and then vttered the wordes of drinking the fruit of the vine For the papists would gladly haue Saint Luke to tell the storie out of order and that Christ spoke these wordes before the deliuerie of the sacrament that is before the consecration of the cuppe which Saint Crysostome and other fathers doe denie Saint Cyprian hath these words Dico vobis non bibam amodò ex ista creatura vitis vsque in diem illum quo vobiscum bibam nouum vinum in regno patris mei Qua in parte inuenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit I say to you I will not drinke henceforth of this creature of the vine vntill that day in which I wil drinke new wine with you in the kingdome of my father Wherein we find that the cup was mingled with our Lord offered and that it was wine which he called his body Out of these words I note first that Saint Luke spoke of the consecrate cup when hee tearmed it the fruit of the vine as is proued already out of Saint Clement and S. Chrysostome I note secondly that the consecrate cup contained naturall wine and not Christs corporall bloud indeed This testimonie doth conuince and so effectually confuteth transubstantiation and the popish reall presence as if S. Cyprian were this day liuing and knew the blasphemous doctrine of the papists yet coulde hee not decide more plainely the controuersie betweene them and vs. Yea this testimonie of saint Cyprian may bee a generall rule for vs as well to expounde himselfe in other places as also the rest of the holy fathers For when they tearme the holy communion or Eucharist Christs bodie and blood the bloud that issued out of his side the body that was nayled on the crosse the flesh that was borne of the virgin the price of our redemption all this is truely saide in their godly meaning that is to say all this is truely verified sacramentally mystically spiritually but not corporally as the Papistes teach For all the Fathers admitte this doctrine of Saint Cyprian that euen after consecration remayneth still the true nature of bread and wine Sixtly Tertullian being consonant to the other fathers hath these wordes Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non potest Hee made that bread which hee tooke and gaue to his disciples to bee his bodie saying this is my body that is to say the figure of my bodie and there shoulde not haue beene a figure vnlesse there had been a true body indeed for a vain thing which is but a falâ—â— imagination cannot receiue a figure Out of these wordes I note first that y â— which Christ gaue to his disciples was bread I note secondly that it was the figure of his body I note thirdly that to be Christes body as Christ himselfe and the fathers speake is nothing els but to be the figure or signe of his body For so doth this learned father declare the very phrase I note fourthly that the thing figured is much different from the figure and consequently that Christes body cannot be the figure of it selfe Seuenthly S. Theodoret hath these words Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationeÌ„ recedunt à sua natura Manent enim in priore substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius The mysticall signes after the sanctification depart not froÌ„ their nature but they abide in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seen and touched euen as before Out of these most golden wordes of this auncient and learned father I note first that hee writeth against certaine heretickes who held that Christes body was chaunged into his deitie after his ascension And they prooued it because as the bread and wine after consecration were changed into the body and bloud of Christ euen so was his body changed into his deitie after his ascension This note is plainly set downe in the wordes aforegoing I note secondly that S. Theodoret confuteth the heretickes euen by their own reason For the mysticall signes saith hee remaine still in their former substance and nature euen after the sanctification therof As if he had said ye lay not a good foundation your supposall is false ye take that as graunted which is flatly denied For although the creatures of bread and wine be sanctified by Gods word and accidentally changed into the mysticall signes of his body and bloud yet doe they still retaine their former nature and substance yet doe they still remaine truely bread and truely wine I note thirdly that though the bread and wine haue gotten by sanctification a new diuine qualitie yet haue they lost nothing that they had before for they haue the same nature the same substance the same figure the same forme they may be seene tasted and touched euen as they might before All the papistes in Europe cannot answere this reason For Theodoret prooueth against the heretickes that as bread and wine are as truly bread and truely wine after consecration as they were before consecration euen so is Christes body as truely a body now after his ascension as it was afore heere on earth So as the papistes cannot now say that the bread and wine haue lost their true natures in y e eucharist vnlesse they wil also say y t Christ hath lost y e nature of a true body now in heaueÌ„ Eightly S. Austen a worthy pillar of Christes Church as the papistes themselues doe graunt hath these wordes Nisi manducaueritis inquit carnem filij hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni domini esse communicandum suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa vulnerata sit Vnlesse saith Christ ye shall eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you Hee seemeth by these wordes to commaund to doe an heinous offence It is therefore a figure commanding vs to be partakers of Christes passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our mindes that his flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes In another place hee hath these words Cum videritis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certe vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus When yee shall see the sonne of man ascending thither where hee was before then doubtlesse shall ye see that hee giueth not his body in such sorte as ye imagine then
and that it is truely receiued by faith and spirite according to this doctrine of our maister Christ. The wordes that I spake vnto you are spirite and life Seuenthly he telleth vs that as Christ is on earth still according to his deitie so is he in heauen til the daie of doome according to his humanitie And that as he is present in his god-head till that time so is hee absent in his manhood For saith S. Austen touching the presence of his fleshe hee was but a fewe daies on earth Yea say the papistes S. Austen lieth and when he thus wrote he was a sleepe and so were the rest of the fathers that hold as he doth We affirme without scriptures fathers rime and reason that hee is carnally present at the priestes appointment in ten thousand pixes at once More absurdly then this we say that a mouse can catch Christes carnall body carry it away into an hole and there deuoure it with her teeth Of which blasphemous doctrine the great papist Petrus Lombard surnamed their master of sentences knoweth not what to say or thinke but being at his wits end what answere to make thus answereth the question without answere for his answere is answerelesse in these wordes Quid ergo sumit mus vel quid manducat Deus nouit hoc What therefore doth a mouse take when shee catcheth the reserued hoast or what doth she eate God knoweth this Lo is not this a graue answere of the grauest father amongst our popish doctors He is tearmed the master of sentences and his bookes are publikely read in their schooles of diuinitie and so of the next authoritie to the holy scriptures And for al this so doubtfull and vncertaine is their faith that when a mouse catcheth their accidents without subiects he knoweth not in the world what is become of their carnall reall presence Eeightly he telleth vs that the sacrament of Christs body is not his body properly but after a sort and that sort he affirmeth to be this to wit as the sacrament of faith is faith Now euerie childe knoweth that baptisme or the sacrament of faith is not faith properly but improperly figuratiuely and by way of signification onely Ninthly Saint Ambrose whom â—he papists thinke to make wholy for their side hath these expresse words Si 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 be so great power in the word of our Lord Iesus that things beganne to be which were not how much more is it workefull that things bee which were and bee changed into another thing In these words Saint Ambrose declareth the creatures of bread and wine to remaine still in their proper nature and substaunce and withall to bee changed into another thing that is to say into the sacraments of Christs true body and bloud To this our Iesuite Bellarmine answereth in these words Non dixit vt sint id quod erant tunc enim panis manere deberet sed vt sint quae erant id est nâ—n annihilentur sed maneant quamuis mutata Hee saide not that they may bee that which they were for then the bread ought to remaine indeede but that they may stil be which were before that is that they bee not annihilated but abide still though changed To this answere of our Iesuite I say first that Saint Ambrose meaneth no other thing then did Saint Austâ—n when he called baptisme the sacrament of faith For the omnipotencie of Christs word is required of them both in both sacraments And as the water is changed into another thing that is to be a sacrament and â—eaâ—e of Gods fauor which before was but common water euen so bread is chaunged into another thing that is to be the sacrament of Christs body which was before but common bread I say secondly that as a married man is by matrimonie chaâ—ged into another thing and yet keepeth still the nature of a man and as a Bishop by orders is altered into another thing and yet keepeth still his former substance euen so the bread in the Eucharist is changed mystically and still remaineth true bread This is a good argument against the papists who defend matrimonie and orders to be two holy sacraments I say thirdly that if aliud must needes signifie an essentiall change as master Harding our Iesuite and the rest will haue it to doe then either married men haue gotten nothing by their matrimoniall contractes nor Bishoppes by their consecrations or at least all married men and Bishops haue lost the natures of men and are changed into another substance But as the Logicians tel vs these three transcendents ens res aliquid may bee affirmed of whatsoeuer is and for the order of Bishops the papists tell vs that it imprinteth an indeleble character touching matrimonie Christ himselfe telleth vs that it is an indissoluble band Touching the persons themselues experience telleth vs that they are still as truâ—ly men as they were before and consequently the word aliud may as well signifie an accidentall alteration as an essentiall transmutation I say fourthly that euerie thing is truely denominate of it essentiall forme and therefore if the substance and essentiall partes of bread and wine bee cleane gone and the externall accidents thereof onely remaine as Bellarmine woulde gladly glosse Saint Ambrose then doubtlesse may wee truely say that they are gone which were before not that they still remaine vnlesse perhappes the papists will say that the horse remaineth when nothing is left but his skin and that a man liueth after he be dead For in both more remaineth then of their wine and bread I say fiftly that by Bellarmines answere if himselfe were changed into the essentiall nature of an asse and kept still the externall figure of a man yet shoulde hee still be as truely Bellarmine as he was before and so Iesuits may be both Asses and men at once a priuiledge granted to all others of their crew The first obiection S. Austen alluding to the facts and wordes of Dauid by which Christ was prefigured writeth in this maner Manibus aliorum potest portarâ— homo manibus suis nemo portatur quomodo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundum literam non inuenimus in Christo autem inuenimus Ferebatur enim Christus in manibâ—suâ—s quando coÌ„mendans ipsum corpus suum ait Hoc est corpus meum Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis ipsa est humilitas Dom. nostri Iesu Christi A man may bee carried in the hands of others but no man is carried in his own hands How this may be vnderstoode in Dauid literally we doe not finde but in Christ wee doe it finde For Christ was borne in his owne hands when he commended his owne bodie and saide This is my body For he helde
that body in his handes such is the humilitie of our Lord Iesus Christ. Thus saith Saint Austen By whose words it is euident that that which Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples was his true reall naturall body euen that which was borne of the virgin Mary For first he telleth vs that Christ did that which Dauid could not do to wit that he did beare himselfe in his own hands Secondly he saith that this was done literally euen as the words do sound Thirdly he coÌ„mendeth Christs great humility in that fact Now it is cleare y t if this could be vnderstood figuratiuely it might be well verified in Dauid for Dauid might haue born the picture figure or image of his owne body in his hands yea this he might haue done literally haue shewed no humilitie therin But Christ did so beare himselfe in his owne hands saith saint Austen as no man can do the like This reason is inuincible all protestants in the world cannot answere the same The answere I say first that this reason seemeth indeede to be inuincible and so my selfe haue sometime thought I say secondly that if S. Austen should so meane as you gather of these words he should contradict himself in many other places as is already proued and consequently his authoritie should be of no force in this behalfe I say thirdly that Saint Austen doth a little after expound his owne meaning in these expresse words Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum sanguinem suum accepit in manus suas quod 〈◊〉 fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est corpus meuÌ„ And he was borne in his hands How was he borne in his hands because when he commended his owne body and his blood hee tooke into his hands that the faithful know and he bare himselfe after a sort when he saide This is my body Where I wish the Reader to marke well the worde quadammodo after a sorte for Christ had his true reall and natural bodie in his handes after a sort that is sacramentally when he said This is my body He had his 〈◊〉 body in his hands but it was after a sort not simplie but sacramentally not naturally but mystically not carnally I say fourthly that neither Dauid nor any other creature coulde haue borne himselfe after this sort in his owne hands For as Aquinas Victoria Antoninus Couarruuias Bellarminus and all learned papists grant no mortall man can institute any sacrament and so no mortal man being pure man could sacramentally beare himselfe in his owne hands I say fiftly that greater humilitie coulde not be then that the Lord of glorie should offer himselfe on the crosse so to appease Gods wrath and to make attonement for our sins and withall shoulde giue vs the sacrament of his body bloud as a seale of our reconciliation and of his beneuolence towards vs. All this discourse S. Austen confirmeth in another place where he hath these words Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me â—rucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuificat vos Yee shall not eate this body that ye see and drinke that blood which they shal shed that will crucifie me I haue commended a sacrament to you which being vnderstood spiritually doth quicken you The second obiectâ—on S. Cyprian doth prooue this veritie in most plaine and manifest tearmes Thus doeth he write Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro The bread which our Lord did reach to his disciples being chaÌ„ged not in shape but in nature became flesh by the omnipotencie of the word Lo bread was changed not in shape or figure which our sense telleth vs to be so but in nature or substance as the catholike church teacheth vs. And how is it changed euen into flesh and yet wil not you haue Christ to be present in flesh bloud and bone But if it were otherwise the omnipotent power of Gods word shoulde be needelesse which yet Saint Cyprian saieth is it that worketh this mightie change If yee yeeld not to this testimonie ye shew your selfe to be obstinate The answere I say first that the grosse and carnal sense of these words did wonderfully seduce my selfe when the time was I say secondly that if Saint Cyprian meant as you woulde haue him hee should bee contrarie to himselfe For hee affirmeth it to be true wine which Christ gaue to his Apostles I haue already alleaged his expresse words peruse them and marke them well I say thirdly that S. Cyprian can neuer bee more truely expounded then when his owne meaning in one place is gathered out of his owne words in another place That therefore all his words may be consonant one to another we must ioine antecedent to consequent former to latter and one place to another This done wee shal finde with facilitie that hee speaketh onely of sacramentall alteration and that by the word nature hee meaneth natural properties Yea euen so do the papists interprete the same word in their Gelasius concerning this question nowe in hand Thus doeth Saint Cyprian say immediately after the other wordes Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit essentia Infrà Nostra vero ipsius coniunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates Iterum sicut panis communis quem quotidie edimus vita est corporis ita panis iste supersubstantialis vita est animae sanitas mentis Panem Angelorum sub sacramento manducamus in tâ—rris eundem sine sacramento manifestiùs edemus in coelis non ministerio corporali And as the humanitie was seene in the person of Christ and the diuinitie hidden euen so hath the diuine essence powred out it selfe vnspeakeably in the visible sacrament For both ours and his coniunction neither mingleth persons nor yet vniteth substances but procureth fellowship in affection and agreement in willes And as the common bread which wee eate daily is the life of the body so is this supersubstantiall bread the life of the soule and the health of the minde We eate here on earth Angel-foode vnder the sacrament but wee shall eate the same more clearely without the sacrament in heauen and that without help of the body Out of these wordes I note first that Christs diuinitie is after an vnspeakeable manner in the sacrament but so is noâ— his bodie or humanitie and consequently that Christ is not there in inuisible carnall presence I note secondly that this sacramentall vnion doth not vnite substances but affections and willes and yet should our bodies be
and his annointed magistrate for so much the rare inflicted punishment doth euidently conuince CHAP. XIIII Of Nestorius and his heresie NEstorius Bishop of Constantinople albeit hee denied not Christ to be god as Arrius did yet he affirmed pure man to be borne of the blessed virgin that she therefore ought not to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God Whose heresie was condemned in the Ephesine councell vnder Theodosius iunior then Emperour of Rome Nestorius his heresie consisted in this that since the blessed virgin was a woman God could not be borne of her and consequently she ought not to be called the mother of God For although he neither denied in Christ the deitie nor the humanitie yet did hee place two persons in Christ together with the two natures and consequently he denied the wonderful hypostaticall vnion which our christian faith acknowledgeth Arrius held that Christ was only man wholly voide of the nature and person of God but Nestorius helde that Christ had both the nature and person of God as also both the nature and the person of man which last was the formalitie of his heresie and therefore ought well to be obserued of the reader For albeit there be two natures in Christ the nature of God and the nature of man yet is theâ—re but one onely person in Christ which is the person or subsistence of God for in that diuine person by vnspeakeable hypostaticall vnion the true nature of man subsisteth without the person of man By reason hereof it is truely saide and christianly beleeued the sonne of God was borne of the blessed virgin the sonne of God did suffer torments the sonne of God was crucified the sonne of God rose againe the third day the sonne of God ascended into heauen All which Nestorius denied because hee seuered the natures by multiplying persons in Christ Iesus Christ therefore taking vpon him the nature of man did single it from the person of man vniting it to himselfe and making it subsist in his diuine person by reason of which supernatural vnion Christ became perfect God and perfect man hauing two distinct natures subsisting in one indistinct person CHAP. XV. Of Macedonius and his heresie MAcedonius the Bishop of Constantinople denied the holyghost to be God he said the sonne was God indeed and equal with the father in substance but the holyghost with him was without honor and dignitie a seruant and minister little better then the Angels For the condemnation of this wicked heretike and heresie the second generall councell was holden at Constantinople vnder the Emperours Graâ—ianus and Theodosius where were assembled 150. fathers for that onely end and purpose CHAP. XVI Of Eutiches and his heresie EUtiches whose complices Dioscorus and Seuerus helde the same opinion was the Abbot of Constantinople who while hee sought to auoid the opinion of Nestorius diuiding one Christ into two sonnes and two persons fell into another mischiefe and taught more absurdly then Nestorius to wit that Christ had but one onely nature after the hypostaticall vnion was accomplished because the humanitie was absorpte of the diuinitie for so Christs diuinitie vncapeable of all mortalitie was peâ—force made partaker of the bitter death vpon the crosse as therfore Nestorius to auoide the confusion of natures multiplied the persons so contrariewise Eutiches to auoide the multiplicitie of persons admitted the confusion of natures These heretikes Eutiches Dioscorus and Seuerus were condemned by the fourth famous generall councel of Chalcedon celebrated vnder Ualentinianus and Martianus the Emperours where were present 360. Bishops CHAP. XVII Of Mahomet and the Saracens MAhomet descended of the Image of Ismael and Agar and being a very poore orphane ioyned himselfe to his kinswoman Chadiga first as an hired seruant afterward as her betrothed husband so was greatly enriched by her as who was a woman of exceeding wealth Which Chadiga when she took very heauily that Mahomet was troubled with the faling euil he told her it was no disease but that the archangel Gabriel then appeered to him whose wonderfull maiestie because he was not able to behold he fell groueling vpon the ground This Mahomet professed himselfe to be the mighty prophet of the euerliuing God by that meanes stirred vp to sedition great troupes of men aswel in Asia as in Africa which people he infected with a new kind of religion perswaded them that they were called Saracens by Gods holy decree of Sara the wife of Abraham that they were the lawful successors of that diuine promise that was made to Abraham his seed for euer The form of the aforesaid mangled religion Mahomet who was borne and buried in Mecha a citie in Arabia composed by the help of the Arrian monke Sergius and called it the Alcoran which word Alcoran in the Arabian language signifieth law or doctrine In which Alcoran they professe that Christ is a prophet and an excellent doctour but withall they deny him to be God and the true Sauiour of the world The Saracens called Arabians of the place Ismaelites of Ismael and Agarenes of Agar being in wages vnder Heraclius the emperour rebelled for want of pay about the yere of Christ 628. and within 38. yeeres they conquered all Syria Damascus Ierusalem much of Assyria and the greater part of Asia al which they subdued to the religion of Mahomet at that time but newly broched and of the Arabians or Saracens first of all receiued For so soone as the Agarenes dwelling in Arabia and seruing in wars vnder Cesar vnderstoode by proclamation that they could no longer haue the emperours pay they stirred vp sedition against the Romane captaines by the meanes whereof the power of Mahomet encreased to whome the common people being destitute of an head and in some distresse for want of mony did submit themselues aswell for his great riches as for other his singular gifts The Iewes Arrians and pseudochristians did al embrace Mahomets Alcoran and mangled religion they first subdued Arabia and part of Syria for in Damascus Mahomet had his pallace The Saracens hauing mightily enlarged their dominions diuided themselues into seuerall gouernements they termed their chiefe lord Caeliphae their next gouernour Seriphes next to him a Sultan who was ouer euery prouince at length the empire was translated to the Turkes CHAP. XVIII Of the originall of the Turkes THe Egyptians wearied with the yoke of the Romans submitted themselues to the Saracens and receiued their religion They continued Saracens aboue 400. yeres vntil such time as the Sultan of Syria conquered them which was about the yeere of our Sauiour Iesus 1170. at which time he made himselfe Sultan of Egypt also at length the multitude of captiues which the Sultan had brought from the Tartarians for his warres growing mighty killed the Sultan took to themselues the kingdome of Egypt They called their king Turquemenius and conquered al Asia the lesse from the Sultan of Asia