easily be reiected as it is auerred And Of that saith Tertullian there is no certaintie that the Scripture hath not But that Christ is present corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by vertue of any such Transubstantiation or reall conversion of the Creatures into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue Nor are we therefore bound to beleeue it That no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue it shall appeare by examination of those places that are alleadged commonly to prooue it The places vsually produced are principally two The former place is out of the Institution it selfe those words of our Sauiour This is my Body Matth. 26. 26. Marke 14. vers 22. Luke 22. vers 19. 1. Corinth 11. vers 24. That these words enforce vs not to beleeue any such thing is thus prooued If these words may well be taken figuratiuely as well as some other speeches of the like kinde in Scripture and other the like phrases vsuall in ordinary speech then these words enforce vs not to beleeue any such thing But these words This is my Body may well be taken figuratiuely as well as other speeches of the like kinde in Scripture to wit The seauen kine and the seauen eares are seauen yeeres The ten hornes are ten Kings The Rocke was Christ and as other phrases vsuall in ordinary speech as when pointing to the pictures of Alexander Caesar William the Conquerour Virgil Liuie and the like we say This is Alexander that conquered Asia This is Caesar that conquered France This is King William that conquered England This is Virgil that wrote of Aeneas This is Liuie that wrote the Romane storie and the like These words therefore enforce vs not to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament by vertue of any such Transubstantiation The truth hereof is acknowledged euen by our Aduersaries themselues Cardinal Bellarmine granteth that these words This is my Body may imply either such a reall change of the Bread as the Catholikes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold but will not beare that sense that the Lutherans giue them And Cardinal Caietan acknowledgeth and freely confesseth that there appeareth not any thing out of the Gospel that may enforce vs to vnderstand those words properly This is my body And he addeth that nothing in the text hindreth but that those words This is my body may as well be taken in a metaphoricall sense as those words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ and that the words of either proposition may well be true though the thing there spoken be not vnderstood in a proper sense but in a metaphorical sense onely And I finde alleadged out of Bishop Fisher in a worke of his against Luther for the booke I haue not these words There is not one word in S. Mathewes Gospel from which the true presence of Christs flesh blood in our Masse may be prooued Out of Scripture it cannot be prooued Thus by the Confession of our Aduersaries themselues our Sauiours words may well beare that meaning that we giue them and there is nothing in the Text that may enforce vs to expound or vnderstand them otherwise It is absurd therefore for any to reason thus as many yet are wont to doe Christ saith This is my Body and we are bound to beleeue Christ and therefore we must needs beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament Since that the words of Christ by our Aduersaries their owne confession may be most true and yet no such thing at all be meant by them or intended in them And the same may well be shewed as Caietan pointeth vs to it by the like For must we not beleeue the Apostle as well as Christ or must we not beleeue Christ as well in one place as in an other But the Apostle saith that The Rocke was Christ And yet no man beleeueth therefore that the rocke was turned into Christ though he beleeue the Apostles words in that place Yea our Sauiour himselfe saith This Cup is the new Testament and This Cup is my Blood And yet is no man so senselesse as therefore to beleeue that the Cuppe which our Sauiour then held was turned either into the New Testament or into Christs blood As well therefore may a man prooue that the Rocke was turned into Christ because the Apostle saith not The Rocke signified Christ but expressely The Rocke was Christ or that the communicants themselues are turned into bread because the Apostle saith We are all one Bread or that the Cup was turned either into the New Testament or into Blood because our Sauiour saith This Cup is the New Testament and This Cup is my Blood as that the bread is turned into the Body of Christ because our Sauiour saith of it This is my Body The Rocke was Christ onely symbolically and sacramentally by representation and resemblance and the Cup that is the wine in the Cup for so our Sauiour saith it was the fruite of the vine was the New Testament as Circumcision the Couenant as a signe and a seale of it And in like manner is the bread said to be the Body of Christ as the Paschal Lambe is called the Passeouer not really or essentially but typically and sacramentally as a type and signe of the same Yea so the Ancient Fathers expound the words The Bread saith Tertullian that Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his Body saying This is my Body that is a figure of my Body And The Lord saith Augustine doubted not to say This is my Body when he deliuered the signe of his Body And he giueth else-where a reason of such manner of speech to wit because Signes are wont to be called by the names of the things by them signified and Sacraments by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments in regard of the similitude that they haue of them And so saith he the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some sort the Body of Christ and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ. Yea you shall finde that which wee herein maintaine euidently confessed and confirmed by the Glosse vpon Augustine in the Popes owne Canons Augustines words inserted into the Corps of the Canon Law are these As the heauenly Bread which is the Flesh of Christ is in it owne manner called the bodie of Christ when as in deede and truth it is a sacrament of that body of Christ which being visible palpable and mortall was placed on the Crosse and that immolation of Christs flesh which is done with the Priests hands is called Christs passion death and crucifying not in the truth of the thing but in a mystery signifying it so the Sacrament of faith whereby we vnderstand Baptisme is faith And the Popish Glosse vpon that
place thus speaketh The heauenly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which truly representeth the slesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly and therefore is it said In it owne manner but not in the truth of the thing but in a significant mystery So that the meaning is It is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth the body of Christ. Thus word for word the Glosse Thus you see what our very Aduersaries themselues graunt vs concerning the exposition of these words This is my body and that which may be gathered from them The wordes of Christ prooue not necessarily saith the Romish Cardinall that the bread is turned into Christs body And when the bread is called Christs body the meaning is saith the Popish Canonist that it signifieth Christs body And what is this but the very same that we say To conclude as Augustine well obserueth Christ saith Iohn is Elias and Iohn himselfe saith I am not Elias and yet neither of them crosse the other because Iohn spake properly and Christ figuratiuely So Christ saith This bread is my body in one sense and we in another sense that it is not his body and yet wee crosse not Christ because wee speake properly hee figuratiuely as the Glosse it selfe confesseth And on the other side they were false witnesses though they alledged Christs owne words mis-expounded of the materiall Temple which hee meant of the mysticall Temple his humanity And so may others be though they alleadge Christs owne wordes of the bread being his body vrging that as spoken properly that by him was figuratiuely spoken If it be obiected that by this our deniall of Transubstantiation and of Christs corporall presence we make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread I answer that notwithstanding such Transubstantiation and corporall presence bee denied yet it maketh the Sacrament no more to be but bare bread then it maketh the water in Baptisme to be but bare water because all deny any such conuersion or corporall presence in it A piece of waxe annexed as a seale to the Princes Patent of pardon or other like deed is of farre other vse and farre greater efficâ—cy and excellency then other ordinary waxe is though it be the very same in nature and substance with it and with that which it was it selfe before it was taken vnto that vse And so is the bread in the Lords Supper being a seale of Gods couenant and of Christs last will and Testament of faire other vse and of farre greater efficacie and excellencie then any other ordinary bread is though it be the same still in nature and substance with it and the same with that for substanse that it was before it was so consecrated That which Pope Gelasius and Theodoret both expresly anouch Surely the Sacraments saith Gelasius which wee take of Christs body and blood are a diuine thing and thereby therefore are we made partakers of the diuine Nature and yet ceaseth there not to be there the nature or substance of bread and wine but they abide still in the propriety of their owne Nature And certainely an image and similitude of Christs body and blood is celebrated in those mysteries And The mysticall signes saith Theodonet after the sanctification doe not forgoe their owne nature but retaine still their former substance and figure and forme And againe the same Theodoret He that called that which is by nature his body wheat and bread and againe named himselfe a vine he hath honoured the symbols and signes which we see with the titles of his bodie and blood not changing the nature of them but adding grace to it Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood nothing but bare bread and wine The latter place vsually alledged to this purpose is that large Discourse our Sauiour hath concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Ioh. 6. 51-58 True it is indeed that if the bread and wine in the Eucharist be transubstantiated into the naturall body and blood of Christ and there bee such a corporall presence as Papists imagine it must needs follow that Christs very flesh is eaten and his very blood it selfe is corporally drunke in the Sacrament And to this purpose also Pope Nicholas in that solemne forme of recantation that hee enioyned Berengarius inserted into the body of the Canon auoweth that the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands and torne in pieces with mens teeth not sacramentally only but sensually and that all that hold the contrary deserue to be eternally damned A sensuall indeed and a senslesse assertion yea an horrible and an hideous speech full fraught I may well say though it proceeded from a Pope who they say cannot erre with extreame impiety and blasphemy and such as Christian eâ—res cannot but abhor to hear In so much that their owne Glosser vpon the place well warneth vs to take heed how we trust him Lest 〈…〉 fall into a worse heresie then Berengarius euer held But thus one monstrous opinion breedeth and begetteth another And this indeed must needs follow vpon the former The corporall presence of Christ in the thing eaten must needs inferre and enforce a corporall eating of him and to prooue the same they presse commonly our Sauiours words in that place of eating his flesh and drinking his blood Which as with some of the Ancients indeed they vnderstand of the Eucharist so they expound though without their consent therein of a corporall and carnall eating of Christs flesh But neither are those words of our Sauiour to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking nor doth Christ at all in that whole Discourse speake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was not then as yet instituted but of feeding on him spiritually by faith which is done not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also And first that the place is not to bee vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking it is aparent For it is a good and a sure Rule that Augustine giueth If in any precept some hainous or flagitious thing seeme to be enioyned you may thereby know it to be a figuratiue speech I need not apply this generall Rule to the point in hand Augustine doth it for mee Hee instanceth in that very particular that wee now treate of Vnlesse you eate saith he the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you It seemeth to enioyne an hainous and flagitious thing It is a figuratiue speech therefore commanding vs to communicate with Christs passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. So that this place by Augustines Rule and his owne application of it is to be vnderstood figuratiuely and doth
for a man well read in the auncient Fathers as hereafter hee boasteth himselfe to be Diuision 3. THis is the true Doctrine of the auncient Fathers and so plainely and vnanswerably doe they teach the literall vnderstanding of our Sauiours words and the miraculous coÌ„uersion of the bread wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the bodie and blood of Christ telling vs that we must not beleeue our sense or reason telling vs the contrarie nor conceiue it so impossible as our carnall and grosse Aduersaries pretend for the bodie of our Sauiour to bee in heauen and in numberlesse places of the earth together iâ—…sibly existing Whose plaine testimonies are in a whole Booke together by learned Bellarmine truly and particularly collected where also he refuteth the shifting answeres of Protestanticall Diuines vnto them soluing all Obiections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against Catholicke doctrine Who is by this Minister ignorantly or malitiously traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figuratiue and tropicall sense of our Sauiours words This is my Body because disputing against Luther supposing as well as he the literall sense of our Sauiours words argumento ad hominem by an Argument drawne from Luthers owne grounds hee driueth Luther either to confesse Transubstantiation necessarily purported in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie or for to admit barely against the knowne opinion of himselfe and all his disciples a figuratiue and metaphoricall vnderstanding of them For if Christs words be literally to be vnderstood and bread also admitted to remaine in the Sacrament the Pronoune Hoc This would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it and not the bodie of Christ inuisibly therein present and so bread in our Sauiours speech should falsly be affirmed to be Christs bodie Whereas if bread remaine not but be truly conuerted into Christs bodie no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literall vnderstanding of Christs words Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seeme to affirme that there is nothing in the holy Text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament or which is all one that may enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words c. Ignorance and mistaking must be my aduersaries best meanes to salue this falshood and many others which doe ensue afterward IN the next place hauing digressed all this while from the Argument he should haue answered he addeth that that which they teach coÌ„cerning the literall sense of Christs words and the miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ is the true doctrine of the auncient Fathers and to saue himselfe the labour of proouing that which neither he nor any of his side shall euer be able to make good he turneth his Reader ouer to Bellarmine out of whom he picked all that before he had said and telleth him that he hath both prooued it and refuted all the shifting answeres of the Protestanticall Diuines Bellarmine it seemeth is his Aiax behinde whose shield hee must shroud himselfe or else he dare abide no brunt of encounter againe Now to make Bellarmine againe some part of requitall because he is so much beholden to him he will doe his best to cleere him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad Minister by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of the Protestant doctrine concerning the figuratiue sense of our Sauiours words and to affirme c. It is true I say that Bellarmine granteth and so he doth I haue set downe his owne words they are not nor can be denied that these words This is my bodie may imply either such a reall change as the Catholickes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold and that is all I say of him The truth contrary to the maine drift and scope of his controuersie as it falleth out oft with those that against their owne knowledge maintaine errour did start from him vnawares Nor is the question now de re but de propositione as Bellarmine there speaketh the question is not of the maine matter in controuersie whether Christ did really conuert the Bread into his Body which Bellarmine affirmeth but whether that speech of our Sauiour may not beare such a figuratiue sense as we giue which Bellarmine in plaine and precise tearmes granteth And all that this his Champion can say for him is nothing but this that Bellarmine doth not say that which in expresse words I haue cited out of him without alteration of any one syllable and the falshood therefore lyeth manifestly on him that denieth it when he knoweth them to be Bellarmines owne wordes in precise tearmes But he hopeth it seemeth that with facing hee may carry away any thing I will adde a little more out of Bellarmine and yet no more then himselfe in precise tearmes saith Scotus and Cameracensis two great Schoolemen grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot necessarily bee gathered out of the text of the Evangelists howsoeuer they hold it because the Church of Rome that cannot erre hath so expounded it And Bellarmine himselfe granteth that this is not improbable For though the Scripture saith he that we bring may seeme so cleere that it may constraine a man that is not wilfull to yeeld it yet it may well bee doubted whether it be so or no since most learned men and most acute such especially as Scotus was are of a contrary minde And now we haue besides Scotus and others three Cardidinals Card. Bellarmine Card. Caietan and Card. Cameracensis all confessing that the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot cleerely or vnanswerably bee prooued by Scripture I conclude then with mine Adversaries grant It is all one saith he to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament and to say that there is nothing to enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words Card. Caietan freely confesseth the latter and vnlesse hee can disprooue Caietan which as yet hee hath not assaied to doe he must by his owne confession yeeld the former Diuision 4. PAge 3. He maketh a great stir in asking how the Chalice may be called the new Testament in our Sauiours blood I answer him because our Sauiours blood by the effusion whereof his last Wâ—ll and Testament was confirmed and our eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs is in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar for vs. For the word Testament as all learned men know is apt to import not onely the interiour act of the dying mans Wil but also the authenticall instrument or deed wherein that his dying
principall workes to passe by all others Our Lord saith he at the Table in his last Supper gaue Bread and Wine with his owne hands and on the Crosse he gaue vp his body to be wounded with the Souldiers hands Marke bread at the Table his Body on the Crosse that the sincere truth and true sinceritie more secretly imprinted in his Apostles might expound to the Nations how Bread and Wine were Flesh and Blood and by what meanes the causes agreed with their effects and diuers names or kinds were reduced to one essence and the things signifying and signified were called by the same names In which last words he most euidently sheweth how Bread is said to be Christs Body to wit because signes and the things by them signified are wont to haue the same titles giuen them The Bread is Christs Body as Christ himselfe is bread Christ giuing saith Theodoret the name of the signe to his Body and the name of his body to the Signe Or The Bread is Christ as the Rocke was Christ as Augustine well obserueth Yea that the Bread is said to be Christs Body is apparent and that it can in no other sense so be said Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe confesseth This sentence saith he This Bread is my Body either must be taken figuratiuely that the Bread be Christs body significatiuely that is by signification onely or else it is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot be that the Bread should be the Body of Christ he meaneth essentially or otherwise then by signification or representation So that The Bread is said to be Christs body the course of the Text sheweth it and the Auncients commonly acknowledge it but it cannot so be saith Bellarmine but figuratiuely In no other sense therfore are our Sauiours words to be vnderstood 2. We reason from the expresse words of Scripture wherein after Consecration there is said to be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament The Bread which we breake saith the Apostle is it not the Communion of Christs Body It is apparent by the Story of the Institution that Consecration goeth before fraction The Bread is blessed that is consecrated for the Benediction is in truth the Consecration before it be broken But it is bread saith the Apostle euen when it is broken It is bread therefore still euen after it is consecrated Yea is it bread when it is broken and is it not bread when it is eaten Yes if the Apostle may be credited euen when it is eaten 100. For as ost saith he as you eate this bread and Whosoeuer shall eate this bread vnworthily And Let a man therefore examine himselfe and so eate of this bread It is not so oft called Christs Body but it is called bread as oft euen after it is consecrated and by consecration made Symbolically and Sacramentally Christs body The Apostle then telleth vs of the one Element that it is bread euen after it is consecrated and of the other our Sauiour himselfe saith that it is wine For after that he had deliuered them the Consecrated Cup he telleth them that He will drinke no more of this Fruite of the Vine c. Now the fruit of the vine what is it but wine There was wine saith Augustine in the mysterie of our redemption when our Sauiour said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine And yet was that after consecration that he spake it And if it be wine still then sure it is not essentially Christs blood howsoeuer it may well be symbolically as we say So Origen In the first place he gaue his Disciples bread Yea He gaue them saith Cyril pieces of bread And Cyprian saith It was wine that hee called his blood And He deliuered wine saith Chrysostome when hee deliuered this mysterie which he prooueth also by those words of our Sauiour Of this fruite of the vine And here let me debate the matter with those that vse to presse vs with Christs words which yet we thinke not much to be pressed with if they be vnderstood as they ought Christ saith This is my Body And shall wee not beleeue what he saith The Apostle saith it is bread that is broken and that is eaten in the Eucharist and our Sauiour himselfe saith it was the fruite of the vine that he gaue them in the Cup. And will they not beleeue what the Apostle saith or what Christ saith Or shall we beleeue those that tell vs contrary to the expresse words of either that the one is not bread though the Apostle say it is or the other was not wine albeit our Sauiour say it was For how our Sauiours words may be true in the one place though the bread be not essentially but symbolically Christs body we can easily shew and themselues see and acknowledge as hath formerly beene shewen But how the Apostles and Christs words should be true or beare fit sense in the other places vnlesse there be bread and wine in the Eucharist after consecration I suppose they will not easily shew If they will say it is called bread because it was bread before as Aarons rod is called a rod after it was turned into a serpent I answer The reason is not alike For 1. The Serpent was made of that Rod but it is absord to say that Christs body is made of bread Yea the Papists themselues are at a stand here and cannot well tell what to say For they say indeede commonly that the Bread is turned into Christs Body and they say sometime also that Christs body is made of bread and that the Priest maketh Christs body of bread Yea Bellarmine sticketh not to say that That body of Christ which was crucified was truly or verily made of bread They may beleeue him that lift And yet they deny that Christs Body is made by the Priest He maketh Christs body of bread and yet Christs body is not made by him or that the body of Christ is produced of bread but doth succeede onely in the roome of bread But it is absurd to say a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth or is turned into that that succeedeth onely in the roome of it or to call a thing seriously for in mockery indeed sometime we doe by the name of some other thing onely because it is now in the place where that thing before was vnlesse it be in some Magicall action wherein that seemeth to be done that indeede is not and so the speech is not according to the truth of the thing but according to that that seemeth to be In a word we may truly say of that Serpent that it was once a Rod but we cannot truly say of Christs body that euer it was bread 2. The Serpent there though tearmed a Rod because it so had beene and should againe so be yet appeared euidently to be
the praier added to it and the word spoken of it that maketh it profitable to the worthy receiuer But to say so or to thinke so of Christs blessed and glorious Body were most hideous most horrible Well therefore saith Ambrose It is not this Bread that goeth into the belly but the Bread of eternall life that sustaineth the substance of our soules And Augustine expressely telleth vs that We are not to eate that body that the Iewes saw nor drinke that blood which they shed that crucified Christ but there is a Sacrament commended vnto vs which being spiritually vnderstood will put life into vs. There can nothing be imagined more absurd saith Bellarmine himselfe then to thinke that Christs Body should nourish the mortall substance of mens bodies and so should be the foode not of the minde but of the belly But by the Popish doctrine this it must needs doe and worse then this the Popish doctrine therefore is most absurd Lastly what can be more horrible then to imagine that Christs body or any part of it should be not in the belly of a man but in the belly of a beast Christian eares saith Benauenture abhorre to heare that Christs body should be in the draught or in a mouses maw Yet by this Popish doctrine both the one the other too must needs be if a mouse chance as he may to meete with a consecrated Hoast Nor doe the Popish writers ordinarily make daintie of it to acknowledge as much If a pigge or a dogge saith Alexander of Hales should swallow downe an whole consecrated hoast I see not why or how Christs body should not passe into its belly And Thomas Aquinas A brute beast may by accident eate Christs body And Though a Mouse or a Dog eate a consecrated Hoast yet the substance of Christs body ceaseth not to be there no more then it doth if the Hoast be cast into the durt If it be said saith the Glosser that a mouse eateth Christs Body there is no great inconuenience in it since that the most wicked men that are receiue it Nene eateth Christs flesh saith Augustine but hee that first worshippeth it And I doubt much whether any of these dogs pigs or mice euer adored it howsoeuer Cardinal Bellarmine and some others tell vs either of an Horse or an Asse that worshipped the Hoast But let them and their brutish miracles and imaginations goe together Yet so necessarily doth this follow vpon their doctrine of the Eucharist that whereas some of their Doctors seeme to doubt what the mouse eateth when she meeteth with an Hoast and maketh a good meale of it And the great Master of the Sentences saith God knoweth for he knoweth not but he enclineth rather to thinke that the mouse eateth not Christs body though shee seeme so to doe whereupon the Masters of Paris giue him a wipe for it by the way and said the Master is out here And others of them to salue the matter would coine vs a new miracle and say that so soone as the mouses mouth commeth at it or her lips kisse it Christs Body conueigheth it selfe away and the bread miraculously commeth againe in the roome of it and this say they is the commoner and the honester opinion Here is miracle vpon miracle such as they are Yet Thomas Aquinas their chiefe Schooleman and one that could not be deceiued herein for they say that his doctrine of the Sacrament was confirmed by Miracle a woodden Crucifix miraculously saluting him with these words Thou hast written well of me Thomas telleth vs peremptorily that it cannot be otherwise if Christs body be in the Eucharist but that Mice and Rats must eate it when they meete with the Hoast and make meate of it Some say saith he that so soone as the Sacrament is touched by a dogge or a mouse Christs Body ceaseth to be there But this opinion derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament Thus you may see what hideous horride and horrible conclusions this carnall and Capernaiticall conceite of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist hath bred and brought forth and must needs breede and bring forth with all those that vphold it The Summe of all that hath beene said 1. THat there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may not be figuratiuely vnderstood is by Cardinal Caietan confessed 2. That our Sauiours words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be vnderstood not corporally but spiritually is acknowledged by many Popish writers of great note and is beside other Reasons by a Rule giuen by Augustine euidently prooued 3. That the Elements in the Sacrament remaine in Substance the same and are not really transubstantiated into Christs Body and Blood is euinced by diuers Arguments 1. From the Course of the Context which plainely sheweth that Christ brake and deliuered no other then he tooke and blessed 2. From the expresse words of Scripture that calleth the one Bread and the other Wine euen after consecration 3. From the Nature of Signes whose propertie it is to be one thing and to signifie another thing 4. From the Nature of Christs Body that hath flesh blood and bones which the Eucharisticall bread hath not that which our taste our sight and our sense informeth vs by which our Sauiour himselfe hath taught vs to discerne his body 5. From the nature of euery true Body such as Christs is which cannot be in many places at once nor haue any part of it greater then the whole 6. From the qualitie of the Communicants good and bad promiscuously feeding on the Elements in the Eucharist whereas none but the faithfull can feede vpon Christ. 7. From these infirme and vnseemely yea foule and filthy things that doe vsually or may befall the Elements in the Eucharist which no Christian eare can endure to heare that they should befall Christs blessed and glorious body Whence I conclude that since this Corporall presence such as the Church of Rome maintaineth hath no warrant from Gods word as their owne Cardinal confesseth and is besides contrary to Scripture to nature to sight to sense to reason to religion we haue little reason to receiue it as a truth of Christ or a principle of Christianitie great reason to reiect it as a figment of a mans braine yea as a doctrine of the diuell inuented to wrong Christ and Christianitie It is the Rule of a Schooleman We ought not to adde more difficultie vnto the difficulties of Christian beliefe But rather according to that which the Scripture teacheth we should endeauour to cleere that that is obscure And therefore since that the one manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist is cleerely possible and intelligible whereas the other is not intelligible yea nor possible neither it seemeth probable that that manner of his presence that is
Title of the 33. Psalme wherein these words are written Et ferebatur in manibus suis And-he was carried in his owne hands Who saith he conc 1. is able to conceiue how this can happen in man For who is carried in his owne hands A man may be carried in the hands of an other But in his owne hands he cannot be carried How this may be literally vnderstood in Dauid we finde not But in Christ we doe For Christ was carried in his owne hands when giuing his bodie he said This is my Body For then did he carry that body in his owne hands c. When as Christ himselfe saith S. Cyril affirmeth and saith of the bread This is my Bodie who may presume to make any doubt thereof And when the same Christ confirmeth and saith This is my Blood who can doubt and say it is not his blood Againe Let vs not consider it as meere bread or bare wine For it is the bodie and blood of Christ. For although the sense teacheth thee that it is bread and wine yet let thy faith confirme thee that thou iudge not the thing it selfe by thy taste And a little after This knowing for most certaine that the bread which we see is not bread although thy taste thinketh it to be bread but that it is the bodie of Christ and the wine which we behold although to the sense of tasting it seemeth to be wine yet that it is not wine indeede but the blood of our Sauiour c. Let vs beleeue God saith S. Chrysostome in euery thing not gain-saying him though what he saith may seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation I beseech thee therefore that his speech may ouercome our sense and reason Which point we are to obserue in all things but especially in holy mysteries not onely beholding those things which lie before vs but also laying hold of his words for his words cannot deceiue vs but our sense may easily be deceiued And elsewhere lib. 3. de Sacerd. O miracle saith he O the bountie of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father euen in the same instant of time is handled with the hands of all and deliuereth himselfe to such as are willing to entertaine and imbrace him Againe Elias did leaue his garment to his disciple But the Sonne of God ascending to heauen did leaue his flesh But Elias by leauing it was deuested thereof Whereas Christ leauing his flesh to vs yet ascending to heauen there also he hath it AFter that he hath thus spent some part of his railing Rhetorick in traducing vilifying this Protestantical Diuine his Aduersary asignorant vnacquainted with the Authors he citeth a petty writer a meere collector a filcher a falsifier c. and disgraced his Discourse as consisting of proofes tedious and superficiall and allegations impertinent maimedly and corruptly produced and that nothing may escape him without some nip written with a very bad hand which he taketh to be his owne and the partie therefore one it may be not so fit to write for Ladies as himselfe being both a man of worth as before he intimated himselfe to be and writing a faire hand too though not very Scholerlike as the worke it selfe sheweth Hee commeth now to deale with the matter and substance of the Discourse Where the first Proposition that he vndertaketh to oppugne as I propound it is this These words in the Gospel This is my Body may well be taken figuratiuely Which how it may be I shew by some instances to wit these other in Scripture The seuen kine are seauen yeeres The ten hornes are ten Kings The Rocke was Christ or as those other in ordinary speech This is Caesar That is Cicero c. Nor is there any thing in the Gospel that may enforce the contrarie Now this worthy man that taxeth me for a meere Collector and a filcher out of Bellarmine hath nothing here to answere but what he fetcheth from Bellarmine whom he saith I filch all from But let vs see how well he vrgeth and maketh good Bellarmines answeres 1. The words are simply and without any other explication simply and vniformally for so in his scholerlike manner he speaketh recounted by three Euangelists and Saint Paul And therefore they cannot be taken figuratiuely For that must follow or else he speaketh nothing to the purpose We shall not neede to goe farre to discouer the weakenesse of this consequence The three Euangelists and S. Paul speaking of the other part of this Sacrament doe all simply and without another explication vniformally to retaine his owne precise tearmes say This Cup is c. therefore the Cup cannot be taken figuratiuely there which if it be not they must inuent a new Transsubstantiation of some other matter or mettall then the fruite of the Vine either into the New Testament or into Christs blood § 2. When the Lambe is called the Passeouer and the Rocke said to be Christ something is added in the Text to explaine the literall true meaning of them The Lambe for example in the same place is called the Sacrifice of the Passeouer Christ is said to be a spirituall Rocke c. 1. It is not true that he saith that in the same place where the Lambe is called the Passeouer the same Lambe is called the Sacrifice of the Passeouer There is no more said Exod. 12. 11. but this Ye shall eate it in hast it is the Lords Passeouer there being nothing by way of explication there added But after indeede verse 27. not the Lambe precisely but the whole Seruice is said to be the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer When your Children shal aske you What seruice is this that you obserue Then shall you say It is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer Neither is Christ said to be a spirituall Rocke 1. Cor. 10. 4. But the reall Rocke is called a spirituall Rocke as the Manna and the water that issued from it are called spirituall meate and drinke And that Rocke for matter corporall for vse spirituall is said as Augustine well obserueth not to signifie but to be Christ Nothing being added more to intimate a figuratiue sense there then heere in the wordes This is my Body which two speeches both Augustine and Caietan compare the one with the other 2. It is senselesse thus to reason In some places where figuratiue speeches are vsed something is added to explicate them therefore wheresoeuer nothing is added to explicate the figure the words are not or cannot be figuratiuely taken 3. In many of the instances giuen no such explication is added as these The ten Hornes are ten Kings The seven Kine are seuen yeeres This is Caesar This Cicero c. 4. In the very Context there is added that which sheweth the sense to bee figuratiue For that which is called Christs blood by the Euangelist in the one verse is expresly said to be the
fruit of the vine in the next verse And that which is called Christs body by the Apostle is immediately after more then once or twice expounded to bee bread § 3. The very scope saith he or Bellarmine by him of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words are literally to be taken as the seuen kine ten hornes c. And doth not the very nature of signes and Sacraments shew in what sense the wordes vsed of or in them are to be taken to wit figuratiuely and symbolically not properly or essentially For what are Signes and Sacraments but reall parables both therefore tearmed Mysteries as Chrysostome noteth because one thing is seene in the one as heard in the other and some other thing vnderstood Or what is more vâ—uall then as Augustine and others well obserue that Signes and Sacraments be called by the names of those things which they are signes and sacraments of What Sacrament also is there wherein or whereof such speeches are not vsed Circumcision is called the Covenant the pasohall Lambe the Passeouer the Rocke Christ Bapâ—â—sme the Laver of Regeneration And in like manner saith Augustine is the bread Christâ— body the name of the thing signified saith Theodoret being giuen to the signe So that whereas this worthy writer thus argueth out of Bellarmine In visions and parables the very scope euer sheweth that the things spoken are to bee vnstoode figuratiuely But these places the seven kine and the ten hornes are visions and parables And therefore the things therein spoken are to be taken figuratiuely Why may not we as wel reason on this wise The very nature of signes and sacraments leadeth vnto this that when the names of the things whereof they are signes and sacraments are given vnto them it is to bee vnderstood not properly but figuratiuely But it is a Sacrament wherein and whereof these speeches are vsed This is my bodie and This is my blood These wordes therefore wherein the name of the thing signified is giuen to the Sacrament are to bee vnderstood figuratiuely And so hee hath from his owne grounds by due proportion somewhat more to conclude then was before required to wit not onely that there is nothing that may enforce vs to expound them literally but that there is somewhat of moment to induce vs to expound them figuratiuely § 4. In all such figuratiue speeches saith he further out of Bellarmine Semper praedicatur de disparato disparatum One thing is said to be another when it cannot be indiâ—idually or specifically the same but wholly different in nature from it A man for example as Christ was cannot but similitudinarily be a Rock a Vine or a Lion But in Christs words This is my body no such absurd or impossible thing is affirmed but only that the substance which he had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 1. In this speech of our Sauiour This is my body as well as in that speech of the Prophet This is Ierusalem or in that speech of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ is one thing to wit bread as is afterward prooued both by the course of the context the words of the Apostle and the doctrine of the ancient Fathers said to bee an other thing to wit the flesh of Christ which is wholly different in nature from it Nor can this worthy Disputer prooue theÌ„ contrary vnlesse you grant him the point in question which heere hee shamefully beggeth to make good his Assertion to wit that that which Christ had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 2. A man may as well be a rocke as a rocke may bee a man or bread may be flesh And why was it not as possible for the rocke to be turned into Christ and so to become Christ as for bread to bee turned into the bodie of Christ and so to be the flesh of Christ that the one might be vnderstood properly as well as the other If they will say It is impossible that the rocke should bee turned into the flesh of Christ before Christ was incarnate I might answer them as they vse to do vs that God is able to do all things And questionlesse it is as possible that the rock should be turned into that flesh that as yet was not as that a little thinne wafer cake or the compasse of it at least should containe Christs whole and entire body here on earth while the very selfe same indiuiduall body should be whole and entire still in heaven A creature may as well be and yet not be at once as a naturall body may at the same time be wholly and entire thus contracted on earth and yet whole and entire also in his full stature in heauen Yea how is it not a thing absurd and impossible that Christs body sitting whole and entire at the table should hold the selfe-same body whole and entire in its two hands on the table and should giue the selfe-same body away whole and entire ouer the table to twelue seuerall persons to goe seuerally into each of their mouthes still whole and entire and to become so many whole and entire humane organicall bodies in their mouthes as in chewing they made pieces of that that was giuen them and yet the selfe-same body that they did thus take and eate remaine sitting there still vnstirred and vntouched If these things be not absurda absurdorum absurdissima as he speaketh as monstrous absurdities as euer were any I know not what are 3. Obserue how these men that cannot endure to heare vs say This or that thing is impossible yet tell vs themselues of many impossibilities and that euen then also when they speake of these miraculous mysteries in the confuting one of another It is impossible saith this worthy writer for a man as Christ was otherwise then similitudinarily to be a rock or a vine It is impossible saith Aquinas that a man should be an Asse It is impossible saith the Glosse that bread should be Christs bodie It is altogether impossible saith Bellarmine that this sentence This bread is my body should be true properly It is impossible saith Biel that Christs body should be broken or divided and so bee spoiled being impassible It is impossible saith Aquinas that Christ in his last Supper should giue his body impassible It is impossible that his body being now impassible should be altered in shape or hew It is impossible that Christs body in his proper shape should be seene in any other place but that one onely wherein he is definitiuely It is impossible that the substantiall forme of bread should remaine after consecration or that the substance of bread and wine should abide there It is impossible that Christs body by a locall motion should come to bee in the Sacrament It is impossible
that the same thing should both rest and mooue at once It is impossible that the same body should by locall motion arriue in diuers severall places at once It is impossible that Christs should personally assume the bread in the Sacrament It is impossible that Christs body should bee in the Sacrament any other way but by the conversion of bread into it All these and many other impossibilities they tell vs of that cannot endure to heare vs speake of any Now if they will tell vs why these things are impossible we shall as soone tell them againe in their owne wordes why such a Transubstantiation and reall presence as they dreame of is impossible 4. How doth this follow There is no impossible thing affirmed in Christs words Therefore they must needs bee taken properly or they cannot bee taken figuratiuely Hee might by the same reason prooue that the Apostles words where he saith of himselfe I die dayly or where he saith I am crucified together with Christ or where he saith of the Galathians that Christ was crucified among them or the Psalmists as some fantasticall Rabbines haue held where hee saith of the Heavens that they relate Gods glory c. or our Sauiours where hee saith that the tongue of the Rich mans soule was in torment must of necessity be all vnderstood literally and properly because there is nothing simply impossible affirmed in them § 5. He telleth vs in Conclusion that the meaning of our Sauiour Christs wordes is this The Substance which I hold in my hands is my Body made by the miraculous conuersion of bread into it But where is ought in the Text that inti nateth this miraculous conuersion yea if this were the sense of them it should be made Christs body ere those wordes were spoken of it Whereas hee and his associates commonly hold that this miraculous conuersion is wrought by those wordes This is my body and is not effected till those wordes be all out which they giue the Priest a speciall charge thereof to vtter speedily with one breath And here let this profound doughty Doctor giue an ignorant petty writer leaue to demand of him what is ment by the word This in those wordes This is my body for I suppose hee will not be so absurd as the Glosser is to say that Hoc or this there signifieth nothing at all or what that substance was as hee speaketh that Christ held in his hands when hee spake the word Hoc or this If it were Christs body made before of bread then the vttering of those wordes did not then nor doth now worke any conuersion of the bread into Christs body for nothing can bee turned into it selfe or into that that already it is or if it were bread still as for ought ap peareth in the text still it was then must this needs bee the summe and sense of Christs wordes This bread is my body and so by his owne rule when disparatum de disparato dicitur one thing is said to be another different in nature from it it must needs be taken figuratiuely § 6. Well wotting that there was no such thing either in the Text or gatherable to vse his owne tearmes out of it hee would faine finde out some Author that would say that for him that the text it selfe will not and alleagdeth therefore some few Testimonies Concerning which I might well say as hee saith if I would doe as hee doth that they haue beene answered long since by the L. Morney the B. Morton D. Fulke and others and hee doth not deale sincerely in concealing their Answers and so turne my Reader over to them as his manner is when he hath nothing to answer But I answer to them severally 1. Ambrose is alleadged out of his bookes de Mysterijs c. and de Sacramentis which bookes howsoeuer for diuers passages of them and phrases vsed in them they may well be doubted of whether they were written by him or no and Posseuine himselfe implieth that some haue denied it when hee saith that all almost hold them to be his and part of them as we shall see anone goeth commonly vnder another name yet not to stand thereupon but admit them for his Nothing there said doth necessarily enforce any such Transubstantiation as the Romanists hold yea some subsequent wordes if they had beene annexed would euidently speake against it For first Ambrose there expressely teacheth that the creatures of bread and wine still abide euen after Consecration which vtterly ouerthroweth the Popish Transubstantiation If saith he there were so much force in the word of the Lord in the worke of Creation that those things began by it to be that before were not how much more operatiue is it to cause that things should be still what they were before and be changed into another things So that by this Ambroses confession the elements remaine still what they were and yet are changed indeed which wee deny not into that which they were not as waxe is turned into a seale being annexed to a deed though it remaine still for substance what erst it was 2. That which Ambrose saith in the latter place that This bread is bread before the wordes sacramentall but when consecration commeth to it it is of bread made Christs flesh that hee speaketh in these wordes in the former place which this mangler of him omitteth Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes is another kinde named but after Consecrationis Christs body signified And againe in the latter place Wine and water is put into the Cup but by Consecration it becommeth blood Thou wilt say I see no kind or shew of blood But it hath saith hee a similitude of it For as thou hast taken a similitude of death in Baptisme hee meaneth as lib. 3. cap. 7. so thou drinkest a similitude of Christs precious blood c. And thereupon he concludeth Thou hast learned now that that which thou receiuest is Christs body So that it is in regard of signification and similitude that the one is said to be Christs flesh and the other his blood as this Ambrose explicateth himselfe 3. Expounding what manner of change hee meaneth when he saith They are changed into that which erst they were not Thou thy selfe saith he wast before but thou wast an old creature after thou wast consecrated thou begannest to be a new creature which newnesse yet as Tertullian well obserueth importeth no corporall but a spirituall change in the party so consecrated not in substance but in quality differing from what he was before 4. In the next Chapter relating the wordes of their Church Liturgie then in vse hee calleth that holy oblation a figure of Christs body and blood which they entreate God to accept of as hee did Abels gifts and Abrahams sacrifice c. which cannot
stuffe their packets with for want of better and choiser wares And yet may wee but haue leaue to expound this Cyril or whosoeuer he is else by himselfe we shall soone shew him to say no more then we willingly admit For in the same Catechising that is here alleadged Doe not regard saith he these things as bare â—read and wine And in the Catechising next before Doe not suppose that ointment to be bare ointment For as the Bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost is no longer bare bread but Christs bodie so this holy Oyntment after inuocation is no more bare or common ointment but a gift of Christ and the holy Ghost by the presence of his Deitie And looke what he saith concerning the not trusting of our senses in the matter of the Eucharist the same doth the Ambrose before cited say of the Sacrament of Baptisme What seest thou saith he Water but not water alone c. First the Apostle teacheth thee to contemplate not the things that are seene but the things that are not seene Beleeue the presence of the Deitie For how could it worke there if it were not present And againe afterward Beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone that is better seene that is not seene And say not we as much that it is not bare bread nor bare wine that is offered vs in the Eucharist whatsoeuer this lying wretch hereafter shamelesly auoweth as when we come to it shall be shewed which is all that our outward sense is able to enforme but spirituall signes and seales and effectuall instruments of grace which the eye of our soule is alone able to conceiue and our faith to assure vs of 4. Chrysostome is alleadged but little to the purpose The former allegation is here cited out of Sermon 60. ad Popul Antioch which Sermon this Answerer had hee beene so well acquainted with the Author hee citeth as would beseeme such a Doctor as he professeth himselfe to be he should haue found to be an Homily neuer made by Chrysostome but by some other composed of part of two Sermons of his on the Glosse of S. Matthew pieced together to wit the 83. and the 51. according to the Latin or the 82. and 50. according to the Greeke The place produced is out of the 83. on Matthew for that is the proper place of it In which Sermon Chrysostome speaketh no more of the Eucharist then he doth of the Sacrament of Baptisme in the very next words It is no sensible thing saith hee that Christ hath left vs but in things indeed sensible matters all intelligible In like manner it is in Baptisme By a sensible thing to wit water is the gift giuen but the thing that is there wrought to wit regeneration and renovation is a thing intelligible If thou wert not corporall he would haue giuen thee the gifts themselues naked and spirituall but because thy soule is conioyned with thy body thereforeby sensible things he giveth thee things intelligible And in the other Sermon out of which that Homily is pieced Beleeue thou that the same supper wherein Christ himselfe sate downe is now celebrated For there is no difference betweene this and that For it is not a man that doth the one and Christ the other But it is Christ himselfe that doth both the one and the other When therefore thou seest the Priest reaching somewhat to thee do not imagine that it is the Priest that doth it but that it is Christs hand that is stretched out to thee For as when thou art baptised hee doth not baptize thee but it is God that holdeth thy head by his inuisible power and neither Angel nor Archangel nor any other dare approach and touch So is it now also Now what is here spoken but of Mysteries or Sacraments in generall applied after in particular as well to Baptisme as to the Eucharist and therefore may as well prooue a reall or essentiall transmutation in the one as in the other and if not in both in neither since the very same things are spoken of either to wit that we must in either regard not so much what our bodily eye seeth as what the spirituall eye of the beleeuing soule by faith apprehendeth and vpon ground of Gods word beleeueth and that by things sensible are things intelligible conueighed to vs and effected in vs as well in the one as in the other The 2. place of Chrysostome is out of his 3. booke de Sacerdotio Wherein this alleadger of him fareth as ill as in the former allegation Chrysost. saith indeed that Christ that sitteth aboue with his Father in heauen is at that time to wit when the Eucharist is celebrated held in the hands of each one and offreth himself to those that will claspe him about and embrace him But not to insist vpon what was aboue said by him that Christ himselfe and not Man both there and in Baptisme administreth nor vpon other phrases in the same place vsed by him both before of the same Eucharist that the people are all died purple-red in it with Christs blood and afterward of Baptisme that in it wee are buried together with Christ Which cannot bee vnderstood but figuratiuely he sheweth in the very next words to those here cited what his meaning was in them and how all this is done when hee saith And this they doe all then with the eyes of faith The third place is not as he seemeth to cite it out of the same booke but out of his 2. Sermon ad populum Antiochenum He found them ioyned together in Bellarmine out of whom he hath all and therefore tooke them it seemeth to bee both out of one booke Chrysostome there saith that Christ hath left vs his flesh and yet hath it still in Heauen But how that may be verified he himselfe sheweth in the same place a little before when he saith that there was a twofold Elias whom he compareth Christ withall when Elias was translated an Elias aboue and an Elias beneath he meaneth Elisaeus on whom rested the spirit of Elias whom hee therefore esteemeth a symbolicall Elias as Iohn the Baptist is called Elias because he came in the power and the spirit of Elias and so was also Elias as our Sauiour auerreth and Augustine well obserueth though not essentially Elias yet Elias symbolically And so here in like manner Christs essentiall flesh is in heauen whither they must also saith Chrysostome ascend and flie vp like Eagles that will haue it his symbolicall Flesh is here vpon earth as the Symbolicall Elias was in the Sacrament of his body which saith Augustine in some sort is his body being a Signe and Sacrament of it And thus you see what substantiall proofes this great Blusterer hath brought to prooue their Transubstantiation and how well he hath acquit himselfe
Will is contained and his legacy conueighed vnto vs which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deâ—â—â—t soules Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to bee no other then bare signes and types of Christs true body and blood as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person as Circumcision is called the Couenant because it was a signe thereof c. either not vnderstatding like a dull Scholler his Master Caluines doctrine or ouer sawcily willing to contradict him who towards the end of his booke de Coena Domini expressely denieth bread wine to be empty signes of our Sauiours body and blood but such signes as haue the signified substances of our Sauiours body and blood conioyned with them For Christ saith hee is no deceiuer to delude vs with bare figures c. According to which doctrine of Caluine it will be easie for my Adversarie himselfe to salue many of his owne obiections that for example which he maketh out of Tertullian page 3. saying The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his body saying This is my body that is a figure of my body For as Caluines former words import so also Tertullian meaneth the sacramentall symbols not to be naked signes of Christs absent body and blood as the Minister would haue them but such signes as haue the signified substance conioyned vnto them as smoake is the signe of fire warme blood of life the fiery tongues ouer the Apostles in that day of Pentecost and the Doue ouer our Sauiour in his Baptisme were signes of the holy Ghost present c. Which manner of being signes of Christs body and blood doth not exclude but suppose the Accidents of bread and wine to containe the true substances of our Sauiours body and blood in them So is Saint Augustine to be vnderstood where he saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when hee deliuered the signe of his body And when out of Gratian my Aduersary citeth those wordes The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ c. is a Sacrament of Christs body visible palpable mortal and pierced on the Crosse c. So when Theodoret and Gelasius affirme the substance and nature of bread and wine still to remaine in the Sacrament they meane not physicall substances and nature of bread and wine still to remaine after the consecration but onely the accidents to remaine vnaltered in their nature signifying and containing our Sauiours body and blood vnder them And if hee had cited the place of Theodoret fully out he had vtterly ouerthrowne his hereticall and fraudulent purposes of citing him His wordes are these Neither do the sacramentall signes after consecration depart from their nature for they remaine note how hee speaketh of the signes not of the substances of bread and wine remaining in their former substance figure and forme to be seene and touched as before but they are by our vnderstanding conceiued to be as they are made and they are beleeued and adored according to our faith of them So iudicious and learned is mine Aduersarie here and in other places in the choise of his Arguments and Authorities alleadged against vs. But howsoeuer he faileth in that he will be sure to helpe out the matter by maiming and corruptly citing such testimonies I haue iust cause to suspect his like dealing in citing Gratians Glosse on S. Augustines wordes in the precedent page and Caietans words cited by him page 2. But I haue not these Authors now by me to examine the places in themselues And they are of so small esteeme with vs especially Caietan in his dangerous and inconuenient manner of expounding Scripture with more subtilty many times then truth as I cannot but wonder to see the Minister so to magnifie him as if hee were the Oracle of our Church and his ipse dixit and bare assertion so certaine a proofe as it could not be denied by vs. IN the next place therefore skipping ouer this Confession of Caietan that there is nothing in the Gospell that may inforce vs to take those words of our Sauiour properly This is my body but that they may for ought that is in the Text be taken figuratiuely as well as those wordes The Rock was Christ. As also leaping quite ouer the Answer giuen to that Obiection that we are bound to beleeue our Sauiour when hee saith This my body as if wee could not beleeue those wordes of his vnlesse wee beleeue Transubstantiation whereas their owne writers grant that the words of our Sauiour may be true though no such thing be He picketh out here and there some by-matter to bee nibling vpon that hee may seeme to say somewhat though hee keepe aloofe off from the maine matter And first because hee thought hee had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet which hee was desirous to vent He saith I make a great stirre in asking how the Chalice may bee called the New Testament in Christs blood I halfe suspect that some body hath sometime pusâ—ed him with this Question and he is willing therfore here to explicate it for the saluing of his owne credit the rather hauing lighted vpon a new deuice that hee thinketh wil easily helpe out For I mooue no such Question much lesse make such adoe about asking it but say onely We must beleeue our Sauiour as well when he saith This Cup is the new Testament or This Cup is my blood as wee must beleeue him when he saith This is my body and that either may bee true though there be no such reall conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament or Christs blood in the one or of the Bread into his body in the other And his part had beene if he ment to keepe to the point to shew why the one may not be true in a figuratiue sense as wel as the other But let vs heare how learnedly though it bee beside the matter he explicateth our Sauiours wordes This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Thus forsooth My blood in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed and the eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood Did any man in his right wits thinke wee euer expound Scripture on this manner Yea but he hath a singular piece of Schollership by himselfe to iustifie his Exposition For all learned men saith hee know that the word Testament is apt to import not the dying mans Will onely but the deed wherein it is contained and the legacy conueighed by it which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deuout soules c. If he had beene himselfe inebriated when hee writ this hee could not lightly haue beene more absurd For 1. By this
Theodorets owne words By Sacramentall Signes saith he Theodoret meaneth not the Substance of Bread and Wine 1. He vnderstandeth by the mysticall Signes that that is offered to God by Gods Priests And doth the Priest then offer nothing to God but accidents onely Indeed they tell vs that Melchisedech offred bread and wine and that their Priests are Priests after the order of Melchisedech and so offer such offerings as he did And the auncient Fathers alluding to that story by them allegorised say that Bread and Wine are offred to God in the Eucaarist But in the Popish Masse according to their opinion of it no such thing can be offred because no such thing is there present 2. More particularly explaining himselfe he saith that by the one signe he meaneth the food that of certaine graine is made and by the other the fruite of the Vine And is there any such foode or fruit at all that is no physicall substance or that consisteth of meere accidents He deserueth to be fed till he starue with such food that would feede or infect rather mens soules with such draffy stuffe as this is Yea in precise tearmes he saith that Christ called Bread not the accidents of bread his Body as he called his Body else-where bread 3. The very maine drift and scope euidently manifesteth his meaning which is to shew that the Lords Body though it be not a common body but hath glorious endowments yet remaineth a true body still as the Sacramentall bread though it be not common bread yet retaineth still it former nature and substance and is true bread still 4. If wee aske Theodoret himselfe what hee meaneth here by Substance and whether hee take the word in such sense as it is vsually taken hee telleth vs himselfe a little before he entreth into this discourse that by Substance he vnderstandeth a body and by Accidents which hee opposeth to Substance such things as betide bodies and yet may depart from them And they may as well say that by Substance Theodoret meant Accidents when hee saith that Christs body retaineth still the same bodily substance as they may say hee so meaneth when of the bread which hee compareth therewith hee saith the very same But what take I so much paines to set vp a light when the Sun shines the proofe is so plaine and his meaning so perspicuous that it may seem written as Tertullian speaketh with a beame of the Sunne saue to lay open a little this mans shamelesse carriage and senslesse shifts who yet with a confident face telleth his Reader that his Aduersarie both heere and else-where sheweth how learned and iudicious hee is in the choice of his authorities as if this allegation made wholly for them and against vs were it read all out or were nothing pertinent at least to the purpose § 5. In conclusion for Gratians Glosse acknowledging the truth by vs maintained that our Sauiours wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood and Cardinall Caietan confessing that they may well beare that sense hauing nothing and that is maruell for he dare say any thing to except against either hee excuseth himselfe that hee hath not the bookes by him as if they were not commonly in Pauls Church-yard to be had if hee had listed to looke after them A bad excuse as we say is better then none at all with him Onely hee addeth that they are both of small account with them Caietan especially In regard whereof hee wondereth that I should so much magnifie him as if he were the Oracle of their Church c. For the former none can be ignorant what Authority among their Canonists the Glosses haue and in the place cited the rather because hee buildeth vpon Augustines owne wordes For the latter I cite him onely by the name of Cardinall Caietan nor had they many Cardinals in his time for learning his equals one of our Aduersaries that is all my magnifying of him But mine Adversaries lips must need ouer-runne Yet of what repute and esteeme Caietan was for both kinds of learning as well Philosophy as Diuinity to omit the titles commonly giuen him in the Inscriptions of his workes by those that set out some of them stiling him the most eminent Doctour and professor of diuinity his Commentaries on Thomas whence this testimony is taken most luculent and euen diuine Commentaries his smaller Treatises golden workes I may referre you to the workes themselues so many so learned so elaborate and to the storie of his life written by Antonius Fonseca and set out with some of them It is apparent and it is enough that a prime Cardinall of the Sea of Rome confesseth ingenuously that the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body may be siguratiuely taken for ought in the text were it not that their Church that is the Pope will haue them otherwise expounded Diuision 5. HE concludeth his first Discourse thus page 5. Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacrament of Christs body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine Which Corollarium of his plainely so delivered may make any man see the Protestanticall Communion truely anathomized and plainely shewed to haue nothing holy heauenly and diuinely as the Fathers speake therein contained but bare bread and wine which any man may eate when and where hee pleaseth remembring withall our Sauiours passion Neuer Caietan neuer Bellarmine neuer Gratian neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine of our Church beleeued or taught this grosse and sacrilegious doctrine as my Aduersarie in his wordes They and Wee falsely pretendeth Neither doth Caluine or any other noted Diuine of their Church speake at least whatsoeuer they thinke so poorely and grossely of this Sacrament but they endeauour with Epithets and wordes to couer the bready nakednesse thereof making it seeme mysterious at least if not miraculous Blessed Saint Dennis great Scholler of Saint Paul himselfe I will heere presume to aske thee If the Sacrament of the Altar bee but bare bread and wine why doest thou so absurdly speake and blasphemously praey vnto it in this manner O most diuine and holy Sacrament vouchsafe to open those signifying signes and appeare perspicuously vnto vs and replenish the spirituall eyes of our soule with the singular and cleere splendor of thy light c. Why likewise thou holy Martyr and great Doctor of Christs Church Saint Itaeneus liuing so neere the Apostles times as to know great Polycarpus S. Iohns disciple and deeply seene in the knowledge of heauenly verities doest thou deny this bread after consecration to bee any more accounted common bread but the Eucharist cōsisting of two things heauenly and earthly that being receiued into our bodies they may bee no more corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection If no more then bare bread and wine be in this Communion as my Aduersarie affirmeth why did yee noble Confessors of
the first Nicene Councell will vs in this diuine table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed but to eleuate our minde by faith and behold on this table the Lambe of God taking away the sinnes of the world by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to bee symboles and pledges of our resurrection c. O holy Ephrem renowned so for thy great learning and singular sanctitie as Saint Ierome testifieth thy writings to haue beene read in the Church after the holy Scriptures why doest thou will vs not to search after these inscrutable mysteries c. but to receiue with a full assurance of faith the immaculate body of the Lord and the Lambe himselfe entirely adding those wordes which cannot agree to such a communion of bare bread and wine as this Minister teacheth The mysteries of Christ are an immortall fire search them not curiously least in the search thou become burned c. telling vs that this Sacrament doth exceed all admiration and speech which Christ our Sauiour the onely begotten Sonne of God hath instituted for vs. Finally why doe other ancient â—nd chiefe Fathers of the Greeke and Latine Church call the consecrated bread and wine on the Altar dreadfull mysteries the food of life and immortality hidden Manna and infinitely excelling it a heauenly banquet the bread of Angels humbly present while it is offered and deuoutly adoring it c. If there bee no more but bare bread and wine therein receiued in memorie of our Sauiours passion as my Aduersarie affirmeth of his Protestanticall Sacrament THe next Diuisiâ—â— hee maketh entrance into with a grosse and shamelesse deprauation and thereupon prosecuteth it to the end with an impertinent digression Hauing cited the forenamed Testimenies of Theodoret and Gelasius in mine Answer to that Obiection brought commonly against vs as if by a deniall of such a reall presence as Papists maintaine wee should make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread I conclude both mine Answer and the Allegation of those two Authors in these wordes Thus they to wit Gelasius and Theodoret and thus we and yet neither doe they nor we therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood NOthing but bare bread and wine Now this shamelesse wretch wanting matter to be dealing with turneth me NOthing into ANY thing a man able indeed with his shamelesse senselesse shifts to picke any thing out of nothing and relateth my wordes in this manner to a cleane contrary sense Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine Had either I or my Transcriber for the truth is it was not mine owne hand-writing that hee had I write a worse hand I confesse then he is aware of that accounteth that so bad an one If either I or hee I say had slipt heere with the pen as I suspected hee might haue done till I saw the copie againe that this Answerer had yet the whole tenour of my speech wherein I shew that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are no more bare bread or bare wine then the water vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme is bare water would sufficiently haue shewed my meaning But when the copie that was deliuered him remaining in the custodie of that Noble Personage for whom at first it was written is found apparantly to haue the wordes in the very same manner as I haue before cited them I cannot deuise what colour this audacious wretch can bring to salue his owne credite with and excuse his corrupt carriage It argueth not a bad but a desperate cause that without such senselesse and shamelesse shifts cannot bee vpheld And I beseech your Ladiship well to consider what credite is to be giuen to these men alleadging Authors Fathers Councels c. which they know you cannot your selfe peruse and examine when they dare thus palpably falsifie a writing that you haue in your owne hands and may haue recourse to when you will § 2. Now hauing thus laid a lewd and loud vntruth for the ground of his ensuing Discourse 1. Hee falleth into an Inuectiue against our Protestanticall Communion as acknowledged by me to haue nothing holy heauenly and diuinely for so it pleaseth him to speak therein contained but bare bread and wine c. adding withall that neuer Câ—ietan neuer Bellarmine neuer Gratian neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine beleeued or taught this sacrilegious doctrine a lye he meaneth of his owne forging as my Aduersarie in these wordes They and wee falsly pretendeth In which wordes first for hee cannot forbeare fâ—lsifying for his life no not then and there where he chargeth others with falshood he intimateth that in those words Thus they I should haue reference to Caietan Bellarmine and Gratian whereas my wordes euidently point at Gelasius and Theodoret whose owne wordes in precise tearmes I had next before cited 2. He chargeth me falsely to say that of the Eucharish that neither I nor any of our Diuines euer said yea which being by way of Obiection before produced I not onely disauow and disprooue approouing freely and at large proouing the contrary but in this place in plaine tearmes conclude the direct contrary vnto in the very wordes by him fowly falfified 3. Hee runneth out to giue vs some taste of his rowling Rhetoricke as well as his loose Logicke into a solemn inuocation of his forged S. Dionyse together with some of the Ancients as if hee were raising of Spirits with some magicall inchantment to fight with a shadow and to skirmish with a man of straw of his owne making to testifie in that against vs that hee would faine put vpon vs but none of vs by his owne confession euer said or doe say Thus hee hath nibled here and there cauilled at by-matters coined lies forged and faced but giuen no direct Answer to the Argument whereunto hee should haue answered and whereby it was prooued that these wordes of our Sauiour This my body may well beare a figuratiue sense so expounded by the Ancient Fathers and confessed by their owne writers not so much as attempted to prooue the contrary thereunto § 3. Now howsoeuer I might very well let passe as impertinent those citations and sayings of the Authors here summoned to giue in either testimony or sentence against that that none of vs auoweth and which therfore though all that either they doe say or hee would haue them say were true did no way crosse vs or once touch vs in ought that is heerein affirmed of vs and I had sometime therefore determined wholy to passe by them for feare of ouercharging this Discourse yet considering that some weake ones peraduenture may stumble at some passages in them especially as they are vnfaithfully by this alleadger of them here translated I haue thought good now ere wee part with them to examinine what they say that
the Father had giuen and that Christ would giue then the wordes are not meant of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist For therein the very same Christ that the Father gaue is giuen to the faithfull as we say spiritually to both faithfull and vnfaithfull as they affirme corporally And therfore the gift is not diuers as he saith but the selfe same 2. If hee say that the gift is diuers in regard of the diuers manner of giuing who knoweth not that Christ who had beene giuen by his Father and yet by himselfe also in his incarnation was after giuen also by himselfe and yet by his Father also in his passion So their owne Iansenius expoundeth his words that he would giue his bâ—die also vnto death and Frier Ferus that hee would giue it vnto death on the Crosse for there saith hee was that bread to bee basked and there that flesh of his saith Bonauenture was to be boyled Yea so Gregory of Valence My flesh that I will giue that is that I will offer for the life of the world Where thinke we but on the Crosse 2. Christ saith he compareth the eating of his flesh to the Iewes eating of Manna which was a corporall food really eaten by them and he must needs therefore speake of the Eucharist Bellarmine was not so absurd indeed as to argue on this manner As if the Manna were not also a spirituall type of Christ and Christ might not as well compare the type with the truth as the type with the counter-type the type of the Manna a spirituall food then really taken with the spirituall eating of Christ that was therin figured Or 〈…〉 â—f he might not compare our spirituall feeding on him with some corporall food really eaten which both here and else-where it is confessed as shal presently be shewed that he doth and yet not mention the Sacrament of the Eucharist at all Bellarmine saith indeede that Christ compareth there with the Manna his bodie not as it is receiued by faith alone and then belike by Bellarmines grant it is truely so also receiued euen out of the Sacrament but as in the Sacrament it is receiued But how doth he proue it 1. From the Apostle where hee compareth Baptisme with the red Sea and Manna with the Eucharist But how doth this follow The Apostle doth so there therefore our Sauiour doth so heere especially considering how diuers the scope of either in either place is The Apostles scope is to shew that the old Israelites had as good and as sure outward pledges of Gods fauour and loue as wee Christians now haue and yet were not spared when they prouoked him to wrath for all that Our Sauiours scope is to prooue that the spirituall food of his flesh which he there tendred them and aduised them to seeke after was much more excellent and of farre greater vertue and efficacie then the Manna that their Fathers did once eate in the Wildernesse For that that considered as corporall food was it selfe corruptible and could not preserue them that eate of it from death whereas this was food incorruptible and being spiritually fed on would cause them to liue for euer For the Apostles purpose therefore it was necessary to consider the Manna as a Sacrament and to compare the Eucharist with it as with our Baptisme hee had paralleled the Red Sea before But for our Sauiour so to do there was no necessity at all Nor indeed doth he consider the Manna there as a Sacrament no more then the Iewes did that there mentioned it to him nor doth hee speake cught of the Sacrament where hee speaketh of the Manna as Bellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth His speech to them occasioned by the bread that they had eaten of and the Manna that they spake of is the very like to that other speech of his to the Samaritane woman occasioned by the water that hee had asked of her He that drinketh of this water shall thirst againe but he that drinketh of the water that I shall giue him shall neuer thirst more c. Which had it been considered would easily haue assoyled those difficulties that as Iansenius obserueth so much troubled Augustine and Caietan yea and Iansenius himselfe too Nor was there any necessity that the bread of the Eucharist should bee more mentioned in the one place then the drinke of it in the other 2. Because Christs bodie as by faith it is receiued was not wanting to those of old time that liued before Christs Incarnation What hee giueth vs heere wee take that Christs body was by faith receiued euen before hee was incarnate But how prooueth this that Christ therefore spake there of a sacramentall eating of it and not rather that he called home those his carnall followers from the corporall feeding either on the bread that they had eaten of or the Manna that they mentioned and would faine still haue been fed with that they might liue without labour not to an eating of sacramentall bread which they would not haue much misliked but to that spirituall feeding which as well their holy forefathers as all true and faithfull Christians now were eternally saued by Yea this may be confirmed by Bellarmines owne grants Who first confesseth this as a certaine truth that there is no mention at all of the Eucharist in all that our Sauiours discourse before those wordes which were spoken after hee had done speaking of the Manna The bread that I will giue is my flesh that I will giue for the life of the world 2. Hee granteth expresly that those wordes I am the brad of life hee that commeth to me shall not hunger c. doe not properly belong to the Sacrament 3. He obserueth a three fold bread spoken of by our Sauiour the first that materiall bread that Christ had fed them withall the second spirituall bread himselfe incarnate which hee wisheth them to get and must by faith be apprehended that it may refresh â—s the third hee might well haue said Mâ—nna which he omitteth termed also bread there but the sacramentall bread saith he expressed in those wordes the bread that I will giue is my flâ—sh that I will giue for the life of the world as if this were not the same spirituall bread that hee spake of before 4. Being pressed with this that there is no bread at all in the Eucharist as they say k therfore it cannot be the sacramentall bread that is there spoken of neither can it bee meant of the bread that Christ was to giue in the Supper as hee elsewhere had said he saith that bread there signifieth not wheaten bread nor Christs body absolutely but meate or food in generall and so the sence of it is this The bread
by this And Bellarm. cleane contrary to himselfe else-where It cannot be that the words of Christ should be true but by such a conversion and transmutation as the Catholike Church calleth Transubstantiation It is no matter of ignorance therefore in this Controversie to confound those things which those we deale with conioyne yea which they tell vs cannot be dis-ioyned To ouerthrow this their opinion then of Transubstantiation and Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist I first reason from the Context Christ tooke bread and blessed it and gaue it and said This is my body Whence I thus argued What Christ tooke hee blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he deliuered what he deliuered of that he said This is my body But it was bread that hee tooke blessed brake and deliuered It is bread saith Durant a Popish writer that all those verbes are referred to It was bread therefore of which he said This is my body Now this saith mine Adversarie forgetting it seemeth what he had said but euen now that heere I began to dispute formally is a formlesse fallacious and wholly forcelesse kinde of arguing if we suppose with the holy Fathers who belike held Transubstantiation then as well as a reall and corporall presence if this worthy man vpon his bare word may bee beleeued that the substances of bread and wine were by the force of Christs wordes turned into Christs body and blood That is as if hee should say this Argument is of no force at all if the point in Question be granted or if that be yeelded that is not at all in the Text. Yea but this is as if a man should make the like deduction of the water that Christ turned into wine The Ministers drew water out of the well carried what they drew Therefore that which they drew and carried was water How formall a Disputant soeuer this mans Adversary is sure I am hee disputeth neither in forme nor figure But let vs helpe him a little to bring his Argument into forme and then hee shall haue an Answer Thus it seemeth he would argue if he could hit on it What the Ministers drew out of the well they caried But they drew water Therefore they carried water And now I deny his Proposition The Ministers carried not that that they drew They drew water they carried not water but wine And for his addition hereunto that Christ after hee tooke the bread and wine and before hee distributed them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction converted them into his owne body and blood as hee sheweth by his wordes plainely pronounced of them This is my body Though it be nothing to the Argument and a meere begging of the point in Question yet let vs consider a little of it where in the Text hee findeth that Christ thus converted them for the wordes This is my body as was formerly shewed doe not euince it But he findeth it it seemeth in the benediction or the blessing of the bread which is yet against the common conceite of his Associates that say there was no conversion at all till Christ vttered those words This is my body Heare we Bellarmine a little arguing this point against Luther Hauing acknowledged as was said formerly that Christs words This is my body may beare either the sence that wee giue them or the sense that they giue them but not that sense that the Lutherans giue For saith hee the Lord tooke bread and blessed it and gaue it his Disciples saying This is my body Bread therefore he tooke bread hee blessed and of bread of he said This is my body Either therefore Christ by blessing changed the bread into his body truely and properly or he changed it improperly and figuratiuely by adding signification or as Theodoret rather by adding to nature that grace which before it had not If hee changed it truely and properly then gaue he bread changed and of that bread so changed he truely said This is my body that is that which is contained vnder the shape of bread is no more bread but my body and this we say If it be said that he changed the bread figuratiuely then shall there be that bread given the Apostles that is siguratiuely Christs body and those words This is my body haue this sense This is the figure of my body and so the Protestants hold Yea so indeede as you haue heard before did Augustine in precise tearmes after Tertullian expound them who belike then by Bellarmines ground was in this point a Protestant Now let either Bellarmine or this Answerer prooue that our Sauiour by his blessing wrought any other conuersion and wee will yeeld vnto them But they will as soone proue that Christ turned the children that hee blessed into bread as that he turned the bread by blessing it into his naturall bodie Yea runne ouer all the whole Chapter in Bellarmine wherein hee propoundeth to himselfe to proue Transubstantiation out of Gods word in the entrance whereunto hee confesseth that the words of Christ may be taken as well our way as their way but not Luthers way and you shall finde that there is neuer a word in it much lesse any sound proofe either to prooue that Christs wordes are so to be vnderstood as they say or that they are not to bee vnderstood as we say but it is wholly spent in confuting of Luthers opinion to wit that bread remaineth together with Christs body in the Sacrament Which opinion also themselues confesse that Luther admonished by Melancthon renounced before he died Hee beginneth with a first Argument without any second the summe and substance whereof was before related Either his second he saw was vnsound and it seemed best therefore to suppresse and conceale it or else he wanted a second and thought to let the first though without a fellow stand still as first by the rule of the Ciuilians who say That is first that hath none before it though no other come after it or that is first that hath none before it that is last that hath none after it And so is this Bellarmines both first and last Argument there And in Conclusion he is faine to flie to the Councels and pretended Fachers Though there were some ambiguity saith hee in our Sauiour Christs words yet it is taken away by Councels what Councels think we Surely none but such as themselues held within these 300. yeeres as himself afterward sheweth and the consent of Fathers which remaineth yet to be shewed As for the benediction the best nay the sole Argument whereby hee can prooue such 〈…〉 conuersion wrought there is this Christ is not wont to giue thankes but when hee is about to worke some great and maruelous thing For he is read onely to haue given thankes when hee would multiply the fiue loaues and againe when the seuen and when hee was to raise Lazarus from the
the Sonne of God is as he telleth vs conteined What is this but that which Bellarmine condemneth in the Lutherans to forge vs a Christ impanated or enclosed in bread Nor doth their owne doctrine any whit mend the matter For as Bellarmine saith of Rupert us and some others that they make Christ haue a breaden body so may wee as truly say the same of them For what is a body made of bread but a breaden Body But that you see this Doctor here swarueth from and saith that Christs body is but couched in Bread ANd I maruaile not to finde this Minister to corrupt the sayings of the holy Fathers to his hereticall purpose sithence he maketh Bellarmine himselfe page 10. to speake like a Protestant and seeme to say against his owne expresse doctrine that the bread blessed and consecrated on the Altar is not nor cannot be called Christs body Whereas Bellarmine onely disputeth against Luther teaching naturall bread to remaine still in the Sacrament and making the sense of Christs words This is my body to be the same as if he had said This bread is my body saith this and no more that Naturall bread cannot be otherwise then figuratiuely and significantly affirmed to be Christs body Speaking not at all of bread consecrated and by consecration conuerted into the true body of Christ yet still retaining the name of bread for the Accidents of bread still remaining as this false fellow would haue frequently citing Authors which he vnderstandeth not § 2. ANd here againe as one running the wild goose race he windeth backe to a passage in the former Argument and saith he marueileth not to finde me corrupt the sayings of the Fathers he thought sure euery one would beleeue whatsoeuer he said though he neuer assaied to shew it since I make Bellarmine himselfe speake like a Protestant No I make him speake nothing but what hee saith of himselfe and by his owne graunts prooue that either the auncient Fathers spake very absurdly or else they ment as we meane The Argument is this The ancients Fathers say oft that the Bread in the Eucharist is Christs body But this saying saith Bellarmine This bread is my body must either be taken figuratiuely or else it is absurd and impossible The Fathers therfore when they vsed such speeches shewed euidently thereby that they ment as we meane that is they vnderstood Christs words figuratiuely or else by Bellarmines confession they spake very absurdly Nor is it enough to prooue that I corrupt Bellarmine to say that he disputeth in that place against Luther who taught that bread remained still in the Sacrament For what is that to the purpose much lesse to say vntruly that he spake not of bread consecrated when the very Question is there concerning the consecrated bread But I cite Authors he saith that I vnderstand not It is true indeede In this very place I cite some sayings of Bellarmine that neither I nor any such dull-heads as I am I thinke can easily vnderstand as for example where he saith as I here cite him that The Priest maketh Christs body of bread and yet Christs body is not made by the Priest And againe that the body of Christ that was crucified was truly or verily made of Bread And yet confuting Rupertus he saith else-where that it was not a breaden body that was crucified for vs as Tertullian inferred from the doctrine of the Marciâ—nites and as we may well inferre from theirs He waiueth else-where Metaphysicall subtilties in disputing of this Sacrament And taxeth Caluine for his fond and foolish Metaphysicks But these are such transcendent subtilties if not absurdities as any Metaphysicks will afford And this deepe Metaphysicall Doctor that hath no want of wit and vnderstandeth him so well should haue done well to vnfold to vs these mysteries and arreade vs these riddles whereas he very vncharitably passeth them by and onely controlling vs for our ignorance leaueth vs sticking still in the bryers with them not vouchsafing to helpe vs out PAg. 12. He affirmeth it to be most absurd to affirme as we doe that a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth or is turned into that which succeedeth onely in the roome thereof Whereas in euery substantiall conuersion one substance is destroied and another succeedeth in the place thereof by the same action as where wood is conuerted into fire c. The difference betwixt Transsubstantiation in the Sacrament and other substantiall naturall conuersions chiefely consisting in this that the whole substance of bread passeth into another praeexisting substance Christs body to wit introduced in place thereof so as nothing thereof remaineth whereas in them the same matter albeit receiuing a new forme and so made a distinct substance from what it was before still remaineth which is to the Ministers purpose wholly impertinent vnlesse hee will falsely and foolishly withall affirme that God can destroy no substance intirely leauing the Accidents thereof still remaining to introduce an other substance in place thereof And albeit we cannot say of Christs body that it was bread which is another Argument of the Minister ibidem yet may it be said to haue beene of bread as being by the same miraculous and omnipotent power of Christs words whereby bread looseth naturall being in place thereof Sacramentally produced and made present And this is without any difficultie affirmed by vs who know the same in a propertionable manner to be found in all other substantiall and accident all conuersions howsoeuer his poore Iudgement will not serue to consider it heate for example was neuer cold albeit in place thereof produced fire was neuer wood but as a substance as naturall vnderstanding might teach him essentially different and produced by the others destruction § 3. AFter he hath thus recoiled back a little now he beginneth to make againe forward And 1. wheras they not knowing wel how to salu or shift of such absurdities as follow necessarily vpon this their senselesse conceit of the conuersion of bread into Christs body affirme that Christs body is therefore said to be made of bread and the bread said to be turned into Christs body because the bread ceasing to be there Christs body as they say doth onely come in the roome of it For they dare not say that Christs body is produced of it or that the Substance of the bread is that whereof as the materiall cause Christs body is framed as ashes are made of wood or glasse of some ashes And I thereupon reply that it is absurd to say that a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth or is turned into that that succeedeth onely in the roome thereof That which Suarez himself also confesseth to be rather a translocation then a transubstantiatioÌ„ or a true substantiall conuersion He telleth me that if my poore iudgement would serue to consider it such a succession is
wine there whereas the whole substance as this fellow beareth vs in hand that is both matter and forme of bread passeth into Christs body here 9. To say that one substance passeth into another substance preexisting is to say that that is made that already is or that is produced and hath beeing giuen it that is in beeing already when as a thing cannot be in making and beeing at once nor can beeing be giuen to that that already is or to say that a creature is now made that was fully made before or that a creature that was before is new made of that that before was not it Yea to speake more plainely it is all one to as say that a man is killed when hee was dead before or is quickened when hee was aliue before or is now stript when hee was starke naked before or is now bred or begotten when he was borne before Lastly to say that Christs body long before preexisting is now made of bread that some two or three dayes past had no existence it selfe is all one as to say that wine of a twelue-month old is made of grapes that were but yesterday gathered and pressed and were yet growing the day before or that an Oke hauing stood vpward of an hundred yeeres and yet standing in the Forrest is sprung vp this yeere of an acorne of the last yeares growth And consider wee now how well these things agree together The body of Christ is contained in the bread and yet there is no bread at all in the Eucharist The body of Christ succeedeth onely in the roome of bread and yet the substance of the bread passeth into the substance of Christs body The whole substance of bread is so abolished that nothing remaineth of it and yet the whole substance of the same bread passeth into the substance of Christs body Christs body was in beeing before and yet it is now made of another substance that before it was not yea Christs body that was bread and borne aboue a thousand yeeres since is now made of a wafer-cake of yesterdayes baking The whole essence of that wafer cake passeth into Christs body and yet wee cannot say of Christs body that euer it was that wafer-cake But like ropes of sand as wee are wont to say doe these things hang together and to spend much time in refuting them may be deemed I feare as ridiculous to vse their Dennis his tearmes as to stand seriously and curiously pulling downe by piece-meale such castles as little children haue in sport built vp of sand NEither is it a good or Christian kinde of Argument which my Adversary in the end of the same 12. page to this purpose maketh Other substantiall conversions are sensible and easily discerned albeit miraculous as when Aarons rod was made a Serpent c. Wheras in the Sacrament we see wholly the contrary therefore we are not to beleeue therein any such conversion citing thus for proofe thereof a place of S. Augustine in his margent which directly if hee had marked it overthroweth his owne doctrine and purpose of citing it That which you see saith this Father is bread and a Cup but that which your faith requireth you to be enformed of is that the bread is Christs body and the Cup his blood Could hee affirme any thing more plainly against this Ministers sensuall and absurd Argument which were it good would lead vs to beleeue nothing faith being onely of things which appeare not to our vnderstanding or senses How farre is this carnall poore vnlearned man from the holy Fathers spirit and doctrine as I haue formerly cited their assertions wherein they teach vs to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses and with the Apostle to captivate our vnderstandings to the obedience of faith in this and many other mysteries of faith humbly to bee vpon the warrant of Gods word assented vnto and not ouer-curiously searched after by vs. We are saith S. Hillarie that great Doctor of Christs Church and victorious Champion of his deity not to dispute as my Adversarie doth in a secular and sensuall manner of diuine things For of this naturall veritie of Christ in vs speaking of the Sacrament vnlesse we learne of Christ himself we speake foolishly and impiously Wherefore sithence hee saith My flesh is truely food and my blood is truely drinke Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood remaineth in mee and I in him there is no place of doubting left cōcerning the verity of Christs body and blood For now by the profession of our Lord and faithfull beleefe which we haue thereof it is his true flesh and blood and these being receiued by vs do make vs to be in Christ and Christ in vs. Is not this truth Surely it is but to those that deny Iesus Christ to be true God c. With a cloud of such ancient and vncontrollable Testimonies of the holy Fathers formerly touched could I confound my sensuall Adversary and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and diuine Mysteries instituted by the Sonne of God with equall wisedome power and goodnesse for vs wherein the omnipotency of him that chiefly doth them is to be assigned for a sufficient reason of them § 4. NOw further whereas I alleadge among other things that in euery miraculous conversion of bodies there is a sensible change whereas no such thing at all is found in the Sacrament Our eyes saith Augustine informe vs that it is bread that is there He telleth me this is no good nor Christian but an absurd secular and senslesse arguing and such as would leade vs to beleeue nothing but what we see and that Augustine if I had marked him whom I cite in the margent as if his very wordes were not in the text vtterly ouerthroweth it as also Hillarie and other Fathers when they teach vs in diuine mysteries to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses which this poore carnall vnlearned man his Adversarie is so farre from c. And withall as commiserating and bewailing my simplicity Oh how farre is this poore c. He telleth his Reader that he could with a cloud of such ancient and vncontrolleable testimonies of the holy Fathers confound this his sensuall Adversarie and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and divine mysteries Wel when he doth this you may beleeue that he can doe it and his poore puny Adversary shall be eternally obliged to him for it But meane while let vs see what Pyrgopolinices here saith 1. Augustine telleth vs that something is seene in the Sacrament and something else is to bee belieued But doth Augustine tell vs that wee must not beleeue that there is bread there though our eyes informe vs that there is No He telleth vs expressely that there is bread there as our eyes doe informe vs. And what can be more euidently or plainely spoken Yea
but hee addeth withall that our faith informeth vs that the bread is Christs body Yea but saith Bellarmine that sentence is most absurd and impossible if it be not meant figuratiuely In which manner Augustine as before was shewed expoundeth himselfe else-where 2. Doe the Fathers tell vs that in this holy Mystery we must not so much regard what our sense informeth vs as what our faith apprehendeth And doe they not say the same of Baptisme and of all mysteries or Sacraments in general Heare we one or two of them speake for all The Fathers of the Nicene Councell whom before he alleaged Our Baptisme say they must not with bodily eyes be considered but with spirituall Seest thou water vnderstand the power of God hidden in it conceiue it full of the holy Ghost and diuine fire And then wil they the same regard to be had also at the Lords Table That Ambrose that this Author and his Associates so oft cite as making so much for them You are come saith hee to the Font consider what you there saw consider what you said c. You saw the Font you saw water c. you saw all that you could see with your bodily eyes and humane aspect You saw not those things that worke and are not seene The Apostle hath taught vs that wee are to behold not the things that are seene but the things that are not seene For farre greater are the things that are not seene then those that are seene Beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone That is better seene that is not seene So Gregory Nyssene Both the spirit and water concurre in Baptisme And as man consisteth of two parts so are there medicines of like like appointed for either for the bodie water that appeareth and is subiect to sense for the soule the spirit that cannot bee seene nor doth appeare but is called by faith and commeth in an ineffable manner Yet the water that is vsed in Baptisme addeth a blessing to the Body baptised Wherefore doe not contemne the divine Laver neither make little account of it as common because of the water that is vsed in it For it is a greater matter that it worketh and marueilous effects proceed from it And a little after of the Eucharist y The bread also is at first common bread but when the Mystery hath sanctified it it is called Christs body And in like manner the wine though it be a thing of small price before the blessing yet after the sanctification which proceedeth from the Spirit both of them worke excellently And so in many other things if you regard it you shall see the things that appeare to be contemptible but the things wrought by them to be great and admirable And so Chrysostome speaking of those wordes of our Sauiour The wordes I speake are spirit and life To vnderstand saith hee things carnally is to consider the things simply as they are spoken and no otherwise Where as all mysteries and then not the Eucharist onely are to bee iudged not by the externall things that are visible but are to be considered with the inward eyes that is spiritually And in particular of Baptisme else-where The Gospell is called a mystery because we beleeue not in it what we see but wee see somethings and beleeue other things For that is the nature of our mysteries which my selfe therefore and an Infidell are diversly affected with c. Hee when hee heareth of a Laver thinketh it but bare water but I consider not the thing seene simply but the purging of the soule by the Spirit c. For I iudge not the things that appeare by my bodily sight but with the eyes of my minde Againe I heare Christs body I vnderstand the thing spoken one way and the Infidell another And as children or vnlettered persons when they looke on bookes know not the power of the letter nor know what they see but a skilfull man can finde matter in those letters contained liues or stories and the like c. So it is in this mystery the Infidels though hearing seeme not to heare but the faithfull hauing spirituall skill see the force of the things therein contained Nothing then in this kinde is said of the Eucharist but what is said of all Sacraments and of Baptisme by name Nothing therefore that argueth any miraculous change more in the one then in the other Nor doth it follow that we would haue men to beleeue nothing but what they see because we refuse to beleeue that that we see is not so We may not saith Tertullian call in question our senses lest in so doing we detract credit from Christ himselfe as if he might be mistaken when hee sawe Sathan fall downe or heard his Fathers voyce from heauen or mistooke the smell of the oyntment that was poured vpon him or the tast of the wine that he consecrated for a memoriall of his blood Neither was nature deluded in the Apostles Faithfull was their sight and their hearing on the mount Faithfull was their taste of the wine that had beene water Faithfull was the touch of incredulous Thomas And yet as Augustine well obserueth Thomas saw one thing and beleeued another thing Hee saw Christ the man and beleeued him to bee God Hee beleeued with his minde that which hee saw not by that which appeared to his bodily senses And when we are said to beleeue our eyes saith hee by those things that wee doe see wee are induced to beleeue those things that we doe not see In a word Rehearse mee saith Tertullian Iohns testimony That which we haue heard and seene with our eyes and felt with our hands that declare we vnto you A false testimony saith he an vncertaine at least if the nature of our senses in our eyes eares and hands be such But these men would haue vs as the sonnes of Eliah speake to thrust out our eyes and as the Iewish Rabbines say abusing a place of Scripture to that purpose that a man must beleeue the High Priest in all things yea though hee shall tell him that his left hand is his right and his right hand the left so they would haue vs to beleeue whatsoeuer the Pope or they say though they tell vs that that both our sight and sense informeth vs to be most false § 5. But to make good in part yet his former glorious flourish hee citeth a place of Hilarie where hee affirmeth that concerning the veritie of Christ in vs not speaking as hee here saith specially of the Eucharist but of our vnion and coniunction with him in generall vnlesse we speake as Christ hath taught vs wee speake foolishly and impiously that there is no place left to doubt of the verity of Christs body and blood that the Sacraments being receiued cause that Christ is in vs and we in him Now
Cups but allegorising the wordes as their manner is to doe many times letting the literall sense alone expound the vine to be the people of the Iewes and so the fruit of the vine the legall obseruances c. And what is all this to the literall sense of the words that this trifler is troubled with and cannot tell how to auoyd Let him produce if he can any one Father who denieth that Christ spake those wordes of the Eucharisticall Cup and of the liquor therein contained I alleadged Clemens of Alexandria Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine and might adde many others that affirme it Yea not onely Iansenius ingenuously acknowledgeth that it can be meant of no other then the Eucharisticall Cuppe which onely Matthew and Marke mention But Maldonate the Iesuite also freely confesseth that Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Epiphanius Ierome Augustine Bede Euthymius and Theophylact doe all expound those wordes of it howbeit himselfe saith that Christ spake there not of his blood but of wine Where first obserue we that Ierome and Bede cleane contrary to this fablers assertion by the Iesuites confession expound it of the Eucharist And secondly conclude wee from the Iesuites owne grants It was of that that was in the Eucharisticall Cup that our Sauiour spake those wordes as the ancient Fathers generally and ioyntly affirme But our Sauiour spake them not of his blood but of wine saith the Iesuite It was not his blood therefore but wine that was drunke in the Eucharist 2. Wee obiect the words of our Sauiour Doe this in remembrance of me not as this shamelesse lyer saith therby to prooue the Sacrament to be a bare memorie of Christs body and blood somewhat like the lye he told before that his Adversarie should affirme it to bee nothing but bare bread and wine but to prooue that Christ is not there corporally present For what needeth a memoriall of him when we haue him in our eye when if we may beleeue Bellarmine he is visibly present with vs When we see him and touch him as this fellow telleth vs else-where Or who would be so absurd as to say I giue you my selfe to be a memoriall of my selfe It is as if a man when hee dieth saith Primasius or when he goeth to trauell saith one that goeth for Ierome should leaue a pledge or a token with one that hee loueth to put him in minde of him in his absence and of the good turnes he hath done him which the partie if hee loue him entirely cannot looke on without teares And who would be so senselesse as deliuering his friend a ring on his death bed to say I deliuer you this ring to bee a pledge of this ringe or to be a pledge of it selfe But let vs heare I pray you his Answer Saint Paul saith hee interpreteth these wordes of our Sauiour when he saith So oft as you doe this you represent Christs death till hee come Would any man that had either braines in his head or wit in his braine answer in this manner or reason on this wise Christs death is represented in the Lords Supper Ergo Christs very body and blood must needs bee there present Yea or thus either In the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs death Ergò it is not a memoriall of it As if representation were not ordinarily of things absent or memorials represented not the things that they commemorate He wanted his Bellarmine heere to helpe him out who where Tertullian saith that Christ represented his body in bread saith that to represent there signifieth to make a thing really present But it is well that the word vsed by the Apostle here will not beare any such sense else it may be we might haue had it Meane while hee should haue done well as his vsuall manner is else-where to haue snipt off or concealed at least the last clause Till I come For after hee is come saith Theodoret we shall haue no neede of signes or symbols of his body any more when his body it selfe shall appeare He were scarce in his wits I thinke that would leaue a thing with his Friends at his departure from them to bee remembred by in his absence till hee returned againe to them that should lie lockt vp and kept out of their sight and should neuer come in their view but when himselfe should come personally in presence to shew it them or should bid them by such a thing remember him till hee came againe to them a twelue-moneth after when as euery weeke or moneth in the meane space hee meant to returne to them as oft as euer they desired to remember him in it But mine Adversary thought belike that none but such silly sots should reade what hee writ as would marke nothing but what he would haue them LAstly S. Paul literally declaring the institution of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. to the end that the Corinthians might vnderstand the excellency thereof maketh the sinne of such as vnworthily receiue it to consist in this that they discerne not that bread to be the body of Christ and his words read alone without hereticall glosses expresse plainely Catholicke doctrine And in the Chapter before hee mentioneth benediction or consecration of the Chalice then vsed saying Calix benedictionis The Chalice of benediction which wee blesse is it not the communication of Christs blood and the bread which we breake is it not the communication of Christs body c. Of which words saith S. Chrysostome this is the meaning That which is in the Chalice is that which floweth out of Christs side and wee are made partakers thereof Which is out of the Greeke text of S. Luke plainely to be gathered And the very manner of Christs speeches Quod pro vobis datur quod pro vobis effundetur Which is giuen for you which shall be effused for you import plainely a Sacrifice of his body and blood wherein the one is offered not to vs but for vs the other was to be not infused as wine but effused as blood for vs c. § 9. AT last remembring himselfe wherein he failed at the first hee will prooue out of S. Paul hee saith that Christs words are literally to be vnderstood This had beene more seasonable where it was questioned at first But better at last we say then neuer 1. The Apostle maketh saith hee this the sinne of those that vnworthily receiued the Sacrament that they discerned not the Lords body 2. Hee saith the bread broken is the communication of the body of Christ and the blessed Chalice of his blood Stout Arguments and fit for such a Champion as he is For the former how followeth it Men sinne in not discerning the Lords body when they come vnreuerētly to the Lords board Ergò our Sauiours words This is my body are to bee vnderstood properly Let him
figuratiuely meant as where he saith that Christ suffereth that in the Sacrament that he did not suffer vpon the Crosse to wit the breaking euen of his bones which there he did not that the altar is bloodied with Christs blood as hee saith else-where that the people are all died red with it that the bread is Christs bodie which in propriety of sense saith Bellarmine is impossible and that by taking it we are not onely vniâ—ed to Christs body and become one body with Christ or Christs body and all of vs one body but that wee our selues are that selfe same bodie that we take Not vnlike that which Haimo hath that Christs naturall bodie and the Eucharisticallbread and the Communicants themselues are all but one and the same body Yea that he is to be vnderstood figuratiuely appeareth as by that that hee addeth there that like Eagles we must soâ—re aloft vp to heauen and not flagge downeward nor creepe below vpon the ground if wee will come at Christs body so by that which hee saith elsewhere that it was wine that Christ deliuered when hee deliuered this mystery that which hee prooueth also by the wordes of our Sauiour himselfe in the place before discussed I will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine Chrysostome saith that the Altar is bloodied with Christs blood and his body suffereth that there which really it doth not as the Apostle faith that Christ was crucified in the sight of the Galatians who in likely hood many of them neuer saw peece of his Crosse and as August saith he lies not that saith that Christ is immolated on Easter-day in regard of the similitude that that Sacrament hath of his passion that that day is celebrated and in like manner may it very well be vnderstood when hee saith that Christs blood is in the Cup. Nor hindreth it but that this speech of Chrysostome may be taken tropically because he saith That that flowed out of Christs side as Augustine also though no friend to Transubst antiation is reported to say the same no more then it would haue hindered but that the Apostles words might haue bin takeÌ„ figuratiuely as Caietan also well obserueth hough of the Rocke hee should haue said That Rocke was that Christ that was crucified and died and rose againe from the dead § 10. In the next wordes hee commeth to prooue a Sacrifice there The very manner saith hee of Christs speeches Quod pro vobis datur quod pro vobis effundetur which is giuen for you which shall bee shed for you import plainly a Sacrifice which he hath as all that euer he hath almost out of Bellarmine As if those wordes had not a manifest relation to his passion which is a true Sacrifice indeed and a most perfect yea the full complement of all other that which their owne vulgar Translation also plainely importeth yeelding the wordes as they are also in the very Canon of the Masse by the future tense Tradetur effundetur shall be giuen shall be shed as hauing an eye to the passion then neere at hand wherein his body was to bee giuen and his blood to be shed So Gregorie of Ualence That is or shall be giuen or broken that is that shall bee offered by me for you being slaine or sacrificed on the Crosse as saith hee the Apostle himselfe also expoundeth it So Cardinall Hugh h He tooke bread and brake it thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Crosse and that hee did himselfe expose it to be so broken and crucified And when he said that shall bee shed he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue Yea so Card. Caietan who addeth also not vnfitly that Christs body is said then to be giuen and his blood to be shed because his passion was then in a manner begun l a plot being now laid for his life and his bodie and blood already bought and sold by them And to omit that Christs words concerning his bodie do no more intimate a present act of deliuering it then those wordes of his the like else-where n I lay downe my life for my sheepe Let him but shew vs how Christs blood is shed in this Sacrifice For as for Bellarmines bold assertion that bread is said to be broken when it is giuen by whole loaues and wine is said to bee poured out when it is giuen by whole hogs-heads or rundlets at least not by pots or pitchers full onely it is most senselesse and abfurd But why doth not this eager disputer vrge rather that which many of them doe that Christ bad them r Doe this that is as they senselesly expound it Sacrifice this For that is a maine pillar that they pitch much vpon Which expositioÌ„ yet as Bellarmine is almost ashamed of and blameth Caluin wrongfully as if he had wronged them therein by charging them with such expositions and arguments as they make not nor alleadge so Iansenius acknowledging ingenuously that some did so argue as indeede not a few doe yet confesseth that that is but a weake argument and granteth in effect that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be prooued that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice And is faine therefore to runne to tradition for it and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would haue it to be For Irenaeus saith he that liued neere the Apostles times calleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offred as types of Christs body and blood as also in regard of the thankesgiuing therein offred as well for the worke of our Creation as for the worke also of our redemption And howsoeuer this doughty Doctor say that our Sauiours words so plainly import it yet is their graund Champion Bellarmine where at large he debateth this businesse euill troubled to finde it out either in Christs Institution or in their owne Masse booke or to shew wherein it consisteth Where it is not indeede hee can easily tell vs but he cannot so easily tell vs where it is It is not he saith he in the oblation that goeth before Consecration for then not Christs body but bare bread should be sacrificed It is not in the Consecration for therein appeareth no oblation nor no sensible immutation which is needfull in an externall sacrifice It is not in the Oblation that commeth after Consecration for that oblation neither Christ nor his Apostles at first vsed It is not in the breaking for that is sometime â—mitted nor doe we saith vse such breaking as Christ did now adaies It is not in the peoples communication for then the
a Serpent in so much that Moses himselfe at the first sight was afraid of it And so we shall finde it to haue beene euer in all miraculous conuersions that the change wrought in them was apparent to the outward sense to the sight as in the water turned into blood to the taste as in the water turned into wine Whereas in the Sacrament there is no such matter We see no flesh there we taste no blood there Nay we see euidently the contrary to that these men affirme For we see Bread and Wine there and we finde the true taste of either And we haue no reason vpon their bare words to distrust either sense and beleeue the contrary to that that we see and taste onely because they say it That which you see saith Augustine is bread and a cup that which our eyes also informe vs that which your faith requireth you to be informed of is that the bread is Christs body and the cup his blood which they cannot be but figuratiuely as Bellarmine before confessed A mysterie we acknowledge we deny a miracle they may be honoured saith Augustine as religious things not wondred at as strange miracles saue in regard of the supernaturall effects of them in regard whereof there is a miraculous worke as well in Baptisme as in the Eucharist And yet no such miraculous transubstantiation in either It is a rule saith the Schooleman that where we can salue Scriptures by that which we see naturally we should not haue recourse to a miracle or to what God can doe 3. We reason from the nature of Signes and Sacraments That which the Apostle saith of one Sacrament to wit Circumcision is true of all for there is one generall nature of all Sacraments are Signes A Sacrament saith Augustine that is a sacred Signe And Signes appertaining to diuine things are called sacraments Now this is the Nature of Signes that they are one thing and signifie another thing that they signifie some other thing beside themselues or diuers from themselues And in like manner saith Augustine Sacraments being Signes of things they are one thing and they signifie some other thing But the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are Signes of Christs body and blood as hath beene before shewed and the Auncients generally auow And therefore are they not essentially either They signifie Christs body and blood and what they signifie they are not And It is a miserable seruitude as Augustine wel saith for men to take the Signes for the things themselues by them signified 4. Wee reason from the nature of Christs Body euen after his Passion and Resurrection Christs naturall Body hath flesh blood and bones the limmes and lineaments of an humane body such as may be felt and seene to be such This appeareth plainely by that which he said to his Disciples after he was risen from the dead when they misdoubted some delusion Behold mine hands and my feete for it is I my selfe Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue But that which is deliuered handled and eaten in the Eucharist hath no such thing It is not in any wise saith Epiphanius equall or like vnto Christ either his humanitie that is clad with flesh or his Deitie that is inuisible or to the lineaments of his limmes For it is round senselesse and liuelesse as Christ himselfe is not It is not therefore the naturall body of Christ. Our sight and sense euidently enforme vs the contrary howsoeuer Bellarmine boldly sticketh not to tell vs that Christs body is verily and visibly vpon the boord after that the words of Consecration be once vttered they thinke belike they may make men beleeue any thing And our Sauiour himselfe teacheth vs by sight and sense to iudge of his Body As if to this day saith Pope Lee he spake still to each one that sticketh and staggereth as he spake there to his Apostles Why sticketh our vnderstanding where our sight is our Teacher I may well say here as Augustine in somewhat the like case I feare least we seeme to wrong our sâ—â—ser in seeking to prooue or perswade that by speech wherein the euidence of truth exceedeth all that can be said 5. We reason from the Nature of all true Bodies Christs body is in Heauen from whence wee looke for him And there is to abide till the end of the world Now a true naturall body as Christs still is cannot be in two much lesse in twentie or rather in twentie hundred places at once which yet Christs body must needs be if that be true that they say Augustine questioned by one Dardanus how Christ could be both in Paradise and in heauen at once supposing Heauen and Paradise to be two seuerall places howsoeuer with the Apostle Paul they are not maketh answer that he could not as he was man or in his humanitie his body and his soule though he might as he was God or in his Deitie that is euery where And he addeth The same Iesus Christ is euery wherein his Deitîe but in heauen in his humanitie And further in his discourse hereof saith he Take spaces and places from bodies and they will be no where and because they will be no where they will not be Take bodies from qualities and wanting wherein to subsist they must needs cease to be and yet in the Popish hoast are qualities found as before that haue no subiect body to subsist in being not the qualities of Christs body and yet hauing no other body for them to subsist in for they are the qualities of Bread and yet there is no bread there if they say true to beare them Euery Bodie therefore must needs haue a certaine place and they are so circumscribed with and confined vnto that place that they cannot at the same time or so long as they keepe that place be in any other place but it And so is it also euen with the glorified body of Christ Iesus Christs body saith Leo in no respect differeth from the truth of our bodies And therefore Christ saith Gregorie Naziâ—nzen in regard of his body is circumscribed and conteined in a place in regard of his spirit or his Deitie he is not circumscribed nor conteined in any place And Augustine Our Lord is aboue but our Lord the Truth is here too For our Lords body wherein he rose againe must needs be in one place but his Truth that is his diuine power is diffused into all places And therefore Doubt not saith he but that the Man Christ is now there from whence he is to come He is gone vp into heauen and thence he shall come as he was seene to goe thither the Angel saith it that is in the same forme and substance of flesh which though he haue giuen immortalitie vnto it yet he hath
one no more then Christs body and the glorification of it nor againe the transfiguration the present glorification The Argument therefore is neither idle nor forcelessâ— for ought that he hath yet shewed Diuision 10. HIs next Argument pag. 13. is grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered For who but a babbling ignorant Person would as he doth there make such an inference Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his passion which tediously and needelesly he prooueth But they are not so in the Eucharist Ergo the naturall parts of Christs bodie are not at all in it For if the Argument were good we might rightly inferre that Christ had no body at all when in Emaus for example after he had blessed and brake bread he vanished out of the Disciples sight when he hid himselfe from the Iewes who would haue stoned him in the Temple not by running into a corner as this grosse fellow peraduenture may of Christ basely and vnworthily imagine but by becomming vndiscernable by them as he became also inuisible and impalpable to the Nazarites holding and drawing him towards the hill on which there Citie was built whence they ment to tumble him As if locall extension visibilitie palpabilitie and other naturall Accidents and sensible properties could not by Gods omnipotency be seuered from his owne bodie without the totall destruction thereof This is a grosse kinde of Philosophie and Diuinitie fit for such a stupide Professour MY fourth Argument was taken from the Nature of Christs Body which hath slesh blood and bones is an organicall body endued with limmes and lineaments yea and life too Whereas that which is giuen and receiued in the Eucharist is as Epiphanius well obserueth liuelesse and limmelesse c. Now here according to his vsuall manner he letteth the Argument goe and falleth to raile downe right that it is an argument grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered of a babbling and ignorant person and a stupide professour He sheweth where his shoe wringeth him Yet that he may not seeme to say nothing to it he frameth me an Argument of his owne on this wise Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his Passion But they are not so in the Eucharist ergò Whereas I tell him that Christs body hath flesh blood and bones and sense and life and limmes and lineaments of a body organicall But their silly sorry wafer-cake hath none of all these And then he telleth vs that I might as well affirme that Christ had no body when at Emaus hee vanished out of the sight of his Disciples when he hid himselfe from the Iewes that would haue stoned him in the Temple when he passed through the midst of them that would haue thrown him downe head-long c. 1. Let him prooue vnto vs that at any of these times those that had Christs body in their hands to feele at their pleasure as his Disciples had when hee appeared vnto them after his passion and resurrection which in prosecution of mine Argument I produce also and presse did finde it and feele it to haue neither hands nor feete flesh blood nor bone life nor limme and the consequence shall then bee granted him but neuer till then And looke what limmes and lineaments our Sauiour then had when hee was here on earth the same he retaineth still Augustine demanded whether Christs body had bones and blood still and other bodily limmes and lineaments I beleeue saith he that Christs body is now in heauen as it was on earth when he went vp into heauen For so when the Disciples doubted whether it were a body or a spirit that they saw he had them see and feele his hands and feete for that a spirit had not flesh and bones as they saw that hee had So he was on earth so he was seene to be when he went to heauen and so shall he as the Angell told come againe from thence But such wee are sure their little breaden God is not It is none of Christ therefore 2. Looke how this man argueth so did the Heretâ—kes of old to prooue our Sauiour Christ to haue an aiery spirituall aad fantasticall body Let it not deceiue you you simple sots saith Iohn of Ierusalem when you reade that Christ shewed Thomas his hands and his side or when you heare him say that he hath flesh and bones These things he made some shew of indeede to strenghthen the saith of his doubting Disciples But he shewed that hee had an aiâ—ry and spirituall body in truth when he came to his Disciples while the doores were shut and hee vanished out of their sight And to the like purpose did the Marciâ—nites vrge his escape froÌ„ those of Nazareth Now what do the ancient Fathers hereunto answer That Christs body saith Tertullian is no fancy euer hereby appeareth in that it endâ—red violent handling when hee was taken and held and haled to the hill-brow For albeit hee made an escape through the midst of them being first forcibly held and after let goe either the throng being dissolued or forcibly broken through yet was it not by any fantasticall delusion For he had a true body still and hands that hee touched others still with and were by them felt and then his body belike was not impalpable as this fellow saith it was And againe when Christ sheweth his Disciples his hands and his feet without doubt he hath hands and feet and bones which a spirit hath not And Ierome refuting Iohn of Ierusalem As Christ shewed his Disciples true hands and a true side so hee ate truely with them spake with his tongue truely to them and with his hands truely brake and reached them out bread For that he suddenly vanished out of their sight as before his passion also at Nazareth he passed through the midst of them that is he made an escape out of their hands it was done by his diuine power not by any fantasticall delusion Could not Christ doe as much as some Magitians haue done Apollonius as he stood in the Court before Domitian vanished suddenly out of sight Yet doe you not therefore match Christs power with Magicians iuglings in making him seeme to bee that that hee was not to eate without teeth breake bread without hands walke without feet speake without tongue shew a side without ribs And whereas it might be demanded how it came to passe that those two Disciples did not know him till a little before hee left them Ierome maketh answer out of the Text it selfe that it was not because his body was not the same it had beene but because their eyes were held that they might not know him And the same Ierome else-where dealing against the same dotages Christ saith hee had hands and sides had breast and bellie too he that had hands and feete had armes
that through Iesus Christ by whom he continually createth quickeneth and blesseth all these good things And againe that that which they haue taken may of a temporall gift become an eternall remedie How stand now these speeches and prayers with their Transubstantiation Are Christs body and blood those temporall gifts and good things that God by Christ daily createth and quickeneth Or needeth Christ the Priest to entreate his Father to looke propitiously vpon him Or any Angell to cary him vp and present him before his Father in heauen in whose presence and sight he is continually there Or is it not absurd to place Abels fatlings and Abrahams Ramme in equipage with the body and blood of Christ Iesus But these things it seemeth were in their ancient Liturgies before euer this new monster was hatched and to their owne shame confusion are yet vnwisely still retained And if you will see how handsomely things therein hang together obserue but this one passage The Priest prayeth to God to send an Angell to fetch the holy Housell vp into heauen and yet they tell vs withall the most of them that it neuer came from thence nor neuer returneth againe thither wherein we better beleeue them then we doe some other of their fellowes that say otherwise and within a while after hee swalloweth it downe himselfe and then praieth God as if he repented him of his former prayer that that which hee hath eaten may sticke fast to his guts Let him shew any such absurdities as these if he can in our Seruice If some pieces of Antiquity found in theirs be retained still in ours that is neither derogation to ours nor commendation to theirs Wee embrace true and sound Antiquity wheresoeuer we finde it their corrupt nouelties which it suteth so euillfauouredly withall we deseruedly reiect THey pretend cleare places of Scripture for each point of their doctrines wherein they differ from vs. But when they come to be duly discussed they either make against themselues or prooue nothing at all against vs as I will briefely declare in this very controuersie for a Corollarium of my whole doctrine For whereas S. Cyprian S. Hilarie Saint Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and vniuersally all the ancient Fathers commenting the 6. Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell haue literally vnderstood Christs promise of giuing his flesh to eate and his blood to drinke in the Sacrament these men restraine them to a metaphoricall and spirituall eating by faith onely and for this their interpretation quite contrary to the iudgement of the ancient Church they onely cite those wordes of Christ It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing c. and affirme them to import that Christs wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood and not at all according to the literall signification of them to wit of Christs body and blood receiued in the Sacrament Whereas at most they can import that Christ promised not to giue his flesh and blood cannally as the Capharnaits vnderstood him cut to wit in pieces and by bits eaten as S. Augustine explicateth them but that Christs body and blood were to be after a spirituall manner present and receiued in the Sacrament which we deny not And great Authors as Tolet noteth so expound them as to make this sense It is the deity or diuine spirit which is vnited with my flesh that viuificateth by grace soules worthily receiuing it and not by flesh alone barely of it selfe eaten Neither of which explications prooue a figuratiue vnderstanding of Christs wordes this being a Glosse of their owne besides the text neuer before them taught by any Catholike Doctor and so it can be no solide sufficient ground sor them to rely vpon for their hereticall deniall of Christs true body and blood really present and receiued in the Sacrament For Scripture ill vnderstood is no Scripture but Gods word abused § 7. YEt in concluâ—ion to say somewhat againe of the present point hee telleth vs that S. Cyprian Hilarie Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and all the ancient Fathers vniuersally vnderstood that place of Iohn concerning the eating of Christs flesh not figuratiuely but literally whereas wee contrary to the iudgement of the whole ancient Church vnderstand them of spirituall eating by faith alleadging onely for this our exposition those words of our Sauiour It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing which wordes as Tolet sheweth may beare another sense 1. How prooueth hee that these Fathers so expound that place Forsooth he sendeth vs to seeke the proofe of it in Bellarmine It is enough that he saith it let Bellarmine if he can prooe it But is not this impudent out-facing to say that these Fathers all literally vnderstand it when out of diuerse of them the contrary hath beene euidently shewed Yea when Augustine one of them giuing rules to expound Scripture doth expressely affirme that the place is to be taken figuratiuely and that it were an haynous and flagitious thing otherwise to vnderstand it 2. It is another vntruth as grosse as the former to say we ground our exposition on those wordes onely Wee vrge indeed the wordes following The wordes that I speake are spirit and life And we vrge and expound them no otherwise then diuerse of the Ancients haue done before vs. To omit Athanasius formerly alleadged Augustine besides that that is in the selfe same place cited What meane those wordes saith he They are spirit and life but that they are to be vnderstood spiritually And againe He spake this that hee might not bee vnderstoode carnally as Nicodemus before had done Yea and of those former wordes Thomas Aquinas out of Chrysostom When Christ saith It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing his meaning is that we ought spiritually to vnderstand those things that wee heare of him and that whoso heareth carnally getteth thereby no good Now to vnderstand them carnally is to looke on the outward things onely and to imagine no more then wee see To vnderstand them spiritually is not so to iudge of them but also with the inward eyes to looke on them Which in all mysteries ought alwayes to be done And Tertullian When Christ saith that The flesh profiteth nothing His meaning must be drawne from the matter of his speech For because they thought his speech hard and intollerable as if hee determined to giue them his very flesh to bee eaten or his flesh verely to bee eaten to place the state of saluation in the spirit hee premiseth It is the spirit that quickeneth and then adioyneth the flesh profiteth nothing to wit to quicken And withall he sheweth what he meaneth by the spirit The words that I haue spoken are spirit and life As he said before Hee that heareth my word and beleeueth in him that sent mee hath life eternall So