Obiection there I should also meete with a full solution In the meane season till I haue procured it which I hope will be ere long briefly thus First the Passage cited out of Bibliander maketh against you not vs. For if it be Bread and Wine which is sacrificed then they remaine after Consecration which overthroweth Transubstantiation If they doe not remaine and the Body and Bloud of Christ only be offered then were those Iewes false Prophets and foretold nothing but lies Secondly the Doctor acknowledging an Eucharisticall Sacrifice neither is forced therevnto by any such testimony nor is against Mason or any other Protestant for they all acknowledge the same together with him But I thinke you knew not that Eucharist signifieth Thankesgiuing or else you would never haue thought it strange he should acknowledge a Sacrifice of Thanksgiuing Lastly I am strongly perswaded that when these testimonies of R. Cahana R. Iuda R. Simeon and the rest shall come to the ripping they will proue Hippocentaurs and meere fictions For supposing you are in the right is it likely that such fellowes as these should either know or speake more clearly of the mysteries of our Faith then any of the ancient Prophets inspired of the holy Ghost and sent of purpose to foretell to them Or is it probable that your greatest Rabbins and among them Cardinall Bellarmine searching curiously into every corner to find witnesses of all sorts would yet carelesly omit these if they were so plaine and pregnant for you as you pretend Verily when the Doctor saith that no Doctor for a 1000 yeares after Christ no nor Transubstantiator almost ever spake more plainely it is a meere flout and argues how lightly he esteemes of the authority But of this enough vntill I bee more certainly informed Only thus to alleage Iewes is not to approue your sense of the Fathers N. N. The now Archb. of Canterbury saith and with him Midleton agreeth that Berengarius was called into question for denying Transubstantiation and he yeelded once or twice to recant and abiure the Doctrine he held Ergo hee assureth vs Transubstantiation was the Doctrine of the Church constant and generall hundreds of yeares before the Lateran councell defined it yea farther hee assureth vs that to deny it was Heresy to be recanted I. D. Had not your Author wanted or forehead or braine or both he would never haue made such a shamelesse senselesse inference If he had said Ergo many beleeued Transubstantiation before the Lateran councell hee had kept his tongue within compasse but saying Ergo it was the constant and generall doctrine for hundred of yeares before his mouth overfloweth it is a lye with a latchet For be it knowne vnto you the Church of England held it not as I haue already proued out of the Homily of Abbat Aelfrick Neither did the Waldenses hold it whose number yet was very great and they dispersed through all the countries of Christendome And if you thinke that Berengarius stood single by himselfe in this point you are much deceaued for hee had as many for him as were against him and it was nothing but the tyranny of the B. of Rome that bare him down Howbeit the French Churches still resisted both him and his Synods divers meeting together in Anjow and Turon resolue against him and subscribe vnto Berengarius But to put the matter out of all doubt it is reported of Pope Hildebrand that he appointed a Fast of three daies together with a solemn Procession to entreat of God some signe from heaven whereby he might be assured what he was to determine in this businesse If at that time the head of the Church himselfe staggered and doubted which way to resolue is it credible that the rest of the body could bee so setled therein as generally constantly for hundreds of yeares to maintaine it Apellas the Iew may beleeue it if hee list not I. Breefly Transubstantiation might well be disputed of some while before the Lateran Councell but held for an Article of Faith it was not vntill then as I haue elsewhere shewed out of Tonstal and Scotus N. N. The same Bishop and Dr Field tell vs that the Greeke Church is a true Church Yet their Patriarch Ieremie saith It is the iudgement of the Church that in the holy supper after consecration and benediction the bread passeth and is changed into his Body and the Wine into his Bloud I. D. Yet the same Bishop and Doctor tell you also that a true Church may erre so that Transubstantiation might be an errour though the Grecians held it But the truth is that the Greeke Church never held it as I haue aboue shewed out of the same Ieremie the Councell of Florence which you are bound to beleeue For though the Patriarch say Bread is changed into Body yet hee addeth by and by the flesh of the Lord which he carried about him was not giuen to the Apostles to eat nor his bloud to drinke nor is now in the divine celebration of those mysteries which directly overturneth your Change by Transubstantiation But of this see more aboue And thus much in answer vnto your first reason which before I passe vnto the next I must craue leaue to retort vpon you If you may not yeeld vnto the sense I giue the Fathers because some Protestants allow your sense neither may I yeeld to the sense you giue because many Papists allow mine For there is the same law