means of the receiuing of Gods grace in the sacrament Marry yet hée excepteth that it must be ioyned with the entrance of Christes body into our bodies and so by that diuine touching thereof wee are so vnited vnto him as man and woman by the coniunction of their bodies become one body and one flesh What a grosse and swinish imagination is this that by corporall entrance of Christes bodie into ours we must be made one with Christ as man and woman by corporall coniunction become one fleshe Saint Paul teacheth vs to loth this fancie when hee sayth f 1. cor 6. 16. 17. Knowe ye not that hee which coupleth himselfe with an harlot is one bodie For two sayth hee shall be one flesh But he that is ioyned vnto the Lord is one spirite Where by an opposition of the bodie and the spirite of the corporall ioyning of man and woman and the spirituall vniting of Christ and vs hée giueth plainly to vnderstand that the coniunction betwixt Christ and vs is not wrought by any bodily commixtion of substances as is the coniunction of man and woman but by the spirituall apprehension of the beléeuing soule receiuing through the holie Ghost the fruite and effect of the bodie of Christ being in heauen And this S. Cyprian notably declareth when he saith g The coniunction betwixt Christ vs neither mingleth our Cypri de caena domini persons nor vniteth our substances but coupleth our affections and conioyneth our willes and so the Church being made Christes bodie doth obey the head and the higher light being shed vpon the lower reaching with the fulnesse of his brightnesse from end to end doth abide whole with it selfe and yeeldeth it selfe whole to all the onenesse of that warmth doth so assist the bodie that it departeth not from the head By which words he sheweth that our coniunction with Christ is altogither spirituall and that we are made the bodie of Christ not by any corporall or bodily touching or bringing our substances togither but by the spirituall working of his effectuall power set foorth by a comparison of the sunne working in these inferiour bodies and yet abiding in heauen as before also I declared And as concerning the touching of Christ S. Ambrose saith h Ambros in Luc. 24 lib. 10. We touch not Christ by bodily handling but by faith c. Therefore saith he Neither on the earth neither in the earth nor after the flesh ought we to seeke thee O Christ if we will finde thee To the same effect also S. Austen speaketh by occasion of Christs words to Mary Magdalin i Ioh. 20 17. Touch me not for I am not yet ascended to my father k August in Ioh. tract 26. epist 59. Shee might not touch him standing on the earth saith he and how should she touch him being ascended to the father Yet thus euen thus he will be touched Thus is he touched of them of whom he is well touched being ascended to the father abiding with the father equall to the father And this touching he there expoundeth beleeuing as Ambrose doth Our touching of Christ then is our beléeuing in him not being here in the earth or on the earth but being ascended to the father and abiding with the father And as the sicke woman in the Gospell though with her hand touching but l Mat. 9. 20. 22. only the hemme of Christs garment yet whilest m Aug. ibid. vt supra by faith she touched Christ himselfe receiued vertue from him to make her whole So we although with our bodily hands we touch but onely the Sacrament which is but as it were the hemme of his garment yet whilst by faith we touch himselfe sitting at the right hand of God in heauen we receiue of him vertue and grace to euerlasting life Which vertues and effects séeing we receiue in Baptisme also as hath bene before shewed it is manifest that it is not by any such corporal touching as the Answ most absurdly hath expressed Here he cauilleth further concerning saint Paules words We are all partakers of one bread and one cup. By bread he saith must néedes be vnderstood the bodie of Christ for if we vnderstand it of bread indéed all are not partakers of one bread but many breads But his vnderstanding deceiueth him The Sacrament as he confesseth is a Sacrament of vnitie Christ would commend vnto vs this vnitie n Aust in Ioh. tra 26. Cypr. li. 1. epist 6. by being partakers of those things which of many are made one as bread of many graines wine of many grapes To this the name of one bread hath relation admonishing vs being many to become one But I hope the bodie of Christ shall not be said to be made of many cornes or grapes This bread therefore is not the very body of Christ But we are all partakers of one bread because the bread of the Sacrament though in substance of loaues it be many breads yet in vse and mysterie or signification is all one And so though the cup be diuerse according to the diuersitie of places yet in the same maner we are also said to be partakers of one cup. Pet. Spence Sect. 28. AS for Gratian I am sorie to see how fowly you abuse him did he doubt of the veritie of transubstantiation or of Christs presence All the whole part de consecratione doth proclaime the contrarie But the thing which some not vnproblably do expound in this place the truth of the flesh and blood to be the efficiency thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes was not any words of Christ touching the Sacrament but the words of a praier which he a litle before mentioned which he meaneth by saying in this place which was quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus which had two senses as Gratiā telleth you the one was that we may once receiue in a manifest vision as it is indeed the bodie of Christ the which vnder the formes of bread and wine is celebrated The other sense of that praier was with some men thus that we may receiue the effect of those mysteries that is to say remission of sinnes in veritie whereof now in a Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine we celebrate the mysterie For you know this is a Sacrament of remission of sinnes which some saith Gratian vnderstood by the truth of the things in the said praier Is this to deny the reall presence but your mind is so wholly set vpon that point that like your merrie I dare not say mad Athenian all things sound against Christs presence and all the belles ring against Transubstantiation in your eares R. Abbot 28. THe praier of the auncient Church which I mentioned before Sect. 25. beside the exposition of Lanfrancus there set downe is reported by Gratian to haue bene otherwise expounded by some other The Church praied at the receiuing of the Sacrament y◠they might
for if he should call that which were before aire water or earth by the name of fire stones and bread aire earth and water would sooner cease to be and fire bread and stones would come in their place then God would call any creature by a wrong name He called bread his bodie therfore bread is vnderstanded to be made the body of Christ You saie the vnderstanding of man taketh his beginning of senses which i S. Austen saith that which you sâ—â— iâ— bread as your eyes also tell you He saith it is that which our eies tell vs it is tell me it is bread I saie in the matter belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth mee it is k In signification and mysterie after the maner of Sacraments but not in substance the bodie of Christ and Theodoret saith it is beleeued to be and it is worshipped for it is so And he giueth the same very word of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worshipping to the holie mysteries the which in the same sentence he giueth to the immortall bodie of Christ sitting at the right hand of his father And no wonder for seeing it is one bodie whether it be worshipped in heauen or l Vigâ—lius saith that the flesh of Christ now that it is in heauen is not vpoÌ„ the earth Therfore seeing it is in heaueÌ„ it cannot be worshipped vpon the 〈◊〉 vpon the Altar one worship is alwaies due to it Thus it is witnessed by Theodoret that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his bodie and blood but as being indeed his bodie and his blood Therefore worship is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really contain the truth represented by them Looke Bellarmine lib. 2. de Sacrament cap. 27. pro horum testimonijs R. Abbot 12. NOw come to be handled the words of Theodoret whom the Answerer vseth in the same honest maner as he hath done Gelasius yet cannot stoppe his mouth but that he still standeth at defiance with Transubstantiation Theodoret in his Dialogues debateth the whole matter of Eutyches his heresie not only as Eutyches himselfe held it as before hath bene shewed but also as some would seeme afterwards to correct it by saying that though Christ reteined the substance of his manhood while he continued on the earth yet after his ascension it was turned into the Godhead as of which there was thenceforth no longer vse Now hauing disputed the matter at large and brought the heretick to this latter shift he taketh an argument from the Sacrament to proue the remaining and being of Christs bodie and blood For signes or samptars are not admitted but of such things as haue being Séeing therefore we receiue the mysticall signes in token of the bodie and blood of Christ it is certaine that the bodie and blood of Christ haue their owne nature and being Now the hereticke taketh occasion of this mention of the sacrament to reason thus a Euen as the signes of the Lords bodie and o Theodor. dial 2. blood before the priests inuocation are other things but after the inuocation are chaunged and made other then before so the Lords bodie after his assumption or taking vp into heauen is changed into the diuine substance Whereby being changed and made other he meaneth not any reall chaunging into the very body and blood of Christ for he denied that Christ had now any substantiall bodie neither doth he vnderstand the loosing of their owne former substance for he expresly yéeldeth the contrary as was shewed before in handling the place of Gelasius but only intendeth that they are other in vse and name being now made signs of the body blood of Christ which he once truly tooke but afterwards did foâ—go This is plaine inough by the circumstance of the place and by that which he had confessed before in the former Dialogue that the bread and wine were signes not of the diuine nature of Christ but of those things whose names they did beare namely the bodie blood But to the obiection Theodoret answereth thus Thou art taken in the net which thy selfe hast made For the mysticall signes do not depart from their owne nature after consecration For they coÌ„tinue in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be the same which they are made and are beleeued so and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now therfore conferre the image with the principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be like vnto the truth Verily that bodie of Christ hath also the same forme as before the same figure and circumscription and to speake all at once the same substance of a bodie But it is made immortal after his resurrectioÌ„ c. Here it is plainly auouched that the mysticall signes continue not only in figure and shape but also in substance the same that they were before and so as that in them we must take notice how Christ continueth the same in substance of his bodie after his ascension For the mysticall signes are the figure image of Christs bodie and the figure must be correspondent to the truth And therefore if we finde not the true and proper substance remaining in the mysticall signes neither can it be auouched in the truth that is in Christs bodie What construction now then shall we haue of these words Mary this The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is to say the formes haue a new subsistence by themselues and the accidents remaine without the substance Bread and wine after consecration remaine in their former substance that is to say there is the colour of bread and wine the taste of bread wine the force and strength of bread and wine the quantitie and qualitie of bread and wine but there is no substance of bread and wine I wonder whether these men be perswaded of the truth of these vnreasonable and senselesse expositions If they be it is fulfilled in them which is written b 2. Thes 2. 11 God shall send vpon them strong delusioÌ„ that they may beleeue lies which beleeued not the truth c. If not then c Esa 5. 20. Wo saith the Prophet to them that call good euill and euill good which put light for darkenesse and darknesse for light The thing is plaine inough The mysticall signes saith Theodoret remaine in their former substance What was their former substance The verie true and proper being or substance of bread wine They continue therfore in the true and proper being and substance of bread and wine But the Answerer goeth from substance which Theodoret nameth to subsistence of his owne forging and yet euen there confoundeth himselfe without recouery For what was their former subsistence Mary they subsisted before in the natures of
matter but reason and trueth see the answere at large to steale scrappes out of the fathers and not to care for their drift and purposes but onely to patch vp matter for a shew and to the sale The figures be of the old testament in the newe testament Christ fulfilleth them It followeth But it had been no figure except there were a true bodie Surelie an emptie thing as is a phantasie can take no figure The Marcionites said Christ had a phantastical body that saith Tertullian could not haue a figure No can Doe not the phantasticall bodies of spirites exhibite to the eies a certaine figure or shape it is too well knowen to the verie Negromancers and the Apostles feared the like of Christ But he meaneth if Christ had no body at all but a phantasticall body Melchisedech in the old testament had vsed no figure of that in bread wine For of c Vntrueth for he talketh not of it and though hee had yet doth it not stand the Answ in any steed as shall appeare it he talketh so that that is a figure of my bodie must needs be interpreted thus This that is this figure of the old testament of bread and wine vsed by Melchisedech which I now fulfill est corpus meum is nowe become my bodie by my fulfilling in this my new testament in veritie a figure of the olde testament in a mysterie It followeth Or if therefore he made the bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. This illation of Tertullian can haue no wit nor sense if he meant not Christ to be really in his verie true bodie in the Sacrament It made for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should be crucified If Christ had giuen his Apostles bread onely and not his verie flesh then by Tertullians minde he must haue giuen a bready body or a body of bread to be also crucified so sure he was that the thing he gaue his Disciples was the same that was also afterward crucified What say you to this maister Abbot Marcion said that Christ had in steed of a heart a kind of fruit called a Pepon Why saith Tertullian did he not call a Pepon his bodie as well as the bread or rather after Marcions opinion his reason is because Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an olde figure of the bodie of Christ Lo your id est figura is by Tertullian as much as id est vetus figura an old figure Then by your minde Christ fulfilled not the old figure in veritie although Tertullian saith neuer so plainly he made the bread his bodie But gaue them the old figure therefore to end this testimonie of Tertullian I answere you that the premisses considered you must needes graunt that the same id est is not referred to corpus meum but to hoc That which in the old testament was a figure of my bodie is now being made so by my speaking dicendo omnipotentia verbi by the almightie power of the word as S. Cyprian de caena domini vttereth my bodie Note these points whereby it so appeareth by Tertullian to be meant First the scope of his fourth booke to prooue the figures of the old lawe and the fulfilling of the new Secondly Tertullian hath figura non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus If hee had meant a figure then in the new testament he had not said fuisset sed esset figura Thirdly when hee saith Christ called bread his bodie and not a Pepon as Marcions follie would haue him to haue spoken hee telleth that Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an ancient figure of his bodie so that Tertullian meaneth not the bread to be a new figure of his bodie instituted by Christ in his Supper of the new testament but an auncient figure of the olde testament vsed by Melchisedech Fourthly a little after this place he saith that Christ the reuealer of aniquities did sufficiently dâ—clare what hee would haue the bread to haue signified calling bread his bodie Wherby d Tertullians minde iâ— that the name of bread had bin vsed to import the body of Ch 〈…〉 â—â— prefigurâ—â—â—at bread indeede should be appointed to signifie the â—â—me body This he sayâ—h Ch 〈…〉 ful 〈…〉 〈◊〉 he took bread ind 〈…〉 and called it hiâ— body his mind is that Christ would haue the bread in the old testameÌ„t to haue signified his body to come not now instituting a new figure in bread Fifthly he saith a litle after thou maiest acknowledge the olde figure of bloud in the wine Lo the wine in the old testament was an ancient figure of his bloud What can plainlier vtter or expresse his meaning Lastly it followeth Now saith he it is at his maundy he consecrated his bloud in wine who then that is speaking certain words of Iacob the Patriarche euen by the said Iacob figured wine by bloud he attributeth e A Figure to the name of wine consecration to wine it selfe a figure to wine consecration to his bloud in wine a figure to the old law consecration to the new a figure to the olde lawe fulfilling thereof to the newe what meane you then maister Abbot to charge vs with guilefull concealing clipping and paring of Tertullian who deliuer him vnto you so roundly and so wholly wee play not with you as maister Iewell did who brought out of Opus imperfectum sermo 11. in Chrisostomes name in almost an hundreth places of his booke as putting great trust in the same these wordes against the Sacrament and against Chrisostome for that verie point in a notable Sermon of his made for that purpose In the vessels of the church is not contained the true body and bloud of Christ but a figure of his body and bloud Whereas the f An answere altogether vain and senslesse as the very wordes shew authour meaneth it of the vessels taken out of the temple of Ierusalem by Nabuchodonosor which point he guilefully suppressed For the authours wordes are these For if it be a sinne and dangerous to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses as Balthazar teacheth vs who drinking in the holy cups was therfore deposed from his kingdome and bereaued of his life if then it be thus dangerous to transferre these holie vessels to priuate vses in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his bodie is conteined c. You may see howe Balthazar was stolne out of the text to make those olde Churches vessels to be the vessels of our Christian temples Vpon those words of Tertullian how crossely you inferre your conclusion vppon your owne supposed sense of id est figura it may I hope appeare vnto you vpon the consideration of that which I haue discoursed concerning his testimonie except you could wage Tertullian to say that he made no comparison betweene a figure of the old testament and the veritie of the new answering the same and that he
instituting of bread to be the figure of his bodie Let him consider better whether this stand not with good construction to say Christ tooke bread and said therof This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie But it had not bene or it should not haue bene a figure except there were a true bodie But yet he goeth farther Tertullian saith thus If Christ did therefore make bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. It made for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should be crucified These words saith he haue neither wit nor sense except it be supposed that Christs bodie is really in the Sacrament nay otherwise it must be bread that was crucified for vs. But except his wit and his sense did faile him he might find somwhat els in Tertullians words For stil he calleth the sacrameÌ„t bread putteth differeÌ„ce betwixt the bread that is called yâ— body and the true body it self so reasoneth against Marcion yâ— if Christ had not a true body indéed which he represented by bread in respect thereof called the same bread his body then the bread itselfe must be his bodie and consequently it was bread which was giuen and crucified for vs. But Marcion himselfe would not say that bread was crucified for vs Therefore he must néedes confesse that Christ had a true bodie figured by the bread And thus Tertullians reason against Marcion setteth downe bread in the Sacrament as a figure of Christes body and razeth the foundation of Popish Transubstantiation And this is yet againe plaine by these wordes to which he asketh me what I say that Christ called not a Pepon his body as he should haue done by Marcions opinion who held that Christ had in stéede of a heart a kinde of fruite called a Pepon but hee called bread his body because of the olde Figure namely because the Prophet vsing the name of bread to import the bodie of Christ did thereby prefigure that bread indéed should be appointed to be the figure and signe of the same bodie So that Christ did not renew an olde figure by consecrating or sanctifying the bread to be a figure of his bodie but fulfilled that in the trueth and substance of bread which Tertullian saith was foreshewed by the name of bread Thus much of Tertullians roundly wholly deliuered words where the Answ hath shewed as great folly in enlarging them as some other of his fellowes haue shewed falshood in clipping and paring them But to fill vp the measure of this follie he taketh vpon him by the way to censure Maister Iewell about a place alleaged out of the vnperfect worke vpon Math. Serm. 11. Which he doth in that péeuish and vaine sorte as that he sheweth himselfe to be led wholly with malice without any iudgment or discretion First he misliketh that he did alleage it in Chrisostomes name But why so Is it not as lawfull for maister Iewell or for the Church of England to doe so as it is for the Church of Roome and her followers k Sixt. Sâ—nâ—nâ— bâ—â—lâ—ot sanâ—â— 4 in lâ—â—n Câ—rysâ—st The Church of Rome readeth diuers homilies in their diuine seruice from thence vnder the name of Chrysostome Many sentences and propositions are brought thence vnder his name in the ordinarie gloses in the chaines of the explanations of the Gospels in the decrees of the Bistops of Roome in the Summaries of Diuinitie set forth by Diuines of great name as Sixtus Senensis himselfe a Papist giueth vs to vnderstand Why then should maister Iewell be blamed for alleaging that worke vnder Chrysostomes name when the Church of Roome by her example warranted him so to doe But yet hee will further make vs beléeue that the wordes doe not prooue that for which they are alleaged The wordes are these If l Chrysost in ope imperf hom 11. it be a dangerous matter to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses as Baltasar teacheth vs who drinking in the sacred cups was depriued of his kingdome and his life if then I say it be so dangerous to transferre to priuate vses these sanctified vessels in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his body is conteined c. Out of which wordes maister Iewell proueth yâ— in the sacred vessels there is not the true body of Christ as the Papistes dreame but onely a mysterie of his body The place is so plaine as nothing can be more plaine Now therefore what sayth the Answ to it Forsooth the authour meant these words of the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem which Nabuchodonosor tooke from thence and not of the vessels of our Christian Churches But what vessels I maruell were those in the temple of Hierusalem which conteined the mysterie of Christes body where did hee euer read or heare of any such Or if he can vnshamefastly face out such a matter how can he imagine that Chrysostome or the author whosoeuer would admonish his auditours that it was daungerous for them to abuse the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem which they neither had nor could haue to abuse Againe he saith not those holy vessels as pointing to the vessels of the temple but expresly these holy vessels vnderstanding them which he had then to vse Againe he saith not wherein was not but wherin is not the true body of Christ nor wherein was conteined but wherein is conteined the mysterie of his bodie All which being referred to the present time do plainly enough shew that hee spake of the vessels that then were present and therefore his wordes are a verie direct and substantiall proofe that in the vessels of Christian temples there is not the true body of Christ but onely a mysterie of his body Yea but there is mention of Baltazar there And what then Surely Baltasar is there brought in to teach vs as the authour speaketh Now what doth the example of Baltasar teach vs not to abuse the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem A senselesse conceite He teacheth vs not to abuse the vessels of our temples and Churches least offending as he did we be punished as he was For there is alwaies the same reason of the vse or abuse of holy thinges and particular examples are alwaies alleaged for confirmation and proofe of generall doctrines Surely the Answ was sodainly awaked out of his dreame when he conceiued this and set his handes to write before he was well aduised what he should write P. Spence Sect. 19. AS I haue dilated at large the meaning of Gelasius so I cannot but wonder at your repeating of him in this place so contrâ—â—ie to his meaning euen by your owne confession You woulde before haue Gelasius drift to be this that as in heauen Christ is in his two natures seuerall the godhead and the manhood so in the Sacrament with his body remaineth the bread thereby to haue hoth in heauen and here two seuerall natures Yet now
place he putteth me in minde to answere him with a saying of Luther Hoc scio pro certo quod si cum stercore certo Vinco vel vincor semper ego maculor But to the matter The b Timothean August de 〈…〉 e. ad 〈◊〉 in â—ine heretickes as S. Austen reporteth affirmed that the godhead of Christ was really changed into the manhoode This they would prooue by the wordes of the Gospell The word was made flesh which they expounded thus The diuine nature is turned or transubstantiated into the nature of man In like sort the Answ and some other cogging marchants of his part single out the wordes of Tertullian Christ made the bread his body and will needes haue vs to beleeue thereby that the bread is really turned and transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ They both argue alike vpon the word made For answere hereof I shewed how Tertullian expoundeth his owne meaning by these wordes that is to say a figure of his bodie Further I said that that phrase or maner of spéech Christ made the bread his bodie doth not enforce any Transubstantiation Which I shewed by comparing therewith the verie like spéech or phrase before alleaged out of the Gospell c Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh For as it was absurdly gathered by the Timotheans that because the word was made flesh therefore it ceased to be the word so as fondly is it gathered by the Papists of Tertullians words that because the bread is made the bodie of Christ therfore it ceaseth to be bread The one enforceth not for the Timothean any transubstantiation of the word therefore neither doth the other for the Papist any transubstantiation of the bread The spéeches are like The word was made flesh the bread is made the bodie of Christ Now hath he not sent me a worthy answere to this The words of S. Iohn saith he what proue they touching the Sacrament What argument is this The word was made flesh the sense is the word assumpted flesh vnto it And it is not to be taken as the words do sound therefore this text This is my bodie is not to be taken as the words import A verie mightie vpstantiall argument Nay a very pithie sound answere and worthie to be registred in Vaticano I make a comparison betwixt the words of S. Iohn and the words of Tertullian and he answereth me of a comparison betwixt the words of Iohn the words of Christ How many mile to London A poke full of plummes Yet as a childe plaieth with a counter in stéed of a péece of gold so he delighteth himselfe in a rascall shift as if he had made a verie substantiall answere But sée yet further the extreame folly and ignorance of this man It is saith he as if you should reason thus I am the vine is a figuratiue speech therefore I am the light of the world is a figuratiue spéech And what is it not by a figure that Christ is called the light of the world Surely Christ is the light in respect of the darknesse of the world Séeing therefore darknesse is vnderstood figuratiuely in the world a man would thinke that that which is called light as opposite to this darknesse should be so called by a figure Light is properly a sensible qualitie and darkenesse the p 〈…〉 tion therof and both haue relation to the bodily eye They are by a Metaphore applied to the soule and so is Christ called light euen as he is elsewhere called d Mal 4. 2. The sunne of righteousnesse not properly I trow but by a figure vnlesse the Answ be of the Manichees minde who as Theodoret saith would sometimes say that e Theodo haerâ—t faâ—ul lib. â— Christ was the verie sunne Now therefore séeing that Christ is no otherwise called the light of the world then he is called a vine a yoong boy in the Vniuersitie will easily finde a Topicke place in Aristotle to prooue that this argument holdeth very well Christ is called a vine by a figure therefore he is also called the light of the world by a figure Further he saith But I pray you sir is this saying The world was made flesh like to This is my bodie I answere him Truly sir no. But yet these are like The word was made flesh and the bread is made the bodie of Christ as transubstantiation of the word cannot be proued by the one so transubstantiation of the bread cannot be proued by the other Whereas he demandeth whether bread stil remaining do assumpt vnto it Christes bodie into one person his question is idle I haue answered before that the vnion of Christ with the Sacrament is not personall or reall as he vnderstandeth reall but relatiue and sacramentall as in Baptisme also it is But as the word remaineth being personally vnited to the flesh so the bread remaineth being sacramentally vnited vnto Christ That which he saith of Luther is false Luther did not teach that the bodie of Christ was ioyned into one person with the bread But now I wish him to bethinke himselfe who it is that careth not what he say so that he say somewhat Now for further declaration of the words of Tertullian I alleaged a saying of S. Austen Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood which also he hath made vs and by his mercy we are the same that we receiue Wheras the Answ saith that the first part of this sentence serueth very wel for him it is but like the dotage of the melancholy Athenian We say with S. Austen that Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood yet not being on earth to be receiued by the mouth but f August in Ioh. tr â—0 Sitting in heauen to be receiued by faith But as Tertullian said Christ made the bread his bodie so here Austen saith Christ hath made vs his bodie and blood The maner of spéech is here also alike and therefore I inferred hereof that Tertullians words do no more proue yâ— the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ then S. Austens do proue that there is a transubstantiatioÌ„ of vs into the bodie of Christ That which I excepted as touching those words Yet wee are not transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ the Answ falsifieth and peruerteth thus yet we are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament This is the faithfulnesse that he vseth But what answere maketh he Forsooth it would aske a long discourse to answere me and therefore he hath thought good not to answere me at all For as for that which he saith it serueth directly for me We are become one with Christ saith he let him speake as S. Austen speaketh we are made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into him but by being ioyned vnto him So say we that the bread is made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into his bodie but by hauing tied vnto it
will not graunt in any wise Therefore consequently he must forgo his sacrifice The mad Iesuit could not tell what to say to this point and yet was resolued to say somewhat He saw it faulty which his fellowes had set downe and yet neither was hee able to resolue the matter so but that he is ouerthrowne by his owne grounds And therefore he speaketh warely with Arbitror I suppose as fearing least he himselfe should be taken tardy I maruaile that he béeing at Rome so néere the Pope the Oracle of the Church who pronounceth without errour from his consistory chaire could not obtain of him the certaine and vndoubted trueth of this matter but must thus féede men with his owne vaine ghesses and supposals The trueth is neither the Pope himselfe nor both his Seminaries of Rhemes and Rome doe know what to determine of this point and should not we be wise men to beléeue them as touching a sacrifice of which they themselues are not agréed how it is done or wherein it doth consist But the nullity of this fained and counterfait sacrifice I further shewed before by answering the obiection concerning the Fathers often speech of sacrifice For I declared that they themselues plainly expound themselues not to meane any true reall sacrifice properly so called but onely a mystery a sacrament a resemblance a remembrance of a sacrifice as their owne wordes alleaged doe testifie To this he saith that those testimonies doe prooue that there is a commemoration indéede of Christes death and sufferings but not that they doe not in their sacrifice really and indéede offer his body Then he telleth me full wisely what difference there is béetwixt vs and them that we say there is a memory of Christ himselfe as being absent and they say there is a memory of his one onely sacrifice that is of his death Herein he saith lieth the narrow issue to put a difference betwixt Christes death and Christ himself importing hereby that there is a remembrance of Christes death in the Masse and besides that a true and reall offering of Christ himselfe This he telleth me is the state of the question which we alwaies start from and will not sée Where I may say of him as S. Austen said of the Hereticke u August coÌ„r aduer legis prophe lib. 1. cap. 23. Quà m eleganter sibi videtur iste verba discutere atque discernere nesciens quid loquatur How trimly doeth this man seeme to himselfe to sifte and discerne wordes and speeches and knoweth not what he saieth For first where he saith that their sacrifice is onely to commemorate the death of Christ once past hée crosseth his owne assertion For if they onely commemorate the death of Christ then they doe not really offer him If they doe really offer him they doe not only commemorate his death Secondly he saith that there néedeth not now any newe oblation or sacrifice for sinne after Christes death already past because his death is still sufficient and auaileable to take awaye sinne and yet hee addeth that the same death of Christ giueth force and vertue to their sacrifice which they say is a sacrifice propitiatory to take away sinne If there néede no other sacrifice for sinne after Christes death howe doeth his death giue force and vertue to their sacrifice for sinne Belike hee woulde haue vs to vnderstand that their sacrifice is but a méere fansie and no sacrifice in deede Surely it is folly w Vigil cont Eutych lib. 4. as Vigilius saith For a man to goe about to refute that which withall hee is proued not to deny Thirdly where he saith that wee would haue the Sacrament a remembrance of Christ himself whereas they intend it of his death he sheweth himselfe to bee too much delighted with idle talke For if hee haue but common sense he may vnderstand by that that I said vnto him that we vse the Sacrament entirely as a remembraÌ„ce of Christs death and so defend it against their counterfaite and imagined reall sacrifice Fourthly he saith againe we are commanded beside the memory of Christes death to offer the same death in a sacrifice to God and yet after he saith it is onely to be recorded figured and represented But to passe ouer these ouerthwart and crosse fancies of braiâ—sicke and vnstable heads which confound themselues in their owne spéeches and taking vppon them to be x 1. Tim. 1. 7. the only Doctors of the Law yet vnderstand not what they speake nor whereof they affirme Let vs come to the state of the question which hee setteth downe namely whether beside the memory of Christes dâ—ath and passion there be in the Masse a true and reall offering or sacrificing of the body and bloud of Christ In which point we haue dalied maruailously all this while and haue béene greatly too blame for going so wide from the question proposed For the question hath béene whether the body and bloud of Christ be verely and in déede offered or sacrificed in the Masse or not and we haue still very directly proued that the body and bloud of Christ is not verily and indéed offered or sacrificed in the Masse that there is not any sacrifice done for sin in the Masse truely and properly so called that the Masse is an abhominable sacriledge and wicked profaning of the Sacrament of Christ For first if they will defend a sacrifice they must defend it by the institution of Christ But let it bee resolued what a sacrifice is and what is there in the institutioÌ„ of Christ that giueth so much as any shadow of a sacrifice y Bellar. tom 2. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 2. To a true sacrifice saieth Bellarmine and that truely is required that that which is offered to God in sacrifice be verily destroied that is be so changed as that it cease to be not onely in vse but in substance that that it was before But what is there in the action of Christ answerable to this condition of a sacrifice Is there any man so madde as to say that the body of Christ was there verily destroied or is there any shew of any such matter it is more then senselesse to imagine it Nowe it hath beene shewed before what a srurre the Iesuit keepeth to vpholde the sacrifice of the Masse together with this definition and yet all in vaine Moreouer where may we haue it assured vnto vs that Christ did sacrifice himselfe twise The Scripture precisely telleth vs that he offered himselfe but once which was by his death z Heb. 7. 27. He needed not daily to offer vp sacrifice for that did he once when he offered vp himselfe a Cap. 9. 12. By his owne bloud entred he in once into the holy place b Cap. 9. 26. In the end of the world hee hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe c Cap. 9. 27. As it is appointed to men to die once so Christ
fantasticall body of Christ we read onely of a true and substantiall body wherein he is like vnto vs wherein hée sitteth at the right hand of God g August Ep ad Darda 57. in Ioh. tr 30. in some one place of heauen as S. Austen noteth and is there conteined by reason of the maner of a true body vntill hée come to iudge the quicke and the dead at which time he shal come in the same forme and substance of his body in which he went from hence to which we beleeue he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken from it the nature of a body yâ— it should be any where in that maner as yâ— Answ and his fellowes Marcion-like do teach We say as Vigilius also saith h 〈…〉 con 〈◊〉 the flesh of Christ when it was vpoÌ„ the earth was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen surely it is not on the earth As for the words which he alleageth I maruell how he can make them good to be S. Austens In all S. Austens works extant they are not found They are cited out of the sentences of Prosper and there they are not Beda hath many fragmentes of Austen but not a word of this i L 〈…〉 de sacra Eucha Lanfrancus vseth them as his owne wordes without any quotation of Austen and that writing against Berengarius where he would surely haue countenanced them with the name of Austen if they had béen his The trueth is for ought that I can perceiue Lanfrancus is the authour of them and they are his ilfauoured answere to Berengarius his allegation of S. Austens words which we haue now in hand Yet because Gratian by errour hath made S. Austen the reputed father of them mistaking be like Austen for Lanfrancus as very oftentimes he is found to put the names of Austen and others to those things which they neuer spake I wil doe the Answe that curtesie to take them for S. Austens words onely so that he wil not make S. Austen in this point to be at bate with himselfe First therefore according to the doctrine of S. Austen and all others who haue defined what sacraments be they are alwaies k Aug decate chiâ—rud ca. 26. visible signes and therefore to be discerned with the sense For l De dâ—ct C 〈…〉 l. 2. cap 1. a signe saith the same S. Austen is a thing which beside the shew that it offereth to the senses causeth by it somewhat else to come into the minde and vnderstanding In sacramentes therefore being signes m â—x ser ad infan Beda 1. Cor. 10. CoÌ„â— Maximi Aria lib. 3. cap. 22. one thing is seene another thing is vnderstoode by that which is séene therefore againe doth he call the sacrament n In Iohan. tra 80. a visible word because the visible creature being consecrated to the sacramentall vse doth in the vse thereof after a sorte set before our eyes that which the word of God deliuereth to our eares yea and doth as it were speake vnto vs also to admonish and put vs in minde of the things thereby so signified Now S. Austen doth verie precisely put difference o De consecr di 2. cap. Hoc est betwixt the sacrament which is the visible signe and the thing or matter of the sacrament p In Ioh. tr 26 so that in diuersitie of sacramentes yet the matter of the sacrament that is the thing signified may be the same and q Ibid. a man may be partaker of the sacrament or signe and yet haue no benefite at all of the thing signified Notwithstanding by reason of that relation which by the word of God is wrought betwixt the sacramental signe and the thing thereby signified r Epist 23. in quaest super Leuit. q. 75. the signe or sacrament as hath béen before said doth vsually take vnto it the name of the thing signified as Å¿ De consecr dist 2. cap. vtrum sub Gratian noteth againe vnder S. Austens name that the name of the bodie of Christ is giuen not onely to the verie bodie but also to the figure thereof which is outwardly perceiued But what shall we take this figure of the body to be by S. Austens iudgement Marry saith hée t Ex ser ad infan Beda 2. Cor. 10. that which you see is bread as your eyes also tell you which words the Answe hath left vnanswered as also the other v De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est that the sacrament conteineth the nature and trueth of the visible element But by those wordes S. Austen referreth vs to our eyes and willeth vs to beléeue our eyes that it is verily bread Now then séeing that by his iudgment a sacrament is a visible signe and the visible signe in the Lordes supper is bread how may it stand with his doctrine that the flesh couered in the forme of bread is a sacrament of the flesh the bloud vnder the forme of wine is a sacrament of the bloud and that by the inuisible flesh is signified the visible body of Christ Surely if we take flesh to signifie truely and properly flesh this standeth not with S. Austens grounds For séeing flesh is not visible in the sacrament neither is there any appearance thereof to the sense nay it is called héere inuisible flesh it cannot be said to be a sacrament that is a visible thing Therefore we must séeke another meaning of the wordes flesh and bloud according to the other rule whereby the outward elementes take vnto them the names of the thinges represented by them By flesh and bloud then we vnderstand the visible elements which are called by these names and that not onely for that they doe signifie the true flesh and bloud of Christ but also as w August ser ad inâ—an aâ—ud Bed 1. cor 10. touching the spirituall fruite as S. Austen speaketh in x Ambros de sacram lib. 6. cap. 1. grace and vertue as saith saint Ambros y Cypria de caena d 〈…〉 de resuâ— chri concerning the inuisible efficiencie and vertue as Cyprian speaketh are the same to the faith of the receiuer according to that which Gratian saith concerning a prayer of the Church crauing to receiue the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ that some not z De consâ—cr dist 2 cap. species without probable reason did expound that trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ to be the verie efficiencie or working thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes Now because the visible element which is thus called flesh is no such thing in outward appearance neither hath anie shew of this vertue therefore it is said to be flesh couered in the forme of bread inuisible spirituall a matter of vnderstanding For sacramentes conteine those thinges which they conteine not openly but couertly not in appearance of the thinges themselues but vnder the signes of the visible
life as the rocke was Christ as the Apostle saith They dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christ It is not said The rocke was Christ because the rocke did really conteine Christ No more then was it said The bloud is the life because it did really conteine the life but because it was ordained to be a signe of life though it selfe were altogether dead and cold And this doth S. Austen againe expresly note in another place saying It k August cont aduersa leg proph lib. 2. cap. 6. is said The bloud of al flesh is the life or soule thereof in like maner as it is said The rocke was Christ not because it was so indeed but because Christ was signified heereby The lawe would by the bloud signifie the life or soule a thing inuisible by a thing visible c. because the bloud is visibly as the soule is inuisibly the chiefest and most principall of all things whereof wee consist Héere is then a matter of signification onely not of any reall conteining vnlesse the Answ will be so fond as to say that the rocke did really conteine Christ But now of this maner of speaking The bloud is the life or soule when it is indéede but a signe thereof S. Austen giueth a like example in the words of our Sauiour Christ who saith he doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body directly to this meaning that as Christ said This is my body when he gaue it into his Disciples handes not his bodie indéede but onely the signe and sacrament of his body and as the Apostle saith the rock was Christ when it was not Christ indéede but onely a signe of Christ so Moses said The bloud is the life not because it selfe was the life indéede but was onely appointed to be a signe of life And if the sacrament were indéed really the body of Christ what occasion should there be why Christ should doubt to say this is my body But either S. Austen speaketh vainly or els his words import that there might be occasion of doubting to say so And why but because it was not so indéede Yet saith he because it was the mysterie and signe of his body though not his body in substance and indéed therfore hee doubted not according to the maner of the scriptures in like case to say This is my body and so did Moses speake of the bloud Thus most manifestly and plainly I haue shewed that the Answ irrefragable exposition is nothing else but vnhonest and vnconscionable shifting P. Spence Sect. 18. BVt Tertullian killeth the Cow for he saith a figure of the body What if I prooue to you that you be as fowly deceaued or would deceiue in Tertullian as in the last place of S. Augustine This hath Tertullian in lib. 4. contra Marcionem The bread which hee tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his body Lo Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his body so say we and not you how made it he his body by speaking ouer it the wordes of consecration in saying this is my body that is a figure of my body Did Christ say to them This is the figure of my body But if he had yet by speaking those wordes hee had made it his body after Tertullians minde But the very trueth and all the point of the case heerein is in this that Tertullians words may haue two expositions one which you like of This is my body Two expositions of Tertullian that is the figure of my body the other which is our sense and the verie intended meaning of Tertullian is this This is my body This that is to say the figure of my body is my bodie To prooue this vnto you remember it is out of his fourth booke against Marcion which Marcion held the ill God of the old testament to be a deadly enimie to the good God of the new testament Marcion wrote a book called Antithesis or Antilogiae of contradictions and repugnances betweene the two testamentes Against that booke spendeth Tertullian the greatest part of his fourth booke shewing howe Christ the God of the new testament fulfilled and consecrated the old figures of the old testament as a friend and not as an enemie thereof and to that end thus he saith conferring places togither Christ in the daie time taught in the temple of Hierusalem he had foretold by O see In my temple they sâ—ught me and there I will dispute with them Againe he went apart into the mount Elaeon that is to the mount of Oliues Because Zacharie wrote and his feete shall stand in the mount Elaeon Againe they came togither early in the morning agreeable to Esay who saith Hee hath giuen me an eare to heare betimes in the morning If this be saith Tertullian to dissolue the prophesies what is to fulfill them Againe hee chose the passouer for his passion For Moses said before It shall be the passouer of the Lord. Yea saith Tertullian He shewed his affection or desire I haue earnestly desired to eat this passeouer with you c. O destroier of the law which desired also to keepe the passeouer Againe he might haue been betraied of a stranger sauing that the Psalme had before prophesied He which eateth bread with me will lifâ— vp his foote against me Yet further he might haue been betraied without reward saue that that should haue been for another Christ not for him which fulfilled the prophesies For it was written They haue sold the iust Yea the verie price that he was sold for Hieremie foretold They tooke the thirtie siluer peeces the price of him that was valued and gaue them for a potters field Thus farre in this one place among infinite other in the whole booke Tertullian sheweth Christ the God of the new testament to haue fulfilled the figures of the olde as being the one onely God of both Testaments And then by and by he inferreth as another example these wordes Therefore professing that he did greatlie desire to eate the passeouer as his owne for it was vnfit that God should desire anie thing of anothers whereby hee sheweth Christ to be the onely God of both testaments He made the bread which he tooke and distributed to his Disciples his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie What figure I beseech you meant he not the figure vsed a He did not meane any figure vsed by Melchisedech neither doth any way allude to it by Melchisedech of bread and wine meant he not a figure of the old Testament taken vsed and fulfilled by Christ in the newe is not that his drift Must Tertullian become an asse to serue your turne and forget his owne drift and purpose here and contrary what he hath so plainly spoken of the Sacrament in other his books This is b It is not foolish vaunting and bragging that must waigh this
would for your sake to helpe you to an argument pull backe his owne confession affirming himselfe to haue spoken de veteri Figura of the olde Figure or except you say his meaning was that Christ made his Supper to be an auncient figure of the old testament R. Abbot 18. HEre the Answerer beginneth with his iest Tertullian saith he killeth the Cowe I aunswere him if Transubstantiation be a Cowe Tertullian killeth the Cowe Hée stronglye gainsaieth it and will not abide it Thus hée speaketh a Tertul. cont Marcion li. 4. The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie But it had not bene a figure vnlesse there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie could receiue no figure Marcion the hereticke against whom he wrote held that Christ had not a true and reall bodie but only a fantasie and appearance and shew of a bodie Tertullian proueth by the Sacrament that Christ had a verie true bodie For the scripture is not wont to set down tokens and figures of things which haue not the truth of the things answerable vnto them Therefore séeing Christ in the Gospell gaue bread as a token and figure of his bodie saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie it is certaine that Christ hath a true bodie correspondent to this figure Thus do b chrysost in Mat. hom 83. Theod. dâ—al 2. Iren adu haeres lib. 5. Chrysostome and other of the Fathers reason from the Sacrament to proue the veritie and truth of the passion and of the bodie of Iesus Christ To this place of Tertullian M. Harding confessing that Tertullian made these wordes This is a figure of my bodie the exposition of those words This is my bodie saith that his interpretatioÌ„ is not according to the right sense of Christs words and that in his contention he did not so much regard the exact vse of his words as how he might winne his purpose of his aduersary so maketh Tertullian to write he cared not what Campian being vrged with the same words in the Tower shifted the matter off that those words That is to say a figure of my bodie werâ— the exception of the hereticke and not Tertullians own words The Ans hath found in some other of his learned Treatises namely c Bellar. to 2. de sacram Euchar. lâ—b 2. cap 7. in Bellarmine another deuise for the saluing of this matter Wherby we may sée how these men are carried vp and downe with giddinesse and phrensie and being pressed with euidence of truth cannot finde any answere whereupon to rest themselues and therefore as ashamed each of others doings bestow their wits from day to day to deuise new collusions and shifts to saue themselues The Answ resting vpoÌ„ the credit of father Robert thinketh that there is great wit and reason in that which he hath written so that Tertullian must be an Asse if he meant otherwise then he expoundeth him but indéed getteth himselfe hereby a priuiledge to weare the eares to whomsoeuer it befall to be the Asse For his exposition beside that it is foolish and absurd maketh also expresly against himselfe and admitteth that which I desire and which he himselfe must néeds confesse to be the vndooing of Transubstantiation He maketh two expositions of Tertullians words the one ours and that thus This is my bodie that is to say this is a figure of my bodie and this being indéed the currant and direct passage of Tertullians words he disliketh and condemneth The other is theirs and as he would make vs beléeue the verie intended meaning of the words namely thus This is my bodie This that is to say the figure of my bodie is my bodie Whereby he briefly resolueth out of Tertullian a maruellous doubt wherof his Fathers were neuer able to determine any thing namely whereto the word This is to be applied For if it be sayd This bread which is the very truth then they sawe that Transubstantiation cannot stand Therefore haue they prophaned the sacred words of Christ with their cursed sophistications and haue most wretchedly tossed them too and fro to make a meaning of them that might serue for their purpose yet haue found none But the Answ setteth downe the meaning thus This figure of my bodie is my bodie So that the word This must be referred to the figure of the bodie And what figure The olde figure euen the same saith he that Melchisedech vsed And what was that olde figure Marry it was bread Then we haue the exposition of Christes words as we would haue it This is my bodie that is to say This bread is my bodie And this is manifest to be Tertullians mind by that he saith twise in this place that Christ called bread his bodie and in his booke against the Iewes saith in like sort that he called bread his bodie and in his first booke against Marcion saith againe that Christ represented his bodie by bread Now if Christ in the Sacrament call bread his bodie and by bread do represent his bodie then it followeth that in the Sacrament it is bread which is called the bodie of Christ and is so called because the bodie of Christ is represented thereby Therefore the meaning of Christs words must néeds be thus This bread is the figure of my bodie This were sufficient for the opening of Tertullians minde in this point but yet I will follow the Answ to sift the matter somewhat further I acknowledge first with him that Tertullians purpose in that place is to shewe that Christ fulfilled in the new Testament those things that were foretold and foreshewed in the old But as it was neuer prefigured in the old Testament that there should be a transubstantiation of the bread wine so no more doth Tertullian go about by any old figure to approue the same And if he had named Melchisedech or alluded vnto him any way as we are by this man borne in hand yet could it not haue bene to any other purpose but this that Melchisedech by bringing foorth bread and wine in figure of the Sacrament did signifie that Christ should appoint and institute bread and wine to be the tokens and signes of his bodie and blood and that Christ in the Gospell did fulfil the same So saith S. Hierom d Hieron in Mat. 26. Christ taketh bread goeth to the true SacrameÌ„t of the passeouer that as Melchisedech the priest of the high God in prefiguring of him offering bread and wine had done so he himselfe also might represent the truth of his bodie and blood Therfore though it be graunted that Tertullian speaketh of Melchisedech yet serueth it my purpose and not his that Christ instituted bread and wine to represent thereby the truth of his bodie and blood as Melchisedech had prefigured he should do But the truth is
doe For they drank of the spirituall rocke which followed them the rock was Christ Christ therefore was their spirituall meate and drinke as well as ours and Iesus c Heb 13. 8. Christ yesterday and to day is the same and for euer The same therefore to them as he is to vs onely in difference of time To come in respect of them and already come in respect of vs. This the apostle further sheweth when he saith that they d 1. Cor. 10. 2. were baptised Which must be vnderstood either of the outward signe or of the inward grace of Baptisme But not of the outward signe therefore of the inward grace Therefore their Sacramentes offered the same inward grace that ours doe This S. Austen also plainly testifieth when he saith that e Aug. in Ioh. tr 26. their Sacramentes though in outward signes diuerse yet in the things signified and as hee speaketh straightwaies after in spirituall vertue were equall vnto ours and againe that f Ibid. tr 45. if a man respect the visible signe they did drinke an other thing but as touching signification and vnderstanding they dranke the same spirituall drinke that we doe which in both those places he prooueth by the same wordes of S. Paule which I haue alleaged and that by way of expounding the same wordes Which is to the shame of the diuines of Rhemes who so peruersly and contrarie to the verie light of the text labour to draw them to another meaning Now therfore whereas the Answ saith that this derogateth from the effect of Christes passion that our sacraments haue thence greater vertue then the Iewes sacramentes had it is but a presumptuous a foolish and vnprobable assertion without any likelihoode of trueth that may be gathered by the word of God We beléeue the vertue of Christes passion to haue béen no lesse to their saluation then it is to ours because we beléeue that Iesus Christ g Apoc. 13. 8. is the lambe slaine from the beginning of the world not onely in type and figure but in power grace also The h August lib. de natu gra cap. 44. same faith saued them saith S. Austen that saueth vs euen the faith of Iesus Christ the mediatour betwixt God and man the faith of his bloud the faith of his crosse the faith of his death and resurrection We beléeue therefore that their sacramentes hauing all relation to Christes passion as ours haue did yéeld no lesse benefite to them in Iesus Christ then ours doe to vs. Héere he referreth me againe to his learned treatises wherewith hee is so besotted himselfe that hee taketh euerie word in them to be an oracle albeit they be indéed as full of follies triflings and impudent falshoodes as his owne pamphlet is I am well enough acquainted with them alreadie But to call Sacramentes seales I learne of S. Paule Rom. 4. The name notably setteth forth the vse of them Seales serue for assurance of promises or couenantes to them to whom they are made Such are sacraments to assure our faith of the promises of God The deliuerie of seales giueth interest and right of the things sealed to them to whom they are deliuered The sacramentes of Iesus Christ doe giue as it were into our handes and possession through faith the whole prerogatiue of the benefite of Christes death and passion which is preached vnto vs in the word of the Gospell Therefore doth i Bernardus Ser. in caena domi Bernard fitly compare our sacraments to a ring by which a man is inuested and entered to the possession of his inheritance and whereof he may say The ring auaileth nothing but it is the inheritance that I sought for And euen so may we say that it is not the sacrament for it selfe but the things sealed and deliuered by the sacrament that we desire P. Spence Sect. 21. 22. THe place of S. Iohn The word was made flesh What prooueth it touching the Sacrament what kinde of argument is this In this saying The word was made flesh the sense is the worde assumpted flesh vnto it not changing his former nature and it is not to be taken as the wordes doe sound Ergo this text This is my body is not to be taken as the words import A verie a Cum insana dicis rides phrenetico c◠similis August cont Iulia. Pelag. lib 4. vpstantiall argument But do you remember that syllogizari non est ex particulari It is like as if I should argue thus I am a vine is a figuratiue speech Ergo I am the light of the world is also a figuratiue speech But I pray you Sir is this saying The word was made flesh like to This is my body doth bread still remaining assumpt vnto it into one person or into one suppositum Christes body Luther said so be you now of that minde This is to speake you wote not nor care not what so you say somewhat S. Augustine as Bede citeth him saith Christ hath commended vnto vs in this sacrament his body and bloud Saith he so me thinketh hee saith verie well for vs as we could wish him We thanke you for such texts heartily But he saith further which also he hath made vs and by his grace we are the same that we receiue What inferre you hereof and forsooth say you wee are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament A most wittie pithie and subtile peece of Logicke nihil supra logicke was good cheape when this stoode for good logicke A long discourse it would aske to answere you fullie and a verie goodly meditation is herein offered to our soules We are become one with Christ not by being transubstantiated into him but by being ioyned by the Sacrament vnto him as members to our head as many peeces of wood make one doore ship house or such like not one turned into an other but ioyned togither that they make one thing and so we become by this Sacrament his mysticall bodie as his members ioyned togither into one Remember for this point how diuinely Hilarius and Cyrillus haue written and leaue your prophane dealing in so waightie a cause especially so besides all reason and common sense R. Abbot 21. 22. IN these two sections the Answ plaieth Hickescorners part and by the way prooueth himselfe a mightie wise man I sée that to be true in him which a worthie man said a Iren lib. 1. cap. 9. Audax impudens res est anima quae inani aere calescit A rude and an impudent thing is the mind of that man that is tickled with vaine presumption and fansie Though he shew himselfe héere both an ignorant Blind-asinus and a peruerse wilfull wrangler yet he taketh vpon him as if no man had either Logicke or wit but onely he and solaceth himselfe with his termes of vpstantiall argument and good cheape logicke and most wittie pithie and subtill peece of Logicke By his naming of Luther in this