latin and through want of iudgement to make sensible construction of latin sentences The fourth Example §. 4. YOvv deuise many mysteries about the word species in answere of S. Cyprian his words cited by the Iesuit for Transubstantiation (y) Iste paniâ— non effigie se natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est 〈◊〉 Cyprian serm de Coena This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh yow say the Authour by the words natura mutatus chaÌ„ged in nature vnderstood not a corporall or Physicall but only a mysticall change This yow proue because in the same booke this Father saith that (z) Cyprian ibid. Corpâ—â—ralis substantiae retinens speciem sed virtutis diuinae inuisibil essentia probans adesse praesentiam although the immortall food deliuered in the Eucharist differ from common meat yet â—â—retaineth in the kind of corporall substance He saith not species in the plurall number meaning according to the new Popish sense the externall shapes and accidents of bread for let the Aduersary proue out of antiquiâ—â— that S. Cyprian or the Primitiue Church maintained 〈◊〉 late Romane doctrine concerning shapes of bread and 〈◊〉 without the materiall substance and we will freely grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is ancient 〈◊〉 he saith specieÌ„ in the singular number that is the corporall forme and substance Thus yow shewing your selfe to haue no species of true learning whether species signify kind or shape For heere yow discouer foure simplicityes in matter of Grammer The first is the mystery you make about the plurall and singular number of species as though S Cyprian if he had sayd in the plurall Alimonia immortalitatis corporalis substantiae retinens species should haue fauoured Transubstantiation wheras now that he sayth in the singular corporalis substantiae retinens speciem he doth ouerthrow it He sayth not say you species in the plurall number meaning the shapes and accideÌ„ts of bread but speciem in the singular that is the kind or the corporall substance or forme Now I pray you what GraÌ„mer doth teach that species in the plurall number doth signify shapes and externall accidents and in the singular kind and substance had S. Cyprian said plurally that the Eucharist corporalis substantiae retineâ— species why might you not haue interpreted species kinds natures and formes aswell as now you interpret speciem the nature kind and forme And though S. Cyprian say speciem corporalis substantiae in the singular yet why may not we expound shape and semblant of corporall substance aswell as we might haue expounded shapes and semblantes had he sayd in the plurall corporalis substantiae species Verily you are by your aduersary by the force of truth driueÌ„ into such straites as you coyne new Grammaticall mysteries agaynst all Grammer Your second simplicity is the noting that species in the singular doth signify nature and kind as though we were ignorant thereof or that you could heereby elude the testimonyes of the Fathers we bring to 〈◊〉 they taught the Eucharist to be the shape of 〈◊〉 and wine contayning the body and bloud of 〈◊〉 Lord. This I say is a seely and miserable shift for though species signify nature kind and this signiâ—â—â—â—tion be much vsed specially in Logicke yet no 〈◊〉 can deny but species doth also properly signify 〈◊〉 outward semblant shew and shape and that this signification is very vulgar And to know when specieâ— doth signify shape and not kind this rule is infallible that still it is taken for shape when it is opposed vnto nature and inuisible Essence When S. Paul exhortes that not only men haue their inward conscience pure towards God but also that they abstain ab omni specie mali 1. Thess. 5.22 who endued with common sense will interprete this otherwise then from any shew or â—â—â—blant of euill By this rule we prooue that the Fathers wheÌ„ they say that the species of bread remains they meane the shapes because they oppose the species of bread vnto the inward substance true being of bread Thus S Cyrill Cyrillus Hierosol orat 4 mystagog Know and most certainly beleiue 〈◊〉 this bread which seemeth to vs is not bread though the tast esteeme it to be bread but the body of Christ and that the wine seene of vs though to the tast it seeme wine is not wine but the bloud of our Lord nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus sub specie vini datur tibi sanguis vnder the species of bread is giuen thee the body vnder the species of wine is giuen thee the bloud of Christ. What 〈◊〉 be more cleere then that this Father doth distinguish the species and shape of bread and wine from 〈◊〉 nature kind and substance affirming the first 〈◊〉 â—emayne and not the second Your third simplicity is that to prooue that species in the singular doth signify kind not shape you bring this place of Saint Cyprian (*) Cyprian serm de coena imâ—mortalitatis alimonia datur à communibus cibis differens corporalis substantiae retinens speciem sed Diuiâ—â— Virtutis inuisibili essentia probans adesse praesentiam Foâ— euen in this testimony species doth not signify kind but shape and so by this very text Transsubstantiation is proued This is cleere because wheâ— the species of a thing is in speach opposed agaynsâ— the vertue of the same thinge then species muâ—â— needes signify shape and shew not truth anâ— substance As when S. Paul sayth (a) 1. Tim. 3 5· Habentes specieâ— pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes no man that sober will translate Hauing piety in the nature kinâ— yet denying the vertue thereof but Retayning the shew piety yet denying the vertue thereof Now S. Cyprianâ— this text by you cited doth oppose the Eucharist acâ—cording to the species vnto the Eucharist accordinâ— to the inuisible Essence therof affirming the same to 〈◊〉 a common thing specie but a diuine presentiall veâ—â—tue iuisibili essentia Wherefore his words can bear no other sense but this that the Eucharist is the subâ—stance of corporal Bread according to the outwaâ—â— shape shew of the accideÌ„ts but the diuine presentiall vertue of Christs body bloud according 〈◊〉 the inward nature inuisible Essence of the thing Your fourth simplicity is that this your Gramâ—maticall speculation about the singular plurall 〈◊〉 Species being of it selfe seely is likewise altogeatheâ— impertinent vnto your purpose For you by this acception of Species would cleere the text of S. Cyprian alleadged by the Answearer to prooue that breâ—â— in the Eucharist remayneth only in shape and noâ— in substance In which text the Father doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word species but effigies saying Panis non effigie sed 〈◊〉 mutatus c. Bread changed not in the effigies 〈◊〉 in the nature is by the omnipoteÌ„cy of his Word 〈◊〉 his flesh Now though we should graunt your 〈◊〉
Sauiour vnder the Sacramentall signes and that the words of our Sauiour This is my body be true in their proper and litteral sense This was the reason that the Answerer omitted to proue largely this Catholicke Doctrine Now the Minister finding himselfe vnable vpon this supposition of his Maiesty to answere the Iesuits argumēts for Transubstantiation yea Pag. 397. affirmeth that vnlesse Transubstantiation be granted the wordes of our Sauiour cannot be true in their proper and litterall sense Hence he denyes the presence of the body of Christ Substantially within the sacred signe laboureth to proue that the words of the Supper are figuratiuely and not properly to be vnderstood He grants a Reall and True Presence of Christs body in words but so obscurely as no man is able to vnderstand his meaning Wherfore to cleere this matter wherein Ministers desire to be darke that men may not see the grosse infidelity of their hart agaynst Gods expresse word I shall shew 3. things First what Zuinglians and Caluinists hold in this point Secondly how the Doctrine both of Zuinglius Caluin is against Gods word Thirdly that their reasons not to admit of the literall truth of Christs word be vaine and idle The Zuinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament §. 1. A Three-fold presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is confessed on all sides The first Figuratiue or in a Sacramentall signe bread signifying his body and wine his bloud The second Imaginatiue or by the pious apprehension of the faithfull receauer who for more deuotions sake doth or may imagine as if he saw the body of our Lord in the Eucharist truly really and bleedingly present vnder the signes of bread and wine The third Effectuall or according to the Spirituall effects of grace purchased by the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour and giuen by vertue of this Sacrament vnto the soule to nourish the ghostly life therof As all proceed thus farre so Zuinglians will proceed no further They grant the body and bloud of Christ to be present in the Sacrament figuratiuely in a signe imaginatiuely by fayth effectually by grace but deny them to be present according to their corporall substance or further then in the outward signe to the mouth and in the inward effect to the soule So that they grant the Sacramentall signe to be bare and empty in respect of contayning the body of Christ though full and effectuall in respect of affoarding soule-nourishing grace Caluinists seeme in their words to maintaine a more reall presence For though they maintayne the substance of the body of Christ in respect of place to be in heauen only and not in the Sacrament yet they teach that the same body without being present vpon earth is giuen vs on earth not only by the apprehension of fayth Non solùm dum fide amplectimur Iesum Christum pro nobis crucifixum à mortuis excitatum Not only in the inward spirituall effects of soule-nourishing grace purchased by the death of his body Non solùm dum bonis eius omnibus quae nobis acquisiuit corpore suo efficaciter communicamus but realiter really truly Dum habitat in nobis dum vnum fit nobiscum dum eius membra sumus de carne eius dum in vnam vt ita loquar cum ipso substantiam coalescimus Caluin in cap. 11.1 ad Cor. Hence we may discouer the Caluinian iugling and playing fast loose about this Mystery when they so often say that the body of Christ is really present but Spiritually for the word Spirituall may be vsed in this Mystery for two ends First to expresse the substance of the thing present to signify the reall Presence not of the corporall substance of our Lords body but only of the spiritual effect therof to wit of soule-feeding grace This sense is false as shall be proued and the very same which Caluin doth condemne in the Zwinglians as execrable blasphemy opusculo de Coena Domini Secondly to expresse the manner of the Presence and to signify that the corporall substance of our Lord is present truly yet in a spirituall that is secret inuisible indiuisible manner this doctrine is true and herein not differing from the Catholike In like manner their Phrase of Presence by Fayth is equiuocall and may haue a threefold sense First Presence by Fayth may signify Presence by pious imagination of Fayth the Receauer conceauing the body of our Lord as if he saw the same corporally and bleedingly present If by Presence by fayth Caluinists meane no more then this then they doe not differ from the Zwinglians nor do they put any more reall presence then imaginatiue that is presence of things according to pious representation and apprehension though not really in truth Secondly Presence by Fayth may signify that Fayth doth dispose and prepare the soule and that then vnto the soule prepared by Fayth our Sauiour is vnited really and truly not according to the corporall substance of his body but only according to the spirituall effect of his grace This sense is also Zuinglian and condemned by Caluin as hath been shewed Thirdly Presence by Fayth may signify presence according to the iudgment of Fayth or a presence which only Fayth can find out feele behold This sense is true and Catholike and doth suppose the body of Christ to be present absolutely and independently of Fayth For were not the body of Christ afore hand present Fayth should not be true that iudgeth his body to be present Whether our Minister be Zuinglian or Caluinist in this point God only knowes he speakes obscurely of purpose He neuer sayth as Caluin doth li. 4. Institut c. 17. n. 7. That by substantiall communication the body and blood of Christ are vnder the signes of the supper deliuered vnto the fayth full yet he sayth and often repeates that the body of Christ is truly really effectually communicated These words sauour more of the Caluinian then of the Zuinglian phrase Notwithstanding his adding effectually after truly and really may draw the speach to be Zuinglian in sense to wit that the body of Christ is giuen truly really effectually that is really accordinge to the truth and reality of the Spirituall effect not really according to the truth and reality of the corporall substance The Zuinglian and Caluinian Presence confuted §. 2. THE Zuinglian doctrine that the body of Christ is present only in an effectuall signe of grace not in substance is against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For he did not say this is the signe or figure of my body nor this is the benefit or effect of my body but this is my body and consequently it is his body in substance and essence if the substantiall Verbe Est do signify substance and essence Hence Luther Epist. ad Argent sayth that the words are nimis clara toto cleer and much more cleere then he could haue wished Caluin also in cap.
the body and bloud were giuen in the shape of â—read and wine as Venerable Bede in c. 22. Luc. out of whome you cite â—hese words substituting his body and bloud in the FIGVRE of bread and wine What is this but that the figure and shape of bread remaynes the body of our Lord being present in lieu of the substance therof Secondly your Minor assertion that the figure of a thing is not the â—ame with the thing figured is impious and directly opposite vnto Gods word First Christ Iesus is a figure of his Fathers substance Heb. 1.3 and yet is he the same substantially with the Father Iohn 10.30 Secondly S. Peter fishing in the sea and catching a great multitude of fish is a figure of himselfe preaching in the world and conuerting soules vnto Christ Luc. â— 10 and yet Peter fishing and Peter preaching is substantially the same person Thirdly Christ as found in the temple on the third day after his â—eesing was a figure of himselfe rising after the third day of his sepulture Ambros. in cap. 2. Lucae Also Christ as making a shew to goe further in his Iourney to Emmaus represented himselfe as mounting to heauen August cont mendac c. 13. and yet Christ found after three dayes and Christ rising after three dayes Christ making a shew to passe on and ascending to his Father is substantially one and the same person False then and impious is your assertion that the figure of a thing cannot be the same with the thing figured and consequently this your Argument The Eucharist is tearmed by the Fathers the figure of Christs naturall body Ergo it is not substantially properly his body is idle Hence the finall conclusion is that you haue no ground in Scripture not to take these words of our Lord This is my Body in the litterall sense and that the true reason you do not litterally vnderstand them is the difficulty of the matter and the Infidelity of your hart Now let vs returne vnto the Iesuits discourse That the Reall Presence of the whole Body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belonges to the substance of the Mystery §. 1. TO proue this I suppose as certayne that the body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrament of his supper This I may iustly suppose seing your Maiesty doth professe to hold a presence (d) PraesentiaÌ„ credimus non minùs quà m vos veram haec fides Regis Regia Resp. ad Card. Peron in oper Regis pag. 399. 400. of the body of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse true then we hold and consequently you will not vnderstand the words of Christ figuratiuely as SacrameÌ„taryes do For they make the body of Christ present in the Eucharisticall bread but as in a figure holding not a true nor a reall presence but only a presence by Imagination conceypt (*) This was supposed by the Iesuit as cleere and hath been proued in the former addition agaynst the Ministers Cauills as is euident wherin as your Maiesty knowes they contradict the ancient Church which teacheth expressely that Christ (e) Euthym. panop pa. 2. tit 22. Theop. in Marc. c. 14. Damascen Orthod fidei l. 4. c. 14. did not say This is a figure of my body but this is my body and exhorts vs to belieue Christ vpon his word He said This is my body (f) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Chrysost. in c. 26. Matth. hom 83. Ambros. de ijs qui mysterijs iuitiant c. 9. Epiph. in anchorato Hilar. l. 8. de Trinit Cyrill Hieros Cateches 4. I pray you let vs belieue him whom we haue belieued Verity cannot vtter vntruth And herein they acknowledge with your Maiesty a most high and incomprehensible mystery which were no mystery at all the words being vnderstood in a meere figuratiue sense As for some places of Fathers brought to the contrary how they are to be vnderstood your Maiesty is not ignorant S. Augustine (g) August in Psal. 3. IdeÌ„ cont Adimant c. 11. saying that Christ gaue to his disciples a figure of his body and bloud spake not of a bare empty figure but of the figure of a thinge really present As likewise in another place when he sayth Christ affirmed it was his body when he gaue a signe of his body though here he may seeme to speake in the opinion of the Manichees who held that Christ had not true flesh but a meere figure shadow and shape of flesh Against whoÌ„ in that place he vndertakes to proue that the figure of a thing may be termed the thing it selfe alledging argumento ad hominem that Christ said This is my body when he gaue but a figure of his body to wit (*) Had not S. Augustine argued in the opinion of Manichees that hold the flesh of Christ was not true but only a figure of flesh the Manichees might haue denyed this his example seing both the Gospell and the Fathers say the Eucharist to be truly Christs body and not a meere figure as you thinke Tertullian (h) Tertul. li. 4. cont Marcion hath this speach Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his disciples made the same his body saying Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei Where figura corporis mei is referred not vnto Corpus meum as an explicatioÌ„ therof but vnto hoc in this manner hoc id est figura Corporis mei est Corpus meum This to be Tertullian his meaning appeares by the drift of his discourse in that place For Tertullian is to shew that wheras in the old Testament bread was a figure of the body of Christ as appeares by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius id est crucem in corpus eius Christ in the new Testament made this figure to be truly and really (i) Tertullian in saying that Christ made bread his body doth therby declare the conuersion of bread into his body euen as the Euangelist doth signify the conuersion of water into wine in saying Our Sauiour made water wine Iohn 2.9 his body taking bread into his hands saying this that is the figure of my body in the old Testament is my body truly and really in the new which is asmuch as if he had said Bread which anciently was a figure of my body I do now make to be truly and really my body And this is vsuall in Tertullian who not to interrupt the words of Scripture addeth his explication of the subiect not presently but after the Attribute (k) Tertul. contr Praxeam c. 29. as when he said Christus mortuus est id est vnctus the sense wherof is Christus vnctus mortuus est This supposed I inferre that the body of Christ is present in the mystical supper not only to the faithfull that receaue the SacrameÌ„t nor only to the place or church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes
mysterijs initiantur cap. â— Moyses his word changed the waters of Aegypt into bloud agayne turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine consecration where the very words of our Sauiour worke The word of Elias had power to bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the elements Againe (i) Ambros. lib. 4. de Sâ—cram cap. 4. Thou seest how working efficacious is the word of Christ. If therfore such vertue is in his word that therby things that are not receaue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remayne in the general latitude of being according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance VIII Fourthly the effect of this transmutatioÌ„ taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs body the absence of the substance of bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to belieue what we seeme to see with our eyes IX Theophilact (k) Theophilact c. 4. 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation although to vs it seeme bread because we are weake and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not bread Saint Cyrill (l) Cyrill Hieros Catech. mystagog 4. Come not therfore as vnto simple bread and wine for it is the body and bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrary yet let fayth confirme thee Iudge not of the thing by tast but indubitably with full fayth belieue that thou art made partaker of the body bloud of Christ. And againe Know this with full certitude belieue that the bread seene is not bread though it so seeme to the tast but the body of Christ that wine seene is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the bloud of Christ. X. Finally that the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancy which they taught of Christs body in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For reseruation to haue been the custome of the primitiue Church Protestants grant That (m) Habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor Caluin Instit. l. 9. c. 17. sect 39. the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not sayth (n) Fulke agaynst Heskins Saunders p. 77. M. Fulke so great a questioÌ„ as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnitius (o) Chemnit in exam Con. Trid. p. 2. p. 102. granteth that in this point on our side stands Antiquitas consuetudinis latè patentis diu propagatae And whereas he addeth haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet he accuseth the Primitiue Church opposeth no lesse agaynst them then vs. And I am sure your Maiesty knowes that the primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnesse S. Iustine (p) Iustin. Apol. 2. fine vnto the sicke as (q) Dionys. Alexand ep ad Fab. apud Euseb. l. 6. cap. 36. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innocent Dionysius Alexandrinus writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifyeth Tertullian (r) Tertul. l. 2. ad vxorem Gregor Nazian orat de Gorgon That many tymes they did weare the same about them for protection as (s) Ambros. orat in obitâ—â— fratris Satyri Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently for their Viaticum as (t) SimeoÌ„ Metaphrast vitae S. Stephani Papae Martyris cap. 17. Vsuard in martyrolog Guitmund de corp sanguine l. 2. Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to be bruized with stones to death then disclose it vnto the Persecutours whome when they had crowned thy searching curiously for the Sacrament in his clothes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands Saint (u) Cyprian serm de Lapsis Cyprian records diuers miracles done in the confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the SacrameÌ„t namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out tanta est Domini potentia sayth Saint Cyprian taÌ„ta maiestas And so fully were they perswaded in this opinion that Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyrill (x) Cyrill Alex. ep ad Calosyr dareth say Insaniunt qui dicunt benedictionem à sanctificatione cessare siquae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem Non enim mutabitur Sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est They be mad with hereticall folly who say that the blessed Sanctification of the Sacrament ceaseth if the same be reserued vntill the next day For thereby the sacred body of Christ is not changed but the grace of benediction viuification is perpetuall in it Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuation of our Sauiour in the SacrameÌ„t but that they belieued bread to be changed into his body remayning demonstrable by the formes accidences thereof so long as they remayned entyre and were not changed into the accidences of some other substances XI A Refutation of the Ministers Shifts to elude the former Testimonies of the Fathers according to the reference of the precedent Numbers I. NO words of Scripture or Christian Antiquity can be so cleere euident which Hereticall obstinacy will not wrest against the truth yea racke till they rent them in peeces by violent interpretations as saith S. Ambrose Ep. 17. In which kind be the Ministers Replyes vnto these expresse pregnant testimonies of the Fathers for Transubstantiation as wil appeare by the confutation which heere ensueth II. Transelementing The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TranselemeÌ„tation saith the Minister pag. 421. proueth not Transubstantiation For in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed the quantity and accidents remayne in Transelementation the matter remayneth the essentiall accidentall formes are altered Answere The falshood and inanity of this Shift is conuinced by these foure arguments which shew Transelementation to import the same as Transubstantiation The First is drawne from the notion of the word Elements Transelementation For Transelementation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord signifyes that there is a change betwixt them according to their elemeÌ„ts Elements import the primordiall simples the original principles the substantiall parts of which
thereof is abolished into the body of Christ. Secondly the example you bring about Regenerate persons is by you vsed impertinently and truly pondered applyed serueth our purpose For in Regeneration the substance of man is not abolished because by Regeneration man is changed to be participant of the Diuine Nature not from what he is originally by the constitution of nature but from what he is by the corruption of the Diuell and sinne Hence by vertue of Regeneration a man ceaseth to be not according to the substantiall Origen of his nature but only according to the superinduced peruersion thereof by the Diuell But in the Eucharist Saint Ambrose sayth that bread by consecration passeth into the sacred body of Christ from the thing it was by the framing constitution of nature Ergo bread according to S. Ambrose ceaseth to be according to the thing it is by the framing of nature to wit the essence of bread VI The Minister Replyes That to a mysticall change the omnipotency of God is required as appeareth in Baptisme Therefore although some Fathers require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of bread and wine yet it followeth not that they maintayned Transubstantiation Answere The Fathers indeed require the omnipotency of God in Baptisme not to change the nature of water into the nature and verity of Christs bloud but to the end that water remayning water vnchanged in nature be eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in the soules of men Thus Saint Leo by you often cited serm 4. de natiuit sayth Virtus altissimi quae fecit vt virgo pareret Saluatorem eadem facit vt regeneret vnda credentem He doth not say as you would make fooles belieue the Fathers vse to speake that the Diuine omnipotency doth change the water into the nature and verity of his bloud but That the same power of the Highest makes water being water to bring forth regenerate persons which caused a virgin remayning a virgin to bring forth the Sauiour But about the holy Eucharist the Fathers speake in another manner They require the Omnipotency of God not to eleauate bread wine that remayning still in nature bread and wine they may sanctify mens soules but to change them into Christs body and bloud by which change they become in thēselues without further eleuation proportioned meanes to sanctify soules as cōtaining within themselues the fountaine of grace Yea the Fathers speeches about the water of baptisme be so different from their speeches about the bread and wine of the Eucharist as this alone might suffice to conuert the Minister were he not obstinate What Fathers say that Christ at the Mariage of soules with him in Baptisme can doth conuert water into his blood by his omnipotency as he could and did conuert water into Wine at the carnall Mariage of Cana as S. Cyrill S. Gaudentius cited by the Iesuit say of the wine of the Eucharist What Father doth say that water changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made his flesh as is sayd of the Eucharisticall bread by the Authour of the booke De Coena Domini VII Though some question be made whether this Authour was S. Cyprian yet learned men both Catholicks and Protestants agree he was an holy ancient Father The Authour of the booke de Coena Domini sayth M. Fulke agaynst the Rhem. Testam in 1. Cor. 11. fol. 282. was not in tyme much inferiour to Cyprian Erasmus in his Annotatiōs vpon S. Cyprian printed at Basill Anno 1558. fol. 287. sayth The Authour was some learned man of S. Cyprian his age as Pamelius doth demonstrate by many euident reasons so that we haue Transubstātiation as ancient as S. Cyprian For what the Minister sayth that this Authour meaneth only a mysticall and Sacramental change to be made is idle as I thus demonstrate The change this holy Father teacheth is made not in the shape quantity accidēts of bread but only in the inward nature and essence thereof panis non effigie sed natura mutatus But the Ministers mysticall conuersion is made vpon the shape quantity accidents of bread as he sayth pag. 425. it passeth vpon the quantity and accidents of bread as well as vpon the substance Ergo the conuersion of bread into Christs flesh taught by this holy ancient Father is an inward substantiall conuersion and not the Ministers mysticall change VIII What the Minister sayth to this Argument that the Fathers affirme the water of Baptisme to be changed into Christs blood by the vertue of his word is false nor hath he cited any Father that doth so affirme Yea such speaking of the water of Baptisme were ridiculous or rather impious as affirming thinges about the mysteryes of Religiō which may make them seeme senselesse and ridiculous without any ground so to affirme in Gods word For Christ neuer sayth of the water of Baptisme Be washed herewith for this is my blood as he sayth often in Scripture of the wine of the Eucharist drinke yee of this for this is my bloud IX To the fourth argument the Minister replyes that the Fathers exhort People to abnegate their senses in Baptisme wherein they mantayne no Transubstantiation I Answere The Minister still singes the same songe that the fathers speake in the same manner of the conuersiō of water into Christs blood in Baptisme as they speake about the conuersion of wine in the Eucharist which is most false and the Minister hath not cited the wordes any Father so affirming The Fathers about Baptisme exhort men to belieue that God can by water wash and purify the soule and this to be a supernaturall worke aboue the naturall force of water which one may belieue without contradicting the euidence of any of his senses yea without any great difficulty in reason For what great matter is it to belieue that God being omnipotent at the presence of water washing the body can inwardly by grace wash the soule But about the Eucharist they say that we must firmely and indubitately belieue that that which seemeth bread and wine is not bread wine but the body bloud of Christ so that vnder the forme of bread and wine is giuen vs the bloud of our Lord and though sense suggest the contrary that it is wine we must abnegate and not belieue our senses herein Shew one Father I say that doth thus affirme of the water of Baptisme that we must firmely and indubitately belieue the same not to be water in truth though it be water in shew and because our sight feeling and tast suggest that it is water that we must with full Fayth abnegate and deny this iudgment framed by sense X. The Minister heere pag. 429. bringeth three triuiall argumēts to prooue the Fathers held the substance of bread to remayne after consecration which are not worth the answering yet I will say a word to each of them not to omit any thing that
foode of the soule HeÌ„ce the Eucharist as a Sacrifice 〈…〉 entyre in the 〈◊〉 oblatioÌ„ vnder the forme of bread without oblation in the forme of wine because the oblation in the forme of bread without wine doth not expressely distinctly represent Christs Sacriâ—â—ce on the Crosse by the effusion of his bloud But the Eucharist as a SacrameÌ„t is entyre in one only kind to wit vnder the forme of bread because the forme of bread only doth represent contayne and exhibite the true body of our Lord which is a full â—nd all-sufficient food to nourish the soule vnto eternall life as sayth our Sauiour He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Ioan. 6.59 By this the Ministers Cauilling pag. 460. 461. and throughout this whole Controuersy is answered for he only proues at the most that the Eucharist as a Sacrifice is not entyre in one kind vnder one kind the abetting of it by Concomitancie YOVR most Excellent Maiesty in the proposition of this Controuersy shews your deep insight into Theologicall difficultyes perceauing the mayne ground whereon the Catholike opinion of the lawfulnes of coÌ„munion vnder one kind standeth to wit Concomitancy which being graunted Communion vnder one kind is iustified The doctrine of Concomitancy proued §. 1. THE doctrine of Concomitancy is that vnder the forme of bread not only the body of Christ but also his pretious bloud and blessed soule are truly and really conteyned the body directly and by vertue of the wordes of consecration the bloud and the soule consequently For being conteined within the body of Christ they must needs concomitate that is follow the body in what place soeuer the same be (t) The Minister pag. 460. sayth The bloud of Christ cannot properly he sayd to be in his body by Concomitancy for then it were accideÌ„tally therein but as a part in the whole Answere We do not say bloud is accidentally in the body of Christ or by concomitaÌ„cy but that it is by concomitancy in the same place with the body As the soule is not by concomitancy in the body of a liuing man but as a part in the whole yet as Philosophy teacheth Mouetur per accidens cum corpore it is moued and remoued accidentally and by concomitancy with the body You must then distinguish To be in the body froÌ„ To be in the same place with the body The soule is in the body by direct substaÌ„tiall vnion therwith but in the place of the body the soule is not directly but by concomitancy in regard of her coniunction with the body which is directly in place In this maner the soule and bloud of Christs be directly and substantially in his body yet only by concomitancy in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread where the body only is directly by vertue of the words In this sense also the Deity is in the SacrameÌ„t by Concomitancy For the Deity is not expressely signifyed to be in the Sacrament by vertue of the words which only affirme Christ his body to be present yet is the Deity present vnto and vnited with the body present by the vertue of the word HeÌ„ce the Deity is present by CoÌ„comitancy so that though otherwise it were not present yet should it be heere present by Concomitancy because inseparably ioyned with a thing that is present Neyther can any that acknowledgeth the Reall presence deny this Concomitancy without falling into many absurdities as I proue by three Arguments First he that acknowledgeth the Reall presence of Christs sacred Body vnder the forme of bread and denyes Concomitancy doth in his beliefe separate the bloud soule of Christ from his body But to separate eyther Christs Diuinity from his Humanity or soule froÌ„ his body or his bloud from his flesh is vnlawfull For such a belieuer doth dissolue and destroy Christ Iesus and so is one of the number of them that Saint Iohn condemneth Omnis spiritus qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo hic est Antichristus (u) 1. Ioan. 4.3 And this Argument hath greatest force in their opinion who shall think that Christ leaues heauen for the tyme comes downe really according to his body and bloud for how can the body of Christ come downe from heauen without bloud and soule vnles he come down dead And so Christ should be not only mystically figuratiuely but truly really massacred in the Sacrament and the Eucharist be a bloudy sacrifice and not incruent as the Fathers tearme it Secondly the Priest in the person of Christ who is glorious in heauen or rather Christ being glorious in heauen by the mouth of the Priest sayth This is my body but a body deuoyd of bloud without soule and consequently dead and senselesse is not the body of Christ as he is now glorious in heauen which hath bloud in the veines and is informed and glorifyed by a most excellent soule Therfore Christ glorious in heauen cannot say truly that a body voyd of bloud sense and soule is his body but soule life and bloud must needes follow and concomitate his body wheresoeuer it be Thirdly if vnder the forme of bread were only the body of Christ and his soule and bloud were not by Concomitancy there the Communicants should receaue the body of Christ but not truly Christ as our Aduersaryes graunt Caluin specially saying (x) Caluin l. 4. Instit. c. 7. n. 35. Quis sanus sobrius Christi Corpus Christum esse sibi persuade at And againe (y) Ibidem n. 74. Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi aut sanguinem Deum hominem appellari But (z) Ambros. l. de ijs qui iâ—it In illo Sacramento Christus est Fathers affirme most coÌ„stantly that not only the body of Christ but also Christ (a) Hilarius l. 8. de Trinit Nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus himselfe is in the Sacrament That we take in the Dominicall refection the Word made flesh That (b) Cyrill Alexand. l. 4. in Ioan. c. 15. Per hanc benedictioneÌ„ mysterij ipsum filium Dei suscipimus by the consecration of the mysteryes we receaue the very Son of God That (c) Cyrill Hieros Catech. 5. mystag vnder the forme of bread we lodge within vs the soueraygne King that (d) Chrysost. homil 83. in cap. 26. Matth. hom 24. in 1. ad Cor. we see Christ feele Christ eate Christ non regium puerum sed ipsum vnigenitum Dei Filium An hundred other places might be brought where the Fathers call the consecrated bread Christ consequently they did not thinke there was the meere body without bloud and soule seing as Caluin doth confesse It is an absurd manner of speach to tearme Christ the meere body of Christ And such a forme of speach was neuer heard of hitherto in the world Ergo Concomitancy that is Christs reall entyre body soule flesh bloud to be vnder the forme
11.1 ad Cor. I heare saith he what the words of the supper import For Christ doth giue vs not only the benefit of his death and resurrection but also the very body wherin he died and arose againe from death Yea libro de Coena inter eius opuscula pag. 133. he saith that Negare veram corporis sanguinis substantiam to deny the true substance of the body and blood of Christ to be giuen in the supper is execrabilis blasphemia auditu indigna an execrable blasphemy against which we ought to stoppe our eares The Caluinian Doctrine that Christs body being only in heauen is Spiritually present not only by fayth not only according to the effects of his grace but also in his bodily substance yet only vnto the faythfull receauer not vnto the Sacramentall signe is both against Gods word and implicatory in reason First it is no lesse then the Zuinglian against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For our Sauiour by saying Take eate this is my body drinke yee all of this for this is my blood Matth. 26. doth auerre the Sacrament to be his body and blood in respect of that taking and eating vnto which by these words he doth inuite and exhorte But by this speach he doth inuite and exhorte vnto Sacramentall and corporall taking and eating This appeareth by the immediat practise of the Apostles who vpon these words of our Lord tooke the Sacrament with their corporall mouth This also our aduersaryes cannot deny seing they vrge by vertue of these wordes corporall receauing in both kinds Therfore the words of our Sauiour auerre the reall presence of his body in substance in respect of corporall taking and eating with the mouth of flesh which Doctrin Caluinists stiffely deny only holding the substantiall communication of Christs body in respect of spirituall receauing by the facultyes of the soule Secondly their Reall Presence is a fiction to no purpose For there is no reason to put the Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament but only in respect of verifying the word of our Sauiour This is my body in a true and reall sense so making the thinge Christ had in his hand and which was demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly really his body But Caluinists put not a Presence which maketh the thinge Christ had in hand and demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly and really his body but only by figure This I proue That which is the body of Christ in figure and shew and not in substance is not truly really Christ his body Euen as what is a man in shew and figure not in essence and substance is not truly and really a man But Caluinists say that This or the thinge which Christ hath in his hands was Christs body in shew figure and not in substance Ergo they put not a Reall presence which makes that which Christ had in his hand did demonstrate by the particle This to be truly his body It is therefore a fiction deuised to satisfy the Caluinian fancy not the Christian fayth or the rigurous truth of Gods word Thirdly by this Doctrine they bind themselues and others to belieue an high and incomprehensible Mystery without any necessity or compulsion from Gods word For what can be more vnintelligible then that there should be true and reall vnion according to substance betwixt two distinct indiuiduall substances that be distant the one from the other as farre as heauen is from earth Hence Caluin saith libro de Coena that this is sublime arduum quod neque quidem cogitatione complecti possimus in Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. arcanum mirificum Spiritus sancti opus quod intelligentiae nostrae modulo metiri nefas sit But the word of God doth not inforce this Caluinian Mystery nor is there sufficient ground to affirme it This is proued because the mystery of their Reall Presence either hath no ground in Scripture or is grounded on these words of the Institution Take eate this is my body But Caluinists on these words cannot ground the incomprehensible mystery of their reall presence For they vnderstand these words of our Sauiour in a Figuratiue sense and say that they are not true properly and literally Now a mystery of Fayth cannot be grounded vpon the Figuratiue sense of a place of Scripture yea vpon meere Figuratiue construction of Scripture to obtrude vnto others an article of necessary beliefe is impudency as saith S. Augustine Epist. 68. Non nisi impudentiss mè nititur quis aliquid in Allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura Therfore the Caluinian Reall Presence is a mystery incomprehensible grounded on meere figuratiue construction of Gods word not backed by any literall text and consequently it is belieued without necessity or any Diuine and supernaturall warrant Hence I Inferre two things first that the belieuers of the Caluinian Reall Presence are vnwise For what greater folly then for men to deny their wits and breake their heads to belieue an hard and difficill matter in belieuing wherof ther is no merit of fayth In belieuing the Caluinian Reall Presence there is no merit of Fayth For the merit of Fayth is to captiuate our Vnderstanding vnto mysteryes cleerly deliuered by the word of God not vnto mans figuratiue expositions therof yea no figuratiue exposition aboue reason is to be belieued except it be proued by some literall text or be deliuered by the full Tradition as Gods word vnwritten Secondly I inferre that Caluinists beare more reuerence vnto Iohn Caluin then vnto Iesus Christ for Caluins mystery is belieued by Caluinists being confessedly a Doctrine most hard difficill incomprehensible and yet not the literall sense of Gods word but Caluins figuratiue comment ther-vpon On the other side Transubstantiation being acknowledged by them to be the litterall and proper sense of the word of Christ Iesus so that without Transubstantiation his word this is my body cannot be literally true as our Minister doth confesse pag. 397. yet because it is hard difficill incomprehensible Caluinists cannot be brought to belieue it What is this but to be more ready to belieue Caluin then Christ Specially seing the mystery of Christs literall sense is not so hard and vn-intelligible as Caluins figuratiue construction For one may more easily conceaue a body to be in two places at once which the litteral sense of Christs word doth inforce then a body to be truly and substantially giuen where truly and substantially it is not which is the article of fayth by Caluins figuratiue construction obtruded The Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs Word vayne and idle §. 3. THE Minister to prooue that the words of the institution are to be figuratiuely vnderstood bringeth seauen Arguments pag. 391. one pag. 401. and three other pag. 418. but the first and third of these three are the same with the second
Iesus what reason could you haue to trow as you doe that no Iesuit will maintayne it What Iesuit can you name of so many that haue written of this matter that doth not expresly maintayne that Christ in his supper gaue his mortall and passible body though after an immortall and impassible manner Hence though in the hoast his body could neyther be sensibly felt nor suffer yet otherwise the same might then suffer in the place where it did exist according to the naturall and proper manner of bodyes See Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 12. Suarez Vasquez Valentia and innurable others The sixt Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words be litterally expounded then Infidells dogges and swine may eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man But all that eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man haue euerlasting life Iohn 6.49.50.51 ANSWERE I wonder you dare with such toyes oppose the literall truth of Gods word You may see the idlenes of this your argument in the like S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 12.3 None can say Lord Iesus but in the Holy Ghost Should one argue that these words are not properly to be vnderstood because Parrats may be taught to say Lord Iesus so if these words None can say Lord Iesus but in the holy Ghost be properly expounded then Parrats should be inspired with the holy Ghost Were not this disputant to be laught at Are you a Doctour and do not vnderstand that externall actions vnto which diuine promises are made must be not only humane proceeding from man as he is man that is from reason and freewill which cannot be â—n dogs and swine but also Christian that is proceding from deuotion â—ayth in Christ Iesus which is wanting in Infidells The seauenth Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words were literall playne and regular then Papists could not be diâ—â—racted about the sense thereof but they are notoriously deuided For some say the Proâ—owne this signifyeth nothing others say it signifyeth bread some say it signifyeth â—â—e accidents of bread others it signifyeth the body of Christ c. Touching the body â—â—me say it is materia prima c. ANSWERE This argument proues nothing but your Ignorance who know not â—ow to distinguish diuision about the sense of a speach from diuision aâ—out the Logicall resolution of the single wordes of a speach All know â—hat haue any learning that learned men are deuided about the Logicall â—esolution of many propositions vulgar and plaine about the sense wherâ—f there neyther is nor can be doubt This speach Peter is a man A man â—unneth The wall is white are most playne nor are men deuided about their sense And yet he deserues not the name of a Scholler that doth not â—now there be solemne dissensions in Logicke amongst learned men aâ—out the resolution of these speaches that is about the precise and punctuâ—â—l signification of euery single word All Deuines agree in the sense of Christs speach This is my body that it imports the thing he held in his hands was in the end of the prolation of his speach essentially substantially his body as the substantiue verbe Esâ— doth import But they dispute about the Logicall and precise signification of the single words what is designed punctually by the demonstratiue Pronowne this what by Body which are meere Logicall and Philosophicall subtilties common to all propositions where the same words are vsed So that to mentioÌ„ these differeÌ„ces as matters of moment is a manifest signe that Hereticall Ignorance being out of loue with the literall sense of Gods word resolued not to belieue it seekes the vayle of euery idle pretence to hide the Infidelity of his hart The eight Argument pag. 413. If the sayd words be vnderstood literally then the body of Christ is properly brokeâ— and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul sayth This is my body which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke sayth This is the Cup the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you But the body of Christ is not properly broken nor his bloud properly shed in the holy Eucharist ANSWERE The word of God doth not say that the body of Christ is broken his bloud shed in the Eucharist but onely that the Eucharist is his body which is broken his bloud which is shed for vs for many for the remission of sinnes Caluin c. 11.1 ad Cor. doth expound broken and shed for vs on the Crosse where Christs pretious blood was properly shed his sacred body broken in the flesh and veynes therof which were there rent into peeces Besides to be broken for vs and shed for the remission of sinnes in this place signifyes to be sacrificed for vs vnto God as Caluin saith in the former place frangi interpretor immolari In which sense the body of Christ is broken properly not onely on the Crosse but also in the Sacrament this being a true Propitiatory Sacrifice as Catholicks teach Now take what part you will let the Sacrament be the body bloud of CHRIST broken and shed for vs that is sacrifyced for vs on the Crosse or broken and shed that is sacrifyced for vs in the Eucharist still it followes that the Eucharist is the true body and bloud of our Lord not bread and wine seeing Christ neyther in his Supper nor on his Crosse did sacrifice bread and wine for the remission of sinnes but his body and bloud only The ninth Argument pag. 401. Many Fathers treating of the Sacramentall signes call them figures representations memorialls antitypes of the body and bloud of Christ. But that which is a figure similitude representation of a thing is not properly the same ANSWERE First the Maior proposition of your Argument is false For not one Father of the many you cite doth say that the Eucharist is the figure of the naturall body and bloud of Christ but all they say is First that the Eucharist is a figure memoriall and antytype of Christs passion and death So S. Aug l. 3. de doctrin Christ. c. 16. Secondly that it is a figure of his mysticall body and of the vnity thereof Origen in c. 15. Matth. Aug. in Psal 3. Thirdly the bread and wine before consecration be figures of his body bloud as S. Ambros. l 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Druthmarus in c. 26. Matth. Fourthly that Christ did in the Eucharist represent his body where they take representation for the Reall exhibition of the thing promised as we commonly say that the debtour on such a day is to represent the money that is realâ—y deliuer as Tertul. cont Marci l. 1. c. 14. glossa de Consecrat d. 2. Fiftly they â—ay that the sacred vessells in the old law contayned only a figure of the body and bloud of Christ as the Authour of the Imperfect vpon S. Matâ—hew Finally for want of better testimonyes you bring some that proâ—esse agaynst you that
though the substance of bread remayne I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordayned by vse to contayne other substances then shewing the substance which containes we may signify the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to contayne other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passeth from the consideration of the substances contayning to thinke of the thing contayned therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordayned to contayne others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifyes immediatly the substance contained in them For exāple one puts a piece of Gold in an apple shewing it cryes this is Gold in rigour of speach he sayth not true because the sense of his words is that the thing demonstrated immediatly by the formes and accidēts of that apple is Gold yea put case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to contayne any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise he had put secretly into it a peece of gold Because when the paper is shewed displayed and not as contayning something in it and yet is tearmed Gold the proper sense of that speach is that the substance immediatly contayned vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents then those that vsually accompany the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my body being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to contayne an humane body it cannot be vnderstood literally but of the subiect immediatly contayned vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediatly vnder the accidents of bread which was once substantially bread cannot become substantially the body of Christ except it be substātially cōuerted into his body or personally assumed by the same body And seeing this second manner of vnion between bread Christs body is impossible and reiected by Protestants aswell as by Catholiks we may conclude that the mystery of Christs Real presence cannot be belieued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation Specially seing our Sauiour did not say Heere is my body which speach may be verifyed by the Presence of his body locally within the bread but This is my body which imports that not only his body is truly and substantially present but also that it is the substance contayned immediatly vnder the accidents of bread If any man say that by this argument it appeares that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the wordes of the Institution subtilly deduced and so may perchance be numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answere that the cōsequēce of this argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe in the Scripture but by subtill deduction inferred from the mystery which Scripture and Tradition deliuer Notwithstanding because these subtill deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the aforesayd mystery they cannot be denyed without preiudice of fayth In this sort the doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denyed by them that wil be perfect Belieuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertayne to the proper sense of Christ his wordes and substance of the mystery Concil Romanum sub Nicolao 1. Lateranense sub Innocentio 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers §. 3. IT is certayne the Fathers acknowledge a transmutation of bread into the body of Christ that they meant Transubstantiation that is not only a mysticall significatiue but also a Reall and substantiall change appeares by these 5. circumstances of their doctrine in this point First [I.] ¶ The Marginall Annotations corresponding to these ensuing Numbers follow afterwards togeather by the expressenesse of their words for there can be no words more significant and expressiue of a substantiall change betweene bread our Sauiours body then those the Fathers vse Saint (s) Orat. Cathechis c. 34. Nissen That the word made flesh is inserted within euery faythful mā by his flesh taking his consistance of bread and wine Consecration II. transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh S. Cyrill (t) Cyrill Ep. ad Calosyrium Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis sayth That we might not feele horrour seing flesh and bloud on the sacred Altars the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmityes doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit bread and wine III. Conuerting them into the verity of his owne flesh that the body of life as it were a certaine seede of viuification might be found in vs. Saint (u) Chrysost. hom de Euchar in Encoen Nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit Chrysostome When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance therof is left nothing remaynes vnconsumed IIII. so likewise do thou thinke that the mysteryes are consumed by the substance of the body of Christ (x) Ambros. de initian myster c. 9. Non hoc quod natura formauit sed quod benedictio cōsecrauit Benedictione enim ipsa natura mutatur S. Ambrose What arguments shall we bring to prooue that in the Sacrament is not the thing which nature hath framed but that thing which benediction hath consecrated and that greater is the force of benediction then of nature seing by the benediction euen Nature is changed V. Secondly they require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his body be VI. Omnipotent consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall VII Saint Cyprian (z) Cyprian de coena Domini Panis non effigie non natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill (f) Cyrill orat 4. mystagog He that in the marriage of Cana changed water into wine by his only will is not he worthy that we belieue him that he hath changed wine into his bloud S. (g) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Gaudent The Lord Creatour of natures that of earth made bread agayne because he can do it and hath promised to do it makes of bread his owne body and he that of water made wine now of wine hath made his bloud Thirdly the instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiatiō is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose (h) Ambros. de ijs qui
of bread was acknowledged by the Fathers (*) The Minister pag. 462. proposeth this argument agaynst Concomitancy which he thinkes to be so stronge and glorious as he sets the same in a distinct letter ech proposition in a distinct line to call the eye of the Reader vpon it Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was before offered to God on the Crosse. But the body of Christ hauing soule and bloud in it by Concomitancy was not offered to God vpon the Crosse. Ergo at this day soule and bloud be not in the body of Christ by Concomitancy c. I answere This argument serues as a myrrour wherein Learned men may see and admire our Ministers want both of Philosophy and Logicke His want of Philosophy in not distinguishing the being by Concomitancy in the body from being by Concomitancy in the place where the body is The body of Christ neyther on the Crosse nor in the Eucharist hath soule bloud in it and vnited with it by Concomitancy yet the body of Christ not only in the Sacrament but also on the Crosse had soule and bloud present with it by Concomitancy or consequence For the soule being substantially vnited with the body and bloud contayned within the body they were consequently inforced to be togeather with the body in the same place on the Crosse. Hence the Ministers argument is turned agaynst himselfe That body is receaued in the Eucharist which was offered to God on the Crosse but Christs body hauing soule and bloud in the same place with it by Concomitancy was offerred to God on the Crosse. Ergo the body of Christ hauing soule in the same place with it by Concomitancy is in the Sacrament His ignorance in Logicke is likewise very specious and notable to present vnto the world with so great solemnity an idle Sophisme and Fallacy tearmed by the Logitians Figurae dictionis Of which fallacy one kind is when from the substantiall word one argueth vnto the accidentall As for example this Sophisme What meate soeuer thou didst buy in the market thou dost eate at dinner but thou did'st buy raw flesh in the market Ergo thou dost eate raw flesh at dinner And this likewise What fingers soeuer thou had'st being a Childe thou hast now being a man thou had'st little fingers being a Child Ergo thou hast little fingers now being a man Iust of the same frame fashion is our Ministers argument What soeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body that had not blood in it by Concomitancy was offered on the Crosse Ergo a body not hauing blood in it by Concomitancy is receaued in the Sacrament If this forme be good one may proue that we do not now receaue the body of Christ risen from death Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death to life was not offered on the Crosse Ergo a body risen from death or hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death is not receaued in the Sacrament Here your Ladyes may see with what Baberyes you delude their Ignorance arguing from the Substantiall vnto the Accidentall tearme For though Christs body receaued in the Sacrament be the same that was offered on the Crosse in respect of substance it doth not follow that therefore it is the same also in respect of accidents qualityes and circumstances Hence his body may now haue blood and soule by Concomitancy with it in the Sacrament though it had not had blood soule by Concomitancy with it on the Crosse. This principle supposed which is no lesse certayne then the true real presence I inferre the lawfulnes of Communion vnder one kind to wit vnder the sole forme of bread by this Argument If communion vnder one kind be not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of his Sacrament or his precept or of the practise of the primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable for iust reasons may be commanded by the Church This proposition is true because there neyther are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neyther doth Christs Institution or Precept or the Primitiue practise binde vs to keep them further then in substance the accidentall circumstances of institutions Sacramēts precepts primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of thinges vnto which the Church militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancy being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of the Sacrament or of his precept or of the primitiue practise For the substance of these foure obligations is one the same to wit that we be truly really partakers of the body and bloud of our Sauiour which is (e) The Minister p. 467. saith Though Concomitancy be granted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifyed because the blood by Concomitancy is receaued in the veines of the body not as shed out of the veynes But people must receaue the blood of Christ represented as shed which is not done but by receauing the Cuppe Answere The essence of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice is to represent the effusion of our Lords blood so can not be entyre in one kind But the essence of the Eucharist as a Sacrament is to represent the body and blood of our Lord as the foode of the soule But in eyther kind the body and blood to be sufficient food of the soule the Iesuit prooueth so that people be not boūd so receaue the bloud represented distinctly and expressely as shed but only the Priest that doth sacrifice fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. §. 2. DIVINE Institution is an action of God whereby he giues Being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreable and conuenient meanes That men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the sayd life being had he ordayned many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtayning of grace and spirituall life the Sacraments of Baptisme Pennance for the preseruing of grace increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man be bound to vse the Institution of God two things are required First that the end thereof be necessary and he bound to endeauour the attayning therof Hence it is that though marriage be the institution of God appointed to propagate mankind yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate mankind when there be others that do aboundantly comply with that duty to which mankind is
signifye the same as Or. Because to strike Father apart and to strike mother apart is worthy of death in a sonne therefore the Scripture Exod. 21. saying He that striketh his Father mother let him dye the death is to be vnderstood disiunctiuely his Father or mother This might be proued by other innumerable instances nor can so much as one example be brought where this rule fayleth This supposed I assume But the Scripture teacheth that the eating of Christs body a part by it selfe is sufficient vnto eternall life Iohn 6.52 The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world And 58. he that eateth me shall liue by me and 59. he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Ergo the precept Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you is vnderstood disiunctiuely Except you eate his flesh or drinke his bloud Hence the Fathers when they say the Gospell commands drinking of bloud they meane disiunctiuely because they ground the precept vpō this text The Authour of the booke De Coena Domini sayth the law forbad the eating of bloud but the Gospell commands drinking thereof to wit disiunctiuely S. Austine q. 57. In Leuit. In the law men are forbidden so tast of the bloud of the Sacrifices but in the new law from taking the bloud of our Sacrifice by way of nourishment no man is forbidden yea rather all are inuited thereunto that will haue life to wit disiunctiuely that is they are inuited if they will haue life to eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of our Sauiour Other places brought out of the Fathers by you are partly from the purpose partly falsifyed From the purpose are the places which affirme no more then that the body and bloud of Christ be giuen in the Sacrament vnto all Chrysostom hom 18. in ◠ad Cor. the Cup as distributed vnto all Ignatius epist. ad Philadelphenses c. Falsifyed is the Testimony of S. Iustine pag. 497. but specially pag. 482. for thus you cite it Iustinus Martyr sayth That Christians in his age distributed the sanctifyed bread wine to euery one present and he addeth further The Apostles taught that Iesus did command them to do thus You haue corrupted his testimony two or three wayes First by omission for S. Iustin doth mention not only wine but also water The Deacons sayth he distribute vnto euery one present consecrated bread wine and water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore if by this testimony you can proue it is a Diuine precept to giue wine you proue also that it is a Diuine precept to giue water cōsequently your selues to be trāsgressors of the Diuine precept who giue it not That this your peruersity to vrge vs with the testimony of S. Iustin which makes not to the purpose or else by the same your selfe are condemned might not appeare you falsified the place citing what pleased you and leauing out what serued not your turne Secondly these words of S. Iustine The Apostles taught that Iesus commanded them so to doe are not ioyning vpon the wordes that mention the giuing of consecrated bread wine water as you would haue men belieue but follow some 16. or 17. lines after are referred to another matter to wit that Christ gaue a Command to belieue the reall presence S. Iustine his true words are these We are taught that as Iesus Christ is made truly flesh by the word of God in the same manner the Eucharisticall foode by the prayer of the word proceeding from him is the flesh and blood of Iesus incarnate for the Apostles in their writings tearmed the Gospells do deliuer that Iesus gaue that preception vnto them For taking bread into his hands and hauing giuen thankes he sayd Do this in remembrance of me this is my body In like manner taking the Cup after thansgiuing he sayd This is my bloud Thus S. Iustine by which it is euident that he sayth that Iesus gaue a precept not of communion in both kinds but of belieuing the Reall Presence Whence your third corruption is discouered making S. Iustine to say that Iesus commanded to doe thus for to do thus is added vnto the text agaynst the drift thereof which manifestly speaketh of a precept to belieue thus not to do thus In like manner you falsify S. Cyprian Pag. 497. you produce these his wordes as making agaynst Communion in one kind In consecrating and administring the Cup vnto the people some do not that which our Lord did appoint and commanded As who should say these men did transgresse the Diuine precept in that they gaue not the Cup vnto laymen Had S. Cyprian meāt this he should not haue sayd they sin in administring but the contrary they sinne in not administring the Cup to the people But S. Cyprian presently declares wherein they did transgresse the Diuine precept to wit in that some did cōsecrate pure water without wine others meere wine without water and gaue the same to the people What is this agaynst Communion in one kind This place proueth they sinne agaynst the Diuine law who consecrate pure water in lieu of wine as some Protestāts teach men to doe and also that they transgresse the Diuine precept who offer vnto God and giue to the people pure wine without admixtion of water as all Protestans commonly do But that Priests are bound by Diuine precept to giue consecrated wine to the people this place doth not so much as insinuate nor will any learned man cite it for the necessity of the Cup except he haue drunke too much of the Cup. we interprete the place disiunctiuely (*) The place of S. Iohn explicated with an Answere to the Testimonyes of the Fathers Vnles you eate or drinke c. Communion vnder one kinde not agaynst the practise of the Primitiue Church §. 5. CERTAINE it is that the Primitiue Church did very often and frequently vse Communion vnder one kinde so that Laymen had by prescription a Right (i) Ad bibendum pocculum Dei iure communicationis admittimus Cyp. l. epist. 2. to receaue in both kindes yea they were bound thereunto by the obligation of Custome not by diuine precept Also because the Manichees being impiously perswaded that Wine was the (k) Aug. de haeres 46. gall of the Prince of darkenes did (l) Leo serm 4. de Quad. superstitiously abstayne from the Chalice the Church in detestation of this errour commanded for a tyme Communion vnder both kinds vpon which occasion Gelasius Pope made the Decree (m) Gelas. apud Gratian. de Consecrat cap. Comperimus recorded by Gratiā Aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur And why Because such Abstinents nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi that is were superstitious not absteyning out of any deuotiō but out of an impious perswasion of the impurity of Gods creature Wherfore the
crime with which some Protestants charge vs that our receauing vnder the sole forme of bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as D. Morton confesseth reiect as iniurious saying That it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but the reason of their forbearance that was iudged hereticall Morton Protestant Appeale lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 140. (*) Agaynst this explication of the place of Gelasius it is obiected that the same doth not agree with the reason of the Canon For Gelasius sayth men are not to be permitted to receaue but in both kinds because the diuision of one and the same Sacrament cannot be done without sacriledge The whole decree is this We find that some men hauing taken the portion of our Lords body refrayne from the Cup of the holy bloud Which men because they are imbued with I know not what superstitiō let them without any question receaue the whole Sacraments or nothing at all for the diuision of one and the same mystery cannot be vsed without a great Sacriledge I Answere first Gelasius doth not say no man is to be permitted to receaue in one kinde but only no superstitious abstinent Secondly his reason is not ōly because the deuiding of the Sacramēt is Sacriledg but quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are proued to be imbued with a certayne superstitious opinion to wit that the creature of wine is impure The discourse then of Gelasius is because these men are superstitiously conceyted that the creature of wine is the Diuells gall therefore by them the deuiding of the holy mystery receauing the consecrated Bread without the Cup sine grandi sacrilegio fieri non potest cannot be done without great Sacriledge Whēce he concludes proculdubio arceantur let such men be kept from Communion in one kind without any question mercy or indulgēce As if he had sayd Vnto men Orthodoxally conceited about the creature of wine Cōmunion in one kind may be granted sometimes vpon iust causes as if they be by nature abstemij that cannot endure wine But men that be superstitiously persuaded agaynst the nature of wine proculdubio arceantur let Communion in one kind be denyed vnto them without question and granted in no case because in respect of them Communion in one kind is euer Sacrilegious The Minister also in this place keepeth a styrre and would make the world belieue that the Iesuit Vasquez doth maynly oppose himselfe agaynst the Iesuit Answerer about this place of Gelasius The Iesuit sayth he is confuted by a learned and intelligent man of his owne Society to wit Vasquez who sayth that some of his party apply the place of Gelasius agaynst Manichees but this exposition agreeth not with the last clause of the Canon Answere You shew great desire to discredit your aduersary yet cannot you doe it so much as in this trifle with truth For in citing the censure of Vasquez you leaue out the principal word which being set down would haue marred your market Vasquez not only sayth that some of his side explicate the place of Gelasius of lay Manichees but also addeth his Iudgment about the same saying probabiliter explicant this their explication is probable Do not you see your falshood in citing and vanity in vrging this censure of Vasquez If this explication be probable euen by the Iudgment of Vasquez how is the Iesuit confuted by Vasquez of his owne Society as not answering your argument sufficiently Is it not sufficient that Catholicks bringe probable solutions vnto your arguments agaynst Christian customes defined in Councells and receaued in the Church before you or your Luther were borne You your selfe say pag. 11. That no man is to reiect the Doctrine and custome of the Church or the exposition of Scripture commonly and anciently receaued vpon vncertayne and probable reasons If the Iesuit hath answered your arguments probably as euen by this censure of Vasquez he hath then be your arguments at the most but probable and consequently your reuolt from the Church of Rome grounded thereon dānable Who now is condemned by Vasquez his Censure But Vasquez sayth that the Iesuits explication though it agree fitly to the rest of the decree of Gelasius yet cannot be fitted to the last branch thereof where Gelasius sayth that the diuision of the one and same mystery is Sacrilegious in it selfe and in nature Quare mihi magis placet altera explicatio Wherefore sayth Vasquez vnto me another explication seemeth more probable I Answere First Gelasius doth not say that the diuision of the mystery is in itselfe in nature a Sacriledge nor can it be very probably sayd that he did so meane For what sense is there in this discourse To deuide the Sacrament by receauing in one kind is a Sacriledge of his owne nature and absolutely in it selfe therefore let not these men be permitted in any case to receaue in one kinde quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are conuinced to hold superstitious Doctrine about the impurity of the creature of wine Besides had Gelasius meant that Communion in one kind is a sacriledge absolutely in it selfe he would haue decreed that not only superstitious mē but absolutely all men should be kept frō the same proculdubio without any question Wherfore Gelasius his decree cannot be better sensed then thus Because these men are conceyted superstitiously agaynst the creature of wine their receauing in one kind without the Cup can not but be impious Therefore proculdubio arceantur let not Communion in one kind be giuen vnto them in any case though vnto Orthodoxe people vpon iust reasons the same may be granted Secondly suppose all that Vasquez would cōclude to wit that another exposition is more probable what haue you gayned Surely nothing for this other exposition better liked by Vasquez is that Gelasius spake not of laymens receauing but of Priests that celebrate and consecrate affirming that it is sacrilegious in it selfe for Priests to cōsecrate without receauing in both kinds If the Iesuit Vasquez in this exposition and doctrine seeme to you learned intelligent be it so in Gods name you are satisfyed and your Aduersary contented for he did neuer meane to say that this explication is improbable specially the same being giuen by Gratian who read that Epistle of Gelasius which now it not extant This custome was the cause that Cyprian (o) Cyprian de Coena Domini sayth that the Law forbad the eating of bloud but the Ghospell commands the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to drinke the bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his Ghospell did institute the Sacrament of his body bloud in both kinds whence grew the Custome of the primitiue Church to receaue in both kindes by custome there grew further an obligation to drinke of the cup except there were some iust cause of abstinence as in the sicke
and in them that by nature loathed wine And as this is certayne and graunted on our part so it is no lesse certayne that the Primitiue Church did neuer practise the vse of the Cup as pertayning to the essential integrity of the Sacrament or as commaunded by diuine precept but thought the receauing vnder one and both kindes a thing indifferent This may be proued by the consideration of the tyme since Christ ascending frō our dayes vpward whence I gather fiue Arguments First is the Confession of our Aduersaryes amongst whome a Bohemian Protestant (p) Ioan. Przibrau confess Fid. Cath. c. 19. doth professe that hauing the feare of God before his eyes he dares not censure the Roman Church of Heresy in this point (q) Hospin Histor. Sacram p. 2. fol. 112. Hospinian writes that some Protestants confessed that whole Christ was really present exhibited and receaued vnder euery kind and therefore vnder the only forme of bread and that they did not iudge those to doe euill that Communicated vnder one kind (r) Melanct. in 2. edit Comm. impress Argent an 1525. fol. 78. Melancthon As to eate or not to eate swines flesh is placed in our power a thing indifferent so sayth he I Iudge of the Eucharist that they sinne not who knowing belieuing this liberty do vse eyther part of the signes And Luther (s) Luther de Captiu Babylon cap. de Eucharistia They sinne not agaynst Christ who vse one kind seing Christ doth not commaund to vse both but hath left it to the will of euery one And Hospinian alleadgeth (t) Hospin Histor. Sacr. p. 2. fol. 12. Luther affirming it is not needfull to giue both kindes but the one alone sufficeth The Church hath power of ordeyning only one and the people ought to be content therewith if it be ordeyned by the Church (*) The Minister p. 500. sayth Concerning Luther Melancthon c. I answere that your benefactour Coccius to whome you are perpetually obliged for your readings alledgeth some such sayings but how truly it is vncertayne Answer The Iesuit read the sayings he citeth in Luther Melancthon Hospinian not in Coccius vnto whome he is not so much beholding for his readings as you are vnto Chemnitius for yours yea he durst engage his credit that you cannot shew some of the testimonies by him cited in Coccius which sheweth your want of reading and that your desire to cauill is greater then your wit What you add that these sayings are not now foūd in Luther Melancthon is as much as to confesse that wherof the Lutherans accuse you of the Sacramētariā brood that you haue most impudently falsifyed the workes of Luther thogh also Hospinian a Sacramentarian as you are hath these sayings both of Luther other Protestants censuring them in this respect But these testimonyes though they may serue to stop the mouth of a clamorous Aduersary yet be they not sufficient to satisfy any iudicious mā in regard their Authours were men most vncertayne various in their doctrines about Religiō now auerring as Orthodoxe and diuine truth what soone after they fell to abhorre as hereticall impious I add secondly the definition of three generall Councells celebrated before the breach of Luther from the Roman Church The Councell of Florence (u) Concil Florentin in decreto Eugenij 4. wherein were present the Grecian and Armenian Bishops where Concomitancy is defined That Christ is whole vnder ech forme The Councell of Basill (x) Concil Basilien Sess. 30. though they allowed the vse of the Cup vnto the Bohemians defined the lawfulnes of Communion vnder one kind The Councell of Constance (y) Concil Constantiense Sess. 13. gaue example vnto both the former Councells being the first that defined this truth The third Argument is the receaued allowed generall Custome of the Church which spontaneously euen before the Coūcel of Constance did absteine from the Cup as the sayd Councell doth acknowledge which may be proued by the testimonyes of many that liued before the Councell of Constance yea Alexander Halensis (z) Halensis 4. p. q. 11. in 2. a. 4. sect 3. who liued two hundred yeares before the Coūcell of Constance saith That almost euery where Laymen receaued vnder the sole forme of bread And Venerable Bede (a) Beda Histor. Gent. Angl. l. 2. c. 5. l. 4. c. 14. doth signify that in the Church (*) The Minister pag. 502. You are guided by that spirit which is mentioned 3. Kings 22. v. 21. when you affirme that Venerable Bede sayth in the Church of England euer since her conuersion vnder S. Gregory Communiō in one kind was in vse for no such report is found in him Answere Take heed you be not guided by the spirit mentioned Reuelat. 12.11 who so perpetually calumniate your aduersary For he did not affirme that Venerable Bede did so say as though he had made mention thereof in expresse tearmes but that he doth so signify or insinuate which is true for l. 2. c. 5. Histor. Anglor he writes how the sonnes of a certayne Christian King that was deceased being yet Pagans sayd vnto a Bishop Why do'st thou not giue vs that white bread which thou wert wont to giue to our Father and do'st still giue to the people in the Church Which speach they did often at sundry times repeate without any mention of the Cup. What you bring as contrary to this that l. 4. c. 14. he writeth that a certayne man according to a reuelation did presently dye the masse being ended viatico Dominici corporis sanguinis accepto is idle For the Sacrament in one kind contayning in it Christs body bloud both may be tearmed Viaticum Dominici corporis sanguinis the food of the body and bloud of our Lord. of England euer since her first Conuersion vnder Saint Gregory was vsed Communion vnder one kind for the Layty which could neuer haue entred into the Church without being noted marked as an Heresy had not the Church euer held Communion vnder one or both kindes as a thing of indifferency The fourth Argument is drawne from many signes and tokens that the primitiue Church did sometymes vse Communion vnder one kind First the sicke receaued vnder the only forme of bread as may appeare by the History of Serapion related by (b) Euseb. l. 6. Histor. c. 36. ex ep Dionys. Alexandrin ad Fabium Eusebius and the Grecians at this day (c) Genebrardus though they giue the Cup to the Communicants in the Church yet to the sicke they send the Sacrament vnder one kind yea Saint Ambrose as Paulinus (d) Paulinus in vita Ambrosi◠relateth in his life at his death receaued the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of bread and straight after the receauing thereof gaue vp his soule Secondly it was an ancient custome in the Church to giue the Sacrament vnto Laymen (e) Tertullian ad vxor c. 55.