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
wine there whereas the whole substance as this fellow beareth vs in hand that is both matter and forme of bread passeth into Christs body here 9. To say that one substance passeth into another substance preexisting is to say that that is made that already is or that is produced and hath beeing giuen it that is in beeing already when as a thing cannot be in making and beeing at once nor can beeing be giuen to that that already is or to say that a creature is now made that was fully made before or that a creature that was before is new made of that that before was not it Yea to speake more plainely it is all one to as say that a man is killed when hee was dead before or is quickened when hee was aliue before or is now stript when hee was starke naked before or is now bred or begotten when he was borne before Lastly to say that Christs body long before preexisting is now made of bread that some two or three dayes past had no existence it selfe is all one as to say that wine of a twelue-month old is made of grapes that were but yesterday gathered and pressed and were yet growing the day before or that an Oke hauing stood vpward of an hundred yeeres and yet standing in the Forrest is sprung vp this yeere of an acorne of the last yeares growth And consider wee now how well these things agree together The body of Christ is contained in the bread and yet there is no bread at all in the Eucharist The body of Christ succeedeth onely in the roome of bread and yet the substance of the bread passeth into the substance of Christs body The whole substance of bread is so abolished that nothing remaineth of it and yet the whole substance of the same bread passeth into the substance of Christs body Christs body was in beeing before and yet it is now made of another substance that before it was not yea Christs body that was bread and borne aboue a thousand yeeres since is now made of a wafer-cake of yesterdayes baking The whole essence of that wafer cake passeth into Christs body and yet wee cannot say of Christs body that euer it was that wafer-cake But like ropes of sand as wee are wont to say doe these things hang together and to spend much time in refuting them may be deemed I feare as ridiculous to vse their Dennis his tearmes as to stand seriously and curiously pulling downe by piece-meale such castles as little children haue in sport built vp of sand NEither is it a good or Christian kinde of Argument which my Adversary in the end of the same 12. page to this purpose maketh Other substantiall conversions are sensible and easily discerned albeit miraculous as when Aarons rod was made a Serpent c. Wheras in the Sacrament we see wholly the contrary therefore we are not to beleeue therein any such conversion citing thus for proofe thereof a place of S. Augustine in his margent which directly if hee had marked it overthroweth his owne doctrine and purpose of citing it That which you see saith this Father is bread and a Cup but that which your faith requireth you to be enformed of is that the bread is Christs body and the Cup his blood Could hee affirme any thing more plainly against this Ministers sensuall and absurd Argument which were it good would lead vs to beleeue nothing faith being onely of things which appeare not to our vnderstanding or senses How farre is this carnall poore vnlearned man from the holy Fathers spirit and doctrine as I haue formerly cited their assertions wherein they teach vs to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses and with the Apostle to captivate our vnderstandings to the obedience of faith in this and many other mysteries of faith humbly to bee vpon the warrant of Gods word assented vnto and not ouer-curiously searched after by vs. We are saith S. Hillarie that great Doctor of Christs Church and victorious Champion of his deity not to dispute as my Adversarie doth in a secular and sensuall manner of diuine things For of this naturall veritie of Christ in vs speaking of the Sacrament vnlesse we learne of Christ himself we speake foolishly and impiously Wherefore sithence hee saith My flesh is truely food and my blood is truely drinke Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood remaineth in mee and I in him there is no place of doubting left cōcerning the verity of Christs body and blood For now by the profession of our Lord and faithfull beleefe which we haue thereof it is his true flesh and blood and these being receiued by vs do make vs to be in Christ and Christ in vs. Is not this truth Surely it is but to those that deny Iesus Christ to be true God c. With a cloud of such ancient and vncontrollable Testimonies of the holy Fathers formerly touched could I confound my sensuall Adversary and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and diuine Mysteries instituted by the Sonne of God with equall wisedome power and goodnesse for vs wherein the omnipotency of him that chiefly doth them is to be assigned for a sufficient reason of them § 4. NOw further whereas I alleadge among other things that in euery miraculous conversion of bodies there is a sensible change whereas no such thing at all is found in the Sacrament Our eyes saith Augustine informe vs that it is bread that is there He telleth me this is no good nor Christian but an absurd secular and senslesse arguing and such as would leade vs to beleeue nothing but what we see and that Augustine if I had marked him whom I cite in the margent as if his very wordes were not in the text vtterly ouerthroweth it as also Hillarie and other Fathers when they teach vs in diuine mysteries to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses which this poore carnall vnlearned man his Adversarie is so farre from c. And withall as commiserating and bewailing my simplicity Oh how farre is this poore c. He telleth his Reader that he could with a cloud of such ancient and vncontrolleable testimonies of the holy Fathers confound this his sensuall Adversarie and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and divine mysteries Wel when he doth this you may beleeue that he can doe it and his poore puny Adversary shall be eternally obliged to him for it But meane while let vs see what Pyrgopolinices here saith 1. Augustine telleth vs that something is seene in the Sacrament and something else is to bee belieued But doth Augustine tell vs that wee must not beleeue that there is bread there though our eyes informe vs that there is No He telleth vs expressely that there is bread there as our eyes doe informe vs. And what can be more euidently or plainely spoken Yea
Will is contained and his legacy conueighed vnto vs which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deâ—â—â—t soules Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to bee no other then bare signes and types of Christs true body and blood as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person as Circumcision is called the Couenant because it was a signe thereof c. either not vnderstatding like a dull Scholler his Master Caluines doctrine or ouer sawcily willing to contradict him who towards the end of his booke de Coena Domini expressely denieth bread wine to be empty signes of our Sauiours body and blood but such signes as haue the signified substances of our Sauiours body and blood conioyned with them For Christ saith hee is no deceiuer to delude vs with bare figures c. According to which doctrine of Caluine it will be easie for my Adversarie himselfe to salue many of his owne obiections that for example which he maketh out of Tertullian page 3. saying The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his body saying This is my body that is a figure of my body For as Caluines former words import so also Tertullian meaneth the sacramentall symbols not to be naked signes of Christs absent body and blood as the Minister would haue them but such signes as haue the signified substance conioyned vnto them as smoake is the signe of fire warme blood of life the fiery tongues ouer the Apostles in that day of Pentecost and the Doue ouer our Sauiour in his Baptisme were signes of the holy Ghost present c. Which manner of being signes of Christs body and blood doth not exclude but suppose the Accidents of bread and wine to containe the true substances of our Sauiours body and blood in them So is Saint Augustine to be vnderstood where he saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when hee deliuered the signe of his body And when out of Gratian my Aduersary citeth those wordes The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ c. is a Sacrament of Christs body visible palpable mortal and pierced on the Crosse c. So when Theodoret and Gelasius affirme the substance and nature of bread and wine still to remaine in the Sacrament they meane not physicall substances and nature of bread and wine still to remaine after the consecration but onely the accidents to remaine vnaltered in their nature signifying and containing our Sauiours body and blood vnder them And if hee had cited the place of Theodoret fully out he had vtterly ouerthrowne his hereticall and fraudulent purposes of citing him His wordes are these Neither do the sacramentall signes after consecration depart from their nature for they remaine note how hee speaketh of the signes not of the substances of bread and wine remaining in their former substance figure and forme to be seene and touched as before but they are by our vnderstanding conceiued to be as they are made and they are beleeued and adored according to our faith of them So iudicious and learned is mine Aduersarie here and in other places in the choise of his Arguments and Authorities alleadged against vs. But howsoeuer he faileth in that he will be sure to helpe out the matter by maiming and corruptly citing such testimonies I haue iust cause to suspect his like dealing in citing Gratians Glosse on S. Augustines wordes in the precedent page and Caietans words cited by him page 2. But I haue not these Authors now by me to examine the places in themselues And they are of so small esteeme with vs especially Caietan in his dangerous and inconuenient manner of expounding Scripture with more subtilty many times then truth as I cannot but wonder to see the Minister so to magnifie him as if hee were the Oracle of our Church and his ipse dixit and bare assertion so certaine a proofe as it could not be denied by vs. IN the next place therefore skipping ouer this Confession of Caietan that there is nothing in the Gospell that may inforce vs to take those words of our Sauiour properly This is my body but that they may for ought that is in the Text be taken figuratiuely as well as those wordes The Rock was Christ. As also leaping quite ouer the Answer giuen to that Obiection that we are bound to beleeue our Sauiour when hee saith This my body as if wee could not beleeue those wordes of his vnlesse wee beleeue Transubstantiation whereas their owne writers grant that the words of our Sauiour may be true though no such thing be He picketh out here and there some by-matter to bee nibling vpon that hee may seeme to say somewhat though hee keepe aloofe off from the maine matter And first because hee thought hee had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet which hee was desirous to vent He saith I make a great stirre in asking how the Chalice may bee called the New Testament in Christs blood I halfe suspect that some body hath sometime pusâ—ed him with this Question and he is willing therfore here to explicate it for the saluing of his owne credit the rather hauing lighted vpon a new deuice that hee thinketh wil easily helpe out For I mooue no such Question much lesse make such adoe about asking it but say onely We must beleeue our Sauiour as well when he saith This Cup is the new Testament or This Cup is my blood as wee must beleeue him when he saith This is my body and that either may bee true though there be no such reall conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament or Christs blood in the one or of the Bread into his body in the other And his part had beene if he ment to keepe to the point to shew why the one may not be true in a figuratiue sense as wel as the other But let vs heare how learnedly though it bee beside the matter he explicateth our Sauiours wordes This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Thus forsooth My blood in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed and the eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood Did any man in his right wits thinke wee euer expound Scripture on this manner Yea but he hath a singular piece of Schollership by himselfe to iustifie his Exposition For all learned men saith hee know that the word Testament is apt to import not the dying mans Will onely but the deed wherein it is contained and the legacy conueighed by it which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deuout soules c. If he had beene himselfe inebriated when hee writ this hee could not lightly haue beene more absurd For 1. By this
assertions as that the damned spirits in hell salute all the Saints in heauen and by name the Apostles Prophets and Martyrs the Patriarches Monkes and the Uirgin Mary and lastly their seuerall editions of them so chopped and changed mangled and made vp againe cut off or pieced out as they pleased that had the breeding of them that scarce any one of them is any whit like another The testimonies cited out of him could not be answered before the Author himselfe was hatched and his workes abroad in mens hands that they might bee seene and knowne what they were And now that they are seen and known what they are they appeare plainely to be such that they are not worthy of any answer Vnlesse it bee deemed equall that wee bee tied to answer to euery saying that is alleadged out of any counterfeite that they shall at any time thrust out with the glorious title of some Ancient Father clapt on his Frontispice And yet neither are this Authors wordes what euer he be by the Cardinals good leaue for all his great bragge so pregnant and full for them that no answer can be giuen to them He saith that the mysteries of Christ are most admirable and inscrutable and who denieth it this follow himselfe bringeth in Caluin and Beza saying the same and that men ought not to pry ouer curiously into them wherein not we but their S. Dennis is faulty their Schoolemen who with their wanton wit haue therein exceeded all bounds as well of modestie as of measure that we partake with our Lords immaculate bodie by faith for so in Uossius his edition are his wordes distinguished which we may well without any such corporall presence of it as by their owne Authors is confessed that wee must be assured that we eate the Lambe himselfe whole which is contrary not to our doctrine who say and shew euidently that the Fathers did as much that liued euen before Christ was incarnate but to the doctrine of their Pope Nicholas as else-where is shewed So that here is nothing that we need so much to stick at or that should be deemed so vnanswerable vnlesse he wil presse vs with that that followeth that Christ giueth vs fire to feed on when hee giueth vs his body as Chrysostome saith sometime that fire floweth from the Lords table and it is a coale of fire that wee receiue in the Eucharist Which if they will expound figuratinely and spiritually as I suppose they must needs let them giue vs the like liberty to vnderstand the former wordes in like manner I will adde only and so leaue this Ephrem what in the very same discourse himselfe saith what this potion and perception is saith he it is our part to learne And it is lawfull then belike yea and our dutie too to make some kinde of inquiry into it Marke diligently how Christ taking bread into his hands blessed it and brake it for a figure of his immaculate body and how hee blessed the Cup for a figure of his blood Which wordes I take it encline rather to our doctrine then to theirs And yet further in the same Treatise With the eyes of faith when like light it shineth bright in a mans heart doth he cleerly see the Lambe of God that was slaine for vs and that hath giuen vs his holy and immaculate bodie perpetually to feede vpon and to partake of vnto remission of sinnes This eye of faith he that hath doth cleerely and openly see the Lord and by a sure and full faith eateth of the bodie of that immaculate Lambe the onely begotten sonne of the heauenly Father and drinketh his blood c. By faith saith hee wee see the Lambe of God as expounding that that was said out of the storie of the Nicene Councell before and by faith wee seede on him and his bodie and blood and partake of him perpetually and not in the Eucharist onely Which as it fitteth not their orall manducation which without faith may bee effected so it agreeth well with that spirituall feeding that we expound our Sauiours wordes of So little doth this their Ephrem further or auaile them in this Argument Lastly for the high tearmes and stately titles that the Ancient Fathers giue the Eucharist let him but compare them with those that they giue to its elder sister the other Sacrament of Baptisme and I suppose hee will finde little oddes betweene either Onely for what hee saith of their affirming that the Angels adore it let the places bee produced and they shall then bee answered That they are present oft and if present no doubt present with much reuerence as well at the celebration of the Lords Supper as at other parts of Gods worship and that they adore him who is therein represented which is all that Chrysostome saith in the places produced out of him by Bellarmine we deny not and of Baptisme in effect their Cyrist saith as much But that they doe adore as God a piece of bread or a sorry wafer cake as the Papists doe in their Masse therein committing as grosse idolatry it is their owne grant if it be not Christ which we well know it is not as euer any was in the world that we vtterly deny nor will this Defendant euer be able to produce any one Orthodox Father that euer so said And thus much for his allegations though produced here to no purpose to disprooue as they might well enough without hurting of vs no assertion of ours but a fiction of his owne framing nor was it necessarie therefore that they should haue beene answered Let vs now proceede to the next part of his Answer Diuision 6. HIs next ground for ouerthrowing our literall vnderstanding of Christs wordes and reall presence of his true bodie and blood in the Sacrament is an vnlearned and slender manner of proouing our Sauiours large discourse in S Iohn 6. not to bee at all vnderstood of sacrament all manducation but spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him And first hee quareleth at Pope Nicholas manner of speech making Berengarius in the abiuration of his heresie to affirme not onely the signe but the body it selfe of Christ to bee handled by the Priests hands and rent and bruised with the teeth of the faithfull c. Which manner of speech was purposely by Pope Nicholas in a Councell of learned Doctors devised to make this slippery shifting hereticke make a direct and plaine confession of his faith concerning our Sauiours being present in the hands of the Priest consecrating the Sacrament and mouthes of such as receiue him impassible now in his owne corporall nature glorified and vncapable of renting or any kinde of corporall mutation as being not with the sacramental signes also quantitatiuely extended but indiuisibly and after a spirituall manner existing
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
Cups but allegorising the wordes as their manner is to doe many times letting the literall sense alone expound the vine to be the people of the Iewes and so the fruit of the vine the legall obseruances c. And what is all this to the literall sense of the words that this trifler is troubled with and cannot tell how to auoyd Let him produce if he can any one Father who denieth that Christ spake those wordes of the Eucharisticall Cup and of the liquor therein contained I alleadged Clemens of Alexandria Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine and might adde many others that affirme it Yea not onely Iansenius ingenuously acknowledgeth that it can be meant of no other then the Eucharisticall Cuppe which onely Matthew and Marke mention But Maldonate the Iesuite also freely confesseth that Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Epiphanius Ierome Augustine Bede Euthymius and Theophylact doe all expound those wordes of it howbeit himselfe saith that Christ spake there not of his blood but of wine Where first obserue we that Ierome and Bede cleane contrary to this fablers assertion by the Iesuites confession expound it of the Eucharist And secondly conclude wee from the Iesuites owne grants It was of that that was in the Eucharisticall Cup that our Sauiour spake those wordes as the ancient Fathers generally and ioyntly affirme But our Sauiour spake them not of his blood but of wine saith the Iesuite It was not his blood therefore but wine that was drunke in the Eucharist 2. Wee obiect the words of our Sauiour Doe this in remembrance of me not as this shamelesse lyer saith therby to prooue the Sacrament to be a bare memorie of Christs body and blood somewhat like the lye he told before that his Adversarie should affirme it to bee nothing but bare bread and wine but to prooue that Christ is not there corporally present For what needeth a memoriall of him when we haue him in our eye when if we may beleeue Bellarmine he is visibly present with vs When we see him and touch him as this fellow telleth vs else-where Or who would be so absurd as to say I giue you my selfe to be a memoriall of my selfe It is as if a man when hee dieth saith Primasius or when he goeth to trauell saith one that goeth for Ierome should leaue a pledge or a token with one that hee loueth to put him in minde of him in his absence and of the good turnes he hath done him which the partie if hee loue him entirely cannot looke on without teares And who would be so senselesse as deliuering his friend a ring on his death bed to say I deliuer you this ring to bee a pledge of this ringe or to be a pledge of it selfe But let vs heare I pray you his Answer Saint Paul saith hee interpreteth these wordes of our Sauiour when he saith So oft as you doe this you represent Christs death till hee come Would any man that had either braines in his head or wit in his braine answer in this manner or reason on this wise Christs death is represented in the Lords Supper Ergo Christs very body and blood must needs bee there present Yea or thus either In the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs death Ergò it is not a memoriall of it As if representation were not ordinarily of things absent or memorials represented not the things that they commemorate He wanted his Bellarmine heere to helpe him out who where Tertullian saith that Christ represented his body in bread saith that to represent there signifieth to make a thing really present But it is well that the word vsed by the Apostle here will not beare any such sense else it may be we might haue had it Meane while hee should haue done well as his vsuall manner is else-where to haue snipt off or concealed at least the last clause Till I come For after hee is come saith Theodoret we shall haue no neede of signes or symbols of his body any more when his body it selfe shall appeare He were scarce in his wits I thinke that would leaue a thing with his Friends at his departure from them to bee remembred by in his absence till hee returned againe to them that should lie lockt vp and kept out of their sight and should neuer come in their view but when himselfe should come personally in presence to shew it them or should bid them by such a thing remember him till hee came againe to them a twelue-moneth after when as euery weeke or moneth in the meane space hee meant to returne to them as oft as euer they desired to remember him in it But mine Adversary thought belike that none but such silly sots should reade what hee writ as would marke nothing but what he would haue them LAstly S. Paul literally declaring the institution of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. to the end that the Corinthians might vnderstand the excellency thereof maketh the sinne of such as vnworthily receiue it to consist in this that they discerne not that bread to be the body of Christ and his words read alone without hereticall glosses expresse plainely Catholicke doctrine And in the Chapter before hee mentioneth benediction or consecration of the Chalice then vsed saying Calix benedictionis The Chalice of benediction which wee blesse is it not the communication of Christs blood and the bread which we breake is it not the communication of Christs body c. Of which words saith S. Chrysostome this is the meaning That which is in the Chalice is that which floweth out of Christs side and wee are made partakers thereof Which is out of the Greeke text of S. Luke plainely to be gathered And the very manner of Christs speeches Quod pro vobis datur quod pro vobis effundetur Which is giuen for you which shall be effused for you import plainely a Sacrifice of his body and blood wherein the one is offered not to vs but for vs the other was to be not infused as wine but effused as blood for vs c. § 9. AT last remembring himselfe wherein he failed at the first hee will prooue out of S. Paul hee saith that Christs words are literally to be vnderstood This had beene more seasonable where it was questioned at first But better at last we say then neuer 1. The Apostle maketh saith hee this the sinne of those that vnworthily receiued the Sacrament that they discerned not the Lords body 2. Hee saith the bread broken is the communication of the body of Christ and the blessed Chalice of his blood Stout Arguments and fit for such a Champion as he is For the former how followeth it Men sinne in not discerning the Lords body when they come vnreuerētly to the Lords board Ergò our Sauiours words This is my body are to bee vnderstood properly Let him
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
exposition of his our Sauiour should say This Cup that is this blood contained in the Chalice is the New Testament in my blood And so Christs blood shall be not in the Chalice onely but in his blood would any reasonable man say My body is in my body or My blood is in my blood But they care not what absurd language they fasten vpon our Sauiour so it may make for their owne turne 2. There is the blood of Christ really contained in the Chalice and yet this blood is vnbloodily offered It is vnbloodily offered and yet it is really blood yea there is nothing there but blood True it is the ancient Fathers oft tearme the Eucharist an vnbloody sacrifice which sheweth their speeches where they say that the Altar and the people are besprinckled and dyed purplered with blood were metaphoricall and hyperbolicall and well might they so call it not dreaming of any such bloody stuffe in the Chalice as these men seeme to imagine But how there can bee an vnbloody offering where there is much more blood then flesh and Christ offered vnbloodily where men drinke nothing but meere blood yea if Chrysostomes speeches were to be taken properly where all the Communicants are dyed red with blood let any reasonable man iudge 3. All learned men he saith of which number I hope he counteth himselfe one know that a Testament is apt to import not a will onely or a deed but a legacie too Vsus loquendi Magister Use is the Lord and Master of language We should thinke they say as the best speake as the most and vse as such coine so such speech as is commonly currant We ignorant and vnlearned Protestanticall Ministers are vnacquainted with this learning But I would request him if hee can here as well for the sauing and saluing of of his owne credite as for our better instruction to produce any one learned man besides himselfe and his associates that euer so said or euer so spake that euer called a legacy by the name of a Testament Such learned men I see as hee is may say what they list we vnlearned must speake by rule when we speake least such learned men as hee is controll vs if we doe otherwise for ignorant 4. Marke I beseech you this learned mans Logicke how soundly and substantially he argueth This word Testament may well signifie either a Will or a Legacie ergo Christs blood wherewith his last Will was confirmed may well be tearmed the New Testament What connexion there is betweene these two Propositions the one produced by him to prooue the other let any one that is not vtterly senslesse consider 5. Let it be obserued how these men that cannot endure at our hands to heare of any figure in the wordes of our Saviour though one neuer so frequent in signes and Sacraments especially which both they grant these things to be yet themselues in the explicating of them are enforced to flie to figures yea take liberty to themselues to coine and forge such figures as were neuer heard of before either in holy writ or in prophane writer For let him if he can shew a legacie so tearmed in either Lastly Christs blood indeed may in some sense be said to inebriate mens soules and the Ancients sometime so speake But that which is in the Chalice if it be taken which the Priest sometime may chance to doe ouer-largely will as Aquinas well obserueth inebriate the bodie and not the soule which I neuer yet heard that blood did or could doe And therefore wee haue cause to thinke if we see the Priest drunke with it yea we haue reason to beleeue because we know he well may that it is not Christs blood but the fruit of the vine the blood of the grape that is in the Chalice and produceth such effects § 2. In the next place like a man in a maze going backward and forward as vncertaine which way to turne himselfe Afterward saith hee relating but misrelating as his vsuall manner is some things spoken before confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to be no other then bare signes and types of Christs body and blood as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person as Circumcision is called the Couenant because it was a signe thereof c. True it is I say these wordes of our Sauiour This is my body may as well be vnderstood figuratiuely as those speeches are where the Rocke is called Christ and when pointing to the pictures of Caesar and Alexander it is the comparison that Augustine vseth we say This is Caesar and That is Alexander And in Answer to the Obiection before recited I say that the Cup that is the wine in the Cup is said to be the New Testament as Circumcision the Couenant because a signe and seale of it But that the bread and wine are no other then bare signes and types c. I no where say It is his vntruth not mine assertion I say expressely more then so that they are not signes onely but seales and signes and seales so effectuall as after I shew that by them the things signified by them and sealed vp in them are truely and effectually yet spiritually conueighed vnto those that doe faithfully receiue them Hee dealeth herein but as Bellarmine whom hee imitateth doth with Caluine one while charging him to make the Sacramemt nothing but a symbole and memoriall of Christs passion and so no better saith hee nay nor so good as a Crucifixe and yet else-where acknowledging that hee maketh it not a signe onely but a seale also confirming and sealing vp Gods promises made in the Word But like a dull Scholler he saith herein I vnderstood not my Master Caluine Master in these matters wee acknowledge none but Christ whose Word alone is absolutely authenticall with vs. Caluine we reuerence as a worthy seruant of Christ. And as dull a Scholler as I am I vnderstand him well enough where in that booke he calleth Transubstantiation a deuice of the Diuell their Consecration a kinde of Incantation the Masse an Histrionicall action and the Priest acting it a meere Ape The signes indeed saith hee in the Eucharist are not naked signes but such as haue the truth of the thing conioyned with them that which is true of Baptisme as well as of the Lords Supper Yet not inclosed in them nor carnally but spiritually partaked Nor doth God delude vs with bare figures though there bee no such reall change of the elements in the Eucharist more then hee doth vs now in Baptisme or did the Israelites of old when hee fed them with spirituall food and water in the Wildernesse § 2. And heere againe I cannot say cunningly but knauishly rather hauing falsly related my wordes and passing ouer mine Answer to this very Obiection wherein they challenge vs to make the Sacrament nothing
who I pray you doubteth of or denyeth ought that is here said who teacheth men to speake otherwise then Christ euer taught but they that tell vs of bread transubstantiated and of a body of Christ made of bread of Christs flesh contained in bread or vnder the accidents of bread and of his blood in the bread and his body by a concomitancie in the Cup c Who doubteth with vs of the truth of Christs body and blood For of the corporall presence of either in the Sacrament Hilarie hath not heere a word Or who denyeth but that by the receiuing of those venerable mysteries Christ is spiritually in vs and we in him Doth not the Apostle say of Baptisme that by it we are ingraffed into Christ and Chrysostome that by it we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Hilaries scope is to shew that Christ is one with God and his Father and we one with him not by consent of will onely as some Heretikes said but by a true and reall vnion yet spirituall as his words implie when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Vpon whinch wordes their owne Bishop Iansenius They saith hee that thus eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood either by such faith alone or in the Eucharist are said to haue Christ abiding in them and to abide themselues in him in regard of the true vnion of our nature with the diuine nature by the spirit of Christ whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature Yea those words of our Sauiour cannot be meant of Christ corporally receiued in the Eucharist nor could Hilarie so meane if he were otherwise of their minde appeareth For Christs body so taken as they imagine doth not abide long in those that so receiue it but by their owne doctrine goeth away againe I know not whither a while after Whereas by vertue of such receiuing Christ as our Sauiour there speaketh of We doe abide in him and he in vs that is we are most inwardly and inseparably knit vnto Christ and he vnto vs they are still Iansenius his tearmes and Hilarie also saith the same and obteine therefore thereby not a transitorie life as we doe by the eating of corporall meate that passeth est-soones away and abideth not in him that eateth it but life permanent and eternall Whence it is manifest also saith the same Author that all are not in this place said to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of his body and blood since that all such haue not Christ abiding in them But they eate his flesh and drinke his blood as he there speaketh who beleeuing that his flesh and blood were giuen on the Crosse for the Saluation of mankinde and that by vertue of the hypostaticall vnion they haue a power to giue life do either by such faith alone or in the holy Eucharist also receiue the Lord himselfe within themselues imbrace him and by faith fast clasping him so keepe him within them as one by whom whatsoeuer we desire commeth to vs and is conferred on vs. Thus he by whose words it plainely appeareth that our abiding in Christ and Christ in vs which Hilarie from our Sauiour speaketh of dependeth not vpon any such corporall presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament nor doth necessarily require the same which by their owne doctrine also it doth not effect Diuision 9. HIS next Argument drawen from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments is idle and forcelesse For wee denie not as there he supposeth the Sacramentall Signes containing the bodie of Christ vnder them to signifie somewhat distinct from themselues to wit the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace that worthily receiue them They signifie likewise Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion And so a thing considered in one manner may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured represented his owne bodie as now it is in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem on Palme Sunday figured his owne entrance into heauen afterwards as Eusebius Emissenus and other Fathers teach and as an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victories c. MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments whose nature is to signifie one thing and to be another The Argument is this No Signes or Sacraments are the same with that that they signifie But the bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood in the Eucharist They are not therefore essentially either To this idle and forcelesse Argument as he pleaseth to style it he thus answereth 1. That the Sacrament all Signes signifie the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace as also Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his Passion Now 1. what is this to mine Argument was this man thinke we euer a disputant that answereth Arguments on this wise which part of my Syllogisme I pray you is this Answer applied to I had thought that a Syllogisme being propounded the Answerer should either haue denied or distinguished of one of the former Propositions 2. It is not true that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are signes of these things Some affections of them and Actions vsed about them indeede are The bread and wine themselues are signes of spirituall nutriment not nutrition The eating and drinking is a signe of it Signes they are of Christs body and blood not of the dolorous seuering of them in the passion though their being apart is a signe of it also 3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen and an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie But 1. If signum res signata the Signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues as without all Question they are a Father may as well be a father to himselfe as a signe may be the signe of it selfe Not to adde that the Ancients as hath formerly beene shewen are wont to call the Sacraments pictures and pledges and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture or a pledge of it selfe 2. I might well put this Defendant to prooue that Christs transfiguration was a representation of his present glorification or that his entrance into Ierusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heauen whatsoeuer his bastardly Eusebius Emissenus say of it whose authoritie is no better then his owne 3. Let him haue what he would that the one was a type of the other Doth it follow Christs transfiguration was a type of his glorification therefore Christ was a type or a signe of himselfe 4. An Emperour and his victorie I suppose are not all