here on earth though after an inuisible manner which wee take to bee vnder the formes of breade and wyne Theo. That Christ is present with vs here on earth wee firmely beleeue to our great comfort Where two or three sayth our Sauiour are gathered together in my name I am in the middest of them and againe Loâ— I am alway with you vntill the ende of the worlde but that hee is corporally present vnder the formes of bread and wine that is neither auouched by Chrysostome nor admitted by vs it is your vaine and fruitlesse fansie Phi. How can his body bee present but bodily Theo. These woordes of Chrysostom inferre not that Christes body is present but that Christ is present And since Christ consisteth of two natures the diuine may bee present though the humane bee not Christ absent sayth Austen is also present For vnlesse hee were present hee coulde not bee helde of vs our selues But because it is true that hee saith Lo I am with you for euer vnto the end of the world hee is both departed and yet here Hee is returned whence hee came and hath not yet forsaken vs. For his body hee hath caried into heauen but his diuine maiestie hee hath not taken from the world Neither is his diuine power onely present with vs but also wee haue his humane nature many wayes with vs in this worlde Habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In praesenti per fidem in praesenti per signum Christi in praesenti per Baptismatis Sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum Thou hast Christ sayth Austen in this worlde and in the next In this world by faith in this worlde by the signe of Christ in this world by the Sacrament of baptisme in this world by the meate and drinke of the altar By these things wee haue him in this worlde not really locally or corporally but truely comfortably and effectually so as our bodies soules and spirites bee sanctiâ—â—ed and preserued by him against the day of redemption when wee shall see him and enioye him face to face in that fulnesse and perfection which wee nowe are assured of by fayth and prepared for by cleanesse and meekenesse of the inward man The whole Church therefore neuer cried vppon the Sacrament Lorde I am not woorthy Lord beè mercifull to mee a sinner Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the worlde haue mercy on vs You doe sinnefully slaunder them they did exactly and precisely distinguish the corruptible creature from the eternal creator and taught all men to lift vp their hearts from the elements which were before their eyes to him that is in heauen and shall come from thence and from no place else to iudge the world Saint Austen wil haue the rude ones to be taught that the Sacraments are Signacula rerum diuinarâ—m visibilia sed res inuisibiles in eis honorari Visible scales of things diuine but the things visible to be honored in them And as if the case were so plaine that no man could well doubt thereof he saith Si ad ipsas res visibiles quibus Sacramenta tractantur animum conferamus quis nesciat eas esse corruptibiles Si autem ad id quod per illas agitur quis non videat non posse corrumpi If we looke to the visible things or elements by which the Sacraments are perfourmed who can be ignorant that they are corruptible But if we looke to that which is doone by them who doth not see that that can not bee corrupted Saint Ambrose saith Venisti ad Altare vidisti Sacramenta posita super Altare ipsam quidem miratus es creaturam Tamen creatura solemnis nota Thou camest to the Altar and sawest the Sacraments placed on the Altar and maruelledst at the very creature yet is it an vsuall and knowen creature Origen purposely creating what part of the Sacrament did sanctifie the receiuer saith Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur Nec materia panis sed super â—llum sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino commedenti illum Haec de typico Symbolicoque corpore The meate which is sanctified at the Lords table by the word of God and praier as touching the materiall partes which it hath goeth into the belly and so forth by the priuie neither is the matter of bread it that profiteth the worthy receiuer but the worde rehearsed ouer it This I speake of the typicall and figuratiue body For this cause the great Councell of Nice directed the whole Church to lift vp their vnderstanding aboue the breade and wine which they sawe and by faith to conceiue the lambe of God slaine for the sinnes of men and proposed and exhibited on the Lordes table in those mysteries Their woordes bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let vs not baselie bend our mindes on the bread and cup that are set before our eyes at the Lordes Supper but lifting vp our thoughtes let vs by faith beholde on or in the sacred table the Lambe of God taking awaie the sinne of the worlde Which admonition the Church euer after obserued by crying vpon the people to lift vp their hartes not to the Sacramentes which they saw but from them to him that liued and raigned in heauen whome they adored in equall degree with the father and the holie Ghost and whome they behelde and touched with the eyes and handes of their faith but not with their corporall limmes or senses Quomodo in caelum mittam manum vt ibi sedentem teneam Mitte fidem tenuisti Howe shall I sende vp my hande to heauen to reach Christ sitting there Sende thy fayth sayth Austen and THOV HOLDEST HIM fast enough Fide Christus tangitur fide Christus videtur non corpore tangitur non oculis comprehenditur By fayth sayth Ambrose Christ is touched by fayth Christ is seene hee is not touched with our body not viewed with our eyes And therefore Chrysostome saith Hee must flie not to the Sacrament but on hie that will come to this body euen to heauen it selfe or rather aboue the heauens for where the body is there also will the Eagles bee Phi. The councell of Nice sayth The Lambe of God is on the sacred table where then did they seeke him or made they prayers vnto him but on the Altar Theo. They lifted vp their heartes to him that sate in heauen and from heauen looke downe vppon them and their prayers before they could please God were directed to the same place and person that their heartes were You must therefore either fasten their hearts and faiths to the Sacrament or suffer their prayers together with their affections to ascend to heauen where Christ sitteth at the right hande of God
name than the body and blood of Christ not that in earthly matter or essence they be really conuerted into those diuine things as you falsely gather but for that remaining in their former vsual both nature and substance they haue in them cary with them the fruite effect and force of Christs flesh wounded blood shed for the remission of our sinnes And because the people shoulde regarde not the creatures which they see but the graces which they beleeue therefore the Fathers euery where without exception call the elements by the names of the inwarde and heauenly vertues that are annexed to them and conferred with them by the trueth of his word power of his spirit This is the first rule which you should haue obserued The next is that whensoeuer they teach and propose the dignitie proprietie or efficacie of the Sacrament they meane not the creatures which our eies and tasts doe better iudge of than their tongues or wittes can teach vs but that other diuine lyfe-giuing and soule-sauing part of the sacrament which our heartes by fayth take holde on and possesse more really and effectually than if it were chammed in our mouthes or buried in our stomackes as you grossely conceiue of those thinges which bee most high and heauenly These two Rules remembred a very meane scholer may soone discharge the burden of all your allegations For either you mistake the one part for the other supposing that to bee corporall which in deede is spirituall or else you vrge the name which the signe beareth for similitude as â—arnâ—stily to all intents as 〈◊〉 were were the thing it selfe which causeth you to 〈◊〉 so many texâ—es and to straie so farre from trueth that no sound can recall you Phi. Away with your new found obseruations The catholike church hath the spirit of trueth promised for her direction and therefore the wil none of your wise inuentions to qualifie the fathers speeches Learne you rather at her handes to beleeue the wordes of Christ who first appointed this Sacrament and pronounced it to be himselfe without signe or figure when he saide this is my body and this is my blood not spirituall or metaphoricall but the same body which was broken and the same blood which was shed for remissioâ— of sinnes and that I trust you will confesse was his naturall and locall hath body and blood Theo. The question is not whether that were his naturall body which suffered on the crosse but when hee saide of the bread this is my bodie whether he substantially changed the dead element into himselfe made the creature become the creator or whether he annexed his trueth to the signe and grace to the Sacrament which required both the word of Christ to make the promise and his power to perfourme the speech And therefore we beleeue and acknowledge the wordes of our Sauiour to bee very needeful in ordaining this Sacrament euen in such manner and order as they were spoken that the signes might haue the fruites and effectes of his body and blood But that hee chaunged substances with the bread and wine or deified the creatures that his speech doth not inferre and that as yet we doe not beleeue except you can shewe vs howe the fleshe of Christ which was first made of a woman is nowe become to be made of bread and a dead and senslesse creature exalted to bee the son of God Phi. We do not say the bread is substantially conuerted into Christ or made the sonne of God but the bread is abolished in the place thereof commeth the glorious flesh of our Lord and Sauiour who is the Sonne of God And in that sense we hold the creator is now where the creature was but the dead element is not made the Sonne of God you woulde faine catch vs at such an aduantage Theo. How you can auoide it I yet perceiue not for if the bread bee nowe Christ which before it was not ergo the bread is made Christ and by consequent a dead element is nowe become or made the Sonne of God which I thinke will hardly stand with the very first groundes of Christian religion Phi. You presse the letter against both reason and trueth For the one is sayd to be conuerted or chaunged into the other because the one displaceth and succeedeth the other so is it a chaunge rather of the one for the other than a conuersion of the one into the other if you take conuersion properly as the Philosophers do Theo. Christ dâ—eth not say where the bread was there is nowe my body but this bread is my body And since before consecration it was not his body and now by repeating the wordes is become his body the conclusion is euident that by your opinion the bread is made Christ and so become the sonne of God Phi. You thinke to snare vs with schoole-trickes but setting your sophismes aside we plainly beleeue the Sacrament is Christ. Theo. You must beleeue the bread is Christ which as yet the Articles of our Creede will not suffer vs to doe I meane not to thinke that a dead and dumbe creature may bee God Phi. Do we say the bread is God Theo. You must auerre it if you stick to the letter of Christs words for he said of the bread as you inforce it this is my selfe now he was God Phi. I thought I should be euen with you at Landes end Christ did not say this bread is my bodie but this is my bodie where now is the force of your argument Theo. Euen where it was Phi. Why Christ sayd this is not meaning bread or any other creature Theo. That this must be somwhat else nothing was the body of Christ so you loose not only the bread but also the body Phi. Nay he said this is and that must needs be somwhat it can not be nothing Theo. It is well you haue found it I said so before you Then this is my body What this Was it bread that he spake of or somthing else Phi. He spake of that which he had in his hands Theo. You meane not long before Phi. In deede you say he had at that present when he spake the wordes nothing in his handes and so you would haue nothing to be his body Theo. Hinder not our course with matter impertinent to this place The demonstratiue THIS noteth that which Christ then gaue to his Disciples as wel as that which you thinke he then held in his hands Choose whether you wil of force the thing must be all one For that which hee helde that he gaue and of that which he first helde and after gaue hee saide this is my body Phi. He did so Theo. What was it Phi. Somwhat it was whatsoeuer it was Theo. What somwhat do you say it was Phi. What if I cannot tell Theo. Then must you seeke farther for your chaunging of substances The words of
after the manner of Sacramentes called the soule I can interprete this precept to consist of a signe or figure for the Lord did not sticke to say this is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie And speaking in Christes person he sayeth This bodie which you see you shal not eate neither shal you drinke the blood which they that crucifie me shall shed I haue commended a Sacrament vnto you that Sacrament spiritually vnderstood shal quicken you It is therefore as you hearde before out of the same Father a figure of speech commaunding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion For the Lord at his supper saith he commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood Cypriā The Lord at his last supper gaue bread and wine with his own hands on the crosse he gaue his body to be wounded by the souldiers handes that syncere truth secretly printed in his Apostles might teach the Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood and how the causes agreed with their effectes and different names and kindes might be reduced to one essence and the signes signifieng and the thinges signified might be called by the same names Origen There is in the very Gospell a letter that doth kill not onely in the old Testament is there a deadly letter found but in the new Testament there is a letter that doth kill him which doeth not spiritually conceiue the thinges that be spoken For if you take this saying except yee eate my flesh and drinke my blood according to the letter this letter killeth And againe Not the matter of bread but the word recited ouer it doth profit the worthy receiuer This I speake of the typical and figuratiue body Ambrose It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried this therefore is the Sacrament of that true fleshe The Lord Iesus himselfe sayth this is my body Before the blessing of these heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing after consecration the body of Christ is thereby signified In eating and drinking at the Lords table We signifie the body and blood of Christ that were offered for vs. The new Testament is confirmed by blood in a figure of which blood We reciue the mysticall cup. The priest in the church seruice faith Make this oblation ascribed reasonable and acceptable for vs which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Hierom When the Pascal lambe was eaten Iesus taketh bread which strengthneth the heart of man and goeth to the true sacrament of the passouer that as Melchisedec had done offering bread wine in a profiguratiō of him so he likewise might represent the truth of his body blood For Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it transfiguring his body into the breade Chrysostom This table hath he prepared for his seruants that hee might euery day for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ shew foorth in a Sacramēt vnto vs bread and wine after the maner of Meschisedec Before it be sanctified we cal it bread but the diuine grace once sanctifieng the same by the ministerie of the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread coūted worthy to be called the Lordes body though the nature of bread continew there still So that in the sanctified vessel there is not the true body of Christ but a mystery of his body is there contained Nazianzene Let vs bee partakers of the passeouer figuratiuely notwithstanding as yet though this Passeouer bee more manifest than the former Theodoret. Our Sauiour in deed changed the names called his bodie by the name of the signe and the signe by the name of his body The reason whereof is manifest to those that are acquainted with the diuine mysteries He would haue the receiuers of these heauenly mysteries not looke to the nature of the things which are seen but hearing the alteration of names beleeue the chāge which is there made by grace For he that called his natural body wheat bread named himself a vine the same Lord honored the signes elements of bread wine which we see with the name of his body blood not changing the nature of the signes but casting grace vnto nature Prosper The diuine breade which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the body of Christ being in deed but the sacramēt of Christs bodie Which words your own law thus expoundeth The diuine bread which truly representeth the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly wherfore it is said after a sort which is non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in exactnes of truth but in a mysterie of signification So that this is the meaning it is called the body of Christ that is the body of Christ is thereby signified Bede The solemnities of the old Passeouer being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the church is desirous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in steede of the flesh and blood of a lamb he substituting the sacrament or sacred signe of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to be the same to whome the Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedec Druthmarus The Lord gaue his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sinnes that being mindfull of his deede they might alwaies in a figure do that which he was to do for thē not forget his loue This is my body that is in a sacrament Wine maketh glad increaseth blood and for that cause the blood of Chirst is aptly figured thereby Bertram That bread wine is figuratiuely the body and blood of christ the maner thereof is in a figure representation in mysterio non veritate in a mysterie not in truth plaine speech Phi. You thinke to winne the spurres but you may chance to loose bootes and all These places which you bring haue a shew before the simple but there is no pith nor substance in them and with one puffe wee can blowe them all away Theo. It must be such a puffe then as wherwith you first blew away christ and his gospel and brought in your own decrees to ouerrule both God and man with the breath of your mouthes Phi. You scoffe my meaning is that I can crosse them all with one answere Theo. If they were sprites you might driue them away with crossing but being ancient and godly fathers they will tell on their tales to your reproofe crosse you what you will or can in their wayes Phi. I will not crosse it in their way but in yours Theo. When you will wherefore serue my feete but to tosse it out of the way or at lest to step ouer it that it hinder not
after the same sort the blood of christ euen so the sacrament of faith meaning thereby baptisme is saith We he buried saith Paul with christ through baptism into his death Hâ— saith not we signifie that his burial but he saith plainly we 〈…〉 The sacrameÌ„t of so great a thing he would not cal but by the 〈…〉 thing it self Upon this verie ground be concluded as you heard 〈…〉 Lâ—â—d doubted not not to say this my body when he gaue the signe of his body What maâ—uell then if the catholike Fathers vsed often the names of the body blood of Christ where the materiall elementes of bread and wine must be vnderstood since this is the certaine rule of al sacraments and the common order of all ancient diuines writing of the Lordes supper to call the giftes proposed at the Lordes table the body and blood of Christ. The wilfull contempt of which obseruation hath miserably snared and hampered you and your fellowes euerie where referring and forcing that to the naturall fleshe of Christ which by the learned and godly fathers was spoken and ment of the visible signes called by the names of the body and blood of Christ. The second thing that you sticke at is the substance of bread which we say remaineth and abideth as well after consecration as before You wil haue it either vanish to nothing or else to bee turned and conuerted into the very fleshe of Christ there present God maÌ„ vnder the whitenes roundnes such like shewes appearances of bread left only to content the sight and palate least the raw flesh of Christ should displease your eyes or offend your tast This is your doctrine and this we say is not catholike The church of Christ neuer held that the substance of bread perished or ceased after consecration it is a late deuise you can bring no father that is ancient for this assertion they neuer taught they neuer heard they neuer dreampt any such thinges They taught that the mysticall signes were creatures well knowen not straunge and miraculous accidentes that the substance of bread was not changed but remained still after consecration and this they taught in as plaine words as heart can imagine or tongue expresse lette the Reader bee iudge if I â—aye not the truth Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome for his antiquitie reuerenced of vs for his place not to be refused of you writeth thus against Eutiches The sacraments which we receiue of the body blood of Christ are a diuine thing by them are we made partakers of the diuine nature yet for all that ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread wine to be Theodoret The mystical signes do not after sanctification depart from their own nature for they remaine in their former substance figure forme Ambrose Thou camest to the altar â—awest the sacraments theron wonderest at the very creature yet it is a â—olemn known creature Ireneus Christ counseling or willing his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of those creatures tooke that bread which is a creature gaue thankes saying this is my body We must therefore in all thinges be found thankefull to God the creator offering the first fruits of those creatures which be his and this oblation the Church onely maketh in puritie to the creatour offering to him of his own creatures with thankes giuing Origen The Lords bread according to the material partes thereof goeth into the belly and thence to the draught so that it is not the matter of breade that doeth proâ—itte the râ—ceiuer but the worde rehearsed ouer it Epiphanius That which our Sauiour our tooke in his hand and saide this is my body wee see to bee neither proportional nor like to his image in flesh nor his inuisible Deity for this is of a round figure hath no power of sense but our Lord wee knowe to bee wholy sense wholy sensitiue Cyprian Since the Lord said do this in my remembraÌ„ce this is my flesh this is my blood as often as with these words this faith we do that he did this substantial bread cup sanctified with a solemn blessing is profiâ—able for the life safegard of the whole man being both a medicine to heal our infirmities a sacrifice to clense our iniquities Chrysostom After coÌ„secration it is deliuered from the name of bread reputed worthy to be called the Lords body nothwithstanding the nature of bread still remaine Austen These things are therefore called Sacramentes because in them one thing is seen an other thing vnderstood That which is seen speciem habet corporalem hath a corporal shape or kind that which is vnderstood hath a spiritual fruit This is of al other a miserable seruitude of the soule to mistake the signes for the things themselues not to be able to lift vp the eye of the minde aboue the corporall creature to behold the light that is eternall The councell of Constantinople Christ commaunded the whole substaunce of breade chosen for his image to bee set on his table least if it resembled the shape of a man idolatrie might bee committed Bertram The signes as touching the substances of the creatures are the same after consecration which they were before Can you looke for plainer or directer witnesses Do they not all ioyne together in one profession and succession of truth that the mysticall signes after consecration be knowen corporal and senselesse creatures abiding in their proper and former yea their whole nature and substance Be not these wordes significant and pregnant directly conâ—uting your reall inclosing and corporall eaâ—ing of Christ vnder the shewes and accidentes of bread and wine The third thing that I saide was to bee considered in the elementes of bread and wine is their power and operation For since the substance of the creatures is not chaunged the signes coulde not iustly beare the names of the thinges them-selues except â—â—e vertue power and â—ffect of Christs fleshe and bloode were adioyned to them and vnited with them after a secrete and vnspeakable manner by the working of the holy Ghost in such sort that whosoeuer duelie receiueth the signe is vndoubtedly partaker of the grace offered vnto all but inioyed onely by those that with fayth and repentance clense the inward man from that corruption of flesh spirit which Christ abhorreth Cyprian of Sacraments in generall writeth thus To the elements once sanctified not now their owne nature giueth effect but the diuine vertue worketh in them more mightily the trueth is present with the signe and the spirit with the Sacrament so that the worthines of the grace appeareth by the verie efficiencie of the things Of the Lordes Supper in speciall thus he saith b There is giuen the foode of immortalitie differing from commoÌ„ meates Corporalis substantiae etmens speciem retaining the kind or truth
peruert the meaning of Leo and if you did but vnderstand the right course of his reason you would suppresse both his voice and your vaunt for verie shame Phi. He that will trust your sayings shall haue manie false fiers when he should not Theo. And he that will credit your doings shall feele manie quick flames when he would not Phi. You be better at quipping than at answering Theo. You are lothe we should encroch on your common But returne to Leo. Can you tell against whome he wrote Phi. Against such as you are that denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Were they men without names or names without men Phi. Mock not they were your auncetours Theo. They say it is a wise childe that knoweth his owne father Doe you But in sadnes whome did Leo traduce in that sermon Phil. Mary Eutiches and such like heretikes Theoph. You saie well for Leo nameth him but a litle before in that sermon and against his opinion he reasoneth Philand I am content with that Theoph. What was his error Phi. He denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Who told you so Phi. I gather it by those that refute him Theo. By them you shall learne his error but this it was not Philan. What was it say you Theo. Eutiches affirmed that Christes humane nature and substance was not onely glorified by his ascension but consumed and turned into the nature immensitie of his Godhead Against him wrate Theodorete Gelasius and others and one of the cheefest argumentes which they bring against him is that which Leo here toucheth in a woorde or two Phi. That argument cleane confoundeth your sacramentarie Sect. Theo. Yours or ours it must needes confound for this it is As the bread and wine after consecration are changed and altered into the bodie and bloud of Christ so is the humane nature of Christ conuerted into his diuine after his resurrection ascension but the bread and wine are not changed neither in substance nor forme nor figure nor naturall proprieties but only in grace and working ergo Christs humane nature is not changed into his diuine EITHER IN SVBSTANCE circumscription or forme but only endewed with glory and immortalitie Phi. This is no Catholike reason but sauoreth altogether of your hereticall poison Theo. They which first framed and vrged this reason against Eutiches in your opinion were they heretikes Phi. No father euer vsed it Theo. If they did must not they be doubbed for heretikes as the first proposers of that reason or at least you for affirming now the quite contrarie For you reiect both their assumption conclusion against Eutiches as starke false and whose ancetour then is Eutiches but yours Phi. They do not vse it as you report it Theo. Looke you offspring of Eutiches whether Gelasius Theodoret and Augustine do not vrge it in those verie pointes and wordes which I repeate Thus Gelasius framed his reason against Eutiches An image or similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is therefore apparant and euident enough that we must holde the same opinion of Christ the Lord which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image That as those signes by the working of the holy Ghost passe into the diuine substance and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature Euen so that verie principall mysterie it selfe whose force truth that Image assuredly representeth doth demonstrate one whole and true Christ to continue the two natures of which he consisteth properlie remaining And lest you should not vnderstand what he ment by this The signes still abide in the proprietie of their owne nature he expoundeth himselfe an saith Non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not or perisheth not When Theodoret had made an entrance to the very same reason by laying this foundation Oportet archetypum Imaginis esse exemplar the Originall must be answerable to the Image the heretike caught the words out of his mouth and said It hapned in good time that you did mention the diuine mysteries for euen thereby will I prooue the Lordes bodie to be chaunged into an other nature As then the signes of the Lordes bodie and blood are other thinges before the inuocation of the Priest but after they are chaunged and become other than that they were so the Lords bodie after his assumption is chaunged into his diuine substance The maior being good such as Gelasius and Theoderet did both auouch that as the signes were changed after consecration so was Christes humanitie after his assumption if your opinion had then beene taught in the church that the substance of bread and wine were changed by consecration the conclusion had beene infallible for Eutiches error that the substance of Christes humanitie had beene changed by his ascention into his diuinitie and not only both these Fathers had had their mouthes stopped but Eutiches error had beene inâ—olâ—ble as beeing grounded on a Maior that was a confessed and famous trueth and on a Minor that was as you thinke the vndoubted saith of the Church Mary the Minor in deed was apparantly false though you now defend it for Catholike Doctrine and with the plaine deniall of that as a manifest vntrueth Theodoret inferreth the contrarye that because neither the Substance nor naturall proprieties of the bread and wine are chaunged by consecration as the whole Church then beleeued and confessed therefore neither the substance nor shape nor circumscription of Chrisâ—es humane nature were changed by his ascention but his body remaineth in the â—ame substance quantitie and forme that he rose from death and ascended vp withall and with the very same forme and substance of flesh shall come to iudge the worlde These are his wordes Thou art caught saith Theodoret to the heretike with the same nets that thou laiedst for others The mysticall signes after sanctification doe not depart from their own nature For they remanie in their former substance and figure and forme c. Conferre then the Image with the originall and thou shalt see the likenes betweene them For the figure must be like to the trueth That body therefore of christ in heauen hath his former shape and figure circumscription to speake al at once his former substance Lay all your heades together aâ—d graunting the Maior which the whole Church held auoide the conclusion of Eutiches withâ—ut the denying the Minor as Theodoret did which yet is your faith and beleefe at this day and we wil grant you to be Catholiks and our selues heretikes If you cannot see how far you be falleÌ„ from the doctrine of Christs church and that in no lesse point than the greatest and chieâ—esâ— Sacrament on which you haue wickedly founded your adoration oblation halfe communion priuate masse and barbarous prayers without
example without warrant of God or man Phi. Theodoret hath set you vppe in your Ruffe but I would you knew it in this case we care neither for Theodoret nor you if that were his opinion as it is yours Theo. And who hath put you into your ruffe that you not only despise that learned and auncient Bishoppe but the whole Church in him which then so beleeued and you cannot auoide at this day except you will bee Eutichians Phi. The Maior is not altogether so sâ—und as you thinke it Theo. Yet did Gelasius and Theodoret confound that error with that comparison and S. Augustine long before thâ—m did vrge the same This is it that wee say this is it that by all meanes we labour to confirme to witte that the Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible kinde of elementes and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ the Sacrament and the thing of the SACRAMENT euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for so much as euery thing containeth the nature and trueth of those things of which it consisteth By which rule it is certaine there musâ— be in the sacrament the nature truâ—th and substance of bread and wine euen as in Christes person either nature hath his trueth and substance without confusion or distraction Phi. We haue fathers to the contrary if the time did serue to produce them as anon I will In the meane while what is this to Leo Theophil Leo in few words abbridgeth the sumâ— of this reason and saith the followers of Eutiches doe in vaine with their mouthes receâ—ne the Sacrament since with their hartes they doe not beleeue the tâ—ueth of Christs humane nature and answer AmeÌ„ to no purpose so long as they dispute against that which they would seâ—m to enioye by receiuing the seale and pledge thereof in the church with others Phi. This is your Commentarie besâ—des the text his wordes are The selfe same bodie which wee beleeue with faith is receiued with mouth Which you cannot interprete to be mâ—ant of the bread For the breade is not beleeued with hart and against the trueth of Christs bodie not against the bread did the followers of Eutiches dispute Theo. Doth Leo â—aie the selâ— same bodie Phi. He saith Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur that is receiued with the mouth which with our faith is beleeued and that cannot be the bread The. Much lesse maie it be the natural bodie of Christ. For then Leo had mightilie confirmed not confuted Eutiches opinion His error was that the humanitie of christ after his ascension was swallowed vp of his diuinitie and so changed that it was now no naturall bodie Against this if Leo should haue opposâ—d your reall presence in the Sacrament where Christs body is without quantity shape circumscription distinction of partes and all other conditions of a naturall body he had beene a Proctour â—or Eutiches impiety not a confuter of it Neither could Eutiches himsâ—lfe haue wished a better defence for his heresie than the confessâ—on â—f such a bodâ—e as you imagine in the sacrament and therfore you haâ—k that HOC ilfauouredly when you make Leo rather a consenter with Eutiches than a disprouer of him with your fantasticall presence which is an approbation and no refutation of Eutiches error Phil. What a slander this is that the reall presence should be a refuge for Eutichâ—s error Theoph. Such a slaunder as with all your cunning you shall neuer wipe awaie Phi. Doe we not affirme the substance of Chrisâ—es humane flesh to be in the Sacrament The. Such a substance as Eutiches him selfe imagined hauing neither proportion of shape nor position of parts nor repletion of place nor anie condition incident to a naturall bodie but the godly fathers were farre from vrging such a substance against Eutiches They pressed him with the bodilie shape circumscription extension and perfeâ—â—ion of Christes flesh as well in all other requisites as in substance and to prooue this amongst other arguments they brought as I haue shewed the Sacrament for a resemblance and demonstrance of both natures in Chrisâ— that as the bread after consecration keepeth his quantity quality shape and substance notwithstanding it be vnited and annexed to the heauenly grace that worketh in the sacrament so the bodie of Christ after his assumption retaineth his former perfection proportion figure and substance loosing no poinâ—â— nor part of his humane nature but only replenished with immortall glorie This must be Leoes Hoc if he will do any good with alleaging the Sacrament against Eutiches as I haue proued by Austen Gelasius and Theodoret Otherwise if he do but mention your real presence he openeth the gappe and leuelleth the way to Eutiches furie and runneth headlong against the rest of his fellow seruants and successours that vsed the same argument to confute Euâ—iches with a manifest contradiction of your reall presence Phi. I bring you Leoes wordes Theo. Leoes wordes haue nothing in them to crosse that sense which I establish Hoc signifieth any thing and hath no relation to Christes flesh in the sacrament but to the proportion rather betweene Christ the sacrament in that they beleeued no other thing of Christ than they saw with their eyes receiued with their mouths in the Sacrament to wit the perfect shape substance of bread after Consecration consequently they must holde the same opinion of Christs humanitie after his ascension Phi. If you vse this trade you may peruert all the fathers writings and make what sense you list to their sayings Theo. Peruert them no more than we doe and you shall neuer euert the maine doctrine as you haue doone We measure â—heir wordes by their owne warrant and suffer nâ—t a phrase here and there which may bee well reuoked to their rules to vndermine the chiefe grouâ—des of their faith Phi. No more doe we Theo. Why then rage you to heare vâ— say that these few places which you haue brought for eating christs bodie with your mouthes and iawes may be referred to the signes called by those names as well as to the things themselues Phi. You take vpon you to bee Iudges and to pronounce at your pleasures when the wordâ—s shall belong to the one and when to the other so that no father shall say any thing against your heresie but yet will by and by turne it and wind it I knowe not whither Theo. Nothing more hindereth the search for trueth than a desire to lye We shew you the general admonition of the fathers themselues that after consecration they call the visible signes no longer by their woonted names but by the names of those things whose signes they are and whose vertues they haue This Rule we say is then to take place when the speach which we find in a father if it should be referred to the things themselues would be both absurd and repugnant to
but the poyson of Dragons vnhappily with Iudas Therefore sayth Paul sauor you those things which are aboue not the things which are on earth For this cup of the new Testament is not any where receiued but aboue in heauen Where the carkaâ—â—e is thither will the Eagles resort that is saith Austen into heauen whither froÌ„ hence Christ caried with him the body which hee tooke in the nature of man Had we no better ground to refuse that your corporal cating reall presence this were sufficient For where without question the flesh of Christ must bee locally present in your host before it can bee really pressed with teeth the sacred scriptures catholik fathers affirm that the true flesh of Christ is absent from earth verily present in heauen whither we must and may send our harts and faithes to be partakers of him our hands mouthes we can not sende therefore your late deuised doctrine must needes be dissident from the scriptures and vnknowen to the former purer church of christ I see saith Stâ—uen the heauens open and the sonne of man standing at the right hand of God whom the heaueÌ„s saith Peter must contain vntil the time that al things be restored Phi. As though he might not also be in earth Theo. Being ascended into heauen he is no more in earth if that be true which the Angels said to his Disciples This Iesus which is taken vp from you into heauen shall so come as you haue seene him go into heauen ergo when he ascended into heauen he was taken vp from them and not left with them and so the Lord himselfe before had taught them I came foorth from the father and came into the world now contrariwise I leaue the world and go to the father So that his ascending to the father was the leauing of the world and his abiding with the father imployeth his absence from the world The poore you alwaies haue with you but me sayth hee you shall not alwayes haue Nowe am I no more in the world but come to thee holy father ergo now Chriâ—t being with his father is no more in the world but remaineth in heauenâ— and as touching his humane nature is absent from the earth which not onely the scriptures pronounce but also the fathers with one voice professe Tertullian In the very palace of heauen to this day sitteth Iesus at the right hand of his father man though also God fleshe and blood though purer than ours neuerthelesse the very same in substaunce and forme in which he ascended Augustine Let vs shew the Iewes at this day where Christ is would God they would heare and take hold of him Hee was slaine of their fathers he was buried he rose againe and was knowen of his Disciples and before their eyes ascended into heauen and there now sitteth at the right hand of the father Let them heare this and lay hold on him Perhaps he will say whom shall I take holde of him that is absent howe shall I reach my hand vp to heauen to take hold on him sitting there Send thy faith and thou hast hold of him Thy father 's held him in the flesh hold thou him in thine heart Hee is both departeâ— and present he is returnâ—d whence he came and hath not left vs. His body hath hee caried to heauen his maiestie hath hee not withdrawen from the world Mee shall you not alwayes haue He spake this of the presence of his body For touching his maiesty prouidence inspeakeable and inuâ—sible grace it is true that he said I am alwayes with you to the end of the world But as touching the fleshe which the word took touching that by the which he was born of the virgin fastned to the crosse laide in the graue you shall not alwayes haue me with you And why because he is ascended into heauen and is not here there hee sitteth at the right hand of the father Cyrill Wee must here diligeÌ„tly marke that albeit hee haue withdrawen from hence the presence of his bodie yet in the maiestie of his Godhead hee is alwayes with vs euen as himselfe readie to depart from his Disciples promised behold I am with you at all tymes vnto the end of the world For the faithfull must beleeue though hee be absent from vs in body yet in his diuine vertue he is euer present with all that loue him with whome hee euer hath beene and will be present though not in bodie yet in the vertue of his Deitie Hee coulde not bee conuersant with his Apostles in fleshe after hee was once ascended to his Father yet for so much as Christ is truely God and man they should haue vnderstood that in the vnspeakeable power of his Godhead hee meant to bee alwayes with them though in fleshe hee were absent and by that onely meanes notwithstanding hee bee absent in fleshe hee is able to saue his Origen according to his diuine nature hee is not absent from vs but hee is absent according to the dispensation of his bodie which hee tooke As a man shall hee bee absent from vs who is euerie where in his diuine nature For it is not the manhood of Christ that is there wheresoeuer two or three bee gathered togither in his name neither is it his manhood that is with vs at all times vntill the ende of the worlde neither is his manhood present in euerie congregation of the faithfull but the diuine vertue that was in Iesu. Ambrose Steuen amiddest the Iewes saw thee O Lord absent Marie among the Angels sawe thee not being present Steuen sought not for thee on earth who sawe thee standing at the right hand of God Marie which sought thee in earth could not touch thee Steuen touched thee because he sought thee in heauen Therefore neither on the earth nor in the earth nor after the flesh ought wee to seeke thee if we wil find thee Gregory Christ is not here by the presence of his flesh which yet is nowhere absent by the presence of his maiesty The word incarnat both remaineth departeth He departeth from his in bodie and remaineth with his in diuinitie Wee must therefore brethren follow him thither in hart whither we beleeue him to be ascended in body If the fleshe of Christ bee not in earth nor on earth as these learned Fathers teach vs howe can it be locally closed in your massing waters If his humane nature be placed in heauen at the right hand of God there to remaine till the time that all thinges be restored and from thence not from any place els shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead howe vainely doe you suppose him to bee corporally present in your pâ—xes and really lodged in your bellies Phi. His bodie wee say may be present in many places at one time Theoph. This you
Friers vnder the names of ancient and learnâ—â— Fathers Phi. Whatsoeuer he was ancient he was and taught the same doctrine without all question which we doe Theo. His antiquitie you know not and his doctrine you vnderstand not For though we like not your shuffling and exchanging of names with the fathers and broaching your fancies and heresies vnder their 〈…〉 this whâ—le sermon we can and doe admitte as hauing nothing either dissident from true antiquitie or repugnant to that which we teach Phi. Will you say that doctrine of his is not repugnant to yours Theo. Why should I not Phi. Wil you confesse that the visible creatures are turned into the substance of christs flesh by the secret power of his word The. His words I say make nothing for your abolishing the substance of bread and wine and leauing the accidents Phi. He saith the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud Theo. But he saith not the substance of the visible creatures is turned into the substance of christs flesh Phi. How can one creature bee turned into the substance of an other but by loosing his former substance Theo. In natural mutations it is so but this is nothing lesse than natural Phi. It is diuine and supernaturall Theo. And so is it likewise spirituall and mysticall not really changing the matter and substance of the elements but casting grace vnto nature Phi. Nay he saith the substance of the creatures is changed Theo. Where saith he so Phi. He saith which is al one that the visible creatures are changed into the substance of christs body The. But by no material nor corporal change Phi. How can the creatures be turned into christs substaÌ„ce but by a material corporal change Theo. That is your error not your authors addition Phi. It is not possible to be otherwise Theo. What if your own writer in this very case and place reproue you for a liar Phi. That earthly creatures shoulde be turned into Christs substance without a materiall and substantiall change Neuer say it it cannot be Theo. Will you looke but two lines farther and you shall see this great impossibilitie auouched by your own author Quomodo tibi nouum impossibile esse non debeat quod in Christi substantiam terrena mortalia conuertuntur te ipsum qui in Christo es regeneratus interroga How this to thee should neither be strange nor impossible that mortal earthly creatures are turned into Christs substance aske thy selfe which art regenerated in Christ. Somtimes since thou wast farre from life excluded from mercie and banished from the path of saluation as being inwardly dead suddenly initiated by the lawes of christ renued by the healthfull mysteries thou didst passe into the body of the church not by sight but by faith thou which wert the sonne of perdition obtainedst to be made the adopted child of god by a secret puritie remaining in the same visible measure thou grewest inuisibly without increase of quantitie being thy self the very same that thou wast before in processe of faith thou becamest another in the outward man nothing was added al changed in the inward Taking this spiritual immaterial change of euery christiaÌ„ in baptism to shew in what sort how he ment that mortal earthly creatures by consâ—â—ration are conuerted into the substance of christ which is far froÌ„ a corporal substantial change such as you would vrge by preteÌ„ce of his words in yâ— creatures of bread wine Phi. This construction cannot stand that creatures should be turned into an other substance and yet remaine in their owne and former substance For then how are they chaunged Theo. In your physical conceits it cannot but if you consult those Fathers that were the first introducers of this speeche you shall finde it may Gelasius ioyneth them both together in one sentence the one to expound the other In diuinam transeunt spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae The sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ passe into a diuine substance by the working of the holie Ghost and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature And lest you shoulde cauell that they kept their former qualities and not their substance in expresse woordes he saith tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini and yet for all they passe into a diuine substance the former substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not nor is abolished no more than the manhood of Christ was chaunged from his former substance when after his ascension it was replenished with diuine glorie Phi. You frustrate the sayings of the fathers with your comparisons Theo. They be their owne comparisons principal intentions in those places where they speake these wordes and therefore if you will rack the one to your length and not respect the other you may soone force some phrases to feede your fansies But this is not the safest way for you to walke in matters of faith nor the rightest course for you to take to come by their meaning You must looke how far they presse their own words what they would conclude not what you lâ—st to conceiue or imagine of their speaches Howsoeuer they mention a change of the bread into the diuine essence substance no father auoucheth any corporal material or substantial change of the elements into the bodie blood of Christ but a spirituall mystical and effectual annexing vniting the one to the other either paâ—t retaining the trueth of his former and proper nature and substance This is apparent by those very places sentences which you bring to prooue a chaunge the fathers teach not the one without the other as you saw for eâ—ample in Gelasius and your Eusebius and so in Cyprian Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread which the Lord gaue to his disciples chaunged not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh and lest you should dreame of any materiall or substantiall chaunge as your manner is the verie next wordes in the same sentence are Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essentia and as in the person of Christ his humanitie was seene his diuinitie was hidde and secret so in the visible sacrament the diuine essence doth infuse it selfe after an vnspeakeable manner Phi. Did you bring this place for vs or against vs you could not haue lighted on a fitter for our purpose if you shuld haue sought these seuen yeares The. I knowe it is one of your best authorities as you make your account and yet it is no way preiudiciall to vs if
depriue Princes of their Crownes and take their Scepters from them because the Apostle willed the christians to be tried rather by their brethreÌ„ than by their enemies which were Infidels Phi. In all which there is no difference betwixt kinges that bee faithfull and other Christian men who all in that they haue submitted themselues and their Scepters to the sweete yoke of Christ are subiect to discipline and to their Pastors authority no lesse than other sheepe of his fold Theo. In beleeuing the word receiuing the Sacraments and obeying the Lawes of God there is no difference betweene the Ruler and the Subiect but the temporall states and possessions of priuate men you may not meddle with by no color of ecclesiastical power or discipline much lesse may you touch the bodies or take the Crownes of Princes into your handes by your accidentall indirect authoritie which is nothing else but a sillie shift of yours to crosse the commaundements of God Phi. Though the state regiment policie and power temporall be in it selfe alwaies of distinct nature qualitie and condition from the gouernment ecclesiasticall and spirituall common wealth called the church or bodie mysticall of Christ and the Magistrate spirituall and ciuill diuerse and distinct and sometimes so farre that the one hath no dependance of the other nor subalteration to the other in respect of themselues as it is in the Churches of God residing in heathen kingdoms and was in the Apostles times vnder the Pagan Emperours yet now where the lawes of Christ are receiued and the bodies politike and mysticall the Church and ciuill state the Mâ—gistrate Ecclesiasticall and Temporall concurre in their kinds togither though euer of distinct regimentes natures and endes there is such a concurrence and subalternation betwixt both that the inferiour of the two which is the ciuill state must needs in matters pertayning any way either directly or indirectly to the honor of God and benefit of the soule be subiect to the spirituall and take direction from the same Theo. This is tossing of termes as men doe tenez-balles to make pastime with The state regiment policie and power temporall is in it selfe you saie alwaies of distinct nature qualitie and condition from the gouernment ecclesiasticall and spirituall Common-wealth called the Church or bodie mysticall of Christ. You seeke to confound that which you would seeme to distinguish and when you haue spent much breath to no ende you conclude that though the church and the Common-wealth be distinct states as you can not denie yet you will rule both by reason the Common-wealth as the inferiour of the two dependeth on the Church and hath subalternation to the church as to the superiour But Sir in plaine termes and more trueth to the Sonne of God ruling in his Church by the might of his worde and spirite all kingdomes and Princes must be subiect their swordes Scepters soules and bodies mary to the Pope attyring himselfe with the spoiles of Christ and his church no such thing is due The watch-men and sheepeheardes that serue Christ in his church haue their kinde of regiment distinct from the temporall power and state but that regiment of theirs is by counsell and perswasion not by terrour or compulsion and reacheth neither to the goods nor to the bodies of any men much lesse to the crownes and liues of Princes and therefore your shifting of wordes and shrinking from the Popes Consistorie to the Church the spirituall Common wealth the mysticall bodie of Christ and such like houering and vncertaine speaches is but a trade that you haue gotten to make the Reader beleeue wee derogate from Christ and would haue Princes superiours to the worde and Sacramentes which Christ hath left to gather and gouerne the church withall Howbeit this course is so common with you that now it doth but shame you A christian king must take direction not from the Popes person or pleasure but from the Lawes and commaundementes of Christ to whome alone hee oweth subiection And as for the Bishoppes and Pastours of his Realme whome you falsly call the spirituall Common-wealth and the mysticall bodie of Christ because they bee but partes thereof and not so much except withall they bee teachers of truth those he must and should consult in respect they be Gods messengers sent to him and his people but with great care to trie them and free libertie to refuse them if they be found not faithfull And when the Prince learning by their instruction what is acceptable to God in doctrine and discipline shall receiue and publish the same the Bishoppes themselues are bounde to obey and if they will not the Magistrate may lawfully see the rigour of his lawes executed vpon them On the other side if the Prince wil not submit himselfe to the rules and preceptes of Christ but wilfully maintaine heresie and open impietie the Bishops are without flatterie to reproue and admonish the Prince of the daunger that is imminent from God and if he persist they must cease to communicate with him in diuine prayers and mysteries but still they must serue him honour him and pray for him teaching the people to doe the like and with meekenesse induring what the wrath of the Prince shal lay on them without annoying his person resisting his power discharging his subiectes or remouing him from his throne which is your maner of censuring Princes Phi. The ciuill Gouernour is SVBIECT to the spirituall amongest christians Theo. I haue often tolde you howe The ciuill Gouernour must heare beleeue and obey the meanest seruaunt that God sendeth if hee speake no more than his Masters will That subiection Princes owe to the sender and not to the speaker But were they simplie subiect to the messengers of God as they are not will you reason thus Princes should obey the Preachers of God ergo if they doe not they may bee deposed This is the argument which wee so often haue denied why then labour you so much about the antecedent when we denie the consequent That Princes shoulde obey God and his worde is a clearer case than that they shoulde obey the Pope For of that no man doubteth and this wee not onely doubt but denie Take therefore that which is confessed on both sides and set your conclusion to it that the force of your reason may the better appeare Princes without all question are bounde to obey God ergo if they doe not their dueties to God they may be deposed by Priestes This is the sequele which we alwaies denied and this is the point which you first assumed to proue Phi. The condition of these two powers as S. Gregorie Nazianzen most excellently resâ—mbleth it is like vnto the distinct state of the same spirit and body or flesh in a man where either of them hauing their proper and peculiar operations endes and obiectes which in other natures may be seuered as in Brutes where flesh is not spirit in Angels
tooke a stocke for their father and a stone for their maker They thought they worshipped God and not the Image Philand But wee bee sure that Christ made this to bee him-selfe when hee sayde this is my body Theo. He sayd I am the doore I am the vyne and yet neither doore nor vyne are really and personally the sonne of God Philand Hee spake those things in parables and by way of resemblance this he spake in plaine trueth without all figures and therefore this must bee substantially turned into Christ though that bee not Theoph. You make your reall and corporall presence a refuge for your erroneous and absurde assertions But if that bee false as well as the rest then are you plunged ouer head and eares in the myre and sinke of sinne and heresie Phi. If God bee not in heauen wee shall neuer come there but if hee bee wee can not misse our way For hath the whole Church thinke you lyen in sinne and heresie till your newe doctrine came lately from Geneua Theo. In deede I thinke this reason is euen as good as the most of those which your friendes haue freshly sent vs from Rhemes but abuse not your selues with such stately follies GOD may well bee in heauen and is no doubt and yet you neuer come there for refusing the right way thither Philand Wee goe the same way that the whole church since Christes time went before vs. Theoph. This pride so bewitcheth you that you can not see howe farre you bee fallen from the fayth of Christes Church which was in auncient and vncorrupted ages Philand As though wee did not ioyne with them in this and all other poyntes of Religion Theoph. You ioyne with them as darke-night doeth with day-light Philand Haue wee not their full consent for those thinges which you impugne Theoph. As namely for adoration of the sacrament where you pretend the whole Church and shewe not one man that euer taught of the Sacrament that It should bee adored Philand Was not the whole Church taught to say vnto It and crie vpon It Domine non suum dignus Lorde I am not woorthie Theo. Prooue that this or any other inuocation or adoration was vsed TO IT as you say and you shall goe free for all Phi. Origen ho. 5. in diuers When thou eatest sayth hee and drinkest the body and blood of our Lorde hee entereth vnder thy roofe Thou also therefore humbling thy selfe say Lord I am not woorthy So sayde S. Chrysostome in his Masse Theoph. This they were taught to say but to what were they taught to say it Philand To the Sacrament Theo. Who sayth so besides you Phi. Origen and Saint Chrysostome Theoph. Perhaps they taught the people that kinde of prayer when they did communicate at the Lordes Table but did they teach the people to say so to the Sacrament Philand Euen thus to crie VPON IT and thus to say VNTO IT Lorde I am not woorthie Theo. We would gladly heare that of their owne mouthes wee trust not yours Philand Looke the places and you shall find it to bee as wee say Theo. We haue viewed the places and find you to be Lyars Phi. Are not those Origens words which we rehearse Theo. Origen hath the words which you cite but he teacheth not the people to direct them to the Sacrament Philand To whome then Theoph. To whome but to christ the sonne of God Phi. And he is in the sacrament Theo. Their assertions not your additions are the thinges we aske for That these and all other partes of diuine honor are due to christ no christian maie doubt but that the same maie be directed and applied to the host that is your blasphemie no father â—uer taught it Origen discussing the Centurions fact and faith telleth his audience that Christ entereth vnder the roofes of all beleeuers two waies first by his ministers then by his mysteries Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum Credentium duplici figura vel more The Lorde euen at this daie entereth the roofe of those that beleeue after two sortes or manners For when holie and acceptable pastours of the Church to GOD enter our howsen euen then and there the Lord entereth by them and be thou so affected as if thou receiuedst the Lorde himselfe An other waie is when thou receiuest that holy meate and eatest and drinkest the bodie and blood of the Lord for then the Lorde entereth thy roofe also Thou therefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and saie Lord I am not worthie that thou shouldest come vnder my roofe This must be said as well when the preacher entereth our house as when we receiue the sacrament for it is plaine by Origen that christ commeth vnder our roofe in both these cases and we are not worthie in either of them or in any other case that the sonne of God should come vnder our roofe As then it were madnes to deifie the Preacher because Christ voutsafeth to come in him and with him or to salute him with the diuine honour due to christ and to say to a mortall man Lord I am not worthy so can it be no lesse impietie to saie to the dead creatures in which or with which we receiue christ from his table Lord I am not worthie Phi. Doe you thinke that Christ is none otherwise in the Sacrament than he is in a mortall man Theo. He is more truelie reallie and naturallie in those men that be his members than he is in the elements that be vsed at his table Phi. O shamefull heresie Is anie mortall man transsubstantiated into Christ as the elements are by power of consecration Theo. That which I saie is most true men are the members of Christ bread is not Christ abideth in them and they in him in the breade he doeth not he will raise them in the last day the breade he will not they shall raigne with him for euer the breade shall not And therefore take backe your shamefull error of transsubstantiating the elements into christ since he is more really in vs than in the pixe or the chalice and yet we are not substantiallie conuerted into him Phi. I will neuer beleeue this whiles I haue a daie to liue Theo. Neither doe I meane in this place to enter that discourse yet for the confirmation of it I send you to Chrysostome Cyrill and Hilarie who will teach you so much in plaine wordes that christ is in vs reallie naturallie corporallie carnallie substantiallie which of the Sacrament you shall neuer be able to prooue For the sacrament is no part of his mysticall bodie as we are and therefore we are knit vnto him euen by the trueth of his and our nature flesh and substance as members of the same bodie to their head the Sacrament is not but onelie annexed as a signe to the heauenlie grace and vertue of Christ mightilie present and trulie entering the soule of euerie man that
hoc It is a common question what is ment by the pronoune THIS whether bread or the body of Christ Not bread for that is not the body of Christ nor yet the body of Christ for it appeareth not that there is any transubstantiation till the wordes be all pronounced To this demaund I say that by the word THIS nothing is ment but it is there put materially without anie signification at all Thus you turned and tossed the wordes of Christ so long till you brought all that the Lord did and saide at his last supper to plaine NOTHING With such vnchristian toyes were your scholes fraughted and the worlde deceiued such monsters you hatched when once you left the direction of the Scriptures and Fathers and fell to broaching your owne gesses But you must either admit our explication this breade is my body for the right ordering and perfitting of Christes wordes or else dissent from the manifest Scriptures from al the catholike Fathers and with shame enough from your owne fellowes and fansies Phi. Wee sticke not so much at the filling vp of the wordes which Christ spake as at the constering and expounding of them You delude them with tropes and significations as if Christ had beene speaking parables and not ordaining sacramentes Wee say there must be a reall truth and actiue force in them to perfourme the letter as it lieth For in Scripture so long as the letter may possibly be true we may not fly to figures Theo. In that you say right We must imbrace the sense which is occurant in the letter before all others if it agree with faith and good maners but if it crosse either of them we must beware the letter lest it kill and seeke for an other and deeper sense which must needes be figuratiue That direction S. Augustine giueth to al men when they read the Scriptures Iste omnino modus est locutionis inueniendae propriáne an figurata sit vt quicquid in sermone diuino neque ad morum honestatem nec ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest figuratum esse cognoscas This is the perfect way to discerne whether a speech be proper or figuratiue that whatsoeuer in the word of God can not be properly referred either to integritie of maners or verity of faith thou resolue thy selfe it is figuratiue Phi. That prescription is very sound but it furthereth not your figuratiue sense For the letter of these wordes which we stand for is neither against faith nor good manners Theo. The literall acception of these words as they lie this bread is my body is first impossible by your owne confession next blasphemous by the plaine leuell of our Creede and lastly barbarous by the verie touch and instinct of mans nature Phi. Charge you Christ with so manie foule ouersightes in speaking the wordes Theo. The wordes which Christ spake be gratious and religious we know but where there may be brought a double construction of them a carnall or a spirituall a literall or a SacrameÌ„tall the literall construction which you will needes defend to deface the other is we say reproued as no part of our Sauiours meaning by those three barres which we proposed Phi. You propose much but you proue litle Theo. I should proue euen as much as you do if I should proue nothing but that which I proposed shall not want proofe The first your owne friendes will helpe me to proue Your Lawe saieth Hoc tamen est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi Yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Why striue you then for that which your selues grant is not possible to be true Why forsake you the mysticall interpretation which is possible what greater vanitie can you shewe than to cleaue to that sense which you see can not stande If it be bread how can it be Christ If it be Christ how can it be bread The second is as cleare For if breade in proper and precise speech bee the flesh of Christ ergo bread is also the feede of Dauid ergo breade was fastned to the crosse for our sinnes ergo bread was buried rose the third day from death and now sitteth in heauen at the right hand of God the Father nay no questioÌ„ if bread be Christ then is bread the Sonne of God and second person in the sacred Trinitie which how wel your stomaks can digest we know not in truth our harts tremble to heare an earthly dead and corruptible creature by your literall carnall deuotion aduaunced to the Lord of life grace the maker of heauen and earth yea the liuing and euerlasting God and yet if bread be truely and properly Christ these monsterous impieties you can not auoide Thirdly what could you deuise more iniurious and odious to christian mildnesse maners than the letter of these words eate you this is my flesh drinke you this is my blood Had you bin willed in as plain termes to cruciâ—ie Christ as you bee willed to eate his fleshe you woulde not I trust haue presently banded your selues with the Iewes to put him to death but rather haue staggered at the letter and sought for some farther and other meaning Yee be now willed to eate his flesh drinke his blood which is a precept far more hainous horrible in christian behauiour and religion if you follow the letter as AusteÌ„ affirmeth It appeareth more horrible to eate mans flesh than to kill it to drinke mans blood than to shed it And againe The Capernites were more excusable that coulde not abide the wordes of Christ which they vnderstood not being in deede horrible in that they were spoken as a blessing not as a cursing They thought saith Cyrill Christ had inuited them to eate the raw flesh of a man and drinke blood which thinges be horrible to the verie eares Why then presse you the letter which is hainous forget that the speech can not be religious except it be figuratiue Uerily S. Austen concludeth the speech to be figuratiue for this only reason If the scripture seeme to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue Except ye eate the fleshe of the son of man and drinke his blood you shall haue no life in you facinus velflagitium videtur iubere Christ seemeth to command a wicked sinfull act figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion sweetly profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified wouÌ„ded for vs. If then the real eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes and actuall drinking of his blood with our lips be wicked and hainous why presse you the letter of these wordes eate you this is my body drinke you this is my blood against truth against faith against nature neither possibility nor christianity nor coÌ„mon honestie suffering your exposition to be good S.
mysterie that Christ is eaten vnder the formes of bread and wine Theo. None at all if you set your teeth and iawes on worke to eate him as the Capernites thought they should when they peruerted the wordes of Christ. Phi. They supposed they should haue seene and tasted mans flesh which is horrible Theo. Eating as I haue shewed you doth consist not in seeing or tasting but in chamming and swallowing since you therein consent with the Capernites though you could alleadge twentie diuersities betweene their maner of eating yours yet both are corporal and contrary to that doctrine which Christ deliuered in the sixt of Iohn â— For that as I haue proued was intended and referred to the soules and spirits of men not to their throats or entrals and therefore well in couering the body of Christ and deluding your senses you may differ from the Capernites but in preparing your teeth and iawes for the flesh of Christ and in drawing his wordes from their mystical and figuratiue sense you ioyne with the Capernites against all the Catholike Fathers that euer wrate in the Church of Christ. Phi. Haue we thinke you no fathers with vs as well for the literall construction of Christs wordes as for the corporal eating of his flesh in the Sacrament Corporall I call it not because we see it or tast it as we doe other meates but because we be sure it entereth our mouthes when we receiue our rightes and is really contained in our bodies Theo. You may abuse some fathers to make a shew but otherwise you haue no ground in them either of your literall vnderstanding Christs speach or corporal eating of christs â—lesh Phi. Haue we not S. Damascen S. Epiphanius Theophilact Euthymius and others earnestly presse the literal construction of christs words against your signes and figures and as for eating the flesh of Christ with our very mouthes S. Austen S. Chrysostom S. Leo S. Gregorie S. Cyril Tertullian others are resolute whoÌ„ I trust you wil not condemn for Capernites By this way the simple learne what to looke for at your hands that wil out-face so plaine a trueth Theo. He that will be good at outfacing let him studie your Testament and hee neede none other teacher but what trueth is it that we outface Phi. Neuer father you said auouched the literal sense of Christes wordes Theo. I said no ancient father of which number I do not account these late Grecians to be And therefore if they did contradict that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others did teach long before them wee would not regard them but as yet I seeâ— no such thing proued by them Phi. The proofe is easie S. Damascene rehearsing the wordes of Christ This is my body immediately addeth not a figure of my body but my body not a figure of my bloud but my bloud S. Epiphanius likewise Christ said take eate this is my body Hee saide not take eate the Image of my body And Theophilact Bread is the very bodie of our Lord and not a figure correspondent For he said not this is a figure but this is my body And so Euthymius Christ said not these are signes of my body but these are my body These be manifest places and yet such is your impudencie that you affirme no father euer vrged the literall force of Christes words And so for the corporall eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes S. Augustine saith It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in the honour of so great a Sacrament our Lordes bodie should enter into the mouth before other meates And S. Chrysostome Our mouth hath gotten no small honour receiuing our Lordes bodie And S. Gregorie The bloud of the lambe is sucked not only by the mouth of the heart but also by the mouth of the body And S. Leo That is receiued by the mouth which is beleeued by the heart And Tertullian Our flesh doth feede on the bodie and bloud of our Lord And S. Cyril It was needfull that this rude and earthly body should be recouered to immortalitie by touch tast and foode of the same kind with it selfe You aske for fathers here they be both many in number and auncient in time to discharge vs that we be no Capernites and to refell your foolish vaunt that all antiquitie were of the verie same mind that you are now It may bee you neuer heard the places before If you did not I will pardon your ignorance so you repent your rashâ—es Theo. Yeas sir I haue seene them and â—â— may bee weighed them better than euer you did And notwithstanding your magnificence it will appeare you be not free from ignorance whatsoeuer you be from impudencie Phil. I will burne my cloathes to my shirt if euer you answere them Theo. But saue your skinne from the fire though you spare not other mens blood nor bones Phi. We vse you but as heretikes should be vsed Theo. If it be heresie for vs to serue god according to the Gospel of his sonne what is it for you to serue him with your own medlees Phi. You would flie the fielde rather than your life but I must keepe you to it Theo. You runne so fast from God and your Prince that you may soone ouer-goe vs if we would flie but as yet I see no cause Damascene Theophilact and Euthymius presse the letter of christes speach not to deriue thence your carnal and guâ—tural eating of christs flesh nor to controll that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others men of farre greater learning and authoritie than these taught long before them in the church of God but to shew that bread and wine be not only tokens and bare signes of christes fleshe and bloud but also cary with them and in them the vertue power and effect of his death and passâ—on Euthymius Christ said not these be the signes of my body and bloud but these are my bodie and bloud We must therefore NOT LOOKE TO THE NATVRE of the giftes which are proposed BVT TO THE VERTVE Against them which defend that this Sacrament doth only figure not offer signifie not exhibite grace the letter may wel be forced to proue the diuine power and operation of the mysticall elemenets Against vs which hold the visible signes in substance to bee creatures in signification mysteries in operation and vertue the things themselues whose names they bearâ— this illation concludeth nothing Yet for the better explication of him selfe and others vsing the like kind of speach Theophilact addeth this worde ONLY Marke that the bread which is eaten of vs in the mysteries Non est TANTVM figuratio quaedam carnis Domini is not an only figuring of the Lords flesh but the Lords very flesh For he saide not the bread which I will giue is a figure of my flesh but is my flesh Their meaning was as we see
sacraments they bee This maketh nothing for your locall inclosing of Christ vnder accidentes neither for your corporal mingling of his flesh with your flesh which are the two points that we chiefely detest in your reall presence Thus the greatest storme from which you thought no roose could rescue vs is halfe ouerpast and no hurt done if the rest fal as faire besides vs it wil be high time for your to leaue disputing and fall to practising as the rest of your fellowes do which bee lurking at home to infuse a rebellion or stirring abroad to boile it vp to his highth Your kingdom will neuer reflorish by pen and paper you must lay more plots and make new mariages Your time is short your rage great Phi. When you be confuted by reason then beginne you to charge vs with treason but answere the places which we bring you or I will leaue you I haue somewhat else to doing Theo. I thinke it bee the truest word you spake this moneth but an answere if that be all you looke for you shall not lackâ— The fathers whom you alleage for eating the real naturall flesh of Christ drinking his blood with your mouthes throates are fowly abused their words ignorantly misconstered if not purposely peruerted Phi. Are you there at host I see by your winding you wil run to their meaning Theo. What wroÌ„g is that if by their own rules I recal you to the right conceiuing of their wordâ— Phi. If you may make rules for religion we shall haue some wise worke of it I dare vndertake Theo. If themselues made rules to direct their hearers least their words should happily be mistaken you shew both your religion wisedom in refusing the same Phi. We refuse theÌ„ not if they be theirs Theo. If they be not you may the sooner repel theÌ„ Phi. Wel then what are they The. There shal not be many of them one will serue this turne Phi. That one then what is it The. The signes haue the names of the things themselues therfore out of the places which you haue brought you may not conclude that the naturall flesh of Christ is actually eaten with teeth or his blood really drunk with your lips but rather that the visible signes elements which are corporally receiued into your mouthes stomackes haue the vertues of those thinges whose names thâ—y beare after consecration Phi. I thought we should haue some such shift but trust me this of all others is the fondest absurdest that you could make For what ground of faith shal persist vnshaken if you giue men this scope to confesse the nâ—mâ—s but not the thinges So the Iew may reply when Christ is proued to be the true Mâ—ssias that he is so called but not so in deede So any heretâ—k may delude the whole scriptures if words shal stand as empty sounds without their sense See to what miserie you be driuen whiles you withstand the blessed Sacrament how far better were you to adore the same with vs catholâ—ks than to run into such hereticall briers The. Your sumptuous exhortatioÌ„ is but a ridiculous Iudification of your selues others We do not say that in matters of doctrine words may be receiued without their natural due signification but in Sacramentes we say the signes remaining in their former substance are called by the names of the thinges themselues therfore you must take good heed that you do not rashly conclude that of the one which was spokeÌ„ of the other least you fall into that seruitude sicknes of the soule which S. Austen warned you of before Phi. Would you appoint wheÌ„ the fathers words shal be consâ—ered of the signes wâ—en of the things The. Neither we nor you themselues are the â—ittest men to limit what they spake of the signes what of the things Phi. And do they say they spake this which I alleage of the signes The. They do Phi. â—f I should stay here til that be proued I should neuer go hence Theo. The matter is not so hard to be proued as you make it For if they mainly teach that Christs flesh is not eaten with teeth not swalowed with iawes not receiued into the coÌ„passe of the belly they must eithâ—r contradict theÌ„selues which they do not or those speeches which you bring must be vnderstood of the signes called by the names of Christs flesh blood though in truth they be not those things but sacraments of them as they by their own cautions wil instruct you Phi. I can not abide this going about the bush Theo. Indeed madmeÌ„ wil through the midst though they tear their flesh to the boanes for their labor Phi. Do you think vs mad The. It is greater madnes to sâ—ea your own soules with the rigor of other mens phrases when they giue you warning to the contrary than to wound your owne bodies with the sharpnes of any thornes Phi. We presse not their speeches against their prescriptions you rather would frustrate their meaning with your figures The. Let them tell their owne tales what they teach concerning the parts of this Sacrament then it will soone be seene whether you or we peruert them There be three thinges in the bread by like proportion in the wine that may be douted of the name the substance the power operation When we see which of these three be changed and which vnchaunged the myst of error will soonâ— be scattered The name we prooue to be chaunged by the generall confession of all the fathers Our Sauiour saiâ—h Theodoret changed the names and called the signe by the name of his bodie Christ called bread his bodie saieth Tertullian The signifying elementes and the thinges signified are called by the same names saith Cyprian Before the wordes of Christ saith Ambrose that which is offered is called bread when once the words of Christ be rehearsed it is now called not bread but his bodie The bread saith Prosper is called the bodie of Christ being in trueth the Sacrament that is the sacred signe of Christes bodie Chrysostom After sanctification it is discharged from the name of bread and counted worthie to beare the name of the Lords bodie notwithstanding the nature of brâ—ad still remaine Rabanus Because bread strengthneth our bodies therefore is it â—itly termed the bodie of Christ. Bertram The signes be called the Lords body blood by reason they take the name of that thing whose sacraments they be The general rule is plainely set downe by the famous Clarke S. Austen in these wordes If Sacraments had not a certaine likenes and resemblance to the things whose sacraments they are they should be no sacraments at all And for his similitude they commonly beare the names of the things themselues As therefore the Sacrament of christs body is after a sort the bodie of christ and the sacrament of christes blood
of a corporal substaÌ„ce for your shewes without substance were not yet known but by secret efficiencie prouing the presence of the diuine vertue This common bread chaunged into flesh and blood procureth life and groweth to our bodies so by the vsuall course of these things the weakenes of our faith is succoured and â—aught by a sensible argument that the effects of eternal life is in the visible SacrameÌ„ts that we be vnitâ—â— to Christ noâ— so much by a corporal as by a spiritual transitioÌ„ Ambrose Perhaps tâ—ou wilt say I â—ee the likenes I see not the truth of blood But it hath a resemblaÌ„ce For as thou tookest a resemblance of his death so doest thou drink a resemblance of his precious blood to this end that there should be no horror of blood and yet it might worke the price of our saluation and the grace of our redemption might remaine Therfore for a similitude thou receauest the Sacrament sed ver ae naturae gratiaÌ„ virtuteÌ„que consequeris but thou obtainest therby the grace vertue of the true nature Gelasius By the sacraments which we receiue wee be made partakers of the diuine nature they truely represent to vs the vertues and effects of that Principal mysterie Hilarius These things tasted taken bring this to passe that Christ remaineth in vs this is The vertue of that table to quicken the receiuers Leo In that mystical distribution of the spirituall nourishment that is giuen this is taken that receiuing the vertue of the heauenly meate we may be chaunged into his flesh who was made flesh for vs. Chrysostom Let vs come to the spirituall dugge of this chalice and suck thence the grace of the spirit Austen The Sacrament is one thing the vertue of the Sacrament is an other thing Euery man receiueth his part whereby grace itselfe is called parts and where the Sacraments were common to all grace was not common to all which is the vertue of the Sacraments And againe The Capernites thought he would haue giuen them his body but he told them hee would ascend to heauen no doubt hee ment whole When you shall see the sonne of man ascendingâ— where hee was before surely then shal you see that he doth not giue his body that way which you imagine surely then shal you perceiue that his grace is not consumed with biting Euthymius He doth change these things vnspeakably into his very body that quickneth and into his very precious blood and into the grace of them bothâ— We must therfore not looke to the nature of the things proposed at the Lords table but vnto the vertue of them Wherefore Theodoretes wordes are most true The signes which are seene Christ did honor with the names of his body and blood not chaunging the nature or substance of them but casting grace vnto nature And so did Ambrose meane when hee sayde If there bee so great strength in the word of the Lord Iesu that all thinges beganne to bee when they were not howe much more shall it bee of force that the mysticall elementes should be the same they were before and yet bee chaunged into an other thing The same in earthly matter and substaunce which they were before chaunged in vertue power and working whereby wee see they beare not onely the names but also the fruites and effectes of those thinges whose Sacraments they bee This is their doctrine touching the visible part of this Sacrament which is seene with eyes felt with handes and â—rused with teeth of that there is no doubt but it entereth our mouthes and resteth in our bowels and that for the causes which I before rehearsed aâ—â—er consecration is euâ—ry where called by thâ—m the Lordes body but that the naturall fleshe of Christ which is thâ— other and inwarde part of the Sacrament entereth the mouth or abideth the teeth or passeth downe the throate or loâ—geth in the stomack this is a position wholy repugnant both to Fathers and Scriptures Doe you not know sayth Christ that whatsoeuer thing from without entereth into a man can not defile him because it entereth not into his heart but into the beâ—lie Then by the iudgement of our Sauiour nothing can enter â—oth the hâ—aâ—t the bâ—lly but the flesh of Chrisâ— entereth into the hâ—art ergo 〈…〉 The bellie saieth Paul is for meates meates for the bellie and God will destroy both it and them the bodie of Chrâ—st Gâ—d wâ—ll not destroy it is therefore no meate for the bellie If not for the â—â—lliâ— then not for the mouth because eueâ—ie thing that entereth the mouth goeth into the bellie and so foorth to the â—raught But so basely to thâ—nk of the flâ—sh of Christ is apparent and 〈◊〉 wickednesse eâ—go the fleshe of Christ neither fillâ—th our bellies nor â—ntâ—râ—th ouâ— moâ—â—â—â— For nothing that entereth the mouth can either defile or sanctifie Meatâ—s saith Paul whiâ—h passe by the mouth doe not commend vs vnto â—od neither doeth the kingâ—om of God which is our sanctificationâ— conâ—â—â— of mâ—ats and drinkes but Christ with his blood doeth sanctifie the people and hee that â—atâ—th my flâ—sh drinketh my blood saith â—e remaineth in mee and I in him and hath eternall life ergo neâ—ther his fleshe nor â—â—s blood enter ouâ— mâ—utheâ— To be short Christ dwelleth not in bellies by locall comprehension but in our hearts by faith his flâ—he seedeth not â—ur bodies for a tiâ—e but our soules for euer his wordes were spoken not of our mouthes which beâ—leâ—ue not â—ut of our spirites which haue no fleshe nor boanes and consequently neither teeth to grinde nor iawes to swallow but onely â—aith and vnderstanding Lette all this bee â—â—â—de if the learned and auncient Fathers doe not conclude the same Chrysostome Care not for the nourishment of the bodie but of the spirit Christ is the bread which â—eeâ—â—th not the bodie but the soule and filleth not the belly but the minde Ambrose Christ is in that sacrament because it is the bodie of Christ. It is therefore no bodily but Ghostly meate NOT THIS BREAD which entereth into the bodie but the bread of eternall life is it that vpholdeth the substaunce of our soule Cyprian As often as we doe this wee wheâ— not our teeth to bite but we breake the sanctified bread with a sincere faith Cyril Let vs therefore as our Sauiour saith labour not for the meate which goeth into the bellie but for the spirituall foode which confirmeth our harts and leadeth vs to eternall life Austen It is not lawfull to deuoure Christ with teeth Prepare not your iawes but your harts We take but a morsel our hart is replenished Therfore not that which is seen but that which is beleued doth feed Why prouidest thou thy teeth thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten Beâ—traÌ„ At
the Lords table we look not on that which is brokeÌ„ in peeces which is pressed with teeth which feedeth the body but onely that which is taken spiritually by faith Doth the meate which the faithful receiue in the church as touching that which is corporally taken that which is chammed with teeth that which is swallowed with iawes that which is closed in the compasse of the belly put vs in assurance of eternall life This way no question it feedeth our flesh which shall dy neither yeeldeth vs any kind of incorruption For this which the body receiueth is corruptible that which fayth beholdeth feedeth the soule and perfourmeth vs euerlasting life If these fathers be not able to remoue you from the corporal eating of christs flesh with teeth iawes heare in how plaine termes your own Law doth check this grossenes of yours The flesh of Christ is not incorporated with vs descendeth not into the stomacke passeth not into the nourishment of the body for it is the food of the soule not of the body And where Pope Nicholas draue Berengarius in his recantation to say that the flesh of Christ was truely chaÌ„med between the teeth of the faithful Your Gloze could forebear no longer but cried out Nisi sanè intelligas except thou take good heede to these words thou shalt fal into a greater heresie than euer Berengarius held Then blame not vs Philander for saying this your assertion is not catholike the Prouost Mareschall of your owne side not long since sayde it was hereticall Phi. Haue you done Theo. I haue if you list to begin Phi. What a stirre is here to bring beggers to the stockes al not worth a straw Theo. In deede Friers are the neerest kinsmen that beggers haue they both liue by shifting gaine by dissembling saue that Friers are alwaies within doores when beggars are without But what is it that doth so much offend you in my speech Philan. You runne along with Scriptures and Fathers as if all were yours Theophil I shew you a trueth confirmed by the Scriptures auouched by the Fathers and confessed by your owne fellowes If that displease you your mouth is out of tast Philand Haue you the trueth so hath the Diuell for you bee his members in that you bee Heretikes Theo. This is but a iades tricke when you feele the spurres to fling out behind The more you reason the more you finde that you haue runne the race of your owne deuises without the fathers and now you can not resist you fall to reuiling and cursed speaking Phi. We can with one lifte lay all your authorities in the miâ—e Theoph. Your can is great but your liquor small I dare promise for you that you will struggle what you can to bee rid of the burden Phi. With three bare words I wil answere your three parts and all your proofes Theo. They may be so bare they will doe you no good but at aduenture what are they Phi. That the signes after consecration carie the names and effectes of the things themselues I graunt it to be very true but it answereth not the places which I did obiect And as for the substance of bread remaining which sâ—me Fathers seeme to affirme wee say substance is there takâ—n not for the very substance it selfe which is really changed into the body of Christ but for some other thing Theo. What other thing Phi. Not for that which you meane Theo. Let my meaning alone and speake you to their assertion that say the breade and wine remaine after Consecration in their former and proper nature and substance Phi. Substance is there taken for nature Theo. Nature is so general that it compriseth both the substance accidents of euery thing If then the signes remaine in their former nature they must retaine both their former substance and their former accidents Phi. Their substance they doe not their qualities they doe as sight tast bignes and such like properties Theo. But the places which I cite affirme they retaine both and namely their proper and former substance Phi. That is their former qualities Theo. Doth substance signifie qualities Phi. In these places it doth Theo. Why more in these than in others Substance in all learning is diuided against accidents how then commeth substance by your learning to be taken for accidents Phi. It is so For otherwise those sayings were all one with heresie if substance should be taken in his proper signification Theo. Yea marie now you come to your right colours If the fathers words should not be violently wrested from their perpetual naturall signification you cannot possibly auoide but they taught â—hat doctrine for Catholike which you now reiect for heresie Phi. They neuer taught it The. Themselues be dead and do not speake their words in which they spake whiles they liued make as directly for vs as we can spake any vnlesse you turne all that euer they said the vpside downe and take figures for truths substance for accidents creatures for shewes teeth for faith heauen for earth Which priuilege of interpreting scriptures and fathers cleane contrarie to the sense if you can procure or iustifie I will be your suretie all the Protestants in Christendome shal neuer touch the least haire of your heads in all the follies which you defend Phi. We doe not force them against their meaning Then shew your exposition to be true by other points of their doctrine and partes of their writings which must infallibly force you to that construction Phi. So we doe Theo. With places as shamefully abused as these Phi. No by inumerable and ineuitable authorities Theo. Bring but one father that shall say the substance of bread and wine is ceased or abolished by consecration and you shall haue free leaue to doe what you will with all the rest Phi. We can bring infinite Theo. You may the sooner choose out one Philan. You would put vs to bring other proofes before you haue answered those that are alreadie produced I brought you sir fathers affirming the flâ—she and bloud of Christ were receiued with our mouthes you would leape to new matter and shake them off at your fingers end but I will none of that First make euen with the old scores before you enter on a new reckoning Theophi You were the cause of that digression and not I. You replied to my proofes and persued not your owne And yet you neede not say your places are vnanswered your selfe haue confessed the weakenes of your owne authorities yeelded them as vnsufficient to beare the weight of your conclusion what other answere would you haue Phi. Haue I dissabled mine owne proofes Theo. Your owne conclusion you haue Phi. Would you make me so madde Theo. I thinke you were more sober then than now For then you agâ—ised a trueth and now you resist it againe Phi. What did I agnise Doe you thinke I was a sleepe that I
would conâ—uâ—e my selâ—e Theo. No the clearenes of trueth was such that you could not shadowe the beames of it and therefore in a brauerie you did admit it though now you would to your owlelight againe Phi. This is counsell to me I know not what you mean Theo. Dâ—d you not confesse it to bee very true thâ—t in this sacrament the signes after consecration did carie the names and effects of the things themselues Phi. Yeas I did Theo. Recaâ—t you that Phi. I doe not Theo. Then are the places which you brought for the reâ—l eating of Christs fleshe with your mouthes and teeth returned backe without your conclusiâ—n For the signes which are called after consecration by the names of â—hrists bodie and blood do enter our mouthes and passe our throates the true flâ—sh bloud of christ do not but â—re eaten at the Lords table only of the inward maÌ„ by faithful deuâ—tion and affâ—ctiâ—n preparing the hart that Christ may lodge there dwâ—ll there where hee dâ—lightâ—th and not in the mouthes and â—awes of men which is no place for him that sitâ—eth in heauâ—n whither we must flie with the spirituall wings of our soules and spirites before we can be paâ—takers of him Phi. You shall not so delâ—de me The Rule â— granted was veâ—y true but how proue you that these speeches muâ—t be so constâ—â—ed In other cases it may be true though not in this Theo. If the Rule which I laide downe be very true then your places can inâ—erre nothing â—or so much as the wordes which you brought may be spoken as well of the signes as of the things themselues and in that case the promises receiuing a double consâ—â—uction by your own confessâ—on how can your conclusion stand goâ—d importing that sense which is not only most doubted and least proued but â—laâ—ly denied by the same fathers in other places as I haue shewed Phi. Tutâ—e I will not be mocked wiâ—h such iâ—stes you shall answer thâ—m place by place as I cite them or els I wil not speake one word more Theo. You importune mee to spende time which nowe waxeth short but it will be the worse for your selfe your egernes without trueth will be your owne discredit and the more paâ—ticularly the more plainly it will appeare Phi. I haue aduantages in their wordes against your euasion which I will not omit Theo. In Augustine Chrysostome and Tertullian you haue vtterly none Austen saith that in honour of so great a Sacrament as this is it hath pleased the holie Ghost that the sacred and sanctified bread which after a sort is called the Lords bodie though indeed it be the signe Sacrament of his bodieâ— should enter the mouth before other meats that sâ—â—ue onely to feed nourish ouâ— fleshâ— Chrysostome saith It is no small honour that our mouth hath gotten by receiuing the sanctified bread after consecration countâ—d worthy to be called the Lords body though the nature of bread still remainâ— And indeed so is it no small both comfort and honour that God hath vouâ—saâ—ed to confirme and â—eale his mercies vnto vs with these elements that are câ—nuerted into our fâ—â—sh to shew vs that we are as reallie inuâ—sted strengthned with his grace and â—rueth as our bodies are nourisâ—ed and encreased with the sâ—gnâ—s and Sacraments of his grace And to that end Tertullian saith Our flâ—sh seedeth on the bread which Christ called his bodie and hath in it the â—ffâ—cts of his body that our soules might be replenished with God Phi. These be your corrections oâ— their speaches they be not their intentions Theo. Looke better to them and you shall finde that I haue added no wordes but such as them selues in other places haue delâ—uered to declare their owne both meaning and speaking Phi. The rest doe make for vs. Theo. Cyril saith nothing but that as the soul hath faith and grace to clense it and prepare it to eternall life so it was needfull that our rude and â—arthlie bodie should be brought to immortalitie by corporal and earthlie food that our bodies touching tasting and feeding on creatures like themselues might take them as pledges of our resurrection Gregorie comparing the two Passeouers the Iewes and ours and alluding to the storie of theirs â—aith The blood of our Passeouer is sprinckled on both Posts when it is drunke not onelie with the mouth of the bodie as the cup is which after the manner of Sacramentes is the Communion of Christes bloode but also with the mouth of the hart which is the true drinking of Christes blood Phi. We will none of that by your leaue you must graunt that in strict and precise speach according to the woordes the blood of Christ is drunke by the mouth of the bodie as well as by the mouth of the soule Theophil Hath the soule a mouth in strict and precise speach or hath shee lips to drinke according to the letter Phi. Would you make me such a foole as so to thinke Theo. Then if one part of the sentence be figuratiue why not the other If that which hee doth most vrge be not literall why shal the letter be eracted in the harder and vnlikelier part of the comparison If the whole be but an allusion whie eract you that strictnes and precisenes of the speach in either part It is not possible that one and the same thing should be reallie drunke by the mouth of the bodie and the mouth of the soul. If it be corporall how can it enter the soul If it be spirituall how can it enter the mouth And if those be Gregories wordes which your ownâ— Lawe assigneth to him in the verie same homilie his exposition shaketh your real presence more than all the authorities you can bring shall settle it Quidam non improbabiliter exponunt hoc loco carnis sanguinis veritatem ipsam eorundem efficientiam id est peccatorum remissionem Some not amisse doe expound the trueth of Christes flesh and blood in this place to be the verie efficience of the same things that is the remission of sins Take this construction with you bring out of Greg. or Leo what you can it wil not help the tight of a barely corne Phi. S. Leo saith You ought so to communicate at the sacred table that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the bodie and blood of christ Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur For that is receiued with the mouth which is beleeued by our faith and in vaine doe they answer Amen which dispute against the thing that themselues receiue O noble Lion and such as all the heretikes in Europe will neuer encounter Theo. You speake like a Lion but the spite is your eares are too long to be taken for a beast of that metal You foolishly
to say is hereticall And therefore they ioyne both in this that the bodie of Christ may not only be eaten of a Mouse but also it may be vomited vppe by the mouth and purged downe by the draught say Bonauenture what he will or can in detestation of their folke These be their words Igitur corpus Christi sanguis tam diu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu species manet Et si specieâ— incorruptae euomuâ—tur illa autem qâ—andoque non corrùpta emâ—ttuâ—tur vt in habentibus fluxum ibi est vere corpus Christi Therefore the bodie and bloud of Christ remaine in the bellie anâ— stomacke or in vomite and in whatsoeuer course of nature so long as the shewes of bread and wine remaine And if they be vomited or purged before they be altered as sometimes in those that are troubled with the fluxe euen there is the true bodie of Christ. O filthie mouthes and vncleane spirites What Capernite what heretike what Infidel was euer I say not so carnall and grosse but so barbarous and brutish Is this the reuerence you giue to the sacred and glorious flesh of Christ Is this the corporal presence that you striue for Shal Mice Dogges and Swine haue eternall life that you bring them to eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of our Sauiour The rest of your sluttish diuinitie no religious hart can repeate no Christian eares can abide let your neerest frindes be iudges whether this kinde of eating doe not match not only the Capernites but also the Canibals This vile and wicked assertion you will beare men in hand you did euer detest and so think to discharge your selues but you cannot scape so The church of Rome whose factours and attournies you be must answere to God and the worlde for suffering admitting and strengthning this sacrilegious blasphemie For when these things were first broched what did she Did she controle the doers and condemne the filthines of their error Did she so much as note the men or mislike the matter No Philander she proposed the question in her sentences Quid igitur sumit mus vel quid manducat What then doth the mouse take or what doth he eate And with her colde and indifferent answer Deus nouit God knoweth she set the schoole men on work she laid vp the ashes of those mice next her altars for reliques she fauored aduanced and canonized the spredders of it Thomas of Aquin was her only Paramour Hugh of Cluince who commended a Priest for eating the sacrament which a leaper had cast vp Cum vilissimo sputo was Saincted of her she made Antonius no worse man than an Archbishoppe What Call you this the quenching or kindling the suppressing or increasing of heresies No maruaile if you recken Rebels for Martyrs your holy mother the Church of Rome hath the cunning to make saints of blasphemers Returne returne for shame to grauitie trueth and antiquitie Learne to distinguishe that which is seene in this Sacrament from that which is beleeued I meane the visible creature from the grace which is not visible HADST THOV BEENE saith Chrysostome WITHOVT A BODIE Christ WOVLD HAVE GEEVEN THEE HIS INCORPORALL GVIFTS NAKEDLY that is without any coniunction of corporall creatures BVT NOW BECAVSE THY SOVL IS COVPLED WITH A BODIE THEREFORE IN THINGS THAT BE SENSIBLE THINGS INTELLIGIBLE ARE DELIVERED THEE AS BREAD saith Cyril of this sacrament SERVETH FOR THE BODIE SO THE WORD SERVETH FOR THE SOVL. It is neither nouâ—ltie nor absurditie to say that the bread of the Lorde as touching the material substance may bee deuoured of beasts digested of men and will of it selfe in continuance mould and putrifie Such is the condition of all creatures that serue to nourish our bodies and this is a creature well knowen and familiar to our senses But the word of God which is added to the corporall elements the grace which is annexed to the visible signes and the flesh of Christ which quickneth the soul of man by faith these thinges I say be free from all violent and vndecenâ— abuses and iniuries For they be no corporall mortall nor earthlie creatures but spirituall eternall and heauenly blessings and therefore in no case subiect to the greedines of beasts vncleanes of men or weaknes of nature The element is one thing saith Ambrose the operation is an other thing That which is seene in all Sacraments is temporall that which is not seene is eternall If wee looke to the very visible thinges wherein Sacraments are ministred who is ignorant saith Austen that they be corruptible But if wee consider that which is wrought by them who doth not see that that cannot suffer any corruption Of the Lordes Supper Origen affirmeth that the bread as touching the matter or materiall partes thereof goeth into the bellie and forth by the draught but the praier and blessing which is added doeth lighten the soule according to the portion of faith The sacrament that is the sacred element is one thing saieth Rabanusâ— the power of the Sacrament is an other thing The Sacrament is receiued in at the mouth with the vertue of the Sacrament the inwarde man is filled the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the bodie by the vertue of the Sacrament wee attaine eternall life This doâ—trine your schoolemen either wilfullie reiected or foolishly peruerted to make Christ substantiallie present in your Masses and for that onely cause felâ— thâ—y to the locall shutting of him within the formes of bread and the corporall eating his flesh with their teeth Which grossenes once preuailing in your Church of Rome Thomas Alexander Antonius and the greatest Clarkes of your side were by the consequent of your reall presence forced to conâ—â—sse that the flâ—sh of Christ might be subiect to the teeth and iawes as well of beastes as of vnbeleeuers For wickednes is worse than sluttishnes and the bodies of sinnefull men God more detesteth than he doth the bowels of vnreasonable creatures Since then by the generall consent of your Church Christ doeth not refuse the bellies and intralles of faithlesse persons why say they should he not be verily contained in the capacities and inwardes of brute beastes if by mischaunce they deuoure the Sacrament This hold fast your gloze layeth hands on Si dicatur quodmus sumat corpus Christi non est magnum inconueniâ—ns cum homines sceleratissimi illud sumant If it be said that a mouse taketh the bodie of Christ it is no great inconuenience seeing most wicked men doe receiue the same and this Bonauenture setteth downe for the chiefest motiue to that vile assertion Phi. To tel you truth I like not that position Theo. So long as you defend Christs humane substance to be locally present in your host you cannot for your hart auoide it but either by mocking your sâ—lues and deluding your senses or
say but what ancient Father euer said so before you yea rather why forget you that this is often refuted by them as a leude and hereticall fansie Doeth not Sainct Augustine of purpose debate the matter and in euident termes giue this flat resolution against you Doubt not saieth hee the man Christ Iesus to bee nowe there whence he shall come to iudgement but keepe in minde and holde assured the christian confession that he rose from the dead ascended into heauen sitteth now at the right hand of his Father and from thence from no place else shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead And so shall he come by the very witnesse of Angels as he was seene to goe into heauen that is in the verie same forme substance of his fleshe the whâ—ch hee hath endued with immortalitie not bereaued of the former nature According to this forme of his manhood wee must not thinke him to bee diffunded in euerie place For we must beware that wee doe not so defende the God-head of a man that wee take from him the trueth of his body It is no good consequent that which is in God should bee euerie where as God himselfe is One person is both God and man and one Christ Iesus is both these euerie where as he is God in heauen as he is man Dout not I say that Christ our Lord is euerie where present as God but in some one place of heauen by the meanes of his true bodie And againe Let vs giue the same eare to the holy Gospell that we would to the Lord himselfe if he were present The Lord is aboue in heauen but the trueth is here which also the Lord is The body in which hee rose β can be but in one place â— his trueth is euery where dispersed Doeth not Vigilius a blessed Martyr and Bishoppe of Trident vpholde the verie same point against Eutyches and his accursed companions The fleshe of Christ sayeth hee WHEN IT WAS IN EARTH SVRELY WAS NOT IN HEAVEN AND NOWE BECAVSE IT IS IN HEAVEN CERTAINLIE IT IS NOT IN EARTH yea so farre it is from being in earth that wee looke for Christ after the flesh to come from heauen whom as hee is God the word we beleeue to be with vs in earth Then by your opinion either the worde is comprised in a place as well as the flesh of Christ or the flesh of Christ is euery where togither with the worde seeing one nature doeth not receiue in it selfe any different and contrary state Now to be contained in a place and to be present in euerie place be thinges diuerse and verie dislike and for so much as the word is euery where and the fleshe of Christ not euery where it is cleare that one and the same Christ is of both natures that is euerie where according to the nature of his diuinitie contained in a place according to the nature of his humanity This is the catholike faith and confession which the Apostles deliuered the Martyrs confirmed and the faithful persist in to this day Doth not Fulgentius handle the same question and precisely trace the steps of Sainct Augustine and Vigilius One and the same sonne of God hauing in him the trueth of the diuine and humane nature lost not the proprieties of the true Godhead and tooke also the proprieties of the true manhead one and the selfesame locall by that he tooke of man and infinite by that he had of his Father one and the verie same according to his humane substaunce absent from heauen when hee was in earth and forsaking the earth when hee ascended to heauen but according to his diuine and infinite substaunce neither leauing heauen when hee came downe from heauen neither departing from earth when hee ascended to heauen The which may bee gathered by the most certaine wordes of the Lord himselfe I ascend to my Father and your Father Howe coulde he ascende but as a locall and true man or howe can hee bee present with the faithfull but as an infinite and true God not as if the humane substance of Christ might bee euery where diffunded but because one and the same Sonne of God albeit according to the trueth of his manhead hee were then locally placed on earth yet according to his Godhead which in no wise is concluded in any place hee filled heauen and earth This true manhead of Christ which is locall as also his true Godhead which is alwayes infinite wee see taught by the Doctrine Apostolicall For that Paul might shewe the bodie of Christ as of verie man to bee contayned in a place he sayeth to the Thessalonians You turned to God from idolles to serue the liuing and true God and to looke for his Sonne from heauen declaring that hee surely shoulde corporally come from heauen whom he knewe to bee corporally raysed from the dead His conclusion is this Whereas then the fleshe of Christ is proued without question to bee contained in a place yet his Godhead is at all times euerie where by the witnesse of Paul c. These bee no wrested or maymed allegations but graue and aduised authorities of learned and auncient Fathers plainely concluding with vs against you that the fleshe of Christ is not absent onely from earth and nowe sitteth aboue at the right hande of GOD but also locally contayned in some one place of heauen by reason of the trueth of his bodie and therefore not dispersed in many places or present in euerie place as you would nowe make the world beleeue it is in your Masses Philand This was spoken of the shape but not of the substance of Christs bodie For Sainct Augustine sayeth Secundum hanc formam non est putandus vbique diffusus according to this externall shape and forme we must not thinke him euerie where diffused and yet the trueth and substaunce of his bodie may bee in many places at one time Theop. You forget that the rest say nature and substaunce as Vigilius Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae Christ is circumscribed with place by the nature of his flesh and Fulgentius Secundum humanam substantiam derelinquens terram cum ascendisset in coelum according to his humane substaunce leauing the earth when hee ascended into heauen and againe Non quia humana Christi substantia fuisset vbique diffusa not as if the humane substaunce of Christ should bee euerie where diffunded By the which it is cleare that neither the forme nor substaunce of Christes bodie can be present in many places at one time And what doeth Sainct Augustine meane by the word forme but the perfection and trueth of mans nature as Ambrose Leo Chrysostome others doe What is sayeth Ambrose in the forme of God in the nature of God I demaund sayeth Leo what is ment by this taking the
forme of a seruaunt Doubtlesse the perfection of mans nature The forme of a seruaunt is out of question the nature of a seruaunt sayeth Chrysostome Therefore Augustine him-selfe addeth this reason why Christ must not bee thought to bee euerie where present ne veritatem corporis auferamus Least wee take from him the trueth of his bodie concluding that Christ is euerie where per id quod Deus est by that nature which is God in coelo autem per id quod homo in heauen by that nature which is man Where these wordes that which is man interprete what he meane by the former speech wheÌ„ hee saide according to this forme Christ is not euerie where present But let the worde bee taken in your sense yet doth it fully confirme our assertion For humane forme and shape is inseparably ioyned to the substaunce of Christes bodie and Christes humane forme by your confession can not bee present in many places at one time ergo neither his humane substance These â—waine shape and substaunce can not bee seuered hee is no man that hath not the shape of man Now choose whether that bodie which as you say your hosts containe shall keepe the forme and shape of man or loose the nature and substaunce of Christ. For the Lord Iesus as man must haue not onely the substaunce but also the shape of a man So shall hee come as you haue seene him go to heauen that is saith Austen in the very same shape and substance of his flesh Our vile bodie saith Paul shall he change to bee fashioned like to his glorious bodie but our bodies shall then haue distinction of partes proportion of shape circumscription of place ergo the glorified body of Christ hath and must haue these very proprieties of our nature So that if his bodily shape can be but in one place his bodily substance can be in no moe Therefore saith Fulgentius Quod siverum est corpus Christi loco potest vtique contineri if Christ haue a true bodie that no doubt may be concluded in a place And Theodoret Illud enim corpus habet priorem formam figuram circumscriptionem vt semel dicam corporis substantiam that bodie which Christ caried to heauen with him hath the same forme figure circumscription at one word the same substance of a bodie which it had before Phi. S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose affirme the contrary Theo. What affirme they Phi. That one and the some bodie of Christ is euerie where present Their words are Quoniâ—m multis in locis offertur multi Christi sunt â—equaquaÌ„ sed vnus vbique est Christus hic plenus existens illic plenus vnum corpus Because we offer in many places are there many Christs no by no meanes but one Christ is euery where here whole and there whole one body And S. Chrysostom exceedingly wondring at so miraculous a presence crieth out O the strangenes of the thing O the goodnes of our God! He that sitteth aboue with his Father in heauen at the verie moment of time is handled with the fingers of all men Theo. Make you Chrysostom and Ambrose the disciples of Eutyches Phi. Make you no worse reckoning of them than I do and they shall haue their due honor Theo. I thinke them to be farre from Eutyches errour Phi. And so doe I. The. Why then alleadge you their words for that erronious position which was condemned in Eutyches Phi. I alleadge them for the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament Theo. Your reall presence and vbiquitie if you will haue Christs humane substance dispersed in many places without shape or circumscription are the verie bowels and inwardes of Eutyches heresie Phi. No Sir S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose were no heretikes Theo. In deede they were not and therefore you doe them the more wrong to wrest their speeches to make for his madnes Philand We produce them to confirme a trueth Theophil The very same trueth that the church of Christ abhorred in Eutyches Phi. What did the church abhorre Theo. Euen this which you would proue by the words of Ambrose Chrysostom â—hat the flesh of Christ after his ascension was not locall nor circumscribed within any certaine place Phi. We grant the manhood of Christ in heauen is locall and circumscribed with place that setteth vs free from Eutyches errour Theo. It doeth if you constantly keepe that point of faith and contradict it not by an other deuise Phi. We verilie beleeue and publikely professe that Christes humane nature in heauen hath quantity shape distinction of parts circumscription and all other conditions of a naturall and true body what would you more Theo. We would no more but if you fall from that are you not within the compasse of Eutyches furie Phi. We fal not from it The. Then how can Christs body in the sacrament waÌ„t all these which christiaÌ„ religion affirmeth to bee permanent perpetual in the maÌ„hood of Christ or why would you collect out of Amb. or Chry. against the very principles of faith that Christes humane fleshe is vncircumscribed and euerie where diffused Philand Wee meane that of Christes fleshe in the Sacrament not of his manhood in heauen Theophil Bee there many Christes Philand Who sayth there are you heard that euen now reproued by S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose as a wicked absurditie to say that there were many Christes And therefore they concluded there was but one Christ euerie where Theo. That one Christ hath hee many naturall and substantiall bodies Philand Why aske you those questions of vs we bee not infected with any such frensie Theo. You may the sooner answere Hath Christ two reall and naturall bodies the one in heauen the other in the Sacrament Phi. No this is all one with that Theo. That by the rules of your creede is locall and circumscribed if this bee the same howe can this bee without quantitie shape and circumscription Phi. Beleeue you not Christ when hee sayde this is my bodie Theop. Yeas veryly but you so expound his words that you subuert the whole frame of his truth and our common faith with your reall and locall presence Phi. Do we subuert the common faith with our opinion Theo. Our Christian faith is this Wee must beleeue sayeth Augustine the Sonne of God according to the substance of his Deitie to be inuisible incorporall and vncircumscribed but according to his humane nature to be visible corporall and locall You heard Vigilius the martyr say For so much as the word is euery where and the fleshe of Christ not euery where it is cleare that one and the same Christ is of two natures eueriwhere according to the nature of his Diuinity and contained in a place according to the nature of his humanitie and this sayeth hee is the catholike fayth confession which the Apostles deliuered the Martyrs confirmed
the faithfull stand in to this day This faith and confession if you infringe of violate you ioyne handes with Eutyches against the church of God and against the groundes of our common creede and this you must needes impugne if you defend the naturall body of Christ to be euery where present as you would gather out of Ambroses and Chrysostomes wordes Philand Wee say not euerie where but in the Sacrament Theoph. But their wordes are euerie where Vnus vbique est Christus one Christ is euerie where Philand That is in the Sacrament Theophil That is your additament They say generally one Christ is euerie where Phil. To say that his humane nature is euerie where without any restraint were in deede a braunch of Eutyches errour Theophil And since they say so you must either vnderstande it of his diuine nature which is rightly and truely sayde to bee euerie where present without addition or else of the spirituall and effectuall presence of his bodie which entereth the soules and strengthneth the hearts of all the faythfull by the power of his grace and trueth of his promise And either of these wayes their wordes are verie sound your locall presence no part of their speech Phi. S. Chrysostom saith Omnium manibus pertractatur he is eueÌ„ handled with al men fingers Theo. You do that father very much wrong to wrest his eloquent and figuratiue speeces to your carnall and grosse surmises The verie tenor of his wordes wil declare that hee meaneth nothing lesse than your corporal and locall touching With our bodily hands wee neither can nor doe touch Christ. S. Ambrose saith Non Corporali tactu ChristuÌ„ sed fide tangimus We touch not Christ with our fingers but with our faith And so S. Austen Ipsum iam in caelo sedentem manu contrectare non possimus sed fide contingere We cannot handle Christ with our fingers sitting now in heauen but with our faith we may In this sense Chrysostomes wordes are very true but nothing to your corporall vbiquitie of Christs flesh Phi. How shall wee know that this was his meaning finding no words of his to direct vs to that sense Theo. His speech is otherwise so false that none but Iesuits would make any doubt of it And yet the very next wordes before these are a plain admonition to the hearers what to conceiue of this such like places Annon euestigio in caelos transferris annon carnis cogitationem omnem abijâ—iens nudo animo mente pura circumspicis quae in caelo sunt Art thou not presently caried vppe to heauen Doest thou not casting all cogitation of thy fleshe aside with a pure mind and soul seuered from the bodie looke round on the things which are in heauen In this spirituall and yet hyperbolicall vehemencie he goeth on amplifieng euery poinct saying that Christ is handled with al their fingers and that in the open sight of all that stoode about concluding no corporall or locall comprehension of Christ in the Sacrament by any of these mysticall and figuratiue speaches whereof he is ful but only that grace flowing into the Sacrifice should inflame all their hearts and make them cleaner than siluer purged and tried in the fier This is the presence of Christ which Chrysostome auoucheth euen the influence of his heauenly grace that spiritual force and grace as Gregorie saith may very wel be constered to be the trueth of his bodie and bloud in the mysteries So that the same christ is euery where present not by local or corporal diffusion but by mysticall operation and one bodie is proposed to all not to â—ill their mouthes but to clense their hearts and to giue them assurance of eternall life Phi. May not the body of Christ in the sacrament bee such as wee defend though his bodie in heauen be not Theo. If the body of Christ in the sacrament be the very same that is in heauen how can it so much differ from it If it be an other how can it be his since he hath but one naturall bodie and that by no meanes capeable of such contrarieties as you imagine Phi. Is not Christ omnipotent Theo. Almightie hee is in working his will not in changing his nature Phi. Wil you limite his might Theo. The christian faith is not repugnant to his might but agreeable to his trueth which you may not subuert with a pretence of his power at your pleasures Tertullian saith very wel If in our owne presumption we abruptly vse this reasoâ— nothing is hard to God wee may faine what we list of God as though he had doone it because he could do it We must not because he can doe all things therefore beleeue he hath doone that which he hath not But we must search whether he hath doone it or no. For this respect some things may be hard vnto God himselfe to witte that which he hath not doone not because he could not doe it but because he would not Phi. Can not the power of Christ alter the nature of his manhoode Theo. Were it possible that the manhoode of Christ might be changed and altered in his essentiall proprieties which assertion the Church yet alwayes reiected as hereticall why stand you so much on this what Christ can doe when you plainly perceiue by your Creed what Christ will doe Shal his power ouerthwarte his will Or his arme disappoint his mouth We neede not dispute whether it be possible or no this sufficeth vs that the Lorde himselfe saith he will leaue the world and be no more in the worlde Whatsoeuer he can doe this we be sure he will doe his worde is trueth and his will knowen against that if you stand and oppose his power to make him a lyar assure your selues hee hath power enough to be reuenged on your obstinacie for vrging his power which is no part of your care against his wil which he hath commanded you to beleeue and obay Phi. It is you that neither beleeue his wil nor agnise his power we build our selues on both Theo. His wordes by which you gather his will you â—rame and inuert to your owne purposes and when we would reduce you from the misconstruction of his speach by the very tenor of the Christian faith you pleade his power to delude his trueth and ouerflorish a lewd heresie with a shew of his omnipotencie Phi. We do not pretend that power of God for any vntrueth Theo. If the Christian faith bee trueth you vrge his power against his trueth Phi. Go we against the Christian faith Theo. Confesse you the distinction of two natures in Christ after his ascension Phi. We do Theo. And the proprieties of either to remaine without confusion conuersion or alteration Philand What els Theophil This then is the Christian faith that hâ—th natures in Christ now doe and euer shall keepe and continue their seuerall and different proprieties without
The bread hauing the inuocation of God is nowe no common bread but an Eucharist or thankesgiuing consisting of two things a terrestriall a celestiall So Ambrose The Sacrament is not that which nature hath framed but that which blessing hath halowed They do not auouch the Sacrament to bee simply no bread they teach it to bee no naturall nor vsuall bread because the vertue power and force of Christes flesh is vnited to it and receiued with it though to sight and taâ—â— it keepe the shewe of nothing else but bread Phi. What is species panis which the Fathers speake of but the vtter appearance of bread when the substaunce is altered Theo. Doeth species signifie a â—hape without substaunce Philand It signifieth the shape and not the substaunce Theo. Euerie creature hath his substaunce ioyned with his sensible shape and forme and therefore though the one doe not signifie the other yet the one inferreth the other by the verie necessitie of nature neyther hath GOD giuen vs any perfecter triall of substaunce than by sight and sense which is sure enough because shewes without substaunce are no creatures Philand But this in the Sacrament is miraculous and that is the reason why species in the Fathers doeth signifie a shewe without substaunce or as our Schooles rather like to say for perspicuities sake accidentes without a subiect Theophil Your Schooles were perspicuous as the Lande of Aegypt was light-some when it was couered with palpable darkenesse but where doeth any Father speaking of the Saâ—rament take species for a shewe without substaunce Philand That is â—uerie where the meaning of the word when they applie it to the Sacrament Theo. How proue you that Phi. It needeth no proofe the very word doeth â—o signifie Theophil The worde species doeth no more exclude the subâ—taunce of breade and wine in the Sacrament than species humana the shew shape and forme of a man which you haue doth take from you the â—ubstance truth of mans nature Which if you thinke it doeth looke what answere you will make to him that shall aske what lieth vnder the shape of a man in you it must be the substance of a man or some worse thing And if you can keepe both the shape and substaunce of man why may not the bread and wine do the like for all the word species which is verified of men and other creatures aswel as of the bread and wine in the mysteries Phi. The comparison is not like For the bread is changed and so am not I. Theophil Doe you not often change both the inward and outward man I meane the state of body and soule Phi. I change as others doe Theo. You can be no christian if you be not changed from the state in which you were born You were born the child of Gods wrath and seruant of sinne if you be renewed and freed from that then are you wholy changed Phi. This is no substantiall change such as we affirme to be in the bread Theo. If you would proue that which you affirme you might happen to conclude that which now you can not Phi. That is soone prooued Theo. I maruell then you stay long before you doe it and faint so often when you begin it You auouch that the word species in the Fathers signifieth your shewes without substance and accidents without subiect and when the very shew of men which you beare about you conuinceth that follie you presume a substantiall change to be in the bread to helpe foorth the vse of the word which you imagine against all learning reason was their meaning For the worde species though it bee diuersely vsed among the Fathers and often iterated in this matter of the Sacrament yet shall you neuer bring vs any one place where it is taken for a shew without substance and therefore by that worde you can hardly inferre the bread to be changed in substaunce and nothing to be left besides the accidentes Sainct Ambrose sayeth it importeth as much as an euident sight and trueth Speciem pro veritate accipiendam legimus Specie inuentus vt homo Wee read this word species to bee taken for the verie trueth of a thing As Christ was found not in shew but in trueth like a man And of the Lordes cuppe Perhaps thou wilt say speciem sanguinis non video sed habet similitudinem I see not the trueth of blood but it hath the resemblance Which obiection Ambrose repeateth shortly after in these words Similitudinem video non video sanguinis veritatem I see the resemblance I see not the truth of blood Where note that species is not onely contrary to the onely likenesse and appearance of any thing but equiualent with the trueth and nature of euery thing Then are shewes without substaunce your fansies without iudgement you neuer receiued any such doctrine from the Catholike Fathers your selues haue deuised it of late since barbarisme preuailed in your Schooles and Antichrist was exalted in your churches Philand So species is nowe and then vsed but doeth that inferre that this is the generall signification of the word wheresoeuer we finde it Theo. This sufficeth to exclude your shewes without substaunce vnlesse you can bring some better inforcement than the very word which you can not And yet Sainct Ambrose giueth an other vse of the worde and that treating of the Sacramentes which vtterly subuerteth your accidental shewes Creaturae non potest esse veritas sed species quae facile soluitur at que mutatur No creature can bee said to be a trueth but a shew or appearance which is soone dissolued and abolished In this sense species is all one with any creature or substaunce which soone decaieth as euerie mortall thing doth and the learned Fathers writing of the Sacrament continually vse the worde to signifie the nature and kinde of euerie creature and not the naked shewes or accidentes Sainct Ambrose Ante benedictionem alia species nominatur before it be blessed it is called an other not shewe but kinde Grauior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The kinde or nature of Iron not the shewe of yron is weightier than the liquor of water If the word of Elias were able to fet fire from heauen non valebit Christi sermo vt species mutet elementorum shall not the word of Christ be of strength to change the kindes not the shapes of these elementes So doeth Augustine likewise Non sic habendam esse speciem benedictione consecratam quemadmodum habetur in vsu quolibet the kinde or element consecrated with blessing must not be so reckoned of as it is in common vse Idem cibus illorum qui noster sed significatione idem non specie the Fathers of the old Testament had the same food which we haue but the same in signification not in external kinde Aliud illi aliud nos sed
you suffer the father him-selfe to tell out his owne tale and bee content to heare as well the ending as the entring of it Hee saieth the bread is chaunged in nature into the flesh of Christ by the almightie power of the woorde expressing in what into what and by what the bread is chaunged moe parts you cannot make Phi. Wee need not Theo. And yet all these notwithstanding he meaneth no materiall nor corporall change of the bread or wine but that as in the person of Christ there were two distinct perfect substances vnited and ioyned the one his manhood that was seene the other his godhead that was hid euen so to the visible Sacrament persisting in his former substance doth the diuine essence infunde it selfe after a secret and vnsearchable manner proouing the presence of an heauenly vertue to bee there by the inuisible efficience Philand If you will haue the bread keepe his proper and perfect both nature and substance what change is there made in the bread Theoph. This chaunge is not the casting awaie of any thing that was in the bread either nature or substance but the casting vnto it of an heauenly and inuisible grace and so Theoâ—orete expresseth the mutation that is in this sacrament Non naturam ipsam transmutans sed naturae adiiciens gratiam Not changing or casting away nature it selfe but adding grace vnto nature And that is S. Ambrose his meaning when hee saieth Sunt quae erant in aliud commutantur The bread and wine are the verie same that they were both in nature and substance and are changed into an other thing Philand How can this be that they should be changed and yet continue the same but as wee expound it that in substance they be chaunged and yet in shew continue as they were before Theoph. This is your fansie wee know but the learned fathers by their change meane no such thing they teach not any detraction or diminution of that which was but an adiection and apposition of that which was not And therefore they witnes both as well the permanence of the elements in their former nature as their change into an other Chrysostome said as you heard before The bread sanctified is counted worthie to be called the Lordes bodie etsi natura panis in ipso permansit though the nature of bread remaine there still and Theodoret Neque enim signa illa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à sua natura those mysticall signes doe not by Consecration depart from their nature And Gelasius Non tamen desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini and yet the substance or nature of bread wine doth not cease or perish And to this verie sacrament S. Austen applâ—eth this Rule Omnis res naturam veritatem illarum rerum in se continet ex quibus conficitur Euerie thing containeth or keepeth the nature truth of those things of which it consisteth Phi. You refuâ—â— Cyprian you doe not expound him He saith the nature of the bread is changed you prooue it remaineth be not these contrarie Theo. Bâ— your exposition they are by ours they are not For the nature of bread wee say remaineth and is in nothing diminished but encreased with an heauenly vertue that is added to it And this though it be a chaunge to that which it was not yet is it no change from that which it was Philand That is properly chaunged which is altered from that it was Theo. And that is as properly saied to be chaunged which is increased with that it was not though it be not altered in substance from that it was The soule of man is often chaunged but neuer in substance The bodie from the cradle to the graue hath many increases and changes but in substance persisteth the same that it was before it came into the worlde Euerie thing that groweth keepeth that it had atchiueth that it had not and yet is that a change But what neede we other examples since the fathers themselues doe both by their words similitudes shew what changes they ment A childe is changed by baptisme not in loosing or altering the substance of bodie or soul which hee had but in attaining the grace blessing of God which he had not The Lorde himselfe is changed in person by his ascension not that the trueth shape or circumscription of his flesh are abolished but endued with immortall glory So shall he alter our vile bodies not by spoiling them of their substance but by imparting to them of his brightnes and as S. Paul writeth We shall not all sleepe but we shall be changed Phi. S. Pauls wordes are nothing to the Sacrament Theo. They are somwhat to the vse of the word which I proposed and yet Ireneus doth not sticke to resemble the change in the Sacrament to the verie hope and assurance which our bodies now haue of that glorie before they be changed or haue cast off their mortal and earthly corruption As saith he the bread which is of the earth receiuing the inuocation of god is now no common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthlie an heauenlie so our bodies receiuing the Eucharist be now not corruptible that is not wholly destinated to corruption as hauing hope of resurrection Phi. But S. Ambrose repeateth examples of corporall and substantial changes when he would proue that blessing in this sacrament ouerbeareth nature Theo. S. Ambrose doth not say that the bread is changed after the same manner but meaning to shew that praier and benediction worketh where nature cannot yea many times altereth nature hee bringeth seauen examples whereof fiue are no substantial changes in the end concludeth that if the praiers speech of meÌ„ could turn alter things aboue against nature much more can the word of christ bring to passe that the elements shal bee that they were yet be changed into that they were not and which by nature they are not Phi. He hath no such wordes in that chapter Theo. His conclusion there is this Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant The worde of Christ who could of nothing make that which was not can hee not change those things which are into that which before they were not And in the next booke intitled De Sacramentis assuming the same matter and producing almost all the same examples and arguments he resolueth in these wordes Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu vt inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur If there bee such force in the worde of the Lord Iesu that the things which were not at his worde beganne to be how much
himself is neither of a diuine substance only nor of an humane only There is then as wel in the high Priest as in the sacrifice an heauenly substance there is also an earthly substanceâ— The earthly substance in theÌ„ both is that which may corporally locally be seen The heauenly in them both is the inuisile word which in the beginning was God with God The Church of England euen to the conquest held the same Doctrine and taught it to the people of this Land in their publike homilies which are yet to be seene of good record in the Saxon tongue The sermon then read on Easter day throughout their Churches is a manifest declaration of that which I say where amongst others these words are occurrent The holy font water that is called the welspring of life is like in shape to other waters and is subiect to corruption but the holy Ghosts might commeth to the corruptible water through the Priests blessing and it can after wash the bodie and soul from all sinne through Ghostly might Beholde now we see two things in this one creature After true nature that water is corruptible water and after Ghostly mystery hath hallowing might So also if we behold that holie housell after bodily vnderstanding then see we that it is a creature corruptible mutable if we acknowledge therein ghostly might theÌ„ vnderstaÌ„d we that life is therein and that it giueth immortalitie to them that eate it with beliefe Much is betwixt the inuisible might of the holy housel the visible shape of his proper nature It is naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine and is by might of Gods word truly Christes bodie and his bloud not so notwithstanding bodily but Ghostly Much is betwixt the bodie Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housell The body truely that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud with bone with skinne and with sinewes in humane limmes with a reasonable soul liuing and his Ghostly body which wee call the housell is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without limme without soul. And therefore nothing is to be vnderstood therein bodily but al is Ghostly to be vnderstood Phi. What care we for your Saxon recordes Theo. Lesse care we for your Romish Monckish recordes so lately and grossely forged as we haue proued yet this to your inward grief you may now see shal an other day to your vtter confusion feele that your nouelties touching the Sacrament were neuer hard of in the Church of England nor in the Church of Christ til Lancfrancus Anselmus other Italians a thowsand yeres after christ came in with their AntichristiaÌ„ deuises and inuentions expounding Species and forma panis for the qualities accidents of bread without any subiect or substance which once taking place you fel amaine both to sacrilegious sophismes against trueth and rebellious practises against Princes ceased not til you brought them to their hight in your late Laterane Councell vnder Innocentius the third 1215 yeares after Christ. This is your Catholicisme that you so much vaunt of which the Christian world was vtterly ignorant of for almost a thousand yeares and to the which you would now reduce the simple with a shew of holines pretending greate grauitie and admirable antiquitie with bolde faces and eger speaches though you be void of both if you were well examined Phi. Were the doctrine of elder ages in some doubt which we knowe to be fully for vs yet you confesse these last fiue hundreth yeares are cleare on our side Theo. The miter and Scepter were yours the mysterie of iniquiiie working as was foretold and infecting the West Church with hypocrisie and heresie as fast as the Turke oppressed the East with rage tyrannie Yet in euerie of these last most corrupted ages God raised a number of innocent and simple men with the confession of their mouthes and expence of their liues to witnesse his trueth against the pride and fury of their aduersaries whome your holie father hanged burned and otherwise murdered for repining at his proceedings that whome with honour and ease he could not allure at lest he might quaile with terror and torment Phi. Shoulde wee leaue the fellowship of holie Popes famous Prelates mighty Princes learned and Religious Moncks and Friers yea Saints and ioyne our selues to a fewe condemned and infamous heretikes as you doe Theo. That which is pretious and admirable before men may be odious detestable before God The dignities of men cannot deface the truth of Christ the higher their states the greater their falles if they did oppose themselues against the highest Phi. You say they did Theo. I doe not but this I say that if the respect of their externall and temporall glorie be the ground of your conscience you haue a wicked affection as well as Religion To follow men against God is to magnifie them afore God Phi. You condemne them for cast-awaies Theo. I am not their iudge He that made them might be mercifull to them amiddest the defects and dangers of those daies as he hath been to some in all ages and places yet that is no safetie for you to defend their open errors and wilfully to continue their wickednes Phi. Were not our fathers religious and holy men Theo. Iustifie not your fathers against God lest their mouthes condemne you for a pernicious ofsprng God will be glorified when he iudgeth say you and your fattherâ— what you can to the contrary Reprooue not the sharpnes of his iustice which he neuer sheweth but for great and vrgent cause submit your selues rather and acknowledge it is his vndeserued and yet not vnwoonted mercie that you be not consumed as your fathers were before you but haue yet time and warning to repâ—nt Phi. And are you such Saints that you â—eede no repentance Theo. Wee desire to liue no longer than we confâ—sse before heauen and earth that as God hath beene righteous in reuenging the sinnes and iniquities of our fathers by taking his trueth from them and leauing them to the power of darkenes and kingdome of Antichrist so he might most iustly for our vngodlines vnthankfulnes haue wrapped vs in the same confusion and destruction saue that of his infinite and vnspeakeable mercy he woulde haue his Gospell preached afresh for a witnes to all Nations before he come to iudgement to make all men inexcusable that haue either not beleeued or not obeyed the truth And this causeth vs not onely with all that is within vs to giue glorie to his name for so great a blessing but to beseech him that though we be lighted on the ends of the world when charitie waxeth cold and faith is skant found on the face of the earth we may not be caried away with the error of the wicked to perdition especially not to followe the way of Cain that
word as by his sacrameÌ„ts * Hier. in Psal. 147. The flesh of Christ is eateÌ„ more truely in his worde than in the sacraments * De Cons. dist 2. § vt quid paras August de ciui 〈◊〉 21. ca. 25. No such words are found in Chrysostoms Liturgie The woordes may be there yet not spoken to the sacrament a Pag. 21. l. n. 12 pag. 463. lin 11. b Pa. 452. li. 30. The Iesuites bid vs see the fathers but they doe not tell vs what we shall finde there It is not enough to will vs to see the fathers they must saie to what end they alledge them Chrysostome praieth to Christ in heauen not to the sacrameÌ„t * Liturg Chrys. Ibidem He woulde haue Christ behold the people from heauen not from the sacrament Mat. 18. Mat. 28. How Christ is present with vs. August in Iohan tract 50. His diuinitie is present with vs. Idem Ibidem His humanity present with vs manie waies though not in substance The Rhe. test pag. 453. The auncient Church did exactlie distinguish the sacrament from Christ. a De Catech. rudibus cap. 26. b De Baptis lib. 3. cap. 10. c Ambr. de Sacrament li. 4. cap. 3. d Orig. in 15. Matt. The whole Church cried on the people to lift vp their harts e Concil Nice * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in as well as on f August in Iohan tract 50. Christ is both seene and touched by faith g Ambr. in Luc. li. 6. ca. 8. de filia princ Synag vesiâ—â—ci h Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. * Ibidem Christ is on the table because his death is solemnized in the mysteries on the table i Colos. 3. k Phil. 3. Theod. dial 2. Not one of the fathers which they bring speaketh of the externall sacrament saue onelie Theodoret The mysticall signes must be adored but not with diuine honor These men caÌ„ plaie with shadowes verie pretilie The mysticall tokens remaining in their former substance must be adored Theod. Dial. 2. If they will adore the substance of breade Theodorets wordes will helpe them forward but not otherwise Adored is sometimes as much as â—eueâ—enced De cons. dist 3. § venerabiles in glossa ¶ cultu The Iesuits authorities for adoration of the Sacrament prooue no such thingâ— The reall presence This is my bodie doth not infer the reall presence Not the words but the exposition of the wordes is the thing that we striue for The Iesuites maie soone bring a thousand authorities for this point and not one to the purpose The papists in this question thinke to conquere with number if not with strength of places The papists beap vp places for their reall presence by hundreths not one to the purpose It were more wisdome for them to vndeâ—staÌ„d what they alledge than to alledge they know not what We striue not for Christs presence in the mysteries but for the manner of his presence The presence which the Iesuits hold the fathers neuer heaâ—d of Garetius Vernierus and the rest if a father do but name the body of Christ bring him in by and by for a witnes on their side and then they muster them by hundreths * You turne all fâ—â—m the thing themselues to the signes that is the cause of your error a Psalm 64. b Ierem. 18. Wisd. 1. These â—wo rules must be obserued in reading the fathers touching this matter els we shall infinitely erre To mistake the signes for the thinges themselues must needes bread a monsterous error Aâ—l their allegaâ—â—ns are answered with theâ—e two obseruations The literall prâ—ssing of those wordes is the gâ—ound of alâ— their error Christ did make the bread a God but added grace to the signe that it might becom a sacrament If bread be not made the sonne oâ— God then sure the bread is not made Christ. If the breade be Christ it must needs be made Christ for before it was not Christ. Christ doth not saie this is chaunged for or with my bodie but this is my bodie If the breade be Christ ergo it is God for he is God THIS in Christs words must needes note somewhat This must bee this somwhat and not this nothing The Iesuits be loath to tell vs what is meÌ„t by this in the wordes of Christ. This indeede is the right literall sense of our sauiours wordes and since that is apparently false the figuratiue sense must take place Matth. 26. The connexion of the gospell reâ—erreth THIS to the bread in the wordes of Christ. THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore must be guided by the circumstances of the text a 1. Cor. 11. b 1. Cor. 10. a 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul in plaine speach ioynethâ— THIS to the bread Al the fathers referre THIS to the bread c Iust. Apol. 2. d Tertul. aduer Iedaeos e Idem li. 4. contra MarcioneÌ„ f De cons. dist 2. § qui maÌ„ducas g Cypr. de vnctio Chrismat h Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. i Idem li. 4. c. 57 k Hier. ad Hedibiam quaest 2. l Athan in 1. Cor. cap. 11. m Epiph. in Anchorato n Cyril catechis mystag 4. o Theod. â—ial â— The Iesuites loose all hope of their transsubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ if THIS in the wordes of Christ do not note the bread p De canâ— disâ— 2. § ante benedictioâ—eâ— Glâ—ssa ibidem q Gerson contr Floretum li. 4. r Gard. contra diabolic sophist s In his Marc. Antoni Consr. t Occam in 4. sâ—ntent dist 13. u De cons. dist 2. § timâ—rem Glossa ibidem Then haue the Iesuits small hold in the literall sense of Christs words for their transsubstantiatioÌ„ That this is the right purport of Christs words it cannot be doubted So long as the letter is true we maie not flie to figures but if that be false we kill our soules except we â—lie to figures * Aug. de dâ—â—tr Christiana lib. 3 cap. 10. When the speach must be figuratiue The literall coherence of these wordes this bread is my bodie is impossible blasphemous and barbarous To reprooue the misconsterer is to reuerence the speaker z De cons. dist 2. § panis est in Altari Glossa ibidem Not possible by their owne confession that breade should be the bodie of Christ. To saie that bread is christ in proper speach is horrible blasphemie To eate flesh in proper speach is against nature and far from all pietie a August contra aduers. legis Propheta lib. 2. cap. 9. b Idem contra eundem lib. 1. cap. 14. c Cyril in Iohan. lib. 4. cap. 22. d August de doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. To eate flesh is an hainous act ergo Christs words are figuratiue This is S. Austens reason if the Iesuites can reâ—ure him let them Where Christ said this bread is my bodie the Iesuits say this must be no bread before it can be my bodie It is as great blasphemie for the bread to be turned into Christ as to be Christ.
forge their corporall eating with teeth or ioine arme in arme with the Capernites Then you differ from the Capernites in seeing but not in eating the flesh of Christ. Whether a man maie not carnallie eate that which he neither seeth nor tasteth let the Iesuits consult the Cookes o Athan. in illud quicunque dixeris verbum in filium hominis p Chrysâ—n IohaÌ„ homil 45. q Orig. in Leuit. hom 7. Theophi in 6. Iohannis r Cypr. de caena Domini s August in psalm 98. t Oecume in 6â— Iohannis u Beda in 6. Iohannis If Christ meÌ„t the soule of man should eat his flesh by faith they be capernites that bring their mouthes to eate it though they neither see it nor tast it There may be manie differences in eating but al eating the flesh of christ with teeth iawes is Caperniticall * Not one that is auncient * For that you misconster some that be auncient but their true meaning is against it * Mo Saintes than euer were in the Kalendar Four late grecians vrge the letter but to no such end as the Iesuits doe Damasâ—ib 4. cap. 14. Niceâ— Synod 2. actio 6. Theophil in 26. Matth. Euthymius in Matth. cap. 64. Aug. â—pist 118. Chrysost. homil 29. in 2. Cor. De cons. dist 2. § quid sit Leo. serm 6. de ieâ—â—io 7. meÌ„sis Tertul. de resurrect carnis Cyril lib. 4. cap. 14. in Iohanâ— It may be you neuer vnderstood them * It is no sâ—ame for vs to suffer as Christ did nor glorie for you to doe as Iudas did The meaning of Damascen and others after him in pressing the letter Euthymius in Matth. cap. 64. He vrgeth the wordes lest the signes should seeme to be without vertue Theophil in 6. Iohannis Not a figure onely that is not an idle signe without fruite and effect No figures of thinges to come All figures abolished by the comming of Christ in flesh The defeÌ„ders of Images would not haue the sacramenâ— called an Image of Christ. * Extat in 2. Synod Nicen. actio 6. The cause whie the Gretians pressed the letter is nothing neere the Iesuites real presence Damasce lib. 4. cap. 14. This Epiphanius was as earnest for painted and carued Images as the elder was against them * Nicen Synod 2. actio 6. * This Epiphanius might haue beene a Iesuit for his lustie craking a Chrysost. in Matt. hom 83 b Idem hom 17. in epist. ad Heb. c Gelas. consra Eutichen d Theod. dial 2. Dyonis ecclesiast hierach cap 3. Nazâ—anz in Apologâ—â—â—â— â— Apostâ—l consâ—â—â— li. 6. ca. 3. Macar hâ— 27. Amâ—râ—s dâ—nâ—fâ—â—ie E. 1. ca. 48. k August oâ—â—ogintarum quaeâ—ionum cap. 61. The sacrameÌ„t is an Image of Christes death and passion l De cons. dist 2. § Sacrifiâ—ium Sigebert in an 885. Regino li. 2. an 868. Chrono Canâ—â—â— If these Grecians had beene of the Iesuits opinion the matter had not beene great but now they are not How the late Grecians that presse the letter may be vnderstood The Iesuites trust more to their practises then to their authorities otherwise their holde were verie slender The fathers abused thâ—t are allâ—adged for the â—eâ— eating the fleâ—h of christ with teeth and â—aweâ— The rule in interprâ—teth al the fathers that seeme to say the fleshe of Christ is eaten with our mouths This Rule for the signes to beare the names of the things themselues is proper to Sacraments Their owne rules in all reason are to limite their own speech This must be vndeâ—stood of the sâ—gnes not of tâ—e things themselues oâ— els there is a contâ—adiction in the â—athers Three things that may be doubted of in the sacrameÌ„t The names of the elements changed after conâ—ecration a Theod. dial 1. b Tertul. aduer Iâ—daeos c Cypr. de vnct Chrismatis d Ambr. de Sacramentis lib. 5. cap 4. e De consecrat dâ—st 2 ¶ hoc est quod f Chrysost. ad Caesar. Mâ—nâ—â—l g Rolaâ— de Ins. clâ—riâ— lib. 1. cap. 31. h Bâ—rtram de corp saâ—g Dom. i August ad Boniâ—ac episâ— 23. Can there be a plainer rule to keepe vs fâ—om rasâ— mistaâ—ing the fathers k Contra Adimant cap. 12. The fathers after consecration neuer called the bread by anie other name thaÌ„ the body of Christ though the substance of bread still remained The bread remaineth after consecration in his proper and former natuâ—e and SVBSTANCE l Gelas. contra Eutichen m Theod. dial 2. n Ambros. de sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 3. o Iâ—en li. 4 c. 32. p Et cap 34. q Origen in 15. Matth. r Epipha in Anchoraâ—o s Cypr. de Caenae Domini t Chrysost. ad Cesâ—r Monach. u Aug. serm ad infantes x Idem de doctr Christ. li. 3. ca. 5. y Extat in 2. Synod Nicen. actio 6. z Bertram de corp sanguine We our selues can speake no plainer words than the fathers did before vs against the Iesuits error The power operation of the signes Their power and operation chaunged causeth the change of their names though their substance remaine a Cypr. de vnctio Chrismâ—â— c Ambr. de sacramentis lib. 6 cap. 1. d Ibidem li. 4. cap. 4. e Ibidem lib. 6. cap. 1. f Celâ—s contra Eâ—tichen g Hilar. de Triâ—it lib. 8. h Idem in psal 127. i Leo de cons. disâ— 2. â— in quibus k 〈◊〉 hom 83. in Mâ—â—â—h l August traâ—t in â—â—â—an 26. m Iâ—em de cons. dist 2. § qui manducat n Idem in psal 77. o Idem tâ—act in Iohan. 27. p Euthym. in Maâ—â— cap 64. We must not looke to the substance of the signes but vnto the vertue of them q The â—d dial 2. r Ambros. de sacraâ—enâ—is â—ib 4. cap. 4. The naturall and true flesh of Christ is eaten with teeth s Mark 7. Nothing can enter both tâ—e hart and the bellie t Cor. 6. u Mat. 15. x Mark 7. 1. Cor. 8. Rom 17. a Heb. 13. b Ioâ— 6. c Ephes. 3. d Châ—â—sost hom 43. in loâ—n e Idem ex variis 〈◊〉 in Mat 9. f Ambros. de ijs qui â—â—steriis 〈◊〉 g De consecrat 〈◊〉 2 â— non esâ—aâ—is h Cyprian de Caena Doâ—â— i Cyril lib. 3. in Iâ—han cap. 28. k Augâ—le cons. dist 2. § verum sub sigma b Idem de verbis Domini in Eâ—â—â—g Lâ—câ—â— sermo 33. m Idem tract in Iohan. 25. n Bertram de corp sanguine Domini Christ is pressed with teeth swallowed with iawes or receiued into the belly Their owne law deâ—esteth it for an heresie o De cons. dist 2. ¶ non isle panis ¶ â—ribus gradibus Glossa ibidem p De cons. dist 2. ¶ ego Berenganius Glossa ibidem You must not onely answer but your answers must be sound and good A man may better take hot for cold and â—ower for sweet thaÌ„ substance for accidentes * And so chalk doth signifie cheese * First their wordes bee plaine and their