as if wee were to eate the flesh of Christ after the same manner as we doe eate the flesh of beasts boiled or rosted cut and mangled In which sence if the letter be vnderstood it doth kill as Origen saith and as S. Augustine in the place aboue cited it imports a crime But seeing our Sauiour saith his flesh is truelie meate Ioan. 6. and that his words are Spirit and life they are to be vnderstood so that they be expounded both properlie and also Spirituallie or mysticallie VVhich thing wee rightlie doe when we say they are to be expounded properlie according to the substance of the thing eaten because that substance which in the Eucharist wee eate is the verie substance of the bodie of Christ and also spirituallie according to the manner because wee do not eate cutting and mangling it but without hurting it at all no otherwise then if it were a Spirit THE NOTES OF S. E. HEere D. Featly without taking notice of what was tould him out of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian repeates againe that the Capharnaiticall manner of eating was the same with our eating of the flesh in the Sacrament whereas the difference is most cleere (a) S. Au. enar in Psal 98. They thought our Sauiour would cut of some peeces from his bodie and giue them to eate (b) Ser. de coena Cyp. They imagined they were taught to eate it boild or rosted and cut in peeces Wee beleeue teach that it is receaued c work entire vnder the forme of bread And that Origen did admit and beleeue this our manner of receauing it these his words declare plainely When thou takest that holie and vncorrupted banquet Origen Hom. 5. in diuersa loca Euang. See D. Andr. Serm p. 476. Euerie MaÌ„ carries one of these houses about with him and the Mâ—ster of it is his soule when thou doest enioy the bread and cup of life eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord doth enter vnder they roofe wherefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthey that thou come vnder my roofe For where he enters vnworthily there he goes in to iudgment to the receauer Here Origen declares that he beleeued our Sauiour all to be in the blessed Sacrament and will haue vs speake vnto him there as the Church doth in the Masse Domine non sum dignus c. Lord I am not worthy thou enter vnder my roofe He doth not call bread Lord acknowledging himselfe vnworthy it enter but Him that is in the exteriour forme of breade And herein he doth consent with S. Augustine before alledged who saith that wee receaue the Mediatour with our month and whith Tertullian Supra p. 78. Caro vescitur Christi corpore Flesh eateth the Bodie of Christ Moreouer suppose the soule be wicked notwistanding He Christ goes in this Authour saith but in whither not into the soule by meanes of faith that way you haue shut vp therefore you must confesse he goes in to the bodie at the mouth as S. Augustine tould you Who said also that Iudas receaued the price of our Redemption not with the minde sure Supr ap 79. he was then a Traitour but with the mouth D. Featly Should we eate with the mouth the flesh of man we should runne vpon the point of S. Cyrills reproofe In expos anath 11. Doest thou pronunce this Sacrament to be man-eating and doest thou irreligiousty vrge the mindes of the faithfull with grosse and carnall imaginations Answer The grosse and carnall conceit of eating mans flesh he reiects the Sacramentall manner we speake of he did beleeue EueÌ„ in that anathematisme which you mentioÌ„ A 〈◊〉 1â— and which he there defeÌ„ds he saith the thing proposed on the altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is before the Preist is our Sauiours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his owne body So neere he tnought our Sauiours body was to the communicant Againe he saith that by meanes of the benediction coÌ„secration the Sonne of God as man is vnited to v◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corporally Li. 11. in Ioan. c. 27. Ibid. Li. 10. c. 13. And that We doe receaue the Sonne of God corporally and substantially In an other place he saith the power of benediction doth bringe to passe that Iesus Christ dwelleth in vs corporallie with the coÌ„munication of the flesh of Christ. And the manner of compassing it is as he doth also teach (a) Epist ad Calo. In Answer to your marginall note about Bereng See the Answer to Bels challeÌ„g ar 2. c. 5. by conuerting breade and wine into the verity of flesh and blood D. Featly Doe those words nisi manducaueritis carnem vnlesse you eate the flesh sound after the Capharnaiticall straine Answer To flesh and blood they did and doe but the holy Ghost hath taught the Church an other way of eating flesh not in the proper but in another shape Mat. 26. Doe but harken and you shall heare the Ghospell mention eating a mans bodie in the forme of breade Take and eate this in my hand is my body THE FOVRTH ARGVMENT D. Featlie S. Augustine in Gratian dist 2. can hoc est saith As the heauenlie bread which is Christs flesh is after a sort called the bodie of Christ when as in truth it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ the Glosse addeth The heauenlie Sacrament which truelie doth represent the flesh of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperlie wherefore it is said in a sort but not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie D. Smith Gratian first See Bellar Descriptor Eccles is not an authenticall Authour amongst vs much lesse the Glosse Secondlie I oppose other words of S. Augustine in the same place of Gratian where he saith that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible forme of elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of Christ both of a Sacrament and re Sacramenti that is to saie the bodie of Christ as the person of Christ doth consist and is made of God and man Thirdlie I answer that S. Augustine in those words vnderstood that which is Sacramentum tantùm a Sacrament only D. Featlie S. Augustine speakes of that breade which he saith is the flesh of Christ but that which is Sacramentum tantùm is not the flesh of Christ therefore he doth not speake of that which is Sacramentum tantùm D. Smith The words of S. Augustine are not cited entirelie for epist 23. if that be the place Gratian meanes This place is quoted in the margine of Gratian he saith that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner and it is not inconuenient to say that that which is Sacramentum tantùm is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner according to which manner he saith baptisme is faith D. Featley Indeed Gratian
THE RELECTION OF A CONFERENCE TOVCHING THE REALL PRESENCE OR A BACHELOVRS CENSVRE Of a Masters Apologie for Doctour Featlie By L. I. B. of Art of Oxford Psal 67.31 Jncrepa feras arundinis AT DOWAY By LAVRENCE KELLAM M.DC.XXXV THE PREFACE IT was when I liued in Oxford and I think it is still the custome for him who defends in Deuinitie to make first a Supposition wherein such as come to heare that exercise may see the State of the Questiō which is to be disputed By this meanes the Defendant laies his Cause open to a faire tryall and diuers Auditors not yet perfect in the knowledge of such matters are better inabled to vnderstand and vnderstanding to iudge betwixt him and his Opponent that vndertakes to perswade the contrarie I was thinking to conceaue my Preface in that manner like a Supposition it had beene to good purpose considering that some may come to see this Booke or Conference who being catechized by Puritās neuer knew the true State of the Question betwixt vs and them in the point of the Reall Presence But those with whō I am to deale will not permitt such a discourse excepting that it is against I know not what lawe My intention is not to write a Booke of the Blessed Sacrament that Argument deserues a better pen and is excellentlie treated by diuers worthie Catholike Deuines but to maintaine the iust honour of the defenders of it traduced scornefullie jeered by a Precisian on the behalf and by the consent of Doctour Featlie Whose nicenes shall not hinder me from doing that which doth confessedlie appertaine to the Sustentants part And yet I meane withall to keepe my self punctuallie to the matter without running out into new for that were to make the busines infinite or bringing Arguments for our tenet for they with whō I deale would then report that I chang parts and pretending to be a Defendant come a Disputant Doctor Featlie in a Challeng of his In his Challēg to M. Fisher. resembles a Controuertist to a Sawier who till he hath gonne thorough keepes himself to the same line and imputes vnto his Aduersarie that he neuer pierced into the heart of any Controuersie Whereas himself Master Featlie I meane was the man that moued the sawe out of the line and ranne into an other distinct matter when he was not able to giue satisfaction in the former which had beene the Cōtrouersie betwixt thē 2. Their disputation was of a Catalogue of Protestants in all ages and he leauing that challengeth his Aduersarie to dispute of Communion in both kinds Which is a way to runne ouer Controuersies but not to make an end of Controuersies Logicians nūber it amongst the faults of a Disputant It is a tacite yeelding of the cause I haue taken a Ministers imporportunitie made me the Sawe into my hands and am if we regard the Controuersie vpon the vpper side my Aduersaries being still in errour be in the pit The lines Featlie drew they be his Arguments deliberatlie chosen by him for the best these which I am to meddle in If they do not leaue pulling wee shall in time come to the heart of this Controuersie So they keepe themselues to their owne lines The matter of the Conference was not Transubstantiation but the Reall presence onlie So my Lord of Chalcedon did expresse Supra pag. 7. himself and Master Featlie to the same purpose Doctor Smith saith D. Feat in his Relat pag. 288. he distinguishing betwixt the Questions of Reall presence and Transubstantiation determined the point in Question to be this whether the bodie and blood of Christ were trulie and substantiallie in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine My Lord Defended the affirmatiue videlicet that it is there trulie and substantiallie that is to say according to the substāce of the thing Master Featlie vndertooke the contrarie videlicet that it is not there trulie and substantiallie Feat pag. 289 not according to the substance of our Sauiours naturall bodie and blood The words of Institution which Featlie did obiect be these This is my bodie Matt. 26 this is my blood c. which wordes he saies must needes be taken in a sence that makes against the Reall presence In this proposition or enunciation Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie It is the like of the other wordes Hic est sanguis meus this is my blood there is to be considered the subiect the predicate or attribute the determination of the predicate and the copula or note of idētitie Four things in the four words The Subiect is Hoc the Predicate is Corpus the determination of it Meum the copula the verbe Est The Subiect or first word Hoc doth not of it self import bread rather then bodie or bodie rather then bread it is indifferent Significat saith the Doctour of the Schooles substantiam in communi sinc qualitate id est forma determinata It signifieth a substance in common without the qualitie that is the determinate forme Suppose a chalice before me and that I point towards it saying This is I may to make vp the proposition say gold or wine or blood without changing the first word This. If I adde blood it contracts and determines the subiect This which before was vncontracted and vndetermined to one particular thing if I saie wine it contracts it to an other if I saie gold it is contracted to a third This is blood this is wine this is gold The word Est is a verbe substantiue that signifies identitie or connexion which connexion or identitie cannot be conceaued without the extreames identified or connected which be the thinges signified by the subiect and the predicate And the references of the subiect to the attribute and the attribute to the subiect be founded it it Whence it comes that it is not possible to know what the Subiect determinatlie relates vnto being of it self indetermined till the predicate or attribute be also knowne because vntill then neither the terminus nor the ratio fundandi the connexion is knowne The same verbe or copula doth also consignifie the time for which the connexion is exercised which time presupposing the connexion for it is the modus of it and may varie the connexion perseuering Petrus est fuit erit albus doth presuppose likewise both the extreames This is manifest to him that lookes well on it because it presupposeth the connexion which connexion doth presuppose the saide extreames as before hath beene obserued Ipsū Est saith the Ipsa igitur secundum se dicta verba nomina sunt significant aliquid constituit enim qui dicit intellectum qui audit quiescit Sed si est vel non est nondum significat neque enim signum est rei esse vel non esse Nec si hoc ipsum Est purum dixeris ipsum enim nihil est Consignificat autem compositionem quandam quam sine compositis non est intelligere Arist.
alloquitur haec definitio non placet age praesta te Magistrum nos doce quid aliud vocatio Dei esse possit quando Deus vocat dicit appellat nominat Hoc verbum Dei est cum inquit Hoc est corpus meum sicut in Genesi ait Fiat lux fit lux Deus est qui nominat seu vocat quicquid nominat id illico praesto est vt Psalm 33 testatur dixit facta sunt Ibidem Item Irenaeus ait Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem deuenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore sanguine Domini alitur Hic iterum audimus corpus nostrum eo cibari corpore sanguine Domini vt in aeternum viuat non corrumpatur vt Haeretici somniabant Irenaeus loquitur de corporali manducatione cibatione corporis tamen vult cibum illum esse corpus sanguinem Domini Ibidem He brings there also the Sacramentarians Euasions and refutes them out of Irenaeus words cleere plaine in so much that it caÌ„not Si quispiam mihi persuadere potuisset in sacrameÌ„to praeter paneÌ„ verum ego captum me video nulla euadendi via relicta textus enim Euangelij nimis apereus est potens Epist ad Argentin habetur tomo 7. in Epist Farrag be auoided auouching withall that it was the Fathers tenet So likewise doth Melancthon Melancth l. de Ver. Corp. Quid fiet in tentatione cum disputabit conscientia quam habuerit caussam dissentiendi à recepta sententia in Ecclesia Tunc verba ista hoc est corpus meum fulmina erunt Ibidem Sequor saith he veteris ecclesiae sententiam quae affirmat adesse corpus in coena ac iudico hanc habere Scripturae testimonium I follow the sentence of the auncient Church which affirmes the bodie to be preseÌ„t in the supper I iudge it to haue the testimonie of Scripture Those who stood on Featlies side were such as by Apostacie had gonne out of the true Church Archidiaconus Andegauensis anno 1035. Docuit paruulos non esse baptizandos teste Guit mundo eiusdem temporis scriptore Hanc autem Haeresim esse constat vniuersalis ecclesiae testimonio idemque fatentur Angli Protestantes Berengarius who Malmesb. l. 3. recanted Sacerdos Pastor de Lutterworth anno 1371. Wickleff Archidiaconus VVittembergensis Lutheri discipulus Carolstadius Pastor Tigurinus Swinglius Ex monacho Apostata Oecolampadius Nouiodunensis Deus adeo hunc Haereticum percussit vt desperata salute daemonibus inuocatis iurans execrans blasphemans miserrimè animam malignam exhalarit Schlussel in Theol. Calu. fol. 72. idemque testatur Hieron Bolsecus in eius vita That Luther Caluin Swinglius Carolstadius Oecolampadius had beene Papists as they speake before they fell into their Heresies is declared out of their owne authors in the booke de Auth. Prot. eccles l. 2. c. 11. Caluin See the Censure pag. 274. Iudas and that great Apostata the See the Censure pag. 274. Deuil I do not mention Touching this Bertrame reade the Plea for the Reall Presence against Sir Humfrey Linde by I. O. Bertram because he that makes any speach in him Caluinisticallie ProtestaÌ„t in this matter doth withall make him coÌ„tradict himself it is the same of that Concerning this Homilie and the Author see the Prudentiall Balance l. 1. c 19. in Odo and Alfrick c. 22. n. 4. Homilie which is cited as Elfricks and thereby casts him of The Iudge of Controuersies is according to our Aduersaries themselues either the scripture or the Spirit If wee goe with the Controuersie to the Scripture to our Sauiour speaking in it the cause is ours This is my bodie which is broken for you Which words if they be certainlie true in a proper and literall sence then wee are to yeeld the whole cause reall Presence propitiatorie Sacrifice and Adoration saith D. MortoÌ„ the last who wrot in England before Waferer of this subiect I haue said oft and now repeate the same againe that the litterall sence or letter cannot be retained in these words of Christ Cited p. 293. This is my bodie without establishing the Papisticall transubstantiation saith Beza If we go with the Controuersie to the Spirit in the Church we gaine the Cause too for all knowne Churches in Luthers time did beleeue and professe it If to the Spirit in the first Protestantes Luther and his Disciples the Cause is ours If wee consider diligentlie the circumstances of the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my owne bodie that which is deliuered broken crucified for you and of the blood in like manner vt supra pag. 11. wee are more and more confirmed in our tenet If wee reade the Fathers wee finde theÌ„ to be ours the Lord of Plessis Mornay had obiected out of them by the help of his Ministers what he could but he is fullie answered by the worthie Cardinall Peron in a iust tome of this subiect onlie which booke he were to refute that would laie claime to Antiquitie in behalf of the Sacramentarian Heresie Moreouer that our tenet of the Reall presence of our Sauiours bodie vnder the signes was the tenet of Antiquitie the Church tells vs the Church I say in Luthers daies and before a thousand yeers together in which Church there haue beene innumerable great Schollers examining Recordes reading the Fathers comparing and considering the text of Scripture and this Church tells vs the Fathers their predecessors taught them as they teach vs. Why should wee not beleeue them in a matter so plainlie deliuered in the Scripture rather then Daniel Featlie or Oecolampadius or Iohn Caluin If you will moue vs with Authoritie bring greater Authoritie If you will moue vs with Scripture bring plainer Scripture and more worlds openlie in plaine termes interpreting it against vs. The Authoritie of one Deuine of a Nation will not serue against a world The Doctour obiecteth S. Augustine but against S. Augustine as hereafter will appeare He obiecteth Tertullian and Origen and against Tertullian and Origen they in this point were not diuided from the world But had Origen or Tertullian beene opposite in their opinioÌ„ who so mad as to follow them against so great an authoritie as the Church To oppose a lesse Authoritie to a greater thereby to think to winne the cause is absurd If Authoritie can moue the greater it is the more it moues To vrge against the Church the words of any in As when a man speakes of the practicall dictio or vocatio which is a making of the thing by saying it is or calling it by the name Ipse dixit facta sunt Lazare veni foras Adolescens tibi dieo surge to interprete hâ—s words of a meere speculatiue dictio or vocatio Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex
to set downe the confirmations or shew the groūds of our tenet and for excuse pretends that it was against the lawes of the disputation wherein it was agreed as he relates that Master Featlie at that time should onlie oppose and D. Smith onlie a He should haue added that M. Featlie should answer another daie for this was likwise agreed vppon but he could not be brought to do it answer Whereas it was tould him thē that it hath been and still is the custome in Oxford for the Defendant to do that which my Lord would haue done and the Vniuersitie hath conceaued it to appertaine as indeed it doth to the Defendants part which M. Featlie cauilling at in the beginning shewed himselfe not willing to enter in to the combat with my Lord of Chalcedon if he could haue put it of and therefore being conscious of the weakenes of his cause thought the verie sight of our tenet as it appeares to Schollers would ouerthrowe his vtterlie and that euerie word by waie of preface was an argument to conuince it The same feare and in the experience of the first conflict much augmented he betraied againe afterwards when he was called vpon to be defendant according to promise as appeares by the end of the relation where the Reader will see with what tergiuersation he did shift it of And since that time also in England it self twice to my knowledge I can put the particulars downe when time serues he hath refused to meete my Lord in dispute Being himselfe in his Relation to tell the state of the Question he puts downe a discourse to make the simple Reader giddie to the end he see not on which side the truth stands and which of the Disputants haue the vpper hand whereas the state of the Controuersie is in it selfe cleere plaine The Catholikes hold and beleeue that in the holy Eucharist there is the bodie and blood of our blessed Sauiour trulie reallie and substantiallie Conc. Trid. Sess 13. can 1. condemning such as hold it to be there onlie as in a signe or in a figure or in vertue Ibidem a Ioan. 6. v. 55.56 1. Cor. 11. v. 24.25 Cōc Trid. sess 7. can 6. sess 1◠cap. 1. S. Tho. 3. p. q. 83 a 1. ad 2. a 2 ad 2 Decret de Consec Dist 2. c. 48. 72. We doe not denie that it is there virtute in vertue efficacie it hath vertue power there to worke in the Soule neither doe we denie that it is there as in a figure for the Eucharist is an image of the passion or that it is there as in a signe the exteriour species are a signe of that which is within It is a Sacrament also a Sacrament is a signe But wee denie a tatummodo vt in signe vel in figura aut virtute ex Can. 1. that the bodie blood are ther onlie so beleeuing that they are there according to the veritie and substance of bodie and blood The Sacramentarians for whom D. Featlie disputed against our tenet hold the contrarie vzt that the bodie blood of our Sauiour be not in the Eucharist truelie according to the veritie and substance of the thing signified by those names Cited by my Lord of Chalcedon in the Conference of Cath. Protest doct c. 10. a. 1. The Sonne of God is by the mysticall benediction vnited to vs corporally as man but as God spiritually with the grace of his spirit renewing our spirit to new life and participatiō of the diuine nature S. Cyrill Alexād li. 11. in Io. c 27. See Cardinall Perō again S. Ples Mornay Paris 1622. but that the Eucharist is a signe figure of it onlie Iewell it is not indeed Christs bodie Peter Martyr it is not properlie the bodie of Christ Musculus it is not the verie bodie Cartwright it is onlie a signe Perkins it is onlie a signe and seale of the bodie Zuinglius it is onlie a figure Beza it was meere bread and wine which our Sauiour gaue with his hands Caluin the bodie is exhibited according to the vertue not according to the substance And Featlie in his Relation pag. 3. Christ is not therein according to the substance of his naturall bodie and pag. 4. the words of institution are to be construed figuratiuelie and not properly according to the rigour of the letter And a little before not in the proper sence Against this Heresie of the Sacramentarians we oppose plaine Scripture and the direct affirmation of Iesus Christ whith the vnanimous interpretation of Antiquitie and general consent of the Church in whom the holie Ghost determines controuersies appertaining to diuine faith and hath determined this which was beleeued in all ages and generallie professed in all Christian Countreies when Luther who faine would but in conscience as a Epist ad Argentin he said could not contradict it did beginne to deuide himselfe from the Church D. Featlie opponent is to proue the Catholike tenet to be false and that in the Eucharist there is not flesh and blood according to the substance of the thing but a signe or figure of it onlie THE FIRST ARGVMENT DAn Featly The words of Christ This is my bodie are vnderstoode of a figure therefore not of the bodie it self Doctour Smith I distinguish your antecedent 1. Of a meere figure such as were the legall figures which the Apostle calles egena elementa Gal. 4. poore elements or such as statuaes are in regard of the thinges they doe represent I denie your Antecedent 2. Of a figure which hath the verity ioyned together with it in which kind the Sonne according to the Apostle to the Hebrewes Heb. 1. is the figure of his Fathers substance and a Kinge shewing in triumph how he did behaue himselfe in the warre is in this later action a figure of himselfe as in the former and breade exposed in the shop is a figure of it selfe as to be sold So I graunt your antecedent and denie your consequence D. Featly Tertulian lib. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. saith Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei The breade taken and distributed vnto his disciples he made it his bodie saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie Therefore according to Tertullian those wordes are vnderstoode of a meere figure D. Smith You passe quickly from Scripture to the Fathers yet you are woont to say Collat. li. 2. ca. 22. that the Fathers though conspiring all together be not authenticall and infallible expositors of the Scripture wherefore your argument relying vpon the Fathers exposition is weakely grounded according to the tenet of your owne men To the place obiected I Answer Lactan. Instit diuin li. 5. c. 1. Hieron li. de Instit mon. ad Paul that Tertullian as Lactantius and S. Hierome haue well obserued
vpon it as it is in it self altogether The first part of the sense is this Profiteor panem vinum post consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem D.N.I.C. esse I professe that the bread and wine be after consecration not a sacrament only but also the true bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ Heere is I do not say all the wordes but one part of the seÌ„ce importiÌ„g that the coÌ„secrated bread wine be a Sacrament not onlie a Sacrament but also the true bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ so that vnder the name of consecrated bread it is the like of consecrated wyne Berengarius in this Confession comprehendeth two thinges the visible Sacrament by which he meanes the species and the bodie which is inuisible Non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam corpus you know the force of the particles and can resolue the proposition I suppose according to the rules of Logick The like you haue in the Canon Hoc est which afterwards the Doctor obiecteth Contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili elementorum specie inuisibili D. N.I. C. carne Wee contend that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible species of the elements and the inuisible bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ And in ould Irenaeus Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti The bread which hath being from the earth receauing the inuocation of God being consecrated is now not common bread but Eucharist consisting of two things the eartlie the species and the heauenlie the bodie And another ould Father before cited Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro That bread being changed not in shape there is the species remaining but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh there is the inuisible substance the flesh or bodie of our Sauiour Iesus Christ If you finde in authors teritur with corpus otherwhile you finde a caution with it Sub vtraque specie sub vtriusque speciei particula singula totus est Christus Iesus sumitur residens in coelo sedens ad dextram Patris ipse verè est in hoc Sacramento deÌ„tibus teritur secundum species integer manet Manducatur non corrumpitur Immolatur non motitur Stephan Eduen lo. de Saciam Altar c. 15. vixit circa annuÌ„ 950. Credimus terrenas substantias quae in mensa Dominica per sacerdotale ministerium diuinitus sanctificantur ineffabiliter incomprehensibiliter mirabiliter operante superna potentia conuerti in essentiam Dominici Corporis reseruatis ipsatum rerum speciebus quibusdam aliis qualitatibus ne percipientes cruda cruenta horrerent vt credentes fidei proemia ampliora perciperent ipso tamen Dominico corpore existente in coelestibus ad dextram Patris immortali inuiolato integro incontaminato illaeso vt verè dici possit ipsum corpus quod de Virgine sumptum est nos sumere tamen non ipsum ipsum quidem quantum ad essentiam veraeque naturae proptietatem atque virtutem non ipsum si spectes panis vinique speciem caeteraque superius comprehensa Hanc fidem tenuit à priscis temporibus nunc tenet Ecclesia quae per totum diffusa orbem Catholica denominatur Lanfrancus Archiepiscopus Cantuar. li. de Eucharist Vixâ— circa annum 1059. cum Bérengario disputauit I proceede vnto The second part of the sence Profiteor panem eundem sensualiter non solùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri I professe that the consecrated bread is sensiblie touched with the bands of Priests broken and by the faithfull chewed not in sacrament onlie but in verie deed This is the second part of I do not saie the words but the sence wherin you will haue more adoe to finde a difficultie then I shall haue to finde the solution The QuestioÌ„ is not what other men say of them but what is contained manifestlie in them which the wordes if they be supposed to stand thus offer of themselues That the Preist doth touch the consecrated bread with his hand and his mouth and his tongue euerie one knowes and our Sauiours bodie being therein reallie in rei veritate not in signo tantuÌ„ he doth also touch it more then the woman touched it who toucht immediatlie but his garment yet you can not denie but that indeede and trulie she did touch it Some denied then that any had donne it and our Sauiour himself confuted them and affirmed and proued it The historie is in the Ghospell A woman that had a bloodie flux came behinde our Sauiour and touched his garment the border of it he demaunded who it was that had touched him they denied that anie had done it Negantibus omnibus c. he stood in it still that it was so And a woman came behind him and touched the border of his garment and immediatly her isâ—ue of blood stanched And Iesus 〈◊〉 who touched me When all denied Peter and they that were with him said Master the multitude throng thee And Iesus said somebodie hath touched me for I perceaue that vertue is gonne out of me And when the woman sawe that the was not hid she came trembling and falling downe before him she declared vnto him before all the people for what cause 〈◊〉 had touched him Luc 8. tetigit me aliquis and proued it nam ego noui virtutem de me exijsse where vpon the woman fell vpon her knees at his feete and confest it It is not necessarie when wee saie wee touch or see a thing that euerie thing in it euerie essentiall part be according to it self an obiect of the sense or that the sense perceaue euerie part of it that is sensible He who lookes you in the face saith he sees you though the rest of your bodie be within your cloathes and if you being an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cataphract in your protestantish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should for feare pull downe your beuer before you come into the list your Aduersarie for all that might light vpon your vnlesse you bring with you Giges his ring so to make your self inuisible as other of your Champions it seemes did manie hundred yeares together for none of them appeared vnles it were to Swinglius one Ater an albus he knew not and an other to Luther With a great voice I see a man yet my eie doth not discerne the substance of his soule or his matter or his sauour and by touching him I doe not feele his colour or discerne his forme from his matter Wee should end manie controuersies in Philosophie soone if soules could be seene
delicta ante exomologesin factam criminis mark this by the waye for Confession ante purgatam conscientiam haue pressed in amongst communicantes to receaue and thereby offerd violence as he spekes to the bodie and blood of Iesus-Christ But wee need not goe so far to fetch examples the example of him wee were but now speaking of Iudas being notorious and most fearfull He had receaued vnworthilie and quicklie after his crime being enormous the Diuine Iustice permitted the Deuil to take possession of him and to vse him in the betraying of the sonne of God and after in the vtter vndoing of him self Our blessed Sauiour knowing this did signifie it in the reaching of a peece of bread Ioan. 13. Luc. 22. Cum intinxisset panem dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae Et post buxellam introiuit in eum Satanas When he had dipped in the bread he gaue it to Iudas Iscariotes the sonne of Simon and after the sop Satan entred into him After which exiuit continuo he presentlie went out about the treason this was panis Domini quem manducabat contra Dominum the poena the execution of the Diuine Iustice did accompanie it he had before made himself liable hereunto but heere beganne the manifest execution and by a new act of ingratitude in resoluing to betraie his Lord and Master who had admitted him to his table and with his owne hand reached him bread he merited so we sometimes vse the word that the execution should beginne at this instant or moment Which ingratitude was so great that God in the Prophet at the forsight of it could not as it were forbeare to complaine long before Psal 40. August tract 59. in Ioan. qui edebat panes meos Saint Augustine reades in the place obiected panem meum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magnificauit super me supplantationem mine owne familiar freind in whom I trusted he that did eate of my bread hath greatlie troden me vnder foote And this buccella this panis Domini was not the Sacrament according to S. Augustine Non vt putant quidam negligenter legentes tunc Iudas Christi corpus accepit intelligendum est enim quodiam omnibus eis distribuerat Dominus Sacramentum Corporis sanguinis sui See S August tract 62. in Ioan. vbi ipse Iudas erat S. Tho. 3 p. q. 81 art 2 Card. Peron Passag S. Aug. pag. 226 S. Aug tract 62 in Ioan. Quid autem erat panis traditori datus nisi demonstracio cui gratiae fuisset ingratus Intrauit autem Satanas post hunc panem in Domini traditorem vt sibi iam plenius possideret in quem prius intrauerat vt deciperet S. Augu. Ibidem sicut Sanctus Lucas euidentissime narrat Ac deinde ad hoc ventum est vbi secundum narrationem Ioannis apertissimè Dominus per buccellam tinctam atque porrectam suum exprimit traditorem Iudas did not then receaue the bodie of our Lord as some who read negligentlie do think for wee must vnderstand that our Lord had alreadie giuen the Sacrament of his bodie and blood to them all where Iudas also was as Saint Luke most plainelie relateth and then afterwards this hapned where according to the relation of Saint Iohn our Lord by the morsell dipped and giuen did manifestlie designe the partie that would betraie him So he in his CoÌ„mentarie vpon S. Iohn where he hath more to this purpose By this heere cited it is cleere what he meant by panis Domini he is his owne interpreter What he meant by panis Dominus and Mediator Dei hominum you know too not bread not a meere signe or figure not the Sacramentall element as you speake with a reference to the bodie or grace that is not panis Dominus bread the Lord it is not Mediator Dei hominum the Mediator of God and men Who then it followes Homo Christus Iesus Vide suprà in Praefat. pag ... See againe the words of S. Chrysostome pag. 349 S. Cyrill pag. 350. and Origen pag. 65. I will not heere dispute what the more learned of your men Bilson Hooker Andrewes c. some of them be cited by Montague in his Appeale c. 30 â—old in this point whereon depend others of great waight Either they take the words Hoc est corpus meum in their a. If they do not the proposition is with theÌ„ meerelie figuratiue Feat Pag 294 VVafer pag. 35. vido sup pag. 159. as it is wâ—th others pag. 163. natiue proper sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or they do not If they do not the difference is in obiecte since wee do As betwixt vs and Arians about these Words Ego Pater vnum sumus there is difference in obiecto If they take them in their natiue proper sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are consequentlie to admit your b Morâ—oÌ„â—â—â—ed aboue pag 293. Patron tells you the consequeÌ„ces which you Puritans denie amongst which consequences you may finde the modus Nobis vobiscum de obiecto conuenit saith Andrewes to Bellarmine Per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant c. Tertull. aduers Valentin Citatur inferius in solutione Arg. quinti. Do Consilium vt apertè fidem Ecclesiae praedices aut loquaris vt credis Dispensatio etenim ac libratio ista prudens verborum indoctos decipere potest Cautus auditor lector citò deprehendet insidias cuniculos quibus veritas subuertitur apertè in luce demonstrabit Et Ariani quos optimé nosti multò tempore propter scandalum nominis homousion se damnare simulabant venenaque erroris circumliniebant melle verborum Sed tandem coluber se tortuosus aperuit noxium caput quod spiris totius corporis tegebatur spirituali mucrone confossum est S. Hieron Aduerr Ioan Hierosol Ep. ad Pammach Quod si quando vrgeri coeperint aut subscribendum eis fuerit aut exeundum de Ecclesia miras strophas videas Sic verba temperant sic ordinem vertunt ambigua quaeque concinnant vt nostram aduersariorum confessionem teneant vt aliter haereticus aliter catholicus audiat quasi non eodem spiritu Apollo Delphicus atque Loxias oracula fuderit Craeso Pyrrho diuersis temporibus sed pari illudens stropha Exempli causa pauca subijciam Credimus inquiunt resurrectionem futuram corporum Hoc si bené dicatur pura confessio est Sed quia corpora sunt coelestia terrestria aër iste aura tenuis iuxta naturam suam corpora nominantur corpus ponunt non carnem vt orthodoxus corpus audiens carnem putet haereticus spiritum recognoscat Haec est eorum prima decipula quae si deprehensa fuerit instruunt alios dolos â—nnocentiam simulant maliciosos nos vocant quasi simpliciter credentes aiunt Credimus resurrectionem carnis Hoc veró cùm dixerint vulgus indoctum putat sibi sufficere maximé
quia idipsum in â—ymbolo creditur Interroges vltra circuli strepitus â—ommouentur fautores clamitant Audisti resurreâ—tionem carnis quid quaeris amplius Et in peruersum â—udiis commutatis nos sycophantae illi simplices apâ—ellantur Quod si obduraueris frontem vrgere â—oeperis carnem digitis tenens an ipsam credant reâ—urrecturam quae cernitur quae tangitur quae incedit 〈◊〉 loquitur primò rident deinde annuuÌ„t Dicentibusâ—ue nobis vtrum capillos dentes pectus venâ—em manus pedes caeterosque artus ex integro â—essurrectio exhibeat tunc verò risu se tenere non â—ossunt cachinnoque ora soluentes tonsores nobis â—ecessarios placentas medicos ac sutores ingerunt â—dem S. Hieron de Error Orig. in Epist ad Pammach â—cean Congregatis Episcopis volentibusque voces imâ—etatis ab Arianis inuentas è medio tollere litteâ—rum sacrarum voces certas confessas scripto comâ—ecti nimirum ex Deo esse silium natura vnigeâ—tum esse verbum cumque solum virtutem sapieÌ„â—am esse patris verum Deum esse vt Ioannes dixit â— splendorem gloriae formam substantiae patris vt â—aulus scripsit hic Eusebiani prauas suas opiniones quentes inter sese mussitate Imus quoque nos inquientes in vestram sententiam Nam nos quoque ex Deo sumus c S. Athanas Epist ad Episc Aphric Episcopis verò denuò interrogantibus paucos istos Anne agnoscerent Filium non creaturam esse sed virtutem vnicam sapientiam Patris per omnia imaginem indemutabilis patris Deum verum Deprehensum est Eusebianos inter se conlusuriate annuere nimirum quasi ista etiam ad ipsos pertinerent Nam nos inquientes imago gloria Dei appellamur Quod si etiam Deum verum Filium nuncupent id nos quoque non malè habet quoniam verus Deus factus est Haec Arianorum corrupta peâ—uersa mens Caeterum Episcopi intellecta eorum fraude collegerunt in vnum has voces c. Ibid. Non omnibus dormio Post panis vinique benedictionem se suum ipsiuâ— corpus praebere ac suum sanguinem disertis ac perspicuis veâ—bis Christus testatus est Quae verba à sanctis Euangelistis commemorata à D Paulo postea repetita cùm propriam illam ac apertissimam significationem praese ferant secundum quam à Patribus intellecta sunt indignissimum â—â—nè flagitium est ea à quibâ—sdam contentiosis prauis hominibus ad fictitios imaginarios tropos quibus veritas carnis sanguinis Christi negatur contra vniuersum Ecclesiae sensum detorqueri Conc. Trident. Sess 13. c. 1. Animam sub vtraque vi naturalis illius connexionis concomitantiae qua partes Christi Domini c. c. 3. Quid credant ne filio ita dicenti Ego Pater vnum sumus Certè inquient quia ita scriptum est credimus Sed quomodo vnum sint c. S. Athan. vbi supra and more particularlie in his 9. Sermon Of the Resurrection pag. 476. At the name of IESVS euerie knâ—e should bow c Philippens 2. If to his name then your argumeÌ„ts against relatiue image worship are confessedlie inualid His name He Iesus hath left behind to vs that wee may shew by our reuerence and respect to it how much wee esteeme Him how true the Psalme shall be Holy and reuerend is his Name But if wee haue much adoe to get it bow at all much more shall wee haue to get it donne to his name There be some that do it not What speake I of not doing it there be that not only forbeare to do it themselues but put themselues he speakes of Puritans to an euill occupation to finde faults where none is and cast scruples into mens mindes by no meanes to do it Not to do it at his name Nay at the Holy mysteries themselues not to do it where his name is I am sure and more then his name euen the bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ and those not without his soule nor that without his Deitie nor all these without inestimable high benefits of grace attending on them So he your Doctor Andrews Are these things all within your communion-bread surelie no Iesus a Sauiour secunduÌ„ rationeÌ„ spiritualis Vniuersalis salutis nomen est proprium Christo S. Th. 3. p q. 37. a. 2. Ego sum Dominus non est absque me Saluator Isa 43. Not more nor so much as in his Name the soule for example is not there at all any way no not as in a signe vnles at leingth the words of Institution souÌ„d with you thus Hoc est corpus meum this bread doth signifie my soule Which interpretation had your a. Doctor Carolstadius ex his sacrosanctis vocabulis Hoc est corpus meum miserè distorquet pronomeâ— Hoc Suinglius autem verbum substantivum Est macerat Oecolampadius nomen Corpus torturae subiicit Alij totum textum excarnificant inuertunt Alij dimidiam partem textus crucifigunt Alij dicunt non esse articulos fidei ideoque non esse de hiâ— contendendum liberum enim cuique esse vt hic sentiat quicquid velit Hi omnia pedibus conculcant destruunt Veruntamen Spiritus Sanctus est in his singulis nullus vult erroris argui in his tam diuersis contrariis probationibus textus ordinationibus cùm tamen vnam tantùm textus collocationem veraâ— esse oporteat Adeo crassè manifesté Diabolus noâ— naso suspendit Luther Desens verb. coenae pag. 387 Grand-Father heard of he would with open laughter haue redoubled his crassé manifeste Diabolus vos naso suspendit The fourth Argument was taken out of Gratian and the Glosse that the Heauenlie bread is the flesh of Christ secundum queÌ„dam modum It was Answered that the Glosse which doth vse the word Sacramentum speakes of that which is Sacramentum tantum and Gratian of the Canon saith the Heauenlie bread which includes the flesh of Christ is the visible flesh or bodie secundùm quemdam modum Apologist For satisfaction concerning Gratian if you but please to reade D. Featlie on another occasion you shall finde him instead of yeelding that Gratian contradictes himself proue that he oppugnes your transubstantiation See the CoÌ„ference betwixt D. Featlie and M. Musket pag. 60. c. Censure He must looke for satisfaction somewhere els it seemes who doth expect it as no man euer did froÌ„ you to my knowledge Well! at your request I haue turned vnto the Conference and the page 60. What is there Featlie I make a breach vpon you with two Canons the Canon-lawe and the Canon of your masse Answer Nonne hoc spumosum But stay let vs make a demurre vpon the Doctors preface and consider whether it be likelie that he doth vrge Authoritie sincerelie
dead Creatio est ex nihilo Viuificatio est rei prius mortuae aut non viuae So you inuoluing your credit in a difficultie out of which you will neuer extricate your self till you beleeue as we do But there is a prayer to resume that argument for the Readers sake supra quae propitio sereno vultu respicere digneris c. True there is indeed such a prayer the quae that is in it which word you catch at reflects on things otherwise and more then you imagine Haec quotiescumque feceritis vnde offerimus supra quae propitio sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicut vt quotquot ex hac altaris participatione repleamur per Christum See the like and withall the meaning of it in the Liturgie of S. Iames Respice in nos ad nostrum hoc rationabile obsequium idque accipe vt Abel dona accepisti ita quoquee manibus nostris qui peccatores sumus recipe Apocalyps a Prophecie which thou hast beene pleased to inspire and suggest vnto one of his Disciples wee reade that an Angel came and stood before the Altar the Altar of thy mercie d. Apoc. 8. with a golden censer and that there was giuen vnto him much incense that he should offer of the prayers of the Saints and that the smoke of the incense ascended from his hand before thee ô God And wee though not yet Saints be coÌ„secrated vnto thee in the blood of thy deare Sonne wherefore let our incense our prayers ascend too Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu Diuinae Maiestatis tuae vt quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctuÌ„ filij tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratia repleamur per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum Commaund o God these things to be brought by the hands of thy holy Angell vnto thy holie Altar in the view of thy Diuine Maiestie that wee as many of vs as by this participation of the Altar shall receaue the most holy bodie and blood of thy Sonne may be replenished with all heauenlie blessing and grace through the same Christ our Lord. So the prayer which you speak of in the Canon of the Masse I haue staid so long vpon it that Waferer who sent me to looke vpon the place of Gratian will think I haue for feare taken Sanctuarie and dare not appeare to answer it against his Master Featlie who hauing â—got the Canon readie is leuelling it against our cause and since now I am defending it against me The Minister by a stratagem hath gotten me iust before his Doctor and I may not without losse of honour steppe back or runne away Well stand I must But is this thinne paper my poore armour Canon-proof the bullets will flie thorough thorough or I shall be blowne away out of rerum natura If I be killed Master Mirth you le singe my Dirgeâ— and laugh a peale or two I leaue you this writing for a remembrance of me and for your greater comfort will tell you mine that if I die in this cause I shall neede no more Canonizing Your aime is M. Featlie to proue that our Sauiours flesh is not vnder the species or accidentes of bread after Consecration I am directlie opposite I saie it is there Giue fire to your Canon Featlie Gratian hath these wordes As the Heauenlie bread which is Christs flesh after a sorte or maÌ„ner is called Christs bodie whereas indeed it is the Sacrament of his bodie and the sacrifice of the flesh of Christ which is donne by the Priests hands is said to be his Passion death and crucifying not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Thus Gratian Answer And well had it not beene your misfortune shall I mitigate your action by that word to corrupt the text by omitting that substantiall and intrinsecall part of the senteÌ„ce which answers directlie to that argument you made out of it as will appeare in the ensuing citation and discussion In regard whereof in the other a. See the CoÌ„fer pag. 68. and Feat Relat. pag 295. Conference where you did obiect the same words as vnanswerable you broke of the citation before you came to them which was no great argument of faire dealing in the triall of so great a cause Was it not this which Waferer meant when he said Featlies argument was b. VVafer pag. 50. mincinglie produced If the Canon thus corrupted do chance anon to burst and and the peices flie about your eares each enough to confound you thank your self To the text of Gratian so alleaged you ioyne wordes out of the Glâ—sse which are cited aboue in the Catholicke Relation pag. 68. and shall be brought againe when their turne comes The text must go first Featlie In this allegation vnlesse you will taxe Gratian with false quoting there is a threefold Cable which cannot easilie be broken first Saint Augustines authoritie out of whom S. Prosper collecteth this sentence secondlie S. Prospers who in effect relates it and approues it and thirdlie Gratians who inserts it into the bodie of the Canon-lawe and citeth both for it Answer We shall be held hard to it it seemes with this triple Cable this mustering of men together to make good the breach which the Canon you presume will make in our Cause makes a great noise amongst the vnlearned who expect by this time when the mountaines will bring foorth Featlie The words of Gratian and the Glosse heere are so cleere against your reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes of bread and wine Brutum Fulmen that neuer any Protestant spake more expreslie and directlie against it Answer Implerunt cornua bombis Featl pag. 62. I think I must bid you as Master Musket did Frame your argument out of those wordes Featlie Gratian heere speakes of the bread after consecration for before it is consecrated it is not Coelestis panis heauenlie bread much lesse caro Christi Christs flesh by your owne confession But heere he saith this heauenlie bread is but after a sort Christs bodie and not indeed as the opposition betwixt suo modo after a sort and reuera indeed plainlie sheweth as if I should saie that picture is after a sort or in some sence Caesars it being indeed the true picture of Caesar Therefore after consecration the Sacrament is not in truth Christs bodie but onlie in a signifying mysterie Answer If you take the bumbast out of this Argument it will be more in fashion though not altogether The Sacrament consisteth you were told before of two things the one visible the other inuisible the Controuersie is not whether all this be the bodie the species or shape of bread may signifie but cannot be a mans bodie but whether the bodie be reallie according to the substance within that accideÌ„tall shape whether it be
contained as the Councell speakes in the Sacrament Conc. Trid. Sess 13. Suprà pag 182. seqq Suprà pag. 73. You haue beene tould also that a thing may represent or signifie that which according to the substance is within it and that a substance vnder two seuerall formes may by the one signifie it self as in the other The Doctours Argument out of the Canon doth touch vpoÌ„ these two points wherefore I am to see whether it doth affirme or denie them 1. Whether the bodie be or be not in the Sacrament 2. Whether by the Sacramentall forme be signified the naturall forme or shape as it was vpoÌ„ the Crosse the substance vnder them both being the same In his Minor for his Argument is an ill fauoured kind of Syllogisme he hath imposed for these words this heauenlie bread is but after a sort Christs bodie and not indeed what euer meaning they might haue be not in the text seuerall peices be deceitfullie patcht together for aduantage That the Reader may see and iudge I will represent heere the Canon it self VVafer p. 50. by parts for the Doctors engine may be taken in peices at leingth because the Apologist complaines this Argument was mincinglie produced The first part Hoc est quod dicimus hoc modis omnibus adprobare contendimus Sacrificium scilicet Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constà re visibili elementorum specie inuisibili D. N. I. C. carne sanguine Sacramento re Sacramëti sicut Christi persona constat conficitur Deo Homine cuÌ„ ipse Christus verus sit Deus verus homo quia omnis res illarum rerum naturam veritatem in se continet ex quibus conficitur conficitur autem Sacrificium Ecclesiae Sacramento re Sacramenti id est corpore Christi Est igitur Sacramentum res Sacramenti id est corpus Christi It is this wee say this it is which wee labour by all meanes to proue namelie that the Sacrifice of the Church is made and doth consist of two things the visible species of the elements and the inuisible and blood of Christ And this is that mincha that cleane oblation as the Fathers tell vs which is offered by the Church euerie where according as the Prophet Malachie did foretell I come now to the second part of the Canon wherein the difficulties that might occurre about this be dissolued our cause more confirmed and yours directlie contradicted Caro eius Christi est quam formá panis opertam in sacramento accipimus sanguis cius quemsub vini specie sapore potamus Caro videlicet carnis sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur visibile Domini N. I. C. corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutum Diuina Maiestate His flesh it is which in the Sacrament wee receaue couered with the forme or species of bread and his blood which wee drink vnder the species sauour of wine The flesh indeed is a Sacrament of the flesh and the blood is a Sacrament of the blood By flesh and blood both inuisible intelligible spirituall is signified the visible palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues of Diuine Maiestie You see how it saith first that our Sauiours flesh is couered in the Sacrament with the exteriour forme of bread the like of his blood which is in the forme of wine Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam c. with what face then could you saie that Gratians words are cleere against the reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes or exteriour forme of bread or Featlie pag. 61. that this heauenlie bread according to the substance is not indeed Christs bodie but a signe onlie SecoÌ„dlie it saith which ruines vtterlie all Waferers sillie discourse against S.E. vpoÌ„ this occasion that the flesh heere is a Sacrament of flesh and the blood a Sacrament of blood Caro videlicet carnis sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis in explication whereof it saith Thirdlie that the inuisible and spirituall flesh which is heere couered with the exteriour forme or accidents of bread doth signifie the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ and the like it is of the inuisible and spirituall blood carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur visible c. Whereby wee are instructed against Featlie when he saith pag. 63. that GratiaÌ„ doth not oppose moduÌ„ modo Featlie pag. 63. the manner to the manner when he compares the consecrated bread to the ble bodie but modum rei verae and veritati rei the manner to the truth of the thing and that therefore in saying it is suo modo there Featlie Ibidem he implieth that it is not there trulie or in the truth of the thing visiblie or inuisiblie for the text of Gratian doth affirme the flesh to be there inuisiblie couered with the forme of bread and that this inuisible spirituall flesh of Christ is a signe of or doth signifie his visible bodie as hath beene obserued from the wordes before cited After which ensue those which Fealie stands vpon being the third part of the Canon in this tenour Sicut ergo Coelèstis panis qui vere Christi caro est the Doctour perchaunce according to the coppie which he did vse leaues out verè suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cùm reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi how so if it be verè corpus Christi it followes and exactlie according to the doctrine of the former part carne inuisibili significatur visibile corpus illâ—us videlicet quod visibile palpabile mortale in cruce suspensum this Featlie conninglie left out whereas it is indeed the solution of his Argument Hetherto one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a comparison now followes another Vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio now comes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common to them both sic SacrameÌ„tum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As therefore the heauenlie bread which indeed is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the bodie of Christ whereas in truth it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ I meane of that which being visible palpable mortall was put vpon the Crosse and as that immolation of the flesh which is donne by the hands of the Priest is called the passion death and crucifixion not rei veritate in veritie of the thing but significante mysterio in a signifying mysterie So the Sacrament of faith Baptisme I meane is faith The force and life of which comparison you haue in S.E. pag. 72. Heere breeflie I obserue that this text in the double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speakes of two things the one is the flesh of Christ in
taken out of S. Augustine by S. Prosper It is the the flesh of Christ which wee receaue couered with the forme of bread and by the flesh and blood Ibidem both inuisible intelligible spirituall is signified the visible palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ and in Saint Ierome Hieron Comment in 1 ad Ephes ad Paulum Eustoch Idem in Ep. ad Hedib q. 2. The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstood two waies either that spirituall and Diuine whereof himself saith My flesh is meate indeede c. marke this Comment Master Waferer or the flesh that was crucified and Our Lord Iesus he the guest and the feast he the eater and the thing eaten But staie what is all this a mans bodie our Sauiours in bread shape flesh inuisible vnder the forme of bread an inuisible thing vnder accidēts the signe of a visible thing vpon the Crosse the same bodie at the same time eating and eaten visible and inuisible Apologist O insufferable dotage Censure And this comparison too a. Serm. de Coen in Cypr. As in the person of Christ the humanitie did appeare and the Diuinitie lie bid so heere in the Eucharist a Diuine essence doth vnspeakablie power it self into a visible Sacrament What is your opinion of this Apologist O blasphemous comparison Censure Com. in in Ioan. l. 4. c. 11. The malignant minde S. Cyrill saith presentlie with arrogance reiects all as friuolous and false whateuer it vnderstands not yeilding to none and thinking nothing to be aboue it self Belike some Spirit hath inspired this man and on the suddaine giuen vs a Diuine that can teach without learning the verie same which taught Luther to declaime against the Masse But Master Waferer bethink your self is this language for a Master of Art but of yesterdaie to giue a graue Prelate and a mā of knowne learning and then also when he speakes in the verie words of Antiquitie of holie Fathers of Iesus Christ Is this the modestie such a stripling should haue had the learning which you promised the charitie which you pretend you who do lament the Schismes of the Church and are continuallie in thanksgiuing for the great light you see wherein you haue discouered how the solid and substantiall nature of bread is transelemented into a feigned reference is this the vindicating of your Churches cause and the cleering of your Doctor it's abbetter O the Pedanticall insolencie O most insolent arrogancie of most arrogant Apostacie Of the first apostatizing Spirits it is said in Sripture their pride ascendeth euer They would haue thrones forsooth each one for they are all of one mind in the sides of the North from whence without submitting themselues to any they might controwle all and into the same region high pride hath raised this Apol. making her self this chaire and receauing him in her lap There he sits and controwles Antiquitie This it is when supercilious Pedants come from As in praesenti to print books and giue Diuines lessons in Diuinitie Apologist Not to trouble my self or my Reader with the repetition of all those infinite solecismes which this opinion includes take notice of this that it distroies the definition of an Indiuiduum makes Christs indiuiduall bodie not to be indiuiduall Indiuiduum according to logick is quod est indiuisum in se diuisum ab alijs omnibus as Socrates is distinguished from Plato c. now I saie this your tenet of there all presence against this definition diuide an indiuiduall bodie from it self it diuides Christ ac Paris from Christ in the Sacrament at Rome Censure He hath if you beleeue him an infinite companie of reasons but least he trouble the Reader or himselfe lucidum interuallum with ranging them all against vs he picks out the stoutest his Thersites Achilles I should haue said and thrusting him into the field bids vs take notice of him Sure it is a goodlie reason Limmes it hath some but it wāts sinewes like therefore to be some tough chāpion Hath it the forme and shape of a good Argument no but it hath a head the maior proposition O quale caput sed cerebrum where non habet The maior might haue in it a good sence and hath so when others vse it when it is vnderstood of intrinsecall indiuision but extrinsecall is not that which doth constitute or the want of it that which takes awaye an indiuiduum now the Minister vnderstands it of this later this extrinsecall indiuision as will presentlie appeare by his discourse Thus the Maior The Minor is of no great weight neither for it stands vpon his breath Now a. Mirths words I saie this your tenet against this definition diuides an indiuiduall bodie from it self it it diuides Christ at Paris from Christ in the Sacramēt at Rome You saie so well Your Conclusion let the Reader himself make it if he can Supprimit Orator But is there no proppe for the Minor if you cease to saie it what shall become of it then yes wee shall haue something to supporte it Apologist For there being distance diuersitie of place it cannot be the same numericall bodie Censure Did I not tell before that he meant extrinsecall indiuision Place is extrinsecall to a bodie whether you be in Oxford or Odiham you be the same indiuiduum still though the place be distinct Oxford is not Odiham but M Waferer in Odiham is the same Master Waferer that was at Oxford the Minister is the Master of Art is he not Master Mirth And a Master of Art might haue knowne further that superuenient vbications destroie not that indiuiduation which essentiallie they suppose Your substantiall indiuiduation that whereby you are substantiallie distinct from other men which is no accident of Master Waferer nor can be remooued from him as much as in your mind without taking him away too that substantiall indiuiduation is essentiallie presupposed by euerie particular intrinsecall vbicatiō receaued in you as an accidēt in it's subiect and is not changed by it by the superuenient vbication if it were the same thing could not bee as much as successiuelie in seuerall places as oft as you changed places so oft you should be an other man One borne another be caried to Church to be Christned a third brought home to suck the mother and which yet would trouble you worse another should take the benefice which was giuen you because you tooke the degree which an other by the name of Waferer too a I will not sweare that deserued Apologist I praie what other diuision can there be of materiall substances but by bounds of place Censure Poore man and what If I should come into your place and you into mine should I then be you and you be that indiuiduum which I am this were as easie as it is a strange transubstantiation But I know you will denie it to be possible least by this meanes you be vnawares made a Papist I thought this it
Catholikes that neuer sawe Master of Art in his habit It is onli◠Christs bodie in the Eucharist as it is crucified in the Eucharist But it is onlie sacramentallie meaning in a signe crucified in the Eucharist Ergo it is onlie sacramentallie meaning a signe in the Eucharist For the Solution whereof if you demaund of anie Catholicke i◠our Sauiours bodie crucified in the Eucharist he tels you No. demaund againe is it there indeed reallie he Answers yes so I haue beene taught and I beleeue it And heereby Master Waferer though he knowes not the termes of Art He denies that which is your Maior A Scholler will tell you further of another sence of the word shed whē it is attributed to the Sacramentall cup and of the word broken when it is attributed to the bodie which you did not reflect vpon when you made your Argument The bodie blood of our Sauiour the lambe sacrificed for the world are heere in the species of things inanimate which existence by reason of the exteriour formes giues occasion when wee speake of the sacred actions that are exercised towards or about them to vse that kind of speach which was proper to sacrifices of that kind whereof some were solid and drie others liquid among the solid was bread which was broken to signifie the soueraigne dominion of Almightie God Leuit. 2. among the liquid was wine which to the same end was powred out vpon the Altar hence those words powred out or shed and broken are vsed to signifie the action of sacrifycing when the things offered or sacrificed be in formes inanimate of bread or wine and euen by our Sauiour himself This is my bodie which is broken for you 1 Cor. 11. this is my blood of the new testament which is powred out or shed for many Matt. 26. This breaking for and shedding for is vnbloodie sacrifycing Which Caluin espied also and confessed when he expounded the breaking in S. Paul Calu in Epi pri Cor. panis quem frangimus frangi saies he interpretor immolari But the Apologist obiectes againe out of the word shed Howeuer it be shed saith he it moueth being powred out if it moue it is in a place if in a place then either circumscriptiuelie or definitiuelie Heere it appeares that as before I noted he speakes of shedding according to the ordinarie common acception of the word without reflecting on the other acception according to which neither this nor the former Obiectiō hath any kind of apparēce For a thing may by consecration be put vpō the Altar in the forme of wine without any locall motion of it And this presenting of it on the altar by turning not it into an other thing but wine into it donne to signifie the soueraigne dominion of allmightie God is one part of the sacrification which wee call vnbloody the other part is the putting of the bodie on the altar by consecratiō in the shape of bread and both these make one representation of the bloodie sacrifice and oblation on the Crosse But you are not yet accustomed to consider how words are extended by reason of analogie in the matters to an equiuocall kind of signification whereof in the mysteries of Christianitie yea and in other matters too there are frequent examples wherefore I come neerer to your conceptiō and in answer to your doubt tell you first that as a thing may be in place either per se or per accidens so may it be said locallie to be moued either per se or per accidens your soule in your hand and the blood of our Sauiour heere Supra pag. 471 seqq are in loco per accidens I told you before more of this Secōdlie those two modi which you speake of do not sufficientlie distinguish or expound that which wee call being in a place God is in the world yet neither of these two waies and our Sauiours bodie in the Sacrament though not either of these wayes which you speake of The veritie of Gods word doth inforce a presence distinct from both those and to suppose there is none distinct is in you that are Christned an hereticall begging of the Question Insteed of a third replie you demaund whether wee beleeue that thing in the Sacrament which you describe by transubstantiated bread wine to be the price of our Redemption I answer that I beleeue Iesus Christ who told vs that that thing in his hands in the forme of bread was his bodie deliuered for our sinnes and that thing in the chalice his blood shed for vs. This Master Waferer though you shrink and crie Alas fond faith is part of my Creede That our Sauiour was borne of the Virgine Marie is most certaine I beleeue it And I beleeue him haue I not cause that was so borne I willinglie ioyne with Antiquitie with the Catholike and vniuersall Church of this Prince of peace this Emmanuel this Virgins-Sonne this Heire apparent of all that God hath Ioan. 16. who trulie said Omnia quaecunque habet Pater mea sunt euen his Diuinitie his knowledge his omnipotēcie wherby He Iesus he was able to make good his promise the bread which I will giue is my flesh to verifie what he did affirme this in forme of bread is my bodie Whilst you censured this faith as fond did not your conscience trouble you Master Waferer and whē you named the price of our redemption in the cup did not your memorie suggest vnto you those words of S. Augustine before discussed where he said that Iudas the traitour and a Deuill drank it Iudas that tooke it not by the waie or meanes of faith but onlie with his mouth yet he tooke it he tooke that himself an infidell quod fideles cognouerunt precium nostrum That precium was not in the cup before consecration S. Ambr. lib. 5. de Sacr. c 5. but after it was there Heare another as ancient and his Catechist when he came into the Church Ante verba Christi calix est vini aquae plenus vbi verba Christi operata fuerint ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit Before the words of Christ the Chalice is full of wine and water but when the words of Christ haue wrought there in the Chalice is made the blood which redeemed the people Apol. pag. 89 So he But Master Waferer wiser then he Alas fond faith if so you beleeue Lord help your vnbeleefe This is all the little he had in this matter to replie he had wearied himself it seemes in the former Section his string was broken too he could not shoote rouing bolts as before he did and therefore is now contented to lie downe Will you see how he lies hauing nothing els to do till he goes into the next Section I will loose a little time in counting how manie lies I finde heere in one page the first of this Section taking in that the sence be cōpleate
two lines out of the former almost two lines of the later least I be forced abruptlie to break him of I beginne as he doth with the Synopsis of the matter Apologist This Section refutes their construction of those words The cup is the new testament in my blood Censure One Apologist Shewes that there is no substantiall change wrought by them Censure Two Apologist That there is not identitie materiall he meanes in them vzt of the blood and the thing whereinto the wine is changed Censure Three So farre the Synopsis Now the Discourse Apologist By vertue of the words This is my blood of the new Testament This cup is the new TestameÌ„t in my blood He who will first conclude a substantiall change and then consequentlie He will presume identitie in them but both vntrulie Censure Four And yet there is fauour too For first in the text out oâ— which S. E. if you meane him defends and auouches the Reall presence of the blood there is more then you cite he insisteth on words by you omitted Your Doctour had obiected that no substaÌ„tiall part of any testatour could be properlie his testameÌ„t in that seÌ„ce wherein my Lord heer tooke the words S. E. answers that this assertion of you Doctour is contrarie to the Gospell which importes as much as this This drink in forme of wine is my testament which drinke is shed for you hence he doth auouch If shed for vs it was blood blood a testament and blood is â— part The text he cites is in Saint Luke whither he refers you to reade the wordes of our Sauiour which be theâ— This the Chalice the new testament in my blood which it shed for manie vnto remission of sinnes Secondlie in that you he the chang of wine into blood the identitie of blood with the thing â—nto which wine is changed be not â—â—ulie auouched out of the text you â—peak at one time two vntruthes Apologist I will distinctlie giue answere to this confused Section Censure Let this passe without a Note though the Discourse in the â—ection as he cals it be distinct and â—leere not confused and this Apologist so farre froÌ„ giuing a distinct answer that he doth not answer Apologist Doctor Smith and his Second admit what vpon further try all they denie a figure in those wordes of the â—up Censure Fiue Apologist Aske them how they vnderstand these words this cup is the new testament and they replie properlie enough What then is the new Testament it cannot be denied but that it is the last and eternall will of Christ the testatour c. now how a cup which is no other theâ— the work of an artificer can be saiâ— properlie to be this let who will iudge Censure Six They do not saie that the artificiall cup is either the interiour will or the authentick signe of it as he who will iudge may see pag. 100. seqq Apologist But they proceede to affirme it the cup which is no other then the worke of an artificer properlie to be called a Testament because saie they it is an authenticall signe of his will Censure Seauen Iudge now Courteous Reader whether this be a man to write books anâ— teach Diuinitie I will not saie he is either witles or willfullie malicious tâ— vent such things in print the bookâ— being yet extant which he doth thuâ— impugne but the learnedst freind hâ— hath will as easilie maintaine thaâ— black is white as defend his innocencie vnles for I will not think him to be as he termes S. E. cup-hardie as he was an infant by his Relation at the time of the Conference so yet he bee indeed an Innocent I haue gonne ouer but six and thirtie lines all lying together or lying alltogether and allreadie repent me of the losse not of my labour for without labour I found what I lookt for but of time Should a man runne ouer all your booke in this manner Master Waferer he would finde this nastie Centon made to couer your needie cause as full of lyes as a slouenlie beggars breech is full of though you pretend to be a sworne enimie to that vice and so farre that because equiuocation doth seeme to resemble it soÌ„what you bitterlie declaime against equiuocation too and challenge more credit to your bare affirmation theÌ„â— Catholike is able to deserue sending vs this insinuation publikelie by the print Let me tell you a Protestant hath more reason to be beleeued on his bare word VVafer pag. 97. then a Papist because the Protestants religion ties him to speake the truth from his heart without any mentall reseruation but the Papists doctrine teacheth him a pretie kind of deceipt called equiuocation and will not stick to license the loudest lie so it be aduantagiouâ— to the cause of Rome And he too Saint Ierome saies to me seemes an Hypocrite who saith vnto his brother staie let me take a motâ— out of thine eie Our Sauiour himselâ— stiles him so Hypocrite first cast thâ— beame out of thine owne You tell thâ— Church of Rome there is in heâ— doctrine a prettie kind of deceit called equiuocation which you arâ— offering nicelie to take out anâ— cannot see the monstrous lies thaâ— lie in your owne booke to whicâ— for they come out of your moutâ— vpon the paper as thick as waspâ— out of a nest whilst you are speâ—king of a prettie deceit which yoâ— your self impose you adde an other in your book that the Papists doctrine will not stick to licence the loudest lie But who licencied your Book Master Waferer whose approbat had you to it I should haâ—e thought none but the Father â—ies would haue liked it it is â—o enormouslie peccant against faith and good manners so full of â—ies in matters of both kinds had I not heard six monthes â—nd more before the printer maâ—e it a coate where the babe was â—t nurse with other circumstances which are knowne to Mistrisse Featâ—ie The seuenth Argument was taken out of that place of S. Mathew where the cup our Sauiour drank of is called the fruit of the vine It was answered that there were two cups the Legall and the Sacramentall and that those wordes as appeares by by the relation of Saint Luke were meant of the Legall cup though it had beene easie to answer the Argument had theâ— beene vnderstood of the Sacrâ—mentall M. Featlie would haue the word spoken of the sacramentall cup a. These words in S. Matt. This fruite of the vine must haue relation 〈◊〉 the Cup of which S. Matt. spake before But S. Matt spake of no Cup before but the cup of the new Testament therefore c. Featlie Relat. pag 302. oâ—lie of no other cup then that of the new Testament And he had his Answer Now Waferer seeing it proued in the Relation that they were spokeÌ„ of the Legall cup and Featlies Arguments being impertinent vnles they be spoken of the Sacramentall saies that Christ spake them vndoubtedlie of
corradere c. cum ergo obijciunt locum Malachiae de Missae Sacrificio ab Irenaeo exponi oblationem quoque Melchisedech sic tractari ab Athanasio Ambrosio Augustino Arnobio breuiter responsum sit eosdem illos Scriptores alibi quoque panem interpretari corpus Christi sed ita ridiculè vt dissentire nos cogat ratio c. Caluin l. de vera Eccles Reform p. 389. In this Section as appeares by the Synopsis which Waferer himself sets before it be many thinges both impertinent to the Argument which was of the signification of the word Hoc and without order packt together As. 1. Of the sixt chapter of Saint Iohn whether it speakes of the Sacrament which Question he concludes negatiuè so cashcering one of his owne Doctors Arguments 2. Of transubstantiation where he would haue the Reader know from him yes that the Fathers speake hyperbolicallie when they saie bread is changed by the power of omnipotence not in shape but in nature that the nature it self is changed that it is transelemented And hauing said for explication of those places that in transelementation the materia prima which is an element or principle of the thing aswell as the forme doth remaine he tells vs the Fathers meane a change in office Your greatest Protestantish polemicks come in fine to the same Expectu eadem a summmo mâ—â—â—moque as if that office to represent or signifie the flesh of Christ came in place of the nature or forme of bread or that a substantiall forme or element were turned into an ens rationis which is in a Ministers emptie braine 3. Of adoration where he would ridiculouslie perswade the Reader that the Councel of Trent will haue latria bestowed vpon meere accidentes for being Sacramentum tantum sacred and Sacramentall signes onlie as if the Church esteemed that a motiue of Diuine and highest worship 4. Of Omnipotencie where he professeth not to meddle with Gods absolute power and yet denies things which we maintaine to be donne onlie by that power 5. Of the Incarnation where he saith that since our Sauiours manhood is inseparablie vnited to his Diuinitie in that sence it may be said to be euerie where present to it and that the vnion of our Sauiours maÌ„hood to the Deitie is extended as far as thâ— Deitie 6. Of miracles Where he saith that that which is onlie spirituall he meanes inuisible such as the changes made in the elements bread and wine by consecration or by the Sacraments in our soules or by God in his Saincts is wrought no where but in the mind These effects and other spirituall created things S. Hier. ad Ctes all if this tenet hold are imaginarie Non necesse habet conuinci quod sua statim professione blasphemum est I spare paper to some other better purpose what neede I spend it Ibidem Sententias vestras prodidisse superasse est This Euripus homo Wauerer in his discourse doth saie and vnsaie and interprete himself when some bodie it seemes warned him of his grosse errours against the CommoÌ„ Creede no better in effect then if hauing said it is I should adde for explication that is Quo teneas vultus mutainteÌ„ protea nodu it is not wanting discretion to leaue out what he had not wit enough to mend The Obiections which he brings such as he picks heere and there out of others he thrusts together in a bundle without order like sticks in a fagot which if it were caried to Carfox and set on fire would illuminate the four quarters of the Vniuersitie Will you heare some recited and obserue in him whilst from his extaticall throne or pulpit he scatters Oracles to sanctifie the attentiue eares of astonished Pupils an example of sweete ingenuous faire ciuill gracious comportment Credite me vobis folium recitare Whist he speakes Apologist let me see what you would haue this bread in the Sacrament to be Such say you as whereunto the Diuine essence doth ineffablie power it self euen as in Christ vnder humane nature the Diuinitie lay bid And finallie such bread of which our Sauiour saith it is my flesh for the life of the world O most insufferable dotage First because the blasphemous comparison of putting Christ so in the bread shaps as his Diuinitie was in his humanitie as if he were personallie vnited to them as he was to the humane nature 2. you would against sense as well as the condition of a Sacrament make an inuisible thing namelie Christ inuisible vnder the accidens of bread to be a signe of a visible thing namelie of Christ visible on the Crosse and so make either two Christs or els the self same bodie to be at the same time both eating and eaten visible and inuisible Censure Who bolder then blind bayard who more furious in charging men with errour and dotage then those who be most ignorant and haue least wit I told him before of his temeritie but the Ethiopian will not change his skinne nor the Leopard depose his spots The Holie Ghost saies of Heretickes and wee finde the experience of it that they are a. 2. Tim. 3. elati superbi criminatores proterui tumidi b. Epist Iust Hi autem the scriptures saies of them quaecumque quidem ignorant blasphemant c. 2. Tim. 3. As Iannes and Mambres withstood Moyses so do these also resist the truth men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith but they shall proceede no further for their follie shall be manifest to all as the others was It is a peece of stupid ignorance in a writer of polemicall bookes to think and an vnsufferable calumnie it were to report that wee beleeue two Christ or that he whom wee beleeue is vnited hypostaticè personallie to the bread shapes To iustifie that wee saie by you recited and so deeplie charged I neede do no more but pray the Authours themselues to come foorth and againe speake it ouer before your face When you see parties peraduenture you will blush 1 Cor. 11. Iesus Christ our Redeemer God and man Take and eate this in the forme of bread is my bodie which is broken Ioan. 6. giuen for you The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world my flesh is meate indeed c. the Comment you shall haue anon out of S. Ierom. The Authour of the Sermons in Saint Cyprian and of the same age Motton pag. 25. Serm. de Coena whom all know your Patron sayes to be a Catholicke Father That bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the Word made flesh These two places the one out of S. Iohn the other out of the SermoÌ„ that is in S. Cyprian Waferer tooke notice of and in his waie there were more Cyrill Catech. 4. Canon Hoc est as that of S. Cyrill That which appeares breade is not bread but the bodie and of the Canon