the Father had giuen and that Christ would giue then the wordes are not meant of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist For therein the very same Christ that the Father gaue is giuen to the faithfull as we say spiritually to both faithfull and vnfaithfull as they affirme corporally And therfore the gift is not diuers as he saith but the selfe same 2. If hee say that the gift is diuers in regard of the diuers manner of giuing who knoweth not that Christ who had beene giuen by his Father and yet by himselfe also in his incarnation was after giuen also by himselfe and yet by his Father also in his passion So their owne Iansenius expoundeth his words that he would giue his bâ—die also vnto death and Frier Ferus that hee would giue it vnto death on the Crosse for there saith hee was that bread to bee basked and there that flesh of his saith Bonauenture was to be boyled Yea so Gregory of Valence My flesh that I will giue that is that I will offer for the life of the world Where thinke we but on the Crosse 2. Christ saith he compareth the eating of his flesh to the Iewes eating of Manna which was a corporall food really eaten by them and he must needs therefore speake of the Eucharist Bellarmine was not so absurd indeed as to argue on this manner As if the Manna were not also a spirituall type of Christ and Christ might not as well compare the type with the truth as the type with the counter-type the type of the Manna a spirituall food then really taken with the spirituall eating of Christ that was therin figured Or 〈…〉 â—f he might not compare our spirituall feeding on him with some corporall food really eaten which both here and else-where it is confessed as shal presently be shewed that he doth and yet not mention the Sacrament of the Eucharist at all Bellarmine saith indeede that Christ compareth there with the Manna his bodie not as it is receiued by faith alone and then belike by Bellarmines grant it is truely so also receiued euen out of the Sacrament but as in the Sacrament it is receiued But how doth he proue it 1. From the Apostle where hee compareth Baptisme with the red Sea and Manna with the Eucharist But how doth this follow The Apostle doth so there therefore our Sauiour doth so heere especially considering how diuers the scope of either in either place is The Apostles scope is to shew that the old Israelites had as good and as sure outward pledges of Gods fauour and loue as wee Christians now haue and yet were not spared when they prouoked him to wrath for all that Our Sauiours scope is to prooue that the spirituall food of his flesh which he there tendred them and aduised them to seeke after was much more excellent and of farre greater vertue and efficacie then the Manna that their Fathers did once eate in the Wildernesse For that that considered as corporall food was it selfe corruptible and could not preserue them that eate of it from death whereas this was food incorruptible and being spiritually fed on would cause them to liue for euer For the Apostles purpose therefore it was necessary to consider the Manna as a Sacrament and to compare the Eucharist with it as with our Baptisme hee had paralleled the Red Sea before But for our Sauiour so to do there was no necessity at all Nor indeed doth he consider the Manna there as a Sacrament no more then the Iewes did that there mentioned it to him nor doth hee speake cught of the Sacrament where hee speaketh of the Manna as Bellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth His speech to them occasioned by the bread that they had eaten of and the Manna that they spake of is the very like to that other speech of his to the Samaritane woman occasioned by the water that hee had asked of her He that drinketh of this water shall thirst againe but he that drinketh of the water that I shall giue him shall neuer thirst more c. Which had it been considered would easily haue assoyled those difficulties that as Iansenius obserueth so much troubled Augustine and Caietan yea and Iansenius himselfe too Nor was there any necessity that the bread of the Eucharist should bee more mentioned in the one place then the drinke of it in the other 2. Because Christs bodie as by faith it is receiued was not wanting to those of old time that liued before Christs Incarnation What hee giueth vs heere wee take that Christs body was by faith receiued euen before hee was incarnate But how prooueth this that Christ therefore spake there of a sacramentall eating of it and not rather that he called home those his carnall followers from the corporall feeding either on the bread that they had eaten of or the Manna that they mentioned and would faine still haue been fed with that they might liue without labour not to an eating of sacramentall bread which they would not haue much misliked but to that spirituall feeding which as well their holy forefathers as all true and faithfull Christians now were eternally saued by Yea this may be confirmed by Bellarmines owne grants Who first confesseth this as a certaine truth that there is no mention at all of the Eucharist in all that our Sauiours discourse before those wordes which were spoken after hee had done speaking of the Manna The bread that I will giue is my flesh that I will giue for the life of the world 2. Hee granteth expresly that those wordes I am the brad of life hee that commeth to me shall not hunger c. doe not properly belong to the Sacrament 3. He obserueth a three fold bread spoken of by our Sauiour the first that materiall bread that Christ had fed them withall the second spirituall bread himselfe incarnate which hee wisheth them to get and must by faith be apprehended that it may refresh â—s the third hee might well haue said Mâ—nna which he omitteth termed also bread there but the sacramentall bread saith he expressed in those wordes the bread that I will giue is my flâ—sh that I will giue for the life of the world as if this were not the same spirituall bread that hee spake of before 4. Being pressed with this that there is no bread at all in the Eucharist as they say k therfore it cannot be the sacramentall bread that is there spoken of neither can it bee meant of the bread that Christ was to giue in the Supper as hee elsewhere had said he saith that bread there signifieth not wheaten bread nor Christs body absolutely but meate or food in generall and so the sence of it is this The bread
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
not therefore inferre any corporall feeding 2. That this whole Discourse of our Sauiour is not to bee vnderstood of any Sacramentall or corporall but of spirituall eating onely it is likewise apparent For 1. None are saued but such as so feede on Christ as is there spoken of Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man saith our Sauiour and drinke his blood you haue no life in you He hath not therefore life eternall saith Augustine that eateth not this bread and drinketh not this blood For temporall life men may haue without it but eternall life without it in no wise can they haue But many are and shall be saued by Christ that neuer Sacramentally fed on Christ in the Eucharist yea that neuer eate at all of the Eucharist or saw it or knew of it as not onely the ancient Fathers that liued before Christs Incarnation who yet as Augustine well obserueth did eate the flesh of Christ spiritually as well as we doe now and were saued by the death and passion of Christ which as Bernard speaketh was effectuall euen before it was actuall and the Thiefe on the Crosse that passed thence to Paradise the same day that he dyed but many Infants also that die ere they come to yeeres of discretion as the Councel of Trent acknowledgeth accursing all those that hold mis-expounding the words of Christ in that place that all Infants are damned that receiue not Christs body and blood in the Eucharist Which yet one of their owne Popes sometime held and maintained and which would necessarily follow if that place were to be vnderstood of the Sacramentall eating of Christ in the Eucharist It is not therefore the Sacramentall eating of Christ in the Eucharist that is there spoken of 2. All that feede on Christ so as is there spoken of are sure eternally to bee saued For so our Sauiour himselfe saith If any man eate of this bread he shall neuer dye but liue for euer And whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day And He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And As I liue by the Father se He that eateth me shall liue by me It is not saith Augustine with this meate as with our bodily foode That vnlesse a man take he cannot liue but take it he may and yet not liue he may die after he hath taken it But in this foode of our Lords body and blood it is not so For both he that taketh it not can not liue and he that taketh it liueth eternally For As if one poure melted waxe vpon other waxe the one is wholy mixed with the other so it must needs be saith Cyril that if any man take Christs body and blood he be so ioyned with him that he be found in Christ and Christ in him and consequently that he be saued by Christ. But many feede vpon that that is giuen in the Eucharist that yet are eternally damned Many take it and die saith Augustine yea many die in the taking of it He eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe saith the Apostle And was not the morsel that Christ gaue Iudas poison to Iudas that tooke it And againe The Sacrament hereof is taken at the Lords Table by some to saluation by others to destruction Whereas the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is taken to saluation by euery one that is partaker thereof to destruction by none If all be saued then that eate of Christs flesh in that manner that Christ speaketh of in that place But all are not saued that eate corporally what is offred them in the Eucharist it must needs follow that Christ speaketh not of any corporall eating of him in the Eucharist in that place But we neede not insist longer vpon the proofe hereof For that our Sauiours whole discourse in that place is not to be vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of feeding on Christ spiritually is confessed and acknowledged not by one or two only but by many Popish writers of great note Cardinals Schoolemen Canonists Professors Iesuites and others as by name by Cardinal Cusane Cardinal Cajetan Gabriel Biel a great Schooleman Astesanus a Canonist Ruard Tapper and Iohn Hessels Professors of Diuinitie at Louaine and Cornelius Iohnson a great Iesuite the most of them by Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe alleadged and acknowledged to hold as we doe that those words of our Sauiour speake onely of a spirituall eating and not of any corporall yea or sacramentall either According whereunto it is acknowledged not by Augustine onely but by Iohnson the Iesuite who at large disputeth and confirmeth that which we say both grounding vpon the words of our Sauiour himselfe that to eate Christs flesh in the manner there spoken of is nothing else but to beleeue in Christ. Since then the places produced to prooue this corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament are by our Aduersaries their owne confession such as either doe not necessarily prooue the point or are otherwise to be vnderstood we haue little reason to yeeld vnto them therein Hitherto we haue shewed that no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue as those of the Romish Church hold concerning the reall conuersion of the outward Elements in the Eucharist into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ and a corporall presence of either necessarily flowing there from Now 2. that the Bread and Wine remaine in substance and nature still the same and are not so conuerted into the very Flesh and Blood of Christ we further thus prooue 1. We reason from the very course of the Context in the Story of the Institution Iesuâ— tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and said Take eate This is my Body Whence I thus reason Looke what our Sauiour tooke that he blessed what he blessed that he brake what he brake he deliuered to the Disciples what he deliuered to them of that he said This is my Body But it was Bread that he tooke the Euangelist so saith and Bread therefore that he blessed bread that he brake bread that he deliuered and bread consequently of which he said This is my Body And hence are those speeches so frequent in the Auncient Fathers The Bread that hath beene blessed saith Irenaeus is its owne Lords body God in the Gospel saith Tertullian calleth bread his Body The Bread saith Augustine is the Body of Christ. The Bread saith Hicrome that the Lord brake and gaue his Disciples is the Lords body And if we aske how Bread is or can be Christs body as we may well doe and v it is no new Question It was long since asked by the Auncients and answered by them The Author of that worke in Cyprian of Christs
of God And againe We are said to drinke Christs blood not in the Sacramentall rites onely but when we receiue his word wherein life consisteth as he saith The words that I speake are Spirit and Life And Hierome also vnderstandeth those words of our Sauiour He that eateth not my Flesh and drinketh not my blood not of the Sacrament of the Eucharist onely but more specially or as he speaketh more truly of Christs word and doctrine and addeth therefore that t When we heare the word of God both the word of God and the Flesh of Christ and his Bloud is powred in at our eares If in the Sacrament of Baptisme then and in the Ministery of the word we truly receiue Christ and become partakers of Christ yea we eate and drinke Christ in either as well as in the Eucharist what needeth any such reall transmutation more in the one then in the other 6. We reason from the Qualitie of the Communicants in the Eucharist If Christs body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist then all that eate of the Eucharist must of necessitie eate Christ in it But many eate of the Eucharist that yet eate not Christ in it For none but the faithfull feede on Christ none eate him as we shewed before but those that liue by him yea and in him that are liuing members of his mysticall Body Whereas many wicked ones eate of the Eucharist many eate of it that are out of Christ. The other Disciples saith Augustine did eate that Bread that is the Lord Iudas did eate the Lords Bread against the Lord. And disputing against those that hold that wicked men should be saued if they liued in the Church because they fed on Christ in the Eucharist saith that such wicked ones are not to be said to eate Christs body because they are not members of his body And that Christ when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I i◠him doth thereby shew what it is truly and not sacramentally onely to eate Christs body and to drinke his blood and that no man eateth his body and drinketh his blood that abideth not 〈…〉 Christ and Christ in him And againe he saith He receiueth the Bread of Life and drinketh the Cup of eternitie that abideth in Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth But he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood though to his owne iudgement for his presumption he daily receiue indifferently the Sacrament of so great a thing And againe They that eate and drinke Christ eate and drinke life To eate him is to be made againe to drinke him is to liue That which is taken visibly in a Sacrament is eaten and drunke spiritually in the truth it selfe For This meate and drinke maketh those that take it truly immortall and incorruptible This is therefore to eate that flesh and drinke that drinke for a manto abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in him And consequently he that abideth not in Christ nor Christ in him without doubt doth not eate his flesh nor drinke his blood spiritually though carnally and visibly with his teeth he crush the Sacrament of Christs Body To Augustine I adde Origen who hauing spoken what shall anone be related of Christs typicall and symbolicall Body as he calleth the Sacrament Much saith he might be said more of the Word it selfe that became Flesh and true Foode which whosoeuer eateth shall surely liue for euer and which no euill man can eate of For if it were possible that any man that continueth euill still should eate of the Word that became Flesh since it is the liuing Bread it had neuer beene written Whosoeuer eateth of this Bread shall liue for euer It is impossible then that any wicked man or any that are damned should eate Christ But many wicked men eate of the Eucharist many are damned that eate of it The Eucharist therefore is not really Christ. Lastly we reason from those things that are done about or may be fall those Creatures that in the Eucharist are consecrated which cannot be done to or betide now Christs glorified Body 1. The Eucharisticall Bread was broken in pieces and diuided into parts by our Sauiour at his last Supper And the like rite was obserued by the Apostles in the administratiof the Eucharist And is in the Romish Church also not vnusuall But as Christ saith the Apostle is not diuided so Christs Body is not diuided into parts as they themselues confesse nor broken into pieces His Body indeede is said to be broken not that it was really broken into pieces but as by the Prophet it is said that It pleased God to breake him and to put him to griefe which was fulfilled in those paines and torments that for vs he sustained and as we vse to say of men that with griefe and care they are broken Otherwise it was neuer broken much lesse is it now broken being wholly quit euen of all those infirmities that it was so broken with before Yea the Papists themselues not daring to auow that of Christs verie bodie are enforced to affirme that euery Communicant receiueth the whole and entire body of Christ. Yet they receiue but a part saith their owne Canon as you shall heare anone of the Element in the Sacrament That therefore that is so diuided there is not Christs naturall Body And here the Popish Glosser is strangely troubled to salue and reconcile the words of their Canons and to make their owne doctrine agree with the sayings of some of the Ancients there cited There is inserted into the Canon this saying of Augustine We doe 〈…〉 make parts of Christ when we eate him Indeede in the Sacrament we doe so and the faithfull know how we eate Christs flesh there Each one taketh his part and the Eucharist it selfe is therefore called their Parts Christ is eaten by parts in a Sacrament and yet remaineth whole in Heauen and yet remaineth whole in thy heart On which place saith the Glosser This is contrary to that which Pope Nicolas saith in Berengarius his Confession And so it is indeede for therein as before you heard it is said that not the Sacrament onely but Christs very Body it selfe is broken by the Priest But that cannot be saith the Glosse for a glorified Body cannot suffer any such maime or harme And therefore saith the same Glosse The Body and Blood of Christ is called by the name of Parts or the Species that are diuided are called the Body and Blood of Christ in a significant mysterie that is as we say because in a mysterie they signifie Christs Body and Blood That then which is taken in the Sacrament is diuided into parts and eaten by peece-meale But Christs naturall Body is not so diuided or taken corporally That therefore that is taken in the Eucharist
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
that is the meate that I will giue is my flesh it selfe that is to be crucified and staine for the saluation of mankind And he addeth that peraduenture our Sauiour called his flesh sometimes bread to shew that vnder the species of bread it was to be eaten So that all the force of Bellarmines Argument is but meerely coniecturall and dependeth vpon a peraduenture which hee cannot certainely auerre But without all peraduenture hee affirmed before that the bread of which our Sauiour said My Father giueth you the true bread from heauen and The bread of God is hee that came from heauen and giueth life to the world and I am the bread of life hee that commeth to mee shall neuer hunger and hee that beleeueth in mee shall neuer thirst and I am the bread that came downe from heauen and againe I am the bread of life and This is the bread that came downe from heauen that whosoeuer eateth thereof should neuer die and I am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer that the bread I say of which hee said all this was not the Encharist or the sacramentall bread and none of all this directly and properly concerneth it And well may wee put it out of peraduenture that the bread of which our Sauiour saith it is his flesh that he wil giue for the life of the world and whosoeuer eateth of it hath life euerlasting which no man also can haue without it is no other then that of which hee had before said that it is himselfe and that it giueth life to the world and life euerlasting to euery one that eateth of it the rather also for that our Sauiour himselfe so informeth vs when he saith not passing as Bellarmine would haue it from a second bread to a third but more particularly expressing what the second bread was and repeating more fully what before hee had said I am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer and the bread that I will giue what bread thinke we but the same that he was euen then speaking of which yet was none of the sacramentall bread saith Bellarmine is my flesh that I will giue for the life of the world Those ensuing passages therefore are not meant of the sacramentall bread or the Eucharist no more then the former But leaue wee Bellarmine and returne we to this our Defendant whom we are principally now to deale with His last Argument out of Tolet is not so much for the Eucharist as against the spirituall eating Christs flesh and drinking his blood by faith If our Sauiour had meant nothing but that they should beleeue in him it had been a strange course by such an obscure manner of speaking to driue away so many that had formerly followed him and beleeued in him without any word added that might open this darke doctrine To omit that here againe he departeth from Augustine who saith thus expresly Our Lord being about to giue the holy Ghost called himself bread exhorting vs tobeleeue in him For to beleeue in him is to eate that liuing bread He that beleeueth in him feedeth on him he is fatted inuisibly because he is inuisibly bred againe he is there filled where he is renewed And again They that shed Christs blood drank his blood whē they beleeued in him and they drank it by beleeuing in him 1. It pleased our Sauiour sometime as to Nicodemus and to the people oft-times to speake things in obscure Parables which yet to them he did not explicate Nor may any taxe the wisedome of Christ without impiety for so doing Yea so saith Augustine he spake that here which he would not haue all to vnderstand 2. Those that went away from him vpon it were as our Sauiour himselfe intimateth such as followed him onely to be fed and did not beleeue in him 3. If his meaning had beene that they were to eate of his very flesh it selfe miraculously made of bread as these men would make vs beleeue had it not beene as obscure and as difficult for them to haue conceiued it 4. It is not true that our Sauiour added nothing to explicate himselfe Augustine in the place before cited sheweth that he did And both in the beginning when hee first told them of this bread and d they desired him euer to giue them of it he maketh them answer in these words I am the bread of life Hee that commeth to me shall neuer hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst and in the processe of his speech againe Uerely verely I say vnto you Hee that beleeueth in mee hath life euerlasting Whereby saith Iansenius they might well haue vnderstood in what manner hee would giue them his flesh to eate Who also thence gathereth agreeably to Augustine and other of the Ancients that it is all one to feed on Christ and to beleeue in him As also in the Conclusion and shutting vp of all when hee saw how they mistooke him It is the spirit that quickneth the flesh availeth nothing the wordes that I speake are spirit and life In which wordes saith the same Iansenius out of Chrysostome Theophylact and Augustine hee sheweth how they should vnderstand what before he had said MY Aduersaries Arguments to the contrary are meerely topicall and prooue nothing For first it is false that the faithfull Iewes before Christ did sacramentally receiue our Sauiour as well as we which hee barely affirmeth and prooueth not page 7. Secondly those words of Christ Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you was a precept respectiuely giuen and onely obliging such persons to an actuall receiuing of the Sacrament as they were to whom it was vttred such persons to wit as are by age capable of Sacramentall manducation And surely if Christs words be onely vnderstood as my Aduersarie would haue them of spirituall eating Christ by faith they must necessarily import a precept more impossible to be fulfilled by children then sacramentally to receiue him For sooner may children receiue the Sacrament especially drinke of the consecrated Chalice as anciently in the Greeke and Latine Churches they were went to doe then actually beleeue in him His next Argument pag. 8. maketh more if this Minister had wit to discerne the force thereof against his owne exposition of Christs words then it doth against our vnderstanding of them For as all that receiue Sacramentally Christs flesh and blood are not saued no more are all that spiritually and by faith eate him This being sufficient for the veritie of our Sauiours speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce those excellent and
vnto to be theirs 4. I say indeed that Christ is as truely present in the Word which he slyly passeth by and maketh not a word of and in Baptisme as in the Eucharist and wee receiue him as really and as effectually in the one as in the other Nor doth hee answer one word to the allegations of the Fathers to that purpose produced To which may be added that of Tertullian which shall hereafter be recited And this of Augustine which he saith of Mary that shee did eate him whom shee heard and prooueth what he saith by that place of Iohn I am the living bread which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer As that also of Ambrose He eateth that bread that observeth Gods word And further also that Bellarmine acknowledgeth that Clemens of Alexandria Basil of Caesarea he might haue added Origen also and Chrysostom and Hierome apply those words of our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. to the word which howsoeuer indeed they bee not directly spoken of there yet certaine it is that both in the iudgement of those Ancients who else would not so haue applied it and in truth it selfe also for neither dare Bellarmine himselfe therein controule them the thing there spoken of is in and by it also effectually performed But to passe by the Word and the vnutterable effects of it together with the vnconceiuable manner whereby it either worketh vpon our soules or conueigheth Christ into our soules for in receiuing of it we receiue Christ in it Doe not the ancient Fathers call the Sacrament of Baptisme an ineffable mysterie as was cited out of Gregorie Nyssene a little before Yea doe they not speake as much of the dignitie and excellency and of the vnconceiuable and vnutterable efficacy of it as either Calvin or Beza doe of the Eucharist And yet this shamelesse and blasphemous beast sticketh not to say if Christ be no otherwise present in the Eucharist then hee is in Baptisme it is but a bare signe or figure hauing no mystery at all worthie of admiration And so by necessary consequence he taxeth those Worthies to speake in his fribald language as meere Iuglers and Impostors that in speaking so honourably of it and ascribing such admirable power and efficacy vnto it seeke to plaister rotten walles and maske with great wordes the naked watrinesse of their Baptisme by them so much admired Let him shew how with any colour at all he can here cleere himselfe of impietie and blasphemy And let him if hee dare deny that Christ is effectually receiued both in the Word and in Baptisme in neither whereof yet there is any such reall transmutation or corporall presence as they necessarily require vnto the receiuing of Christ in the Eucharist Diuision 13. MY Aduersaries next Argument from the qualitie of the Communicants page 18. is this If Christs body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist then all that eate thereof must of necessity eate Christ in it But many eate of the Eucharist that yet eate not Christ in it for none but faithfull and liuely members of Christ eate him in this Sacrament In which Argument hee endeavoureth to prooue one falshood by another equally by vs denyed because the holy Fathers expressely affirme that Iudas and the Corinthians blamed by Saint Paul receiued albeit vnworthily and to damnation the body of Christ as the Apostles words 1 Cor. 11. euidently import and when S. Augustine and others seemed to deny them to receiue Christ in the Sacrament they speake not of bare sacramentall but of profitable and fruitfull receiuing of him MY sixt Reason is taken from the qualitie of the Communicants The Argument is briefly this Many eate of the Eucharist that eate not Christ in it Ergò Christ is not corporally in it The Antecedent is thus prooued None feed on Christ but the faithfull such as be in Christ and liue by Christ But many eate of the Eucharist that are vnfaithfull and are out of Christ Ergò c. The Proposition of this latter Syllogisme he denyeth and saith it is a meere falshood and why so forsooth they deny it themselues And why doe they so because the holy Fathers say that Iudas and the Corinthians blamed by S. Paul did receiue Christs body as the Apostles words evidently import 1. For the Apostle he saith expresly He that eateth this bread as plainely as can bee telling vs more then once or twice that it was bread that they did eat though tearmed also Christs body as hath oft beene said and as Augustine sheweth because a Sacrament of it 2. Is not this shamelesse dealing to say the Fathers affirme that Iudas receiued Christs naturall body for of that is the question yet not alleadging any one tittle out of any of them for the proofe of it and that when the saying of one them is produced directly to the coÌ„trary that Iudas ate Christs bread but not the bread Christ which he answereth not a word to If they say that Iudas ate with the rest Christs body they expound themselues what thereby they meane to wit Christs bread the Sacrament of his body § 2. Yea but the Fathers when they deny wicked men to receâ—â— Christ in the Sacrament they speake not of bare sacramentall but of profitable and fruitfull receiuing of him 1. It is true indeed they speake not of bare sacramentall eating And who saith they do Or what is this tothe purpose what is it but that I say They speake not of bare sacrametall eating when they say wickedmen eat not Christ in the Eucharist but they speake of it when they say they do eat yet of the Eucharist wherein they should eat Christ were Christ corporally in it which they say they doe not 2. They say you haue their owne wordes that it is not possible for any wicked man to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood albeit they doe gnaw or chew the Sacrament with their teeth because our Saviour saith Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in mee and whosoeuer eateth of this bread shall liue for euer 3. This Answer implieth that Christs body it selfe may vnfruitfully and vnprofitably be eaten as if the ancient Fathers had dreamed of a twofold eating of it a worthy and profitable and an vnworthie and vnprofitable eating To which I might answer with his owne Bishop I ansenius his words He that vnworthily eateth the bread of life in the Sacrament doth not truely eate of that bread of which it is said I am the bread of life and My flesh is meate in deed And hee addeth that it were an absurd thing to expound our Sauiour where he saith If a man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer as if he should meane If a man eate worthily of this bread he shall liue for euer as if any man could
that he maketh the word the quickner because the word is spirit life and he called it also his flesh because the Word also became flesh and is therefore to be longed aâ—ter for life to be deuoured by the hearing chewed by the vnderstanding and digested by faith Heere is the eating that our Sauiour spake of in that place not carnall but spirituall which our Aduersarie also earstwhiles confessed Neither vrge we this alone as he vntruely here affirmeth But wee vrge diuerse other passages also as before hath beene shewed wherein our Sauiour expoundeth himselfe obserued by Augustine long since and by their Flaunders Bishop Iansenius of late beside diuerse others of their owne And if he had had any thing of moment to say against this our exposition why did hee not then produce it where the place was discussed But he thought it better and safer it seemeth to let all this alone there lest the allegations to the contrary being then in the eie might easily conuince him of grosse and palpable falshood 3. Doe we alone thus expound that place Doe not very many of their owne writers herein agree with vs Or do those of theirs build onely vpon the clause he here mentioneth To which purpose howsoeuer enough hath already beene said yet for his better information concerning both the soundnes of our exposition of that place and the reasons thereof drawne from our Sauiours owne wordes let him heare one though not then Pope yet that afterward came to bee Pope and was as learned a Pope as any of late times Aeneas Syluius writing against the Bohemians It is not saith he any sacramentall drinking but a spirituall that our Sauiour speaketh of in that 6. of Iohn For there is as Albertus Magnus she weth a threefold drinking of Christ a sacramentall that the Priests onely receiue an intellectuall that the people take in the species of bread and a spirituall which all vse that are to be saued by daily deuout meditation ruminating on Christs incarnation and his passion And of this drinking our Sauiour speaketh in Iohn 6. as the very series of the Euangelists wordes clearely sheweth For when some of them that heard it murmured our Sauiour said Doth this scandalize you What if you should see the Sonne of Man ascend where before he was It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing In which wordes he declareth that hee speaketh not there of any carnall eating or drinking But would you plainly see that he speaketh of spirituall eating that is by faith Marke what hee saith He that eateth and drinketh He speaketh in the present tense not in the future There were euen then those that so ate him and dranke him when as the Sacrament was not yet instituted And how did they then eate and drinke Christ but spiritually by faith and loue and doing his wordes For he said also before I am the bread of life hee that commeth vnto mee shall not hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst For Christs speech was figuratiue So also the Glosser vnderstandeth this Gospell and so doth that great Augustine noble both for doctrine and modestie whose glory is so great that no mans commendation can adde to his credit no mans dispraise can disparage him And yet dare this shamelesse out-facer confidently affirme that none of the Fathers euer so expounded the place and that the Heretickes as he esteemeth them as if none but they so expounded it had no other inducement so to expound it but those wordes onely It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing all which you see are nothing but grosse vntruths SEcondly whereas we prooue that Christs wordes This is my body c. as being vttered to the Apostles to whom it was giuen to vnderstand the mysteries of Christs Church plainely and without parable and containing in them the institution of a Sacrament fit in plaine wordes to be deliuered and vnderstood by all Christians bound to receiue it are as we say literally to bee vnderstood and not in tropicall and figuratiue senses as our Aduersaries expound them producing for our opinion all the Fathers successiuely in all ages since Christ so vnderstanding them Protestant Diuines slenderly obiect first that of the sacramentall Chalice Christ affirmed that he would no more drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill after his passion ergò it was wine contained in the Chalice wee answer that S. Luke expressely mentioneth two Chalices one drunke after the Paschall Lambe eaten and the other afterwards blessed by Christ and distributed to his Apostles and that Christ onely called the first the fruit of the vine c. So S. Ierome S. Bede and other great Authors explicate and solue this difficulty with vs. Secondly they obiect those words of Christ Doe this in memory of me ergò the Sacrament is a bare memorie of Christs body and blood c. We answer and make S. Paul to interpret these words of our Sauiour for vs 1 Cor. 11. saying As oft as you shall doe this you shal represent or declare Christs death till hee come Which is best declared and represented by the parts of the Sacrifice and Sacrament as they containe the very body and blood of our Sauiour in them For so himselfe present seemeth to triumph more gloriously and exhibite vnto vs a more liuely memorie of his passion then if the Sacrament were no more then a bare signe thereof § 8. HAuing affirmed that all the holy Fathers in all ages from Christ haue expounded the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body literally and not tropically as they also do The contrary wherevnto hath as clearely been shewed as that the Sunne is vp at noone-day nor had this trifler ought of moment to except thereunto where the same is shewed and yet now craketh as their manner is of all the Fathers when indeed they cannot bring any one vndoubted testimony to confirme what they so confidently affirme Hee will at length forsooth for fashion sake vndertake to answer two slender obiections of ours to the contrary 1. Christ say wee calleth that in the Cup or Chalice the fruit of the vine He answereth that S. Luke mentioneth two Chalices the Paschall and the Euangelicall or Eucharisticall and so S. Ierome and S. Bede solue this difficulty 1. Hee spake of slender obiections And so it seemeth indeed he esteemeth them for he returneth very slender answers to them For who would be so senslesse as to reason on this manner S. Luke mentioneth two Chalices ergò our Sauiour did not speake any such thing of the Eucharisticall Cup as yet both Mathew and Marke say expressely he did 2. Ierome and Bede saith he so solue the difficulty He would make his Reader beleeue that Ierome and Bede had long since propounded this obiection and so assoiled it as he doth Whereas the truth is they take no notice either of them of the two
For Commenting on the storie of the Institution of this Sacrament The old Paschall solemnity saith hee being ended which was celebrated in memorie of the deliuerance out of Egypt Christ passeth to a new one which hee would haue the Church vse in memory of redemption by him instead of the flesh and blood of a Lambe substituting a Sacrament of his body and blood in a figure of bread and wine c. And hee breaketh himselfe the bread that he deliuereth to shew that the breaking of his bodie to come was by his owne will and procurement And againe because bread strengtheneth the flesh and wine breedeth blood the one is mystically referred to Christs body and the wine vnto his blood Where is any tittle here that may stand well with their Transubstantiation much lesse that soundeth ought that way A Sacrament of his body and blood a memoriall of his redemption bread broken and giuen and both bread and wine hauing a mysticall reference to the body and blood of Christ. It was well and aduisedly therefore done by Bellarmine to leaue Bede cleane out of the Catalogue of his Authors though a writer of the greatest note in those times because he could finde nothing in him that might seeme but to looke that way which if he could we should be sure to haue heard of Yea that long after Augustines time the same beleefe of the Sacrament that we at this day hold was commonly taught and professed publikely in this Iland notwithstanding the manifold monuments by that Popish faction suppressed appeareth by some of them in ancient Manuscripts yet extant and of late published also in print Among others of this kinde are the Epistles and Sermons written in the Saxon tongue of one Aelfricke a man of great note for learning that liued about the yeere 990. wherein the same doctrine is taught concerning the Sacrament that we hold at this day and the contrary Popish doctrine is impugned In an Epistle of his written for Wulfsine then Bishop of Shyrburn to his Clerks bearing title of a Sacerdotall Synode he saith that The holy Housell is Christs bodie not bodily but ghostly Not the body that he suffered in but the body of which he spake when hee blessed bread and wine to housell and said by the blessed bread This is my body and by the holy wine This is my blood And that the Lord that then turned that bread to his body doth still by the Priests hands blesse bread and wine to his ghostly body and his ghostly blood And in another Epistle to Wulstane Archbishop of Yorke that The Lord halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery 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 Sauiours blood which was shed for vs in bodily thing but in ghostly vnderstanding And that that bread is his body and that wine his blood as the heauenly bread which we call Manna was his body and the cleere water which did then run from the stone in the wildernes was truely his blood as S. Paul saith And that stone was Christ. And in the Paschall Homily by him translated out of Latine and read commonly then on Easter-day Men saith hee haue often searched and doe as yet search how bread that is gathered of corne and through fires heat baked may be turned to Christs body or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords blood To which he there answereth that it is so by signification as Christ is said to be Bread a Rocke a Lamb a Lion not after truth of nature And againe hauing demanded Why is that holy housell then called Christs body and his blood if it be not truely that that it is called Hee answereth It is so truely in a ghostly mysterie And then explicating further the manner of this change As saith he an heathen childe when hee is Christened yet hee altereth not his shape without though hee be changed within and as the holy water in Baptisme after true nature is corruptible water but after ghostly mystery hath spirituall vertue And so saith he The holy Housell is naturally corruptible bread corruptible wine but is by might of Gods word truely Christs body and blood yet not bodily but ghostly And afterward hee setteth downe diuerse differences betweene Christs naturall body and it Much is betwixt the body that Christ suffered in and the body that he hallowed to housell 1. The body that hee suffered in was bred of the flesh of Mary with blood and bone and skin and sinewes in humane limmes and a liuing Soule His ghostly body which we call the housell is gathered of many cornes without blood and bone limme and soule And it is therefore called a mystery because therein is one thing seen and another thing vnderstood 2. Christs body that he suffred in and rose from death neuer dieth henceforth but is eternall and impassible That housel is temporall not eternall corruptible and dealed into sundry parts chewed betweene the teeth and sent into the belly 3. This mysterie is a pledge and figure Christs body is truth it selfe This pledge doe we keepe mystically vntill we come vnto the truth it selfe and then is this pledge ended Truly it is as we said Christs body and blood not bodily but ghostly And yet further he addeth that As the Stone in the wildernesse from whence the water ran was not bodily Christ but did signifie Christ though the Apostle say That stone was Christ so that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeeres and that water that gushed from the Stone had signification of Christs body and blood and was the same that wee now offer not bodily but ghostly And that As Christ turned by inuisible might the bread to his body and the wine to his blood before he suffred so he did in the wildernesse turne the heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water to his owne blood before hee was borne That when our Sauiour said Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life He bad them not eate the body wherewith he was enclosed nor to drinke that blood which hee shed for vs but he ment that holy housel which is ghostly his body and his blood and hee that tasteth it with beleeuing heart hath euerlasting life That As the sacrifices had a sore-signification of Christs body which he offered to his Father in Sacrifice So the housell that wee hallaw at Gods Altar is a remembrance of Christs body which he offered for vs and of his blood which he shed for vs which suffering once done by him is daily renewed in a mystery of holy housell Lastly that This holy housell is both Christs body and the bodie of all faithfull men after ghostly mysterie and so
not taken nature away from it According to this forme he is not euery where For we must take heede that we doe not so maintaine the deitie of the Man that we ouerthrow the veritie of his Body In a word As the Angel reasoneth speaking to the women that sought Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe So reasoneth the same Augustine concerning Christs bodily presence reconciling those two places that might seeme the one to crosse the other Behold I am with you till the worlds end And Me shall you not haue alwaies with you ' ' In regard saith he of his Maiestie his prouidence his grace we haue him alwaies here But in regard of his flesh which the word assumed which was borne of the Virgin nailed on the crosse c. We haue him not alwaies And why so Because he is gone vp into heauen and he is not here And againe speaking of Christâ— being on earth and not in heauen as man and yet in both places as God Man according to his body is in a place and passeth from a place and when hee commeth to another place is not in that place from which he came But God is euery where and is not contâ—ined in any place So that the Romanists if they will haue Christs Body in the Eucharist they must fetch it out of Heauen and indeed as if they had so done they doe in their Masse request God to send his Angels to carry it vp againe thither And their Glosse saith that so soone as men set their teeth in it it retireth instantly thither though that crosse their common tenent Or rather they must frame a new body and so make Christ haue two bodies one that remaineth whole still in heauen and another that the Priest maketh or createth here vpon earth But what speake I of two Bodies Christ must haue as many seuerall Bodies as there be consecrated Hoasts for the whole Body of Christ they say is in each Hoast yea more then so there is an whole entire mans body flesh blood and bones with all limmes and lineaments for so it must needs be if it be Christs naturall Body not in euery Communicants mouth onely but in euery crum of the Hoasâ— that they breake of it when they crush it betweene their teeth as they also flatly and precisely affirme And by this reason the whole body of Christ against all reason For it is a principle in Nature that The whole is euer greater then any part shall be lesse in quantitie then the least limme or member of his Body then a nailes paring of his little finger then which nothing is more absurd and senselesse Euen an immortall body saith Augustine speaking of and instancing euen in Christs body is lesse in part then it is in the whole For a body being a substance the quantitie thereof consisteth in the greatnesse of bulke And since that the parts of a body are distant one from another and cannot all be together because they keepe each one their seuerall spaces and places the lesse parts lesser places and the great greater there cannot be either the whole quantitie or so great a quantitie in each single part but a greater quantitie in the greater parts and a lesser in the lesse and in no part at all so great a quantitie as in the whole But if their opinion be true any part of Christ is in quantitie as great and greater then his whole body and his whole body lesse then any part of it is But how will you say is Christs Body and Blood conneighed vnto vs or how is his flesh eaten and his blood drunke then in the Eucharist if it be not really there present I might with Aug. well in a word answer this Question How saith he shall I hold Christ when he is not here How can I stretch mine hand to Heauen there to lay hold on him Send thy faith thither saith he and thou hast him Thy forefathers held him in the flesh hold thou him in thy heart You haue him alwaies present in regard of his Maiestie but in regard of his Flesh as himselfe told his Disciples not alwaies But for fuller satisfaction I answer 1. Sacraments are seales annexed to Gods couenant And as a deede being drawne of the Princes gift concerning office land or liuelyhood and his broad seale annexed to it and that deede so drawne and sealed being deliuered that office or that land though lying an hundred miles of is therein and thereby as truly and as effectually conueighed and assured vnto the party vnto whom the same deede is so made and to whose vse and behoofe it is so deliuered as if it were really present So these seales being annexed to Gods Couenant of grace concerning Christ his Flesh and Blood and his Death and Passion and our title too and intereâ—t in either the things themselues euen Christs body and blood themselues though sited still in Heauen are as truly and as effectually conueighed with them and by them vnto the faithfull receiuer when they are to him deliuered as if they were here really and corporally present 2. We receiue Christ in the Eucharist as in the Word and Baptisme wherein also we doe truly receiue him yea and feede on his flesh and blood as well as in the Encharist albeit he be not corporally exhibited in either We are buried together with Christ saith the Apostle by Baptisme into his Death And h As many of you as haue beene baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. We are dipped in our Lords passion saith Tertullian Sprinkle thy face with Christs blood saith Hierome speaking of Baptisme that the destroyer may see it in thy forehead Thou hast Christ saith Augustine at the present by faith at the present by the signe of him at the present by the Sacrament of Baptisme at the present by the meate and drinke of the altar Yea No man ought to doubt saith Augustine but that euery Faithfull one is made partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ and that he is not estranged from the communion of that Bread and Cup though he depart out of this life ere he eate of that bread and drinke of that Cup because he hath that which that Sacrament signifieth And for the Word Christian men saith Origen eate euery day the flesh of the Lambe because daily they receiue the Flesh of Gods word And The true Lambe is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world for Christ our Passeouer is offred for vs. Let the Iewes in a carnall sense caete the flesh of a Lambe but let vs eate the flesh of the Word of God For he saith vnlesse ye eate my flesh ye shall haue no life in you This that I now speake is the Flesh of the Word
is not Christs naturall Body To conclude Christ when he brake either he brake Bread or his Body but he brake not his Body for his Body remained entire still he brake Bread therefore and so the Euangelist saith He tooke Bread and brake it and yet he had blessed it and so consecrated it first as Pope Innocent and other Popish writers confesse It remained Bread still therefore euen after Consecration when as Cyril speaketh He gaue his Disciples fragments of Bread for of his Body it could not be Yea that which they breake at this day either it is Christs very body or but bread not Christs body For Christs body if it were broken and diuided would bee spoiled saith Biel the Schooleman but that it is impossible because it is impassible Therefore Bread onely For what they speake out of Pope Innocent therein crossing Pope Nicholas as Durand also well obserueth of diuiding nothing but the colour and shape and sauour and weight and the like accidents is friuolous and contrary to the words of the Institution that admit no such sense I might adde hereunto that which Pope Nicholas acknowledgeth that if the body of Christ be corporally in the Eucharist it is not onely broken by the Priests hands but torne to pieces also with mens teeth And though the Euangelist tell vs that No boâ—e of him was broken God indeede so kept them that not one of them was broken euen when they pierced with nailes his hands and his feete yet if it be as they say his very bones must needs be broken betweene their teeth that here chew him and he sustaineth more hard measure in that kinde by the teeth of his owne Disciples then he did then at the hands of those that were his executioners Hard teeth they haue doubtlesse that can so easily breake bones and hard hearts that can finde in their heart to vse their Sauiour so hardly Who is so sottish saith the Heathen man as to thinke that that he eateth to be God What man in his wits saith Theodoret wil account that to be God which either he abhorreth or that he offereth to the true God and himselfe eateth And who is so impious say I as to eate thus that which he thinketh to be God 2. That which is consecrated in the Eucharist is subiect to corruption putrefaction and foule abuse Christs naturall body now glorified is not so That therefore is not Christs naturall body that is consecrated in the Eucharist That which is consecrated in the Eucharist I say is subiect to corruption For If we regard those visible things saith Augustine wherewith we administer the Sacraments who knoweth not that they are corruptible But if wee respect that that is intended in them who seeth not that it cannot be corrupted The Elements in the Eucharist if they be kept any long time are prone to putrisie In regard whereof their counterfeit S. Clement instructing for so he speaketh the Apostle S. Iames how to deale with the Sacrament How shamelesse are they that dare obtrude such things on the Church of God how blockish and sottish that beleeue them doth very grauely and sagely admonish him to haue speciall care of keeping the reliques of the Hoast or the fragments of Christs bodie for so he calleth them from growing mouldy in the Pyx and that no mouse dung be found among the fragments of Christs portion lest great wrong be done to some portion or piece of Christs body And yet they told vs before that Christs body is not parted And Cardinal Bellarmine telleth vs of the Sacramentall wine that it cannot be kept long but it will grow sowre Or if they be taken they are consumed and perish as the Apostle speaketh in the vse of them The Bread saith Augustine that is made for this vse is in the Sacrament consumed But Christs naturall Body is in no wise consumed No multitude saith one consumeth this bread no continuance maketh it stale That heauenly foode refresheth and yet neuer faileth it is neuer spent at all though it be neuer so oft taken It neuer perisheth saith our Sauiour but lasteth to life eternall Yea in many places the manner was anciently if any bread were left after the celebration of the Sacrament either to distribute it among the Catechumeni who might not as yet receiue the Eucharist or to burne it with fire in imitation of the Paschal Lambs remainders which yet it is to be thought they would not haue done with it if they had held it to be Christs body Yea to this day the Romanists are enioyned in their Church Canons if the hoast grow mouldy or breede mites neither of which I suppose Christs Body now can doe Or n if a sicke body that hath bin houseled bring it vp againe Or if the Priest being drunke before chance to spew it vp againe to burne both the one and the other if no man be found so hardy as to take either and to lay vp or reserue the ashes of it for a relique and if the dogs chance to licke that vp that the Priest cased himselfe of he must doe double penance for it Or if a mouse chance to picke their God almightie out of the Pyx of which more anone and she can be taken againe she must be opened and Christs body if it may be picked out of her and if no man haue a stomacke to so delicate a morsell both shee and it must be burnt and the ashes reserued For that that is both taken and kept by the Communicanes let them not blame vs if with due reuerence to such holy mysteries we argue from our Sauiours owne words the Auncients haue done so before vs Whatsoeuer saith our Sauiour goeth into the mouth entreth not into the heart but goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught which is the purging of all meates Whereupon as Augustine saith hauing spoken both of the foode that is sanctified for the sustenance of our bodies and of the bread that they vsed to giue to the Catechumeni after the celebration of the Sacrament This sanctification of meates hindreth not but that that which goeth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is by corruption cast out into the draught whereupon our Lord exhorteth vs to another meate that corrupteth not So Origen speaking of the Sacrament it selfe of the typicall and symbolicall Body of Christ for so expressely he explaineth himselfe If saith he whatsoeuer goeth in at the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught then euen that Bread also that is sanctified or consecrated all is one by the word of God and by prayer as it is materiall goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught nor is it the matter of the bread but
the praier added to it and the word spoken of it that maketh it profitable to the worthy receiuer But to say so or to thinke so of Christs blessed and glorious Body were most hideous most horrible Well therefore saith Ambrose It is not this Bread that goeth into the belly but the Bread of eternall life that sustaineth the substance of our soules And Augustine expressely telleth vs that We are not to eate that body that the Iewes saw nor drinke that blood which they shed that crucified Christ but there is a Sacrament commended vnto vs which being spiritually vnderstood will put life into vs. There can nothing be imagined more absurd saith Bellarmine himselfe then to thinke that Christs Body should nourish the mortall substance of mens bodies and so should be the foode not of the minde but of the belly But by the Popish doctrine this it must needs doe and worse then this the Popish doctrine therefore is most absurd Lastly what can be more horrible then to imagine that Christs body or any part of it should be not in the belly of a man but in the belly of a beast Christian eares saith Benauenture abhorre to heare that Christs body should be in the draught or in a mouses maw Yet by this Popish doctrine both the one the other too must needs be if a mouse chance as he may to meete with a consecrated Hoast Nor doe the Popish writers ordinarily make daintie of it to acknowledge as much If a pigge or a dogge saith Alexander of Hales should swallow downe an whole consecrated hoast I see not why or how Christs body should not passe into its belly And Thomas Aquinas A brute beast may by accident eate Christs body And Though a Mouse or a Dog eate a consecrated Hoast yet the substance of Christs body ceaseth not to be there no more then it doth if the Hoast be cast into the durt If it be said saith the Glosser that a mouse eateth Christs Body there is no great inconuenience in it since that the most wicked men that are receiue it Nene eateth Christs flesh saith Augustine but hee that first worshippeth it And I doubt much whether any of these dogs pigs or mice euer adored it howsoeuer Cardinal Bellarmine and some others tell vs either of an Horse or an Asse that worshipped the Hoast But let them and their brutish miracles and imaginations goe together Yet so necessarily doth this follow vpon their doctrine of the Eucharist that whereas some of their Doctors seeme to doubt what the mouse eateth when she meeteth with an Hoast and maketh a good meale of it And the great Master of the Sentences saith God knoweth for he knoweth not but he enclineth rather to thinke that the mouse eateth not Christs body though shee seeme so to doe whereupon the Masters of Paris giue him a wipe for it by the way and said the Master is out here And others of them to salue the matter would coine vs a new miracle and say that so soone as the mouses mouth commeth at it or her lips kisse it Christs Body conueigheth it selfe away and the bread miraculously commeth againe in the roome of it and this say they is the commoner and the honester opinion Here is miracle vpon miracle such as they are Yet Thomas Aquinas their chiefe Schooleman and one that could not be deceiued herein for they say that his doctrine of the Sacrament was confirmed by Miracle a woodden Crucifix miraculously saluting him with these words Thou hast written well of me Thomas telleth vs peremptorily that it cannot be otherwise if Christs body be in the Eucharist but that Mice and Rats must eate it when they meete with the Hoast and make meate of it Some say saith he that so soone as the Sacrament is touched by a dogge or a mouse Christs Body ceaseth to be there But this opinion derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament Thus you may see what hideous horride and horrible conclusions this carnall and Capernaiticall conceite of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist hath bred and brought forth and must needs breede and bring forth with all those that vphold it The Summe of all that hath beene said 1. THat there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may not be figuratiuely vnderstood is by Cardinal Caietan confessed 2. That our Sauiours words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be vnderstood not corporally but spiritually is acknowledged by many Popish writers of great note and is beside other Reasons by a Rule giuen by Augustine euidently prooued 3. That the Elements in the Sacrament remaine in Substance the same and are not really transubstantiated into Christs Body and Blood is euinced by diuers Arguments 1. From the Course of the Context which plainely sheweth that Christ brake and deliuered no other then he tooke and blessed 2. From the expresse words of Scripture that calleth the one Bread and the other Wine euen after consecration 3. From the Nature of Signes whose propertie it is to be one thing and to signifie another thing 4. From the Nature of Christs Body that hath flesh blood and bones which the Eucharisticall bread hath not that which our taste our sight and our sense informeth vs by which our Sauiour himselfe hath taught vs to discerne his body 5. From the nature of euery true Body such as Christs is which cannot be in many places at once nor haue any part of it greater then the whole 6. From the qualitie of the Communicants good and bad promiscuously feeding on the Elements in the Eucharist whereas none but the faithfull can feede vpon Christ. 7. From these infirme and vnseemely yea foule and filthy things that doe vsually or may befall the Elements in the Eucharist which no Christian eare can endure to heare that they should befall Christs blessed and glorious body Whence I conclude that since this Corporall presence such as the Church of Rome maintaineth hath no warrant from Gods word as their owne Cardinal confesseth and is besides contrary to Scripture to nature to sight to sense to reason to religion we haue little reason to receiue it as a truth of Christ or a principle of Christianitie great reason to reiect it as a figment of a mans braine yea as a doctrine of the diuell inuented to wrong Christ and Christianitie It is the Rule of a Schooleman We ought not to adde more difficultie vnto the difficulties of Christian beliefe But rather according to that which the Scripture teacheth we should endeauour to cleere that that is obscure And therefore since that the one manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist is cleerely possible and intelligible whereas the other is not intelligible yea nor possible neither it seemeth probable that that manner of his presence that is
you are they Signes of Heretike Of the Lords Body and Blood Orthodox Of a body that is truly or of one that is not truly Heretike Of one that is truly Orthodox Very well For of the Image there must needs be some Originall For Painters imitate nature and draw Images of such things as are seene Heret True Orthodox If then the diuine mysteries represent that that is truly a body then the Lords body is a true body still not changed into the Nature of the Deity but filled with Diuine glorie Heret You haue in good time made mention of the diuine Mysterie for euen thereby will I shew you that the Body of our Lord is turned into another Nature Answer you therefore my Question Orthodox I will Heretike What call you the gift that is offred before the Priests Inuocation Orthodox I may not tell openly because it may bee there be some here that are not yet initiated Heretike Answere then aenigmatically Orthodox The foode that is made of certaine graine Heret The other Signe how call you it Orthodox By that common name that signifieth some kinde of drinke Heret But after sanctification how doe you call them Orthodox The body of Christ and the blood of Christ. Heret And doe you beleeue that you are made partaeker of Christs body and blood Orthodox I doe beleeue so Heret As then the Signes of the Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests prayer but after it are changed and become another So the Lords body also after his Assumption is changed into a diuine Substance Orthodox You are taken now in a net of your owne weauing For the Mysticall Signes doe not after Sanctification depart from their owne Nature For they remaine still in their former Substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be that which they are made and they are beleeued and adored or reuerenced as being those things that they are beleeued to be Compare then the Image with the Originall and you shall see the Similitude For it is meete that the Figure bee like to the Truth For that Body hath indeede its former forme and figure and circumscription and to speake in a word bodily Substance But since the Resurrection it is become immortall and such as no corruption or destruction can befall and it is vouchsafed to sit at Gods right-hand and is worshipped of euery creature as being called the Lords naturall Bodie Heretike Yea but the mysticall Signe changeth his former Name For it is not any more called as it was before but it is called a Body In like manner therefore should the Truth be called God and not a Body Orthodox Me thinkes you are very ignorant For it is not onely called a Body but it is called Bread of Life So the Lord himselfe called it And moreouer the Body it selfe we call a diuine Body and a quickning Body and the Lords Body and teach that it is not the common Body of any man but the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ who is God and Man For Iesus Christ is yesterday and to day the same and for euer Will you heare more yet of Theodoret In his first Dialogue out of which I cite also one or two Sentences which this scambling Answerer hath not list it seemeth to take notice of he bringeth in the same Parties thus discoursing together Orthodox Do you not know that the Lord called himselfe a Vine Heretike I know that he said I am the true Vine Orthodox And how call you the juice of the fruite of the Vine Heretike Wine Orthodox When the souldiers opened Christs side with a speare what saith the Euangelist did then issue on t Heretike Water and Blood Orthodox The Patriarch Iacob then calleth Christs blood the blood of the Grape For if Christ be called a Vine and the frnite of the Vine and streames of blood and water issuing out of Christs side trickled downe his whole Body he is fitly said by him to wash his coate in wine and his raiment in the blood of the Grape For as we call the mysticall fruite of the Vine after sanctification the Lords blood so doth he call the blood of the true Vine the blood of the Grape Heretike That which was propounded hath both mystically and cleerely beene shewen Orthodox Though the things said be sufficient yet I will adde another proofe Heretike You shall doe me a pleasure because the more profit in so doing Orthodox Doe you not know that God called his body Bread Heretike I know it Orthodox And else-where againe hee called his Flesh wheate Heretike I know that too For vnlesse the wheate corne saith he fall into the ground c. Orthodox Now in the deliuery of the Sacraments he called Bread his Body and that which is poured into and mixt in the Cup Blood Heretike He did so call them Orthodox Yea but that which by nature is his Body is also iustly tearmed his Body and in like manner his Blood Heretike It is acknowledged Orthodox Our Sauiour indeede hee changed the Names and imposed that Name on his Body that was the Name of the Symbole and Signe of it and on the Symbole or Signe he imposed that Name that is the Name of his Body And so hauing named himselfe a Uine he called that that was a signe Blood Heretike It is true that you say But why did he thus change the Names Orthodox Because his will was that those that are partakers of those diuine Mysteries should not attend the nature of the things that they see but for the change of the Names beleeue the change that by grace is wrought For hee that called that that by Nature is his Body wheate and bread and againe named himselfe a Vine he honoured the Symboles and Signes that we see with the appellation of his Body and Blood not changing Nature but to Nature adding Grace And at length the Orthodoxe Diuine thus concludeth It is cleere that that holy Foode is a Symbole and a Signe of Christs body and blood the name whereof it beareth For our Lord when he had taken the Symbole or Signe said not This is my Deitie But This is my Bodie and againe This is my Blood and else where The bread that I will giue is my Flesh that I will giue for the life of the world You haue heard Theodoret at large It remaineth now to consider how he ouerthroweth that which I produce him for to wit that the bread wine in the Sacrament remaine for substance still the same and that the Bread is called Christs body figuratiuely as his body is else-where called Bread and the wine his blood figuratiuely as himselfe is tearmed a Vine Or to consider rather if you please because that any one at the first sight may see how fitly this mans explication of Theodoret agreeth with
same Or doth not Baptisme the like you may be pleased to consider what out of their owne Ambrose was before said of it as also out of Gregorie Nyssene is here after related For it is nothing to the purpose that Bellarmine obiecteth that no man would say that the water of Baptisme consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heauenly For neither doth Irenaeus say that the bread of the Eucharist but the Eucharist it selfe of such two things consisteth But I would faine know how the Eucharist according to their doctrine should when the bread is once consecrated consist at all of any earthly thing when the substance thereof is as they say thereby vtterly abolished Sure Irenaeus his Eucharist consisting of matter in part earthly and theirs hauing none at all such are not one and the same Thirdly Irenaeus saith that our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are no more now corruptible in regard of hope and expectation he meaneth of their future resurrection which thereby they are assured of and sealed vp vnto for otherwise who seeth not that they are not yet incorruptible as he afterward expoundeth himselfe And what is said more here of the Lords Supper then Tertullian and others say of Baptisme to wit that by it the Flesh also hath its assurance of resurrection to life eternall yea let them looke backe but a line or two and they shall soone see how little Irenaeus fauoureth their cause How saith he say they that the flesh perisheth and liueth not euerlastingly that is nourished with the body and blood of Christ He affirmeth our flesh to be nourished with that which hee calleth the body and blood of Christ. And else-where more plainely When the Cup mixed and the bread broken receiueth the word of God it becommeth the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ of which the substance of our bodies groweth and consisteth Now how deny they the flesh to be capable of life eternall that is nourished with Christs body and blood And againe That part of man that consisteth of flesh sinewes and bones is nourished by the cup that is his blood and groweth or is encreased by the bread that is his body The same with that which out of Iustine wee shall hereafter further consider of that our flesh and blood are nourished by the Eucharisticall foode by a change thereof that is it being changed and turned into them But to say so of the very body and blood of Christ is by these mens owne grants most absurd That in the Eucharist therefore that Irenaeus and before him Iustine speake thus of is not the very flesh and blood of Christ it selfe but the creature sanctified as he himselfe tearmeth it or the first-fruits of Gods creatures which in way of thankefulnesse with thankesgiuing he saith they offer vnto God why so tearmed is out of Augustine and others shewed else-where The third allegation is as he saith out of the voices of the Fathers in the first Nicene Councel Where I might well out of Cardinal Baeronius except that there are noâ— Acts of that first Nicene Councel now extant and that the worke out of which this allegation is taken is no record of those Acts but a story onely of that Councell written by one that liued long after it whom they themselues account to be but a sorry obscure fellow and one of no great credite But let the Author or the Relator rather passe and let vs heare his relation Those holy Confessors saith hee will vs at the diuine Table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed but to eleuate our minde by faith and be holde on the holy Table the Lambe of God c. by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to be symboles and pledges of our resurrection Heere is nothing at all that any way hurteth our cause First they acknowledge bread to be and abide in the Euchaerist which these men vtterly deny Secondly they will vs not basely to regard therein the bread and cup or the elements onely And the very same in the same place of Baptisme they say that wee must not so much regard in it the water that wee see as the power of God accompanying it of which wee shall speake more vpon another the like occasion hereafter Thirdly they will vs to lift vp our minde and by faith to consider for so their words are the Lambe of God lying on the Table And by faith we grant that hee is not seene and considered onely but receiued also in the Eucharist Fourthly they say not as this man translateth it that hee is vnbloodily there sacrificed but that hee is without sacrificing there sacrificed that is not really but mystically and symbolically sacrisiced or not in truth of the thing but in a mystery signifying the same as out of Pope Pascasius and Augustine in their Canons themselues speake Fiftly they say that wee receiue his bodie and blood in the Encharist yea they are reported to say which hee omitteth here that wee doe truely receiue them which that we doe truely also and effectually according to our doctrine though spiritually and not corporally hath already beene shewen and shall in his due place againe bee further confirmed And lastly that these are symboles or pledges of our resurrection which how they was are was before shewed out of Tertullian who from those Sacraments and sacred rites and exercises in generall as well other as these that the body partaketh in draweth Arguments to confirme the faith of the resurrection of it The next allegation is out of S. Ephrem whose both praises and speeches he hath borrowed from Bellarmine which Bellarmine when hee hath cited addeth withall in a brauery as if the proofes were so pregnant that there were no gainesaying of them To this testimonie our aduersaries neither doe answer nor indeede can answer ought That none had then answered was not much to be maruelled as Harding saith of their Cyrill few had yet the sight of him One of that name indeed wrote many things in the Syriacke tongue long since hauing no skill at all in the Greeke And vnder his name our Popish Fatherbreeders haue of late set out a many of Sermons and Treaeises that haue no testimonie at all from antiquity the most of them translated as they tell vs out of Greeke which hee good man neuer spake quoting some of them Greeke Authors at large whom hee neuer vnderstood wanting all of them that subtilty and sublimitie of wit that Ierome commendeth in Ephrems workes and appeared euen in the trarslations of them as both hee and others affirm of them very sorry and silly things a great part of them not free from grosse vntruths and contradictions yea and ridiculous too if not impious
eate vnworthily of it as some did of the Manna and eternally died But heare we Augustine in a word what hee saith hereof and so learne we to expound Augustine and other the Ancients not by this idle fellowes friuolous conceits but by Augustine himself The Sacrament hereof saith hee to wit of Christs body and blood and our vnion with either is taken at the Lords table by some to life by some to death But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is taken by euery one that partaketh thereof to life by none to death And if of all to life by none to death then vndoubtedly not vnworthily or vnprofitably of any Diuision 14. LAstly when pag. 19 20 21 22 and 23. hee argueth that Christs body cannot be in the Eucharist first because then it should be broken as the bread is broken Secondly it should be subiect to many vndecencies as corruption putrefaction mice-eating and other foule abuses apt to happen to the bread and wine of the Sacrament I answer him that Christs body being in it selfe now glorious and impossible and after a spirituall and indivisible manner present in the Sacrament cannot be in it selfe broken or otherwise abused then Angels in assumped bodies can bee wounded or then the Maiesty of the diuine person in Christ was by thornes torne nayles pierced or other torments defaced for all such indignities and painfull alterations were immediately onely inflicted on the corporall nature of our Sauiour defaced vtterly by them and touched not immediately the diuine person albeit personally therein subsisting So all indignities and alterations happening to the sacramentall signes touch not at all the body it selfe of our Sauiour impassibly and iudiuisibly vnder them more then the maiesty it selfe of the diuine nature-present in all creatures is defiled in fonle places c. Such Arguments as these made against our Sauiours reall true presence in the Sacrament by our inconsiderate Aduersaries are like to those other Arguments wont to bee made by the Eutycheans Nestorians Arians and other ancient Heretickes against the diuinity of our Sauiour and personall vnion of two natures in him as that it was not fit or reasonable to be conceiued that either God so vnited with man or man deified by personall assumption should be torn with whips thornes and nayles spet vpon buffeted and finally die in agonies and torments that fleas and flies should sucke the blood of God bite his flesh c. which indeed is more then can be done vnto the same as it is here in the Sacrament euen when mice eate the sacramentall signes or when in our stomacks wee receiue them or by fire wee consume them or â—…wise abuse theÌ„ Christ being not quantitatiuely and corporally with them extended and so not to be touched or altered by any corporall action done about them And holy soules considering with what humility and effusion of his bounty the Son of God was pleased to institute this great Sacrament affording therein for his glory and our great good his owne comfortable presence vnto vs haue iust reason to cry out his mercy and to admire his wisedome power and goodnesse wonderfully manifested in this second exhiminition of himself as I may iustly call this Sacramentall presence or hiding of himselfe in this Sacrament to become thereby an heauenly food and diuine refection of soules deuontly receiuing him as also a louing spouse visiting embracing delighting adorning and enriching them with his presence daily triumphing himselfe in his victory ouer Sathan and our redemption solely and abundantly purchased by his passion and making vs also to triumph with him And whereas the Diuell once by his ministers Iewes and Gentiles caused his blood to be separated from his body he deuised to haue that real separation mysteriously continued and daily exhibited to the fâ—ce of his eternall Father for vs which is the declaring of the Lords death till he come mentioned by the Apostle MY last Argument is taken from those things that are done aboâ—… or may befall the consecrated creatures which if they be Christs body and blood must needs befall Christ as fraction corruption putrefaction mitebreeding mice eating c. To this he answereth 1. That though these things be done to or befall the Sacrament yet Christs body being now glorious and impassible and after a spirituall and indiuisible manner present it can no more thereby be broken and abused then Angels in assumpted bodies can be wounded or Christs Deity was wounded or pierced on the Crosse. 1. We take what hee granteth Christs body is now glorious and impassible and therefore not subiect vnto such indignities as these creatures are and the one consequently is not the other Yea is Christs body it self impassible What is it then that as Origen speaketh goeth into the draught c. which this Defendant taketh no notice of because hee knoweth not what to say to it Or let him resolue what those ashes that they will to be reserued for reliques or what those mites are made of that breed in the consecrated bread when either they burne it and so deale with it as they doe with Heretickes or reserue it ouer long 2. It is present in a spirituall manner Had hee but added onely he had marred all hee had beene a foule Hereticke and perchance might fare no better if he would stand to his words then this their little God almighty doth when he groweth hoary But is hee come to that now Christ is spiritually in the Sacrament What is become I maruell of that carnall and corporall presence then that they prate so much of and for want whereof they so much vilifie the Protestantical CoÌ„munion Or what is the reason why hee could not endure to heare that those wordes of our Sauiour of eating his flesh Iohn 6. should be spiritually vnderstood 3. If these things cannot befall Christs body because it is after a spirituall manner present then belike these things may befall it yea must needs befall it when they doe fall out if it be present in a carnall or corporall manner which Bellarmine granteth it is and they sticke not vsually to afifrme 4. If Christs body bee in an indiuisible manner there what is it that is there broken Or what did our Sauiour breake at his last Supper at which time also his body was not indiuisible or impassible Or how doth Pope Nicholas tel vs that Christs body it selfe is sensually broken Where marke I pray you how the Arguments and Allegations produced to prooue the thing broken in the Sacrament to be bread and to shew the absurdity of their doctrine in this point as well of Pope Nicholas that saith that Christs very body it selfe is broken and torne in peeces as also of others that say that nothing is broken at all or nothing but accidents only here is not a word answered The hoast they say is Christs body and the Priest breaketh the hoast and yet he
of an Image of Christ which Baronius himselfe disauoweth wherein mention is made of no flesh of Christ left in the world but what is made vpon the Altar and how haue they his foreskin among their holy reliques then some vnder the name of Eusebius Emissemus confessed by Bellarmine in diuers places to be meere counterfeits as an Homely wherein the bread and wine are said to be turned into the substance of Christs body and blood words not found once in the writings of any one of the Auncients We produce expresse places where the Substance of bread is said to remaine still in the Sacrament they not one where the bread is said to be turned into the substance of Christs body But a number of such counterfeits doe they daily coine and forge and then cry out that men condemne antiquity when they censure them and such grosse errors as they meete withall in them And withall they obserue that two or three of the Fathers that were not in Constantines time but somewhat after vsed some new tearmes and phrases in their discourses of these Mysteries that were not vsuall in auncienter times But that they condemne any one Father that liued in Constantine time or within that age much lesse all of them almost vniuersally for teaching Transubstantiation and adoration of the Eucharist is most vntrue He should haue done well to haue added what indeed they obserue and therein hee should not haue lied that they did in those times deliuer the Sacrament entire to all and not mangle it as their Church doth now adaies bereauing the people of one principall part of it as also that they deliuered them the bread into their hands and not popped it into their mouthes as their manner now is AND of Constantine that renowmed first Christian Emperour they confesse from the testimonie of Eusebius liuing with him and writing his life of S. Ierome likewise and other certaine Authors that he erected Temples in memorie of Martyrs dedicated a most sumptuous Church in honour of the Apostles prouided his sepulcher there to the end that after his death he might be made partaker of the praiers there offered he dedicated his Church with great solemnitie and celebrated the dedication thereof with a yeerely festiuall day he carried about with him a portable Church or tabernacle and Priests and Deacons attending it for the celebration of the diuine mysteries he had lights by day burning therein he translated to Constantinople the holy reliques of S. Andrew S. Luke and Timothie at which diuels did roare and certaine reliques of the Crosse found by his Mother for conseruation of the Citie built by him hee honoured sacred Virgins professing perpetuall chastitie Vnder him were Monkes throughout all Syria Palestine Bithynia and other places of Asia and Affrick he greatly reuerenced Anthony the Monke hee went to embrace the sepulcher of Saint Peter and Saint Paul humbly praying to their Saints that they would be intercessours to God for him he much honoured the Crosse and signed his face with it Vnder him in that age were Pilgrimages made to Ierusalem he reprooued Acesius the Nouatian for denying the power giuen vnto Priests to remit sinnes vnder pretence that God onely remitteth sinnes of his Cleargie Priests and Bishops assembled by him to the dedication of his Church some of them did did preach and interpret holy Scriptures others of them who could not doe so appeased the Deitie with vnbloody Sacrifices and mysticall consecrations praying for the health of the Emperour At the time of his death he intended to expiate his sinnes by efficacie of the holy Mysteries and confessed his sinnes in the house of Martyrs After his death praier was made for his soule and the mysticall Sacrifice offered So euident was hee and the Primatiue flourishing Church of Christ in his daies in these and all other points Catholike and continued so in our Countrey and other Christian parts of the world vntill Luthers foule Apostasie and reuolt from it The Brittish auncient Inhabitantt of this I le conuerted in or neere the time of the Apostles agreed in all other points of faith with S. Austin our first Apostle excepting some different Ceremonies of Baptisme and the Iewish obseruation of Easter as S. Bede testifieth whose religion is euidently knowne and confessed by our chiefe Aduersaries to haue beene Romane and Catholike And neuer any countrey was in any age conuerted from Paganisme to Christ but it receiued our doctrine namely the practise of the Masse and beleefe of the Sacrament § 12. TO passe by his impertinent Catalogue of by-matters in Constantines time whereof some also are vntrue and some vncertaine which he is very forward to run out into willing to be dealing with any thing though neuer so impertinent then the point that against his will he must be held to Whereunto I answer no more for the present but this Let him first quit himselfe of the taske that he hath already vndertaken to wit to maintaine this their Metaphysicall Transmutation in the Eucharist and when he hath so done let him then produce if he can any one Article of Faith that was held generally as such in Constantines time by vs now reiected and he shall not want an Answere But to passe by this I say he would make vs beleeue if we will take it on his word that the Brittish auncient inhabitants of this I le held the same beleefe concerning this Sacrament that the Romanists doe at this day All the reason he produceth for it is this that they differed from Augustine that was sent by Pope Gregorie into England onely in some ceremonies about Baptisme and the obseruation of Easter Surely this man hath a notable vaine in disputing and arguing he can prooue any thing if you doe but grant him all that he saith The Brittish Inhabitants saith he here presently after the Apostles time held Transubstantiation then as we doe now at Rome Whereas he well knoweth that for aboue 1000. yeeres after Christ their Transubstantiation was not generally held scarce heard of for farre more then halfe that time Neither is hee able to produce any title of true Antiquitie to shew that it was then held here Yea but saith he there was no difference here about it when Austin came into these parts betweene him and them that hee found here But I demand how it appeareth that Gregorie that sent Austin held Transubstantiation or that in the Church of Rome it was then held Till hee can prooue this to vs not out of lying Legends or bastard writings but out of some authentick Story or Gregories owne vndoubted workes we haue little reason to beleeue him Bellarmine I am sure can fish very little out of him nothing at all that prooueth ought Sure we are that our Country-man venerable Bede whom he here citeth as the reporter of Augustines arriuall here was of an other iudgement as by his writings appeareth