that Christ as a louing Spouse doth there visitt and imbrace vs It is true indeed that their Priests vse much wanton dalliance with their breaden God while they make the poore people like silly ideots adore him and like Ixion for a substance embrace a meere shadow THis is that cleane hoast as S. Irenaeus affirmeth which the Gentiles were by Malachy foretold to offer vnto God in all places and the onely sacrifice of Christians as S. Augustine calleth it figured by Melchisedechs oblation of bread and wine as the holy Fathers ioyntly teach vs and represented by the Iewish as well bloody as vnbloody sacrifices not distinct from the sacrifice of the Crosse by which alone our redemption was consummated as S. Paul teacheth vs but the same in the hoast and chiefe offerer thereof daily repeated now in an other vnbloody and mysterious manner by the Ministery of Christs consecrated servants So as all Christian Nations of the world Grecians for example Rutenians Armenians Mozaribites Cataians Ethiopians and other Christians in India neere mount Libanus and in other the remotest places in the world such as haue not euer heard peraduenture of the Roman Church since their first Apostolicall conuersions or had any commerce between themselues are knowne to conspire not withstanding their other late errors with vs in the celebration and true beliefe of this great sacrifice and Sacrament as Dr. Philippus Nicolai a chiefe Protestant Diuine in his Commentary of Christs Kingdome and Sir Edwin Sands in his Relation of Religion c. with other aduersaries of our Church plainely acknowledge Which may bee to any wise and well minded man an euident argument that they receiued this common beliefe and celebration of this diuine sacrifice from no other fountaine but the instruction and example of their first Apostolicall conuerters And when Luther taught by the Diuell as hee plainely confesseth vpon plaine sophismes and doceitfull arguments by himselfe particularly related as I haue seene in his works first printed at Iene and now extant in the great Library at Oxford began to impugne that holy sacrifice which hee had formerly offered and presented that his hereticall doctrine and whole confession of Augusta to be accepted as he hoped by the Grecian Churches Ieremias their Patriarch in his Censure as he calleth his booke of the East Church yet extant in Greeke and Latine plainely condemneth amongst their other hereticall doctrines this very denyall of Christs sacrifice transubstantiation c. vrging as we doe invincible arguments and the vniuersall euer continued practise of Christs Church to prooue them vsing as I my selfe haue seene in their Churches alike forme to ours for the mysterious and decent celebration thereof causesly wont by our Aduersaries to be derided whereas their owne Liturgie or forme of diuine seruice is as a shadow chosen in place of the substance hauing nothing decent therein but what they haue stollen from vs and picked here and there out of our Missals gracing all with a riming Psalme sung to a liggish tune with iarring and for the most part vntunable voyces neuer vsed before in any Christian Churches The first Authors of this new Sect were Apostaâ—aes of our Church for their confessed disorders of life and miserable ends plainely discouered to haue been no Apostolicall persons whose endeauours haue neuer tended at any time to conuert Pagans to Christ as his true Church shall euer doe but to corrupt Christians truly already conuerted And they haue seldome planted themselues in any Countrey but vpon very carnall grosse occasions as here in England or with open rebellion and tragicall acts against lawfull Princes and Magistrates namely in Scotland France Flanders Swisserland Sueuia Polonia seuerall Prouinces of Germany Geneua it selfe and other Protestant territories The pretence of a Church and Religion like to theirs in former ages canot colourably be defended without many shifts contradictory deuices Some will haue it to haue beene latent and inuisible for 800. others 900 other 1000 or 1200. yeers Others contrarily teach it to haue beene euer visible and conspicuously dilated into many Christian Countries as the Oraculous predictions of the Prophets and expresse promises of God himselfe describe it Others say that our Church was euer the true Church of Christ onely in some parts of faith not fundamentall erring and by them since Luther reformed Others deny that euer our Church was the true Church of Christ or other than a preuailing faction in the true Church professing at all times visibly and in all Christian countries their present doctrine But no one of these dreamers and Church-deuisers as I may tearme them is able before Luther to assigne in any age since Christ or Country of the world one Parish of Protestant true prosessors or single person iumping in all points with any one sect of them their religion indeed being like a beggers cloake patched together out of olde condemned Heresies and vnsutably composed Their markes of a Church to wit preaching of true doctrine and a rightfull administration of Sacraments are such as any hereticall sect past or to come may equally peetend according to the maine grounds of Protestant doctrine which are to admit no common translation or interpretation of Scripture but what themselues list for discerning of true doctrine and rightly administring Sacraments § 4. HE magnifieth their Masse by telling vs that this is that cleane hoast that Irenaeus saith Malachie foretold the Christians onely sacrifice figured by that of Melchisedeck and represented by the Iewish as well bloody as vnbloody Sacrifices not distinct from the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse but the same repeated in another vnbloodie manner 1. It is true indeede that Irenaeus vnderstandeth by that pure Offring in Malachie the Eucharist now in vse and that the Avncients many of them suppose it resembled in that action of Melchisedeck And they call it the Christians yet not the onely Christian Sacrifice succeeding in the roome of the Iewish Sacrifices the Sacrament I say of the Eucharist not their Sacrifice of the Masse In what sense Augustine will tell vs A Sacrifice of praise saith he out of the Psalmist shall glorifie me and there is the way that I will shew him my Saluation The flesh and blood of this Sacrifice before Christs comming was promised by Sacrifices resembling it in Christs passion it was exhibited in the truth it selfe since his ascension it is celebrated in a Sacrament of remembrance And againe The Hebrewes in their Sacrifices of beasts which they offered vnto God did celebrate a prophecie of the Sacrifice to come that Christ offred And Christians now celebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice past in an holy oblation and participation of Christs body and blood And Procopius vpon Genesit Christ dranke to his Disciples in mysticall Wine saying This is my Blood and gaue them withall a type figure or image of his Body no more admitting or
A DISCVSSION OF THE POPISH DOCTRINE OF Transubstantiation Wherein the same is declared by the Confession of their owne Writers to haue no necessary ground in Gods Word As also it is further demonstrated to be against Scripture Nature Sense Reason Religion the Iudgement of the Auncients and the Faith of our Auncestours Written by THOMAS GATAKER B. of D. and Pastor of Rotherhith LONDON Printed by I. L. for William Sheffard and are to bee sold at his shoppe at the entring in of Popes-head Alley out of Lombard-streete 1624. This Treatise consisteth of two parts 1. A briefe Discourse containing diuers Arguments against the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. A Iust Defence of the same Discourse and Arguments against the Answer of a namelesse Popish Priest thereunto To the Reader BE pleased I pray thee to vnderstand in a word as the occasion of vndertaking so the motiue of publishing this Controuersie Hauing had some Conference with an Honourable Lady nobly descended whom some Factors for Rome had endeauoured to peruert about the Point of Transubstantiation and Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist I was by her requested to deliuer her in writing the summe of that that had passed then by word of mouth from me as well in way of Answere to the exceptions taken to our Doctrine as in way of opposition to the Romane tenet therein Whereupon within a few daies after hauing digested it as well as streights of time would permit and added some further enforcements of the generall heads then insisted on I deliuered it verbatim as here thou now hast it Which writing being imparted to one of those Factors a speedy answere was promised and after long expectation of it at length performed such as here it is exhibited vnder the letters of N. P. put for a Namelesse Popish Priest without word or syllable detracted added or altred Vnto which I soone after dispeeded a Reply which was to the same Honourable Personage also not long after represented Now hauing hitherto heard of nothing returned further thereunto albeit some yeeres be past since the exhibition of it I haue thought good by the aduice of some iudicious Friends to publish all together my Reply onely in some few places enlarged as well thereby the more fully to cleere some obiections vrged commonly to the simpler sort especially against our Faith and Doctrine concerning that Sacrament and our exposition of some passages of holy writ either concerning or supposed to concerne the same as also further to discouer to such especially as are not so well acquainted therewith the grosse and palpable frauds and falshoods with such Popish Factours too frequent which in the aduised reading and perusing hereof may easily and euidently be descried And this is all that not listing to detaine thee long from the discourse it selfe I was desirous by way of Preface to fore-acquaint thee withall The Lord vouchsafe thee and vs all true vnderstanding sound iudgement and a loue of the truth both in this and in all other things Thine in our common Sauiour THO GATAKER Errata IN the Text. page 31. line 21. for said reade say p. 33. lin 10 for these r. those l. 20. for a mans r. mans l. 23. for difficultie r. difficulties p. 39. l. 3. for confimeth r. confirmeth l. 12. for maine r. maime l. 27. for commodioas r. commodious p. 40. lin 5. for to passe r so passe p. 41. l. 11. for and r. with p. 42. l. 8. for is r. is not p. 47. l 7. for Crosse r. Grosse p. 51. l. 24. put out simply and p. 53. l. 7. for these r. in those p. 54. l. 17. for to conclude r. concluded p. 56. l. 25. after Christs put in body p. 60. l. vlt. for things r. thing p. 64. l. 30. for Catechising r. Catechisings p. 65. l. 5. for one r. of one p. 66. l. 17. for Glosse r. Gospell p. 74. l. 9. for this r. this is p. 75. l. 30. for their r. that their p. 87. l. 34. for either r. either p. 99. l. 24 26 36. put out 1. 2. 3. l. 35. for receiue r. receiuing p. 103. l. 5. after they put out was p. 199. l. 9. for Galathians r. Galatians p. 148. l. 10. for conuersion r. conuersion l 33. for it r. it p. 149. l. 35. for here read how l. 37. for before r. before p. 1â—0 l. 25. for body r. bodies p. 151 l. 20. for therefore r. thereof p. 152. l. 4. for to as r. as to l. 26. for bread r. bred p. 154. l. 31. for what r. what this p. 155. l. 31. for like like r like nature p. 158. l. 28. for whinch r. which l. 34. for those r. that those p. 169. l. 8. for Christ r. Christs p. 171. l. 3 for places r. place p. 187. l. 16 for seemed r. seeme p. 189. l. 27. for assumped r. assumpted p. 197. l. 31. for canot r. can not p. 199. l. 24. for in r. is in l. 33. for that is r. that which is p. 202. l. 21. for prooe r. proue p. 212. l. 13. place the before The contrary p 219. l. 20. for tempored r. tempered p 222. l. 29. after not put out he p. 226. l. 19. for Emissemus r. Emissenus In the Margent page 13. letter z. for signifitatiuè r. significatiuè p 17. l. e. for Videt r. Vide p. 20. * for dentis r. dentibus p. 21. * for mittar r. mittam p. 33. l. vst for est et r. esset p. 64 l. m. for Lenserus r Leuâ—aeus p. 66. l. k for Greg. 8 r. Graec. 82. p. 98. l q. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 100. * for hom r. nom p. 118. l. f. for ducatur iestis r. ducaturi estis p. 131 l. b. sor oniensis r. omensis p. 138. l. s remoue Gal 4. 3. to p. 139. p. 140. l. f. for l. 8. r. l. 1. p 165. l. b. for Sticorum r. Stoicorum p. 173. l. c. for Gerob r. Gorol p. 177. l. l. for paâ—is r. panis p. 192. l. x. for and r. ad l. a. for frantur r. frangitur l. b for sacerdotes r sacerdos p. 199. l x. for Christum r. Christi p. 219. l. u for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 220 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Briefe Discourse conteining diuers Arguments against the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation THE Question is whither Christ be corporally present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by vertue of a Transubstantiation or a reall conuersion of the Bread and Wine into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ. This those of the Church of Rome affirme we deny refuse to yeeld to for these Reasons 1. That which no Scripture enforceth vpon vs that in matter of Faith wee are not bound to beleeue For the Scripture is the Rule of our Faith In it saith August are found all those things Which concerne faith and good life And That which hath not authoritie from it saith Ierome may as
the first Nicene Councell will vs in this diuine table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed but to eleuate our minde by faith and behold on this table the Lambe of God taking away the sinnes of the world by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to bee symboles and pledges of our resurrection c. O holy Ephrem renowned so for thy great learning and singular sanctitie as Saint Ierome testifieth thy writings to haue beene read in the Church after the holy Scriptures why doest thou will vs not to search after these inscrutable mysteries c. but to receiue with a full assurance of faith the immaculate body of the Lord and the Lambe himselfe entirely adding those wordes which cannot agree to such a communion of bare bread and wine as this Minister teacheth The mysteries of Christ are an immortall fire search them not curiously least in the search thou become burned c. telling vs that this Sacrament doth exceed all admiration and speech which Christ our Sauiour the onely begotten Sonne of God hath instituted for vs. Finally why doe other ancient â—nd chiefe Fathers of the Greeke and Latine Church call the consecrated bread and wine on the Altar dreadfull mysteries the food of life and immortality hidden Manna and infinitely excelling it a heauenly banquet the bread of Angels humbly present while it is offered and deuoutly adoring it c. If there bee no more but bare bread and wine therein receiued in memorie of our Sauiours passion as my Aduersarie affirmeth of his Protestanticall Sacrament THe next Diuisiâ—â— hee maketh entrance into with a grosse and shamelesse deprauation and thereupon prosecuteth it to the end with an impertinent digression Hauing cited the forenamed Testimenies of Theodoret and Gelasius in mine Answer to that Obiection brought commonly against vs as if by a deniall of such a reall presence as Papists maintaine wee should make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread I conclude both mine Answer and the Allegation of those two Authors in these wordes Thus they to wit Gelasius and Theodoret and thus we and yet neither doe they nor we therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood NOthing but bare bread and wine Now this shamelesse wretch wanting matter to be dealing with turneth me NOthing into ANY thing a man able indeed with his shamelesse senselesse shifts to picke any thing out of nothing and relateth my wordes in this manner to a cleane contrary sense Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine Had either I or my Transcriber for the truth is it was not mine owne hand-writing that hee had I write a worse hand I confesse then he is aware of that accounteth that so bad an one If either I or hee I say had slipt heere with the pen as I suspected hee might haue done till I saw the copie againe that this Answerer had yet the whole tenour of my speech wherein I shew that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are no more bare bread or bare wine then the water vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme is bare water would sufficiently haue shewed my meaning But when the copie that was deliuered him remaining in the custodie of that Noble Personage for whom at first it was written is found apparantly to haue the wordes in the very same manner as I haue before cited them I cannot deuise what colour this audacious wretch can bring to salue his owne credite with and excuse his corrupt carriage It argueth not a bad but a desperate cause that without such senselesse and shamelesse shifts cannot bee vpheld And I beseech your Ladiship well to consider what credite is to be giuen to these men alleadging Authors Fathers Councels c. which they know you cannot your selfe peruse and examine when they dare thus palpably falsifie a writing that you haue in your owne hands and may haue recourse to when you will § 2. Now hauing thus laid a lewd and loud vntruth for the ground of his ensuing Discourse 1. Hee falleth into an Inuectiue against our Protestanticall Communion as acknowledged by me to haue nothing holy heauenly and diuinely for so it pleaseth him to speak therein contained but bare bread and wine c. adding withall that neuer Câ—ietan neuer Bellarmine neuer Gratian neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine beleeued or taught this sacrilegious doctrine a lye he meaneth of his owne forging as my Aduersarie in these wordes They and wee falsly pretendeth In which wordes first for hee cannot forbeare fâ—lsifying for his life no not then and there where he chargeth others with falshood he intimateth that in those words Thus they I should haue reference to Caietan Bellarmine and Gratian whereas my wordes euidently point at Gelasius and Theodoret whose owne wordes in precise tearmes I had next before cited 2. He chargeth me falsely to say that of the Eucharish that neither I nor any of our Diuines euer said yea which being by way of Obiection before produced I not onely disauow and disprooue approouing freely and at large proouing the contrary but in this place in plaine tearmes conclude the direct contrary vnto in the very wordes by him fowly falfified 3. Hee runneth out to giue vs some taste of his rowling Rhetoricke as well as his loose Logicke into a solemn inuocation of his forged S. Dionyse together with some of the Ancients as if hee were raising of Spirits with some magicall inchantment to fight with a shadow and to skirmish with a man of straw of his owne making to testifie in that against vs that hee would faine put vpon vs but none of vs by his owne confession euer said or doe say Thus hee hath nibled here and there cauilled at by-matters coined lies forged and faced but giuen no direct Answer to the Argument whereunto hee should haue answered and whereby it was prooued that these wordes of our Sauiour This my body may well beare a figuratiue sense so expounded by the Ancient Fathers and confessed by their owne writers not so much as attempted to prooue the contrary thereunto § 3. Now howsoeuer I might very well let passe as impertinent those citations and sayings of the Authors here summoned to giue in either testimony or sentence against that that none of vs auoweth and which therfore though all that either they doe say or hee would haue them say were true did no way crosse vs or once touch vs in ought that is heerein affirmed of vs and I had sometime therefore determined wholy to passe by them for feare of ouercharging this Discourse yet considering that some weake ones peraduenture may stumble at some passages in them especially as they are vnfaithfully by this alleadger of them here translated I haue thought good now ere wee part with them to examinine what they say that
heauenly effects which Christs promises there import in the soules of such as worthily receiue it and such centrarily as come vnworthily thereunto receiue death and iudgement to themselues by it As for those few Catholike writers who haue denied Christs words in that 6. Chap. of Saint Iohn to haue beene vnderstood at all of Sacramentall manducation I answer that their number is not great and their authoritie of no weight at all against a numberlesse multitude of ancient Fathers and moderne Doctors of better note contrarily vnderstanding them yeelding better reasons for that their literall true explication and easily soluing all hereticall Obiections gathered from the literall sense of our Sauiours words in that Chapter against our communion vnder one kinde and other points of Catholike doctrine And sithence my Aduersaerie will not sticke to contemne these very Authors in their other knowne Catholike doctrines why doth he so highly value and mainely vrge them in this opinion wherein without any hereticall intention or obstinacie of Iudgement they differ from vs § 6. AT length he commeth to refute mine Arguments which he saith are topicall and prooue nothing My first Argument is this None are saued but such as so feede on Christ as is there spoken of But many are saued that neuer fed on Christ in the Eucharist as the Fathers before Christ the children of the faithfull that die infants c. Ergò it is not spoken of the Eucharist To this he answereth 1. That I barely affirme that the Iewes before Christ did sacramentally receiue Christ as well as we but I prooue it not It is true I say obiter that they fed on Christs flesh spiritually as well as we now doe though that be no part of mine Argument And I adde a place or two of Augustine for the proofe of it grounded on the Apostles words 1. Cor. 10. 3 4. Which seeing that this shifter ouerslippeth let him heare Bishop Iansenius himselfe not to goe any further relate a little more at large to wit that the good Iewes in the old Testament were quickned by eating of Manna because vnder that visible foode they also spiritually did eate the true Bread of Life by Manna signified Or if Iansenius will not serue let him heare their great Albert There is saith he a three-fold eating of Christ sacramentally onely spiritually onely or sacramentally and spiritually both In the first sort all that euer were saued did eate in the second sort euill Christians eate him in the Sacrament in the third sort good communicants onely And againe alleadging those words of the Apostle All those good Auncients in the Manna vnderstood beleeued and tasted Christ himselfe and were thereby saued And this no Papist I suppose will be so absurd as to deny But this is but a by-matter no part of the maine Argument and therefore I forbeare here to insist further on it 2. That is as impossible for children to eate Christ by faith spiritually as to receiue him sacramentally in the Eucharist Not to runne out into more Questions then needs must at the present I answer 1. Many yong ones die though at yeeres of discretion when in ordinary course they may well haue faith and beleeue actually yet ere they be admitted to the Eucharist and yet is not their saluation at all thereby preindiced 2. By the doctrine of their Church euen Infants haue an habite of faith infused into them in Baptisme 3. Neither is it a thing impossible for the Spirit of God by an extraordinary manner to worke faith in such infants as are to be saued dying before yeeres of discretion no more then it was to regenerate Iohn Baptist in his mothers wombe of whom Gregorie therefore saith that he was new bred yet vnborne 4. The speech is of the same latitude and extent at least with those other whosoeuer beleeueth in me hath life eternall And Whosoeuer beleeueth not in the Sonne of God shall neuer liue but shall be damned and the like which comprehend those onely to whom it appertaineth actually to come vnto Christ and to beleeue in him saith Iansenius And that is enough for my purpose § 7. My second Argument was thus framed All that so feede on Christ are eternally saued our Sauiour so saith But many feede on the Eucharist that are eternally damned Ergò Christ speaketh not there of orall eating in the Eucharist Now this Argument saith he if I had wit to discerne the force of it maketh more against vs then against them And why so Forsooth because all are not saued that spiritually and by faith feede on Christ. This is like Bâ—llarmines bold assertion that some that beleeue in Christ perish eternally because they die before they can haue a Priest to assoile them And what is this but to say that all that doe truly beleeue in Christ are not saued Yea what is this not to repeate all the allegations both of Scripture and Fathers produced for the proofe of the Proposition which he purposely passeth ouer not being able to answere but to giue our Sauiour himselfe and the holy Ghost the lye who so oft say Whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall be saued Nor is it sufficient as he addeth for to verifie our Sauiours speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce such effects in the Soules of such as worthily receiue it though the contrary befall those that doe vnworthily reÌ„ceiue it For to answer them againe in the words of one of their owne Authors our Sauiours words imply manifestly a certaine effect as he speaketh not a matter that may be as Augustine and Cyril also in the places cited by me there shew whereupon also he concludeth that it is apparent thence that all are not there said to eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of Christs body and blood § 8. To their owne Authors Cardinals Schoelemen Canonists publike Professors or Readers of Diuinity in their Vniuersities Friers I might haue said too and in steed of Iesuites being better informed by him I now say Bishops which will not much mend the matter 1. Hee answereth that they bee but few in number and their authoritie of no great weight in regard of those that hold the contrarie Yet one of their owne Bishops though of an other mind himselfe confesseth that there are very many of them that are of this iudgement But had there beene but one or two of them especially of note as some of them were of some one sort it might well haue weighed much on our side For the witnesse of an aduersarie is of no small weight How much more when so many of all sorts of so speciall repute shall so vniformely speake for vs and herein accord with vs 2. He demandeth of his Aduersarie why he doth so highly value them and mainely vrge them herein when in other points he will not
sticke to contemne them Had he any wit in his adle braine he would neuer haue asked this idle Question It is as if in a Law-suite because a man taketh hold as he may well doe of somewhat that falleth from his Aduersaries or is granted him and confessed by them because it furthereth his owne cause he were therefore bound to beleeue or admit all that euer they say to the preiudice of his right The greater differences are betweene them and vs yea in the present controuersie concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament the lesse cause there is to suspect that they should speake partially for vs and the greater cause to suppose they were by euidence of truth enforced to confesse that that should take away some of those grounds whereby the cause that themselues stiffely maintained is ordinarily vpheld 3. He addeth in the end These men herein without hereticall intention or obstinâ—cie of iudgement differed from vs. Whom he meaneth by that Vs I leaue to himselfe to explaine And the lesse hereticall their intention was as he vnderstandeth hereticall the lesse suspition there is of collusion or any purpose therein to gratifie vs and so much the stronger therefore is their testimonie for vs. The testimonie of a meere stranger or no well-willer to the cause maketh it to be of more moment But when he speaketh of obstinacie of iudgement he glaunceth at a secret in their Church which I shall in a word or two take occasion hereby to discouer It is no matter what a man hold or maintaine among them so long as he acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacie the maine pillar of their faith and submit himselfe and his workes wholly to his censure and so be ready to vnsay what he saith when he will haue him so to doe For his censure indeede alone is that which they call commonly the censure of the Church And to this purpose they confesse that many of their writers haue held the very same points for which they condemne vs now as Heretikes of whom yet they say that they were not Heretikes because they submitted themselues to this Censure I will adde an instance or two hereof out of Bellarmine 1. In this very particular he confesseth that many of the Authors before mentioned expound that 6. Chap. of Iohn as the Heretikes doe but they submit themselues saith he and their writings to the Censure of the Councels and Popes which the Heretikes doe not 2. In the present controuersie Durandus held not a Transubstantiation but a transformation in the Sacrament which opinion saith he is hereticall and yet was hee no Heretike because he was ready to yeeld to the iudgement of the Church 3. Ambrose Catharines opinion of the Ministers intention in the Sacrament differeth not saith he for ought I see from the opinion of Chemnicius and other Heretikes saue that he in the end of his booke submitteth himselfe to the Apostolike Sea and Councel 4. Durandus in the point concerning merite of workes held as we now doe that no reward was due to them but out of Gods meere liberalitie and that it were temerarious and blasphemous to say that God were vniust if he should not so reward them And yet was he also no Heretike for the cause before-mentioned And thus are we at length arriued after much winding to and fro while wee follow a shifting wind at the end of the former part of my Discourse wherein hath beene shewed beside other Arguments confirming the same by the confession of their owne Authors that those places of Scripture doe not enforce any such corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament as Papists maintaine which they commonly produce to prooue it Diuision 7. PAg. 9. My Aduersarie becommeth a more formall Disputant then before and against our Doctrines of Transubstantiation and reall presence of our Sauiour in the Sacrament ignorantly by him in many places confounded he frameth this wise Argument Looke what our Sauiour tooke that he blessed what he blessed that he brake what he brake that he deliuered to his Disciples what he deliuered of that he said This is my Body But it was bread that he tooke And bread therefore that he blessed bread that hee brake and bread that he deliuered and bread consequently of which he said This is my Body Which is a formelâ—sse and fallacious kinde of arguing wholly forcelesse if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy Fathers to be true that Christs words haue force now as then they had when himselfe vttred them to change the substance of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood As if after the like manner of the water conuerted by Christ into wine I should make this deduction The Ministers drew water out of the well carried what they drew therefore that which they drew and carried was water If the Minister shall tell me that they drew water but carried it made wine by our Sauiours omnipotent operation so I will tell him that Christ tooke bread and wine and conuerted them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction into his owne bodie and blood before he distributed them as he by his plaine words pronounced of them saying This is my Body c. HItherto if you will beleeue this worthy Doctor his Aduersarie hath disputed without forme or figure that you may not maruaile why his Answer is so diffused deformed and mis-figured for the fault it seemeth was in his Aduersaries mishapen Syllogismes which made him also so loath to meddle with any of them Here he confesseth he becommeth a more formall Dissutant and I hope therefore we shall finde him a more formall Defendant Yet ere he come to my first Argument he must needs haue a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of Transsubstantiation and the reall presence corporall hee should haue said for more perspicuitie for so I speake ignorantly the one with the other I perceiue well what his drift herein is to make some beleeue that howsoeuer Transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times yet a reall that is a corporall presence was euer acknowledged But if we will beleeue Bellarmine Aquinas and the Councel of Trent the one of them is euery iot as ancient as the other yea the one cannot possibly bee without the other This the Councel of Trent telleth vs was alwaies the faith of the Church that by the consecration of Bread and Wine the whole Substance of the Bread was turned into the Substance of Christs body and the whole Substance of wine into his Blood And A body saith Aquinas cannot be where it was not before but either by locall motion or by the conuersion of some other thing into it But it is manifest that Christs bodie beginneth not to bee in the Sacrament by any locall motion And therefore it must needs come there by the conuersion of the bread into it Yea by locall motion it cannot be there nor by any meanes but
that through Iesus Christ by whom he continually createth quickeneth and blesseth all these good things And againe that that which they haue taken may of a temporall gift become an eternall remedie How stand now these speeches and prayers with their Transubstantiation Are Christs body and blood those temporall gifts and good things that God by Christ daily createth and quickeneth Or needeth Christ the Priest to entreate his Father to looke propitiously vpon him Or any Angell to cary him vp and present him before his Father in heauen in whose presence and sight he is continually there Or is it not absurd to place Abels fatlings and Abrahams Ramme in equipage with the body and blood of Christ Iesus But these things it seemeth were in their ancient Liturgies before euer this new monster was hatched and to their owne shame confusion are yet vnwisely still retained And if you will see how handsomely things therein hang together obserue but this one passage The Priest prayeth to God to send an Angell to fetch the holy Housell vp into heauen and yet they tell vs withall the most of them that it neuer came from thence nor neuer returneth againe thither wherein we better beleeue them then we doe some other of their fellowes that say otherwise and within a while after hee swalloweth it downe himselfe and then praieth God as if he repented him of his former prayer that that which hee hath eaten may sticke fast to his guts Let him shew any such absurdities as these if he can in our Seruice If some pieces of Antiquity found in theirs be retained still in ours that is neither derogation to ours nor commendation to theirs Wee embrace true and sound Antiquity wheresoeuer we finde it their corrupt nouelties which it suteth so euillfauouredly withall we deseruedly reiect THey pretend cleare places of Scripture for each point of their doctrines wherein they differ from vs. But when they come to be duly discussed they either make against themselues or prooue nothing at all against vs as I will briefely declare in this very controuersie for a Corollarium of my whole doctrine For whereas S. Cyprian S. Hilarie Saint Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and vniuersally all the ancient Fathers commenting the 6. Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell haue literally vnderstood Christs promise of giuing his flesh to eate and his blood to drinke in the Sacrament these men restraine them to a metaphoricall and spirituall eating by faith onely and for this their interpretation quite contrary to the iudgement of the ancient Church they onely cite those wordes of Christ It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing c. and affirme them to import that Christs wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood and not at all according to the literall signification of them to wit of Christs body and blood receiued in the Sacrament Whereas at most they can import that Christ promised not to giue his flesh and blood cannally as the Capharnaits vnderstood him cut to wit in pieces and by bits eaten as S. Augustine explicateth them but that Christs body and blood were to be after a spirituall manner present and receiued in the Sacrament which we deny not And great Authors as Tolet noteth so expound them as to make this sense It is the deity or diuine spirit which is vnited with my flesh that viuificateth by grace soules worthily receiuing it and not by flesh alone barely of it selfe eaten Neither of which explications prooue a figuratiue vnderstanding of Christs wordes this being a Glosse of their owne besides the text neuer before them taught by any Catholike Doctor and so it can be no solide sufficient ground sor them to rely vpon for their hereticall deniall of Christs true body and blood really present and receiued in the Sacrament For Scripture ill vnderstood is no Scripture but Gods word abused § 7. YEt in concluâ—ion to say somewhat againe of the present point hee telleth vs that S. Cyprian Hilarie Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and all the ancient Fathers vniuersally vnderstood that place of Iohn concerning the eating of Christs flesh not figuratiuely but literally whereas wee contrary to the iudgement of the whole ancient Church vnderstand them of spirituall eating by faith alleadging onely for this our exposition those words of our Sauiour It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing which wordes as Tolet sheweth may beare another sense 1. How prooueth hee that these Fathers so expound that place Forsooth he sendeth vs to seeke the proofe of it in Bellarmine It is enough that he saith it let Bellarmine if he can prooe it But is not this impudent out-facing to say that these Fathers all literally vnderstand it when out of diuerse of them the contrary hath beene euidently shewed Yea when Augustine one of them giuing rules to expound Scripture doth expressely affirme that the place is to be taken figuratiuely and that it were an haynous and flagitious thing otherwise to vnderstand it 2. It is another vntruth as grosse as the former to say we ground our exposition on those wordes onely Wee vrge indeed the wordes following The wordes that I speake are spirit and life And we vrge and expound them no otherwise then diuerse of the Ancients haue done before vs. To omit Athanasius formerly alleadged Augustine besides that that is in the selfe same place cited What meane those wordes saith he They are spirit and life but that they are to be vnderstood spiritually And againe He spake this that hee might not bee vnderstoode carnally as Nicodemus before had done Yea and of those former wordes Thomas Aquinas out of Chrysostom When Christ saith It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing his meaning is that we ought spiritually to vnderstand those things that wee heare of him and that whoso heareth carnally getteth thereby no good Now to vnderstand them carnally is to looke on the outward things onely and to imagine no more then wee see To vnderstand them spiritually is not so to iudge of them but also with the inward eyes to looke on them Which in all mysteries ought alwayes to be done And Tertullian When Christ saith that The flesh profiteth nothing His meaning must be drawne from the matter of his speech For because they thought his speech hard and intollerable as if hee determined to giue them his very flesh to bee eaten or his flesh verely to bee eaten to place the state of saluation in the spirit hee premiseth It is the spirit that quickeneth and then adioyneth the flesh profiteth nothing to wit to quicken And withall he sheweth what he meaneth by the spirit The words that I haue spoken are spirit and life As he said before Hee that heareth my word and beleeueth in him that sent mee hath life eternall So