word as by his sacrameÌ„ts * Hier. in Psal. 147. The flesh of Christ is eateÌ„ more truely in his worde than in the sacraments * De Cons. dist 2. § vt quid paras August de ciui 〈◊〉 21. ca. 25. No such words are found in Chrysostoms Liturgie The woordes may be there yet not spoken to the sacrament a Pag. 21. l. n. 12 pag. 463. lin 11. b Pa. 452. li. 30. The Iesuites bid vs see the fathers but they doe not tell vs what we shall finde there It is not enough to will vs to see the fathers they must saie to what end they alledge them Chrysostome praieth to Christ in heauen not to the sacrameÌ„t * Liturg Chrys. Ibidem He woulde haue Christ behold the people from heauen not from the sacrament Mat. 18. Mat. 28. How Christ is present with vs. August in Iohan tract 50. His diuinitie is present with vs. Idem Ibidem His humanity present with vs manie waies though not in substance The Rhe. test pag. 453. The auncient Church did exactlie distinguish the sacrament from Christ. a De Catech. rudibus cap. 26. b De Baptis lib. 3. cap. 10. c Ambr. de Sacrament li. 4. cap. 3. d Orig. in 15. Matt. The whole Church cried on the people to lift vp their harts e Concil Nice * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in as well as on f August in Iohan tract 50. Christ is both seene and touched by faith g Ambr. in Luc. li. 6. ca. 8. de filia princ Synag vesiâ—â—ci h Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. * Ibidem Christ is on the table because his death is solemnized in the mysteries on the table i Colos. 3. k Phil. 3. Theod. dial 2. Not one of the fathers which they bring speaketh of the externall sacrament saue onelie Theodoret The mysticall signes must be adored but not with diuine honor These men caÌ„ plaie with shadowes verie pretilie The mysticall tokens remaining in their former substance must be adored Theod. Dial. 2. If they will adore the substance of breade Theodorets wordes will helpe them forward but not otherwise Adored is sometimes as much as â—eueâ—enced De cons. dist 3. § venerabiles in glossa ¶ cultu The Iesuits authorities for adoration of the Sacrament prooue no such thingâ— The reall presence This is my bodie doth not infer the reall presence Not the words but the exposition of the wordes is the thing that we striue for The Iesuites maie soone bring a thousand authorities for this point and not one to the purpose The papists in this question thinke to conquere with number if not with strength of places The papists beap vp places for their reall presence by hundreths not one to the purpose It were more wisdome for them to vndeâ—staÌ„d what they alledge than to alledge they know not what We striue not for Christs presence in the mysteries but for the manner of his presence The presence which the Iesuits hold the fathers neuer heaâ—d of Garetius Vernierus and the rest if a father do but name the body of Christ bring him in by and by for a witnes on their side and then they muster them by hundreths * You turne all fâ—â—m the thing themselues to the signes that is the cause of your error a Psalm 64. b Ierem. 18. Wisd. 1. These â—wo rules must be obserued in reading the fathers touching this matter els we shall infinitely erre To mistake the signes for the thinges themselues must needes bread a monsterous error Aâ—l their allegaâ—â—ns are answered with theâ—e two obseruations The literall prâ—ssing of those wordes is the gâ—ound of alâ— their error Christ did make the bread a God but added grace to the signe that it might becom a sacrament If bread be not made the sonne oâ— God then sure the bread is not made Christ. If the breade be Christ it must needs be made Christ for before it was not Christ. Christ doth not saie this is chaunged for or with my bodie but this is my bodie If the breade be Christ ergo it is God for he is God THIS in Christs words must needes note somewhat This must bee this somwhat and not this nothing The Iesuits be loath to tell vs what is meÌ„t by this in the wordes of Christ. This indeede is the right literall sense of our sauiours wordes and since that is apparently false the figuratiue sense must take place Matth. 26. The connexion of the gospell reâ—erreth THIS to the bread in the wordes of Christ. THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore must be guided by the circumstances of the text a 1. Cor. 11. b 1. Cor. 10. a 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul in plaine speach ioynethâ— THIS to the bread Al the fathers referre THIS to the bread c Iust. Apol. 2. d Tertul. aduer Iedaeos e Idem li. 4. contra MarcioneÌ„ f De cons. dist 2. § qui maÌ„ducas g Cypr. de vnctio Chrismat h Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. i Idem li. 4. c. 57 k Hier. ad Hedibiam quaest 2. l Athan in 1. Cor. cap. 11. m Epiph. in Anchorato n Cyril catechis mystag 4. o Theod. â—ial â— The Iesuites loose all hope of their transsubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ if THIS in the wordes of Christ do not note the bread p De canâ— disâ— 2. § ante benedictioâ—eâ— Glâ—ssa ibidem q Gerson contr Floretum li. 4. r Gard. contra diabolic sophist s In his Marc. Antoni Consr. t Occam in 4. sâ—ntent dist 13. u De cons. dist 2. § timâ—rem Glossa ibidem Then haue the Iesuits small hold in the literall sense of Christs words for their transsubstantiatioÌ„ That this is the right purport of Christs words it cannot be doubted So long as the letter is true we maie not flie to figures but if that be false we kill our soules except we â—lie to figures * Aug. de dâ—â—tr Christiana lib. 3 cap. 10. When the speach must be figuratiue The literall coherence of these wordes this bread is my bodie is impossible blasphemous and barbarous To reprooue the misconsterer is to reuerence the speaker z De cons. dist 2. § panis est in Altari Glossa ibidem Not possible by their owne confession that breade should be the bodie of Christ. To saie that bread is christ in proper speach is horrible blasphemie To eate flesh in proper speach is against nature and far from all pietie a August contra aduers. legis Propheta lib. 2. cap. 9. b Idem contra eundem lib. 1. cap. 14. c Cyril in Iohan. lib. 4. cap. 22. d August de doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. To eate flesh is an hainous act ergo Christs words are figuratiue This is S. Austens reason if the Iesuites can reâ—ure him let them Where Christ said this bread is my bodie the Iesuits say this must be no bread before it can be my bodie It is as great blasphemie for the bread to be turned into Christ as to be Christ.
and from whence we looke for our Sauiour euen the Lord Iesus Christ. Phi. All the places which are yet alleaged against you you haue shyfted off by referring the speaches to Christ him-selfe sitting in heauen and as you say not in the sacrament But Theodorets woordes are so cleare that no shift will â—erue Hee speaketh of the very mysticall signes and Sacraments which are seene with eyes and touched with handes and of them hee sayth Intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt quae illâ— sint quae creduntuâ— The Sacraments are vnderstood to be the things which they are made are beleeued and ADORED as being the same which they are beleeued Theo. Onely Theodoret of all the fathers that euer mentioned adoration spake of the Sacrament it selfe The rest direct their words to Christ raigning in glory not to the host or Chalice in the Priestes hande Hee in deede speaketh of the mysticall signes which the rest did not Philand Then yet there is one Father for the adoration of the Sacrament you sayde wee had none Theo. Woulde you prooue so high a point of Religion as this is to bee Catholike by one onely Father and such an one as you thinke not worthy to bee called a Saint Phi. These exceptions are but dilatorie and quite besides the matter Doe you graunt that hee sayth the mysticall signes must bee adored Theo. Hee sayth so Philand And such vpstarts as you are woulde bee credited against him when you say the Sacrament is not to bee adored Theoph. Wee reason not about our credite but about your conclusion Philand That is too plaine for your stoare Theo. Why doe you then conceale it so long Phi. You shall soone heare it and haue your belly full of it The mystical tokens bee adored sayth that auncient Father Theodorete Marke nowe howe nimbly we come within you ouerthrow you in plain field If you deny it we haue here antiquitie for it If you grant it then are you worse than miscreants for holding all this while against it Theo. With such weapons I thinke Alexander the great did conquere the worlde Phi. When you come to a non plus then you fall to idle talke But leaue digressing and giue vs a short and direct answere which wee knowe for your heartes you can not Theo. You knowe much but if you knewe your selues and your owne weakenes it were better Phi. Did I not tell you this place would ouerthrowe you Theo. Because hee sayth the substance of bread and wyne must be adored Phi. Hee sayth no such thing but the mysticall tokens must be adored And what are the mysticall tokens but the mysteries themselues which are all one with the Sacrament Theo. Can you take the top and the tayle and leaue out the myddle so cunningly Phi. Wee leaue out nothing Theo. Theodorets wordes are Neque enim sigra mystica post sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura Manent enâ—m in priore substantia figura forma videri taâ—gi possunt sicut prius Intelliguntur antem ea esse quae facta sunt creduâ—tur adorantur vt quae illa sint quae creduntur The mysticall signes after consecration doe not depart from their owne nature For they remaine in their former substaunce and figure and forme and may bee seene and touched as they were before but they are vnderstoode to bee those thinges which they are made and are beleeued AND ADORED as being the things which they are beleeued The mysticall signes not departing from their owne nature but remayning in their former substance are adored By this you may prooue if you bee so disposed that the creatures of bread and wyne must bee adoren which perhaps in your Church is no fault because it is so often But the Church of Christ abhorreth it as a wicked impietie to adore any dead or dumbe creature And therefore you must bee driuen as well as we to seeke for an other and farther meaning in Theodorete otherwise you will shake the foundation of your owne fayth with your owne antiquitie more than you shall doe ours Our answere is easie The mysticall signes hee sayth are adored but not with diuine honour and adoration with the Grecians as also with the Scriptures when it is applied to mortal men or creatures signifieth onely a reuerent regard of their places or vses Your owne Lawe sayth In hoc sensu possumus quamlibet rem sacram adorare id est reuerentiam exhibere In this sense wee may adore any sacred thing whatsoeuer that is giue it due reuerence So that you vtterly ouerthrowe both your adoration and your Transubstantiation when you brought Theodorete to tell vs that the substance of bread is adored that is reuerenced and yet remayneth after Consecration For if it remaine what adore you but the substance of a dead creature And that if you doe howe many steppes are you from open Idolatrie Thus though wee crake not of our conquests as you doe wee returne your authorities for adoring the sacrament as either impertinent or insufficient giue vs cause to consider that your worshipping it with diuine honour is no catholike or ancient veritie but a pernicious and wicked noueltie Phil. Is it wickednes to worship Christ Theop. You defile the name of Christ spoile him of his worship by giuing them both to senseles creatures Phi. How often shall we beate this into your dull heades that we giue this honour to the Sacrament and not to senseles creatures Theo. And howe often shall wee ring this into your deaffe eares that the Sacrament in corporall matter and substance is a senseles and corruptible creature Phi. Did not Christ saie this is my bodie Theo. You must prooue the speach to be literall as well as the wordes to be his Phi. Is not the letter plaine this is my bodie Theo. The letter is so plaine that it killeth the carnall interpreter and hath driuen you whiles you would needs refuse the figuratiue and spirituall constructions of Christs words to these absurdities and enormities which haue euen ouerwhelmed your Church Phi. Can you wish for plainer wordes than these this is my bodie Theo. I could wish that in expounding these wordes you did relie rather on the catholike fathers than on your vncatholike fansies Phi. All the fathers with one voice toyne with vs in this doctrine Theoph. You doe but dreame of a drie Summer Not one of the auncient fathers euer spake of your reall presence or the literall sense of these wordes on which you buyld the rest Phi. Will you haue a thousand places for that purpose or if varietie of writers do rather content you wil you haue three or four hundreth seuerall fathers all auncient and catholike in diuers ages and countries that shall depose for our doctrine in this point Theo. I can enter a course to saue you
hoc It is a common question what is ment by the pronoune THIS whether bread or the body of Christ Not bread for that is not the body of Christ nor yet the body of Christ for it appeareth not that there is any transubstantiation till the wordes be all pronounced To this demaund I say that by the word THIS nothing is ment but it is there put materially without anie signification at all Thus you turned and tossed the wordes of Christ so long till you brought all that the Lord did and saide at his last supper to plaine NOTHING With such vnchristian toyes were your scholes fraughted and the worlde deceiued such monsters you hatched when once you left the direction of the Scriptures and Fathers and fell to broaching your owne gesses But you must either admit our explication this breade is my body for the right ordering and perfitting of Christes wordes or else dissent from the manifest Scriptures from al the catholike Fathers and with shame enough from your owne fellowes and fansies Phi. Wee sticke not so much at the filling vp of the wordes which Christ spake as at the constering and expounding of them You delude them with tropes and significations as if Christ had beene speaking parables and not ordaining sacramentes Wee say there must be a reall truth and actiue force in them to perfourme the letter as it lieth For in Scripture so long as the letter may possibly be true we may not fly to figures Theo. In that you say right We must imbrace the sense which is occurant in the letter before all others if it agree with faith and good maners but if it crosse either of them we must beware the letter lest it kill and seeke for an other and deeper sense which must needes be figuratiue That direction S. Augustine giueth to al men when they read the Scriptures Iste omnino modus est locutionis inueniendae propriáne an figurata sit vt quicquid in sermone diuino neque ad morum honestatem nec ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest figuratum esse cognoscas This is the perfect way to discerne whether a speech be proper or figuratiue that whatsoeuer in the word of God can not be properly referred either to integritie of maners or verity of faith thou resolue thy selfe it is figuratiue Phi. That prescription is very sound but it furthereth not your figuratiue sense For the letter of these wordes which we stand for is neither against faith nor good manners Theo. The literall acception of these words as they lie this bread is my body is first impossible by your owne confession next blasphemous by the plaine leuell of our Creede and lastly barbarous by the verie touch and instinct of mans nature Phi. Charge you Christ with so manie foule ouersightes in speaking the wordes Theo. The wordes which Christ spake be gratious and religious we know but where there may be brought a double construction of them a carnall or a spirituall a literall or a SacrameÌ„tall the literall construction which you will needes defend to deface the other is we say reproued as no part of our Sauiours meaning by those three barres which we proposed Phi. You propose much but you proue litle Theo. I should proue euen as much as you do if I should proue nothing but that which I proposed shall not want proofe The first your owne friendes will helpe me to proue Your Lawe saieth Hoc tamen est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi Yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Why striue you then for that which your selues grant is not possible to be true Why forsake you the mysticall interpretation which is possible what greater vanitie can you shewe than to cleaue to that sense which you see can not stande If it be bread how can it be Christ If it be Christ how can it be bread The second is as cleare For if breade in proper and precise speech bee the flesh of Christ ergo bread is also the feede of Dauid ergo breade was fastned to the crosse for our sinnes ergo bread was buried rose the third day from death and now sitteth in heauen at the right hand of God the Father nay no questioÌ„ if bread be Christ then is bread the Sonne of God and second person in the sacred Trinitie which how wel your stomaks can digest we know not in truth our harts tremble to heare an earthly dead and corruptible creature by your literall carnall deuotion aduaunced to the Lord of life grace the maker of heauen and earth yea the liuing and euerlasting God and yet if bread be truely and properly Christ these monsterous impieties you can not auoide Thirdly what could you deuise more iniurious and odious to christian mildnesse maners than the letter of these words eate you this is my flesh drinke you this is my blood Had you bin willed in as plain termes to cruciâ—ie Christ as you bee willed to eate his fleshe you woulde not I trust haue presently banded your selues with the Iewes to put him to death but rather haue staggered at the letter and sought for some farther and other meaning Yee be now willed to eate his flesh drinke his blood which is a precept far more hainous horrible in christian behauiour and religion if you follow the letter as AusteÌ„ affirmeth It appeareth more horrible to eate mans flesh than to kill it to drinke mans blood than to shed it And againe The Capernites were more excusable that coulde not abide the wordes of Christ which they vnderstood not being in deede horrible in that they were spoken as a blessing not as a cursing They thought saith Cyrill Christ had inuited them to eate the raw flesh of a man and drinke blood which thinges be horrible to the verie eares Why then presse you the letter which is hainous forget that the speech can not be religious except it be figuratiue Uerily S. Austen concludeth the speech to be figuratiue for this only reason If the scripture seeme to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue Except ye eate the fleshe of the son of man and drinke his blood you shall haue no life in you facinus velflagitium videtur iubere Christ seemeth to command a wicked sinfull act figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion sweetly profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified wouÌ„ded for vs. If then the real eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes and actuall drinking of his blood with our lips be wicked and hainous why presse you the letter of these wordes eate you this is my body drinke you this is my blood against truth against faith against nature neither possibility nor christianity nor coÌ„mon honestie suffering your exposition to be good S.
Austen in plaine termes concluding It is therfore a figure of speech Phi. Sir you bee misconstered all this while The verbe which coupleth both partes of the proposition togither doeth not here signifie this to bee simply that but this to be really changed in that as if our Lord had said THIS breade is now become my body that is substantially changed into my body Theo. Sir you shuffle the words of Christ to serue your dreames yet you scape not the rockes which you thought to shunne If the bread must be changed in substance that is become no bread afore it be the body of Christ ergo breade is not the body of Christ and so your construction is a plaine contradiction to the letter which you would interprete For Christ said this bread is my body that cannot be true say you vnlesse the bread loose first his substance and ceaâ—e in deede to be breade and so where Christ saide this bread is my body you expound his wordes in this sort that it must first be no bread afore it can be his body Besides in absurdity there is no difference whether you say bead is Christ or bread is made Christ changed into Christ. For that which is made Christ without all question is Christ so the same blasphemies are consequent to this exposition that were dependant on the former Phi. Well yet the bread may be abolished and Christs body succeede in the place where the bread was without any of these inconueniences Theo. Thither are you faine to flie when you be hardly pressed with the sequeles of the literall sense but in the meane time you forget that you be cleane gone from the wordes of Christ which you pretended to folow He said this is my body you to expouÌ„d his speach say THIS must first vanish away and then my body shall succeede in the same place and be couered with the same accidents though THIS neither in shew nor substance be my body Phi. This is sophistry which the catholike fathers were neuer acquainted with Theo. If it be any it is yours not ours you first forsooke the exposition of Christs words which the learned and godly fathers with one accord witnessed deliuered then stuÌ„bling at the letter you hatched your carnal local presence against Scriptures and fathers and when the wordes of Christ would not sit your fansies you racked wrenched them til you brought both them to nothing and your selues to a maze that you knew not what you said where as if you had continued their interpretation you had cleared the wordes of Christ from all perplexities inioyed the fruites of the Lords table without perill of Idolatrie or impietie eased your selues of those absurdities which you be now plunged in vp hard to the eares Phi. What interpretation meane you Theo. That which the Fathers generally beleeued publikly taught in the church of Christ. Phi. And what exposition was that but the same which we now vrge you resist The. Shew but one ancient father that euer affirmed the wordes of Christ at his last Supper were properly spoken or literally to be taken and wee will receiue your sense Phi. What you will not Theo. What neede you repeate it when you heare vs offer it Phi. Not a father that euer auouched these words of Christ this is my body to be properly spoken or literally taken Theo. Not a father that is ancient Phi. How would you lie if you might be let alone I can name you presently a good number of them that in exquisite termes shal affirme the words of Christ to be literall Theo. Shal they be auncient Phi. I can not tel what you mean by auncient you would haue them belike before Christ was borne Theo. As though there were not difference both in the ages and credites of those writers that haue gone before vs in the church of Christ. Phi. They shall bee auncient Theo. Damascene perhaps Theophilact Phi. Yea Epiphanius Euthymius and many others The. Many others is a note aboue ela These foure affirme that Christ did not say this is the image or figure of my body but this is my body which we confesse was needefull for the first ordayner and institutor of the Sacrament to say Mary by those wordes our Sauiour did not meane to abolish the substance of breade or wine but to vnite the force and fruite of his flesh crucified and blood shed for our sinnes to the elementes that receiuing the one we might through faith bee partakers of the other by the working of his spirite and power of the word which he then spake much lesse did these later writers the eldest of them being more thaÌ„ 700 yeres after Christ intend to gainesay the fathers that were before them of greater iudgement and deeper knowledge howsoeuer in shew they seeme loth that Christes wordes should be recalled to a bare and naked figure which for our parts we do not Phi. A bare figure nay they will haue no figure in the wordes of Christ to that ende they vrge the very letter as excluding all tropes figures which you now take vp in a spleene to frustrate our proofes Theo. Did the Fathers meane to frustrate your proofes when they tooke vppe this doctrine many hundrethes before you or your reall presence were hearde of Philand Do they teache the wordes of Christ eate this is my bodie to bee figuratiue Theo. I haue shewed you causes sufficient to fray the godly from the letter which doth rather kill than quicken the carnal interpreters yet am I content to forgo them all if in expounding the wordes of Christ figuratiuely the catholike and ancient fathers do not make expressely with vs and against you directly Tertullian The bread which was taken and giuen to the Disciples Christ made his body by saying this is my body that is the figure of my bodie Why doth Christ call bread his bodie Marcion vnderstandeth not this was an old figure of the body of Christ speaking by Ieremie they laide their handes togither against mee saying come let vs cast wood on his bread that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightner of antiquities in calling the bread his bodie fully declared what he would then at his last Supper haue the bread to signifie Augustine discussing the wordes of Moses the soule of all flesh is his blood The thing saith he that doth signifie commonly taketh the name of the thing that is thereby signified as it is written the seuen eares of corne which Pharao dreampt of bee seuen yeres he said not they signifie seuen yeres the seuen kine be seuen yeres many such speeches So was it saide by Paul the rocke was Christ hee sayde not the rocke did signifie Christ but as if it had beene the selfesame thing which by substance it was not but by signification Euen so the blood because it signifieth the soule is
Theo. And the same exposition of his woordes which he then annexed to them abideth good for euer Phi. What else Theo. And he that deuisethâ— or teacheth any other manner of eating his flesh or drinking his bloode at his last Suppper than is there declared and confirmed by himselfe is either a Capernite or worse Phi. He is Theo. But that eating which he there taught was by faith and vnderstanding and they that murmured at him and departed from him thought he had ment eating with the mouth and teeth What lâ—ck you then of the Capernites error when you affirme that the naturall and substantiall bodie of christ is really eaten with teeth and locally discendeth into the stomacke which is the waie that all other meates doe passe when they nourish the bodie Phi. We defie both you and them we doe not incline to their error We eat christ in a mysterie by faith and though we tast see nothing but bread wine yet doe we preferre the trueth of his promise before the iudgemeÌ„t of our senses which you doe not And therefore you falsely slaunder vs when you charge vs with the carnall opinion of the capernites Theoph. I can yeeld you no freer choice than if you like not their companie to leaue their error You must not looke to misconster the wordes of christ as they did and take skorne to be called as they were Phil. I tell you wee doe not teare the flesh of christ with our teeth as they thought they should Theo. You holde that the flesh of christ entereth your mouthes and is really bruised though somewhat fauourablie with your teeth and locallie discendeth downe your throates into the closet of your bellies What differ you now from the capernites what kinde of eating were they rebuked for if not for this Moe kindes of eating than by minde or by mouth with faith or with teeth that is corporall or spirituall you cannot imagine Man hath no mo partes but a soule and a bodie therefore he can vse no kinde of eating but either with his soule or with his body You must new frame men which is past your reach before you can chalenge this diuision as vnsufficient ech part hath his kinde and sort of eating Now which of these twaine did the Capernites fasten on the spirituall or the corporall kinde of eating the flesh of Christ Not the spirituall for they beleeued not as the Scripture saith of them and they which lack faith lack the right and true meanes of spirituall eating Besides our Sauiour went about to teach them the spirituall eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood for so doth himselfe expound his owne woordes and his whole Church after him did testifie that his meaning If then the Capernites lighted on the same manner of eating which christ proposed to them they deserued rather praise than blame but they mistooke the wordes of christ and were rebuked of him ergo they thought on the corporall eating of christs flesh with teeth and iawes which is the selfe same point that you affirme in your doctrine Phi. We neither see nor tast the flesh of christ which they dreampt they should and therefore we be most free from their madnes Theo. You cham the flesh of christ actuallie with your teeth and swallowe the same dâ—wne your throates and these be the proper actions and right instrumentes of externall and caperniticall eating your eyes and your tast be not els blind men and such as by reason of sicknes can tast nothing by your diuinitie can eate nothing and meates so deuised and handled by art that we can neither by sight nor tast discerne them if your Rule be good be neither corporallie taken nor eaten which is so false that wee neede not refute you cookes and Pastlers will laugh you to scorne Grinding with teeth and swallowing downe the throat that it may descend to the stomack is the verie definition of carnall eating and since you concurre with the capernites in those two pointes notwithstanding you vary from them in sight and tast yet your opinion establisheth a corporall eating of christes flesh and a literall peruerting of his wordes no lesse than theirs did And which of the learned fathers I pray you did euer put this difference betweene the words of christ the capernites error that where they thought they should haue both eaten seene his flesh the Lord ment that indeed they should as they thought eate the same with their teeth and iawes marie they should not see nor tast it Was this the meaning of our Sauiour when he saide The wordes that I speake to you be spirite and life Did his Church after him so conster his wordes The thinges that he spake were not carnall but spirituall saith Athanasius They were spirituall hauing nothing in them that was carnall as Chrysostome and Theophilact witnes Examine them as spirituall men saith Origen not as carnall The letter doeth kill hâ—m that doth not spirituallie weigh the things that are spoken Christ giueth vs a spirituall instruction saith Cyprian and Austen Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken Christ here calleth the spirit the spirituall vnderstanding of those things that he spake saith Oecumenius What is spirit and life saith Bede They must be vnderstood spiritually What is now left for you and your fellowes but either to be coupled with the Capernits for your literall pressing the wordes of Christ and corporall eating of his flesh or els to proue which you can hardly doe that your teeth and iawes be not carnall as the Capernits were but spirituall Your mouthes and bellies I trow be flesh and not spirite members of the bodie no parts of the mind in them consisteth neither faith nor deuotion and therefore vnlesse you can transubstantiate your soules into your iawes and your harts into your throates your receiuing of Christ in at mouth and chamming his flesh with teeth that it may passe to your stomackes is neither spirituall nor mysticall but a carnall and right Caperniticall kind of eating Phi. Why doe you twite vs with the Capernites whom we so often haue disclaimed They feared lest they should eate raw flesh we haue no such feare Theo. The flesh of Christ which you eate can not be reall if it be not raw and therefore your stomackes may be stronger to digest it than theirs were but you eate the flesh of a liue man with your mouthes which they feared they should and were deceiued Phi. They thought they should haue eaten Christ by peece meale Theo. And is your opinion any whit the better because you eate him whole at one morsel Phi. This is profane scoffing Theo. Take heede that yours bee not worse than prophane eating of that which is diuine holy Phi. We eate his flesh in a mysterie Theo. What mysterie lyeth in your mouthes and bellies Phi. Is it not a greate
by their own words to teach more than idle signes or ONLY figures in the Lords supper because together with the name goe the vertâ—es and effects of Christes flesh bloud vnited in manner of a Sacrament to the visible signes And this their assertion neither troubleth our Doctrine nor strengthneth your error Againe these writers may very well say the Sacraments of the Gospell BE NO FIGVRES but TRVETH IT SELFE in that respect as figures bee taken for samplers of things to come Such were the figures of the law which did premonstrat the coÌ„ming of christ in flesh ceased at his coÌ„ming And so the mysteries of the Lords table were not figures of things expected but euidences of the truth there sitting in persoÌ„ the next day to be nailed to the crosse therby to fulfil abolish al figures our sacrameÌ„ts are now not signes of farther promises but memorials of his mercies alredy performed Do this saith christ not in figure of an other truth to come but in remeÌ„brance of me which am come for memorie you know stretcheth only to things past and doone and in this sense the letter may bee safely pressed and your carnall conueyance nothing relieued I find a third cause that might induce them to force the letter in this sort yet no way confirming your grosse supposall which is this When the Greeke church fell at variance for Images they which held that Christ ought not to be figured after the likenes of our bodies amongest other reasons alleadged this for one that the Lord at his Supper for a true and effectuall Image of his incarnation chose the whole substance of bread not any way like the proportion of a man lest it should occasion Idolatry The defenders of Images whose side Damascene tooke pressed with this obiection durst not flee to your annihilation of the substance of bread and adoration of the Sacrament with diuine honour which no doubt they would haue doone with great triumph had those two points of your Doctrine beene then counted catholike but yeelding and by their silence confessing that the substance of bread remayned in the supper and was not adored for so the contrarie part opposed at length for very pure neede came to this shift that the mysticall bread was not ordained to resemble and figure Christs humane nature nor so called by christ at his maundie who said not this is a figure of my body but my body nor a figure of my bloud but my bloud and when Basil and Eustathius were produced affirming the bread and wine to be figures and resemblances of Christs flesh and bloud the Patrones of Images replied that was spoken alwaies before neuer after consecration Wherefore Damascene first beganne this myncing and straining the wordes of Christ not to build on them any reall or corporall conuersion of the bread into the flesh of christ but in fauour of his artifical pictures and Images he could by no meanes abide that the mysteries should after consecration be called Images and figures of Christs bodie The next that traced this path after Damascene was Epiphanius not that auncient and learned Bishoppe of Cyprus but a pratling Deacon in the bastard Councell of Nice whose furious and fanaticall answer to the Councel of Constantinople that made this obiection declareth more tongue than witte more face than learning Christ did not say take ye eat ye the Image of my bodie Reade whiles thou wilt saith hee thou shalt neuer find that either the Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers called that vnbloudie Sacrifice which the Priest offereth AN IMAGE Thus doth he braie foorth defiance to the whole worlde without trueth without shame For Chrysostome saith If Iesus were not once dead whose image and signe is this Sacrifice This Sacrifice is an image and samplar of that Sacrifice And Gelasius Surely the IMAGE and resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries We must therefore so thinke of the Lord Christ himselfe as we professe and obserue in his IMAGE And likewise Theodoret. Ortho. The mysticall signes which are offered to god by his Priests whereof doest thou call them signes Eranist Of the body blood of the Lord. Ortho It is very well saide Conferre then the image with the paterne and thou shalt see the likenes Dionysius calleth it both an image and a figuratiue sacrifice Nazianzene excusing himselfe How should I saith he presume to offer vnto God that externall sacrifice the image of the great mysteries Clemens Offer you in your churches the image of the royall body of Christ. Macarius In the Church are offered breade and wine the images of his flesh and blood The 〈◊〉 â—aâ—hers keepe the same word the same sense Ambrose In the law was a shadow in the Gospel is an image in heauen is the trueth Before was offered a lambe or a calf now Christ is offred here in an image there in truth where he intreateth his father as an aduocate for vs. AusteÌ„ Christ gaue an image of his burnt offering to be celebrated in the church for a remembrance of his passion The rest say the like but what neede we farther refutation of so ridiculous and vnshamefast a bragge such causes such councels such poppets such Proctors The very children in the church of God knowe that the diuine mysteries by the generall definition of a Sacrament be visible signes of inuisible graces and as Augustine interpreteth the word Sacramentum id est sacrum signum a Sacrament that is a sacred signe So that vnlesse they be signes they can possibly be no sacraments neither sacraments nor signes can they be without or before coÌ„secration which this stout champion had not yet learned therfore his verdict in matters of religion except his cunning were greater may be wel refused As Damasene and your prating Epiphanius were more than 700. yeares after Christ so Theophilact and Euthymius are farre younger The first of them was Bishoppe of the Bulgarians who were conuerted to the faâ—eth 868. yeares after Christ the second your owne chronologie placeth after Gracian and Lombard 1100. yeares short of Christ. Were then these later Grecians wholy with you what gaine you by them If you woulde oppose them to Tertullian Origen Cyprian Austen Gelasius Thedorete others of purer times and sounder iudgements you could winne nothing by that bargaine the choice were soone made which to take which to leaue but in deede you do them wrong to returne them for transsubstantiators they neuer knew what it ment They say the mysteries of the Lords table be not only figures but haue the truth annexed No figures of grace differed but seales of mercy perfourmed in Christ and inioyed of vs no called figures or images of Christes flesh after consecration but bearing as well the names as the fruits and effects of the things themselues whose
to say is hereticall And therefore they ioyne both in this that the bodie of Christ may not only be eaten of a Mouse but also it may be vomited vppe by the mouth and purged downe by the draught say Bonauenture what he will or can in detestation of their folke These be their words Igitur corpus Christi sanguis tam diu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu species manet Et si specieâ— incorruptae euomuâ—tur illa autem qâ—andoque non corrùpta emâ—ttuâ—tur vt in habentibus fluxum ibi est vere corpus Christi Therefore the bodie and bloud of Christ remaine in the bellie anâ— stomacke or in vomite and in whatsoeuer course of nature so long as the shewes of bread and wine remaine And if they be vomited or purged before they be altered as sometimes in those that are troubled with the fluxe euen there is the true bodie of Christ. O filthie mouthes and vncleane spirites What Capernite what heretike what Infidel was euer I say not so carnall and grosse but so barbarous and brutish Is this the reuerence you giue to the sacred and glorious flesh of Christ Is this the corporal presence that you striue for Shal Mice Dogges and Swine haue eternall life that you bring them to eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of our Sauiour The rest of your sluttish diuinitie no religious hart can repeate no Christian eares can abide let your neerest frindes be iudges whether this kinde of eating doe not match not only the Capernites but also the Canibals This vile and wicked assertion you will beare men in hand you did euer detest and so think to discharge your selues but you cannot scape so The church of Rome whose factours and attournies you be must answere to God and the worlde for suffering admitting and strengthning this sacrilegious blasphemie For when these things were first broched what did she Did she controle the doers and condemne the filthines of their error Did she so much as note the men or mislike the matter No Philander she proposed the question in her sentences Quid igitur sumit mus vel quid manducat What then doth the mouse take or what doth he eate And with her colde and indifferent answer Deus nouit God knoweth she set the schoole men on work she laid vp the ashes of those mice next her altars for reliques she fauored aduanced and canonized the spredders of it Thomas of Aquin was her only Paramour Hugh of Cluince who commended a Priest for eating the sacrament which a leaper had cast vp Cum vilissimo sputo was Saincted of her she made Antonius no worse man than an Archbishoppe What Call you this the quenching or kindling the suppressing or increasing of heresies No maruaile if you recken Rebels for Martyrs your holy mother the Church of Rome hath the cunning to make saints of blasphemers Returne returne for shame to grauitie trueth and antiquitie Learne to distinguishe that which is seene in this Sacrament from that which is beleeued I meane the visible creature from the grace which is not visible HADST THOV BEENE saith Chrysostome WITHOVT A BODIE Christ WOVLD HAVE GEEVEN THEE HIS INCORPORALL GVIFTS NAKEDLY that is without any coniunction of corporall creatures BVT NOW BECAVSE THY SOVL IS COVPLED WITH A BODIE THEREFORE IN THINGS THAT BE SENSIBLE THINGS INTELLIGIBLE ARE DELIVERED THEE AS BREAD saith Cyril of this sacrament SERVETH FOR THE BODIE SO THE WORD SERVETH FOR THE SOVL. It is neither nouâ—ltie nor absurditie to say that the bread of the Lorde as touching the material substance may bee deuoured of beasts digested of men and will of it selfe in continuance mould and putrifie Such is the condition of all creatures that serue to nourish our bodies and this is a creature well knowen and familiar to our senses But the word of God which is added to the corporall elements the grace which is annexed to the visible signes and the flesh of Christ which quickneth the soul of man by faith these thinges I say be free from all violent and vndecenâ— abuses and iniuries For they be no corporall mortall nor earthlie creatures but spirituall eternall and heauenly blessings and therefore in no case subiect to the greedines of beasts vncleanes of men or weaknes of nature The element is one thing saith Ambrose the operation is an other thing That which is seene in all Sacraments is temporall that which is not seene is eternall If wee looke to the very visible thinges wherein Sacraments are ministred who is ignorant saith Austen that they be corruptible But if wee consider that which is wrought by them who doth not see that that cannot suffer any corruption Of the Lordes Supper Origen affirmeth that the bread as touching the matter or materiall partes thereof goeth into the bellie and forth by the draught but the praier and blessing which is added doeth lighten the soule according to the portion of faith The sacrament that is the sacred element is one thing saieth Rabanusâ— the power of the Sacrament is an other thing The Sacrament is receiued in at the mouth with the vertue of the Sacrament the inwarde man is filled the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the bodie by the vertue of the Sacrament wee attaine eternall life This doâ—trine your schoolemen either wilfullie reiected or foolishly peruerted to make Christ substantiallie present in your Masses and for that onely cause felâ— thâ—y to the locall shutting of him within the formes of bread and the corporall eating his flesh with their teeth Which grossenes once preuailing in your Church of Rome Thomas Alexander Antonius and the greatest Clarkes of your side were by the consequent of your reall presence forced to conâ—â—sse that the flâ—sh of Christ might be subiect to the teeth and iawes as well of beastes as of vnbeleeuers For wickednes is worse than sluttishnes and the bodies of sinnefull men God more detesteth than he doth the bowels of vnreasonable creatures Since then by the generall consent of your Church Christ doeth not refuse the bellies and intralles of faithlesse persons why say they should he not be verily contained in the capacities and inwardes of brute beastes if by mischaunce they deuoure the Sacrament This hold fast your gloze layeth hands on Si dicatur quodmus sumat corpus Christi non est magnum inconueniâ—ns cum homines sceleratissimi illud sumant If it be said that a mouse taketh the bodie of Christ it is no great inconuenience seeing most wicked men doe receiue the same and this Bonauenture setteth downe for the chiefest motiue to that vile assertion Phi. To tel you truth I like not that position Theo. So long as you defend Christs humane substance to be locally present in your host you cannot for your hart auoide it but either by mocking your sâ—lues and deluding your senses or
wil thinke you madde if you fall to these positions that Christ in the host hath an humane shape and yet the host which couereth him fully round that he is there in the iust length and breadth of a man and yet exactly enclosed in euery cromme of the bread drappe of the wine that he is * circumscribed with place and yet contained in no place that he * consisteth of skinne fleshe and bones and yet breaketh in shiuers and is poured out like liquor these with infinite other such outragious and enourmous absurdities and contrarieties will declare rather the weakenes of your braines than the maner of his presence You shall do well therefore either to shew vs what father euer taught these things before you or els keepe this confusion of al religion learning for those that list to ieopard their souls vpon such iests The Realme of England is not yet minded to admitte thâ—se monsters into their Creede Phi. We teache not these things without good grounds and such as the Catholike Fathers before vs embraced and allowed Theo. If you follow their steppes then shew vs their writings for that you affirme Phi. Can wee not thinke you Theo. What you can doe I care not you do not I see Phi. What one thing defend we which we haue not their witnes and warrant for Theo. You haue not one father for this whole question Phi. Not for the real presence Theo. You may runne on with some misconstructions of the Fathers which are as soone answered by vs as obiected by you but an euident testimonie for any of the partes which I haue proposed you haue none Phi. What partes Theo. Your head is wandring that you haue since forgotten them That Christ spake not of the bread when he said this is my body or that the sense of his wordes was literall or that the substance of bread ceaseth after consecration so as nothing remaineth of the former elements but accidents or that the corporall eating with the mouth of which the Fathers speak must be meant of the things themselues and not of the signes called by those names and hauing those vertues after sanctification or that the material substance of Christs natural body may be present in many places at one time or that it is no heresie to defend the body of Christ after his ascension may lack circumscription extension or shape For any of these bring vs but one sufficient and auncient authoritie we will omit the rest and admit your Masse Phi. Will you stand to that worde Theo. If you will vndertake the proofe Philand I will Theo. And what if you performe it not will you bethinke your selfe how lewdly you seduce the people of this land vnder a pretence of pietie and resist the annoincted of God vnder a colour of blind deuotion and zeale to your holie Father the worker of al this wickednes though the founder of your two Celledges Phi. If I perform not that I will do any thing marie prouided alwaies you shall not cauill at the Fathers workes when I cite them and say they be forged Theo. Prouided also that you produce the Fathers workes themselues and not the bare reportes of your fellowes that haue falsely conueied many thinges in the Fathers names Philand You shall haue their owne workes Theoph. Then keepe on your owne course Phi. The rest of the points which you propose I am alreadie past only traÌ„substanâ—iation which you most impugne I kept to the last to giue you the list But if I proue it so as you shall not deny it will you be as good as your promise and become a catholike Theo. A Catholike if I were not I would bee with a good will but not of your making For if you cannot shew me one Father that euer taught your Transubstantiation wel you may call your selues catholiks and christes own fellowes if you will but all that be Godly and wise will take you for deceitful if noâ— for desperate heretikes But why spend you time with triâ—ling thus It were better your fathers were on foot at lest if you haue them Phi. Haue them Such as shall amaze you when you heare them Theo. Your vaine is in A stourdie preface doth ill become an hungrie Oratour Phi. Marke the end Theo. I would see the man that I might marke him Phi. S. Austen shal be the man Theo. Was he a Transubstantiator Phi. Fairly flatly fully Th. So was the moone first made of green cheese Phi. You wil not beleeue him til you heare him Theo. He is not long in comming â—hath he not yet learned his lesson or are you scant resolued whether it be he or not Phi. It is euen he and these be his wordes Non dubitare debet alâ—quis cum panis vinum consecrantur in veram substantiam Christi ita vt non remaneat substantia panis vel vini cum multa alia etiam in operibus Dei non minus miranda videmus Hominem enim substantialiter mutat Deus in lapidem vt vxorem Loth in paruo artificio hominis faenum filicem in vitrum Nec credendum est quod substantia panis velvini remaneat sed panis in corpus Christi vinuÌ„ in sanguinem conuertitur solummodo qualitatibus panis vini remanentibus No man ought to doubt when bread wine are consecrated into the trew substance of christ so as the substance of bread wine doth not remaine whereas we see manie things in the works of God no lesse maruelous than this A man God changeth substantially into a stone as Loths wife in the small workmanship of man hay ferne into glasse Neither must we beleeue that the substance of bread or wine remaineth but the bread is turned into the bodie of Christ the wine into his bloud the qualities or accidents of bread wyne only remaining What say you to this check is it mate or no Theo. The words are sufficient if the writer be ancient Phi. Then are you gone for the author is S. Austen Theo. He seemeth to haue beene some glassâ—maker rather than S Austen for he saith the working of glasse is as wounderful a feate as the turning of bread into Christs bodie Phi. You would disgrace the writer but he will not so be put out of countenance Theo. I think he will not for had he or you any shame left he would haue blushed al his while to beare S Austens name which was none of his you would haue had some remorce to deceiue the worlde with such apparent euident treacheries Phi. I thought where we should haue you Now you cannot shifte the wordes you 〈◊〉 the place for a forgerie but this is against the first prouiso which I made with you Theophi Then shew vp where you find it in his workes for that was the second prouiso which you agreed to Phi. I assure my selfe these
earthly cogitations of the mysticall elements and to stir them rather to marke in this Sacrament the wonderfull power and effects of Gods spirit and grace than the base condition and naturall digestion of bread and wine Phi. Would S. Chrysostom haue vs thinke the mysteries to bee consumed vnlesse in deede they were consumed Theo. His directing our cogitations for religion and reuerence rather to the inward force than outward appearance of the mysteries doeth not chaunge the sensible qualities of bread and wine whereof hee spake much lesse the substance alone whereof he spake not but draweth the receiuers from that which their eyes behold to that which by faith they beleeue to the secreter and diuiner part of the Sacrament not abolishing the one but preferring the other as more worthy to be considered and desired by the commers to the Lordes table And in this sense he willeth the people not to thinke that the Priest is a man in the verie next wordes that followe without line or letter betwixt Wherefore approaching to the Lordes table doe not thinke that you receiue the diuine body at the handes of a man but that you take a fierie coale by the Seraphims tongues which Esay sawe in his vision Can this be Chrysostoms meaning that in act and verie deede the Priest is changed into a Seraphim his hand into a paire of tongs the body of Christ into a coale of fire Except you be past your fiue wits you wil say no yet Chrysostom in the same place perswadeth the cōmunicants so to think as he did before that the mysteries were consumed by the substance or presence of Christs body Then if the latter wordes inferre no such chaunge why should the former If you be not so foolish as to mistake the second part of this sentence why be you so wilfull as to peruert the first vttered at the same time to the same purpose with the verie same phrase of speach Chrysostomes intent is no more to transsubstantiate the bread than the priest or the bodie of Christ but with vehement amplifications as his manner is he perswadeth the people to come to the Lordes table with no lesse reuerence than if they were to receiue a fierie coale as Esay did in his vision from one of the glorious Seraphims And to this end also doth he kendle them what he can not to be basely minded and affected toward the mysteries as if they were onely bread and wine in that sort to passe through the bellie with other meates but to prepare their hartes and to lift them vp to God as they promised to doe when the Priest saide lift vp your minds and harts they made answere we lift them vp vnto the Lord. These wordes therefore force no reall mutation in the thinges receiued but leade the receiuers from thinking on the weake creatures which they see to the mighty power of Gods graces which they see not and this is done with a religious cōsideration not with any monsterous transubstantiation or annihilation of the sacred mysteries Phi. S. Cyrill of Ierusalem saith Know you for a suerty that this bread which is seene of vs is not bread though the tast find it to be bread but the body of Christ. And so Theophilact It appeareth to bee bread but it is fleshe Theo. The first authors of this speach were late writers as Theophilact or lately set foorth by your fellowes not without great suspition as Cyrill of Ierusalem and the speech it selfe doth somwhat vary from the stile both of the Scriptures and fathers which acknowledge this mysterie to be bread wine The bread which we breake saith Paul is it not the communion of Christes body We all are partakers of one bread As often as you eate of this bread drink of this cup you shew the Lords death til he come Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drink of this cup. And our Sauiour in the Gospell speaking of the cup I will not drinke hencefoorth of this fruit of the vine Tertul. Christ hath not euen at this day reiected the water of the creator by which he doth wash his nor the bread by the which hee doth represent his verie body Clemens Alexandrinus This is my blood euē the blood of the grape Cyprian We find it was wine which the Lord called his blood The Lord called his body bread kneaded togither of many cornes and his blood wine pressed out of many clusters of grapes Origen The Lords bread according to the materiall partes thereof goeth into the belly and so foorth by the draught Austen As the men of God before vs did expound this the Lord commended his body blood in those things which are made one of many For the first is kneaded of many cornes into one lumpe the other is pressed of many clusters into one liquour That then which you saw is bread which also your eyes can tell you Cyrill of Alexandria To the beleeuing Disciples Christ gaue peeces of breade saying take eate this is my body Hesychius Hee meaneth that mystery which is both breade and fleshe The phrase it selfe therefore It is not bread sauoreth of later ages and writers and crosseth that course of speeche which both Scriptures and Fathers obserued and yet if you suffer them to declare their owne mindes they may soone be reconciled to the rest Theophilact expressing the same point in other wordes saieth Speciem quidem panis vini seruat in virtutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat Christ keepeth the shape or kind of bread and wine but changeth thē into the vertue of his body and blood Cyrill openeth his owne saying more at large The bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost is nowe no more common bread but the bodie of Christ. In the new Law the heauenly bread and cup of saluation sanctifie both soule and bodie As the bread serueth for the bodie so doth the word for the soule Thinke not therefore of the Sacrament as of bare bread and bare wine it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lordes owne wordes And although sense tell thee this that is bare bread and wine yet let faith confirme thee neither iudge them by tast but rather by faith assure thy selfe without all doubt that the body and blood of Christ are giuen vnto thee This assertion we grant is right and good and this intent had hee when hee said the bread which is seene is no bread meaning no common no bare bread In which assertion other ancient Fathers concurre with him Iustinus Wee receiue not these thinges as a common vsual bread or accustomed drink but we be taught that the food blessed by praier of the worde receiued from him is the fleshe and blood of that Iesus which tooke fleshe for our sakes Ireneus
Father or Councell for 800. yeares that proueth the Pope superiour to the Prince Bring somwhat to that end or else say you can not and I am answered Phi. I proue the church superior to the Prince which is enough to confute the supreme power that you giue to Princes Theo. And what for the Pope Shall he be superiour to Princes or no Phi. We wil talke of that an other time we be now reasoning of the church which I trust you will grant to be superiour to Princes God saide to the Church The nation and kingdom that will not serue thee shall perish And kinges shall serue thee Theo. This is right the trade of your Apologie to pretende the church and meane the Pope You sawe you were neuer able to proue the Popes vsurped power ouer Princes and therefore you thought it best to put a visarde of the Church vppon the Popes face and to bring him in that sort disguised to the stage to deceiue the simple with the sounde and shewe of the Church And for that cause your fourth chapter neuer nameth the Pope but stil vrgeth The regiment of the church The iudgement of the church The churches tribunall conuerted kingdomes must serue the church and euerie where the church the church and when the Church is confessed to bee superiour to Princes you set vppe the Pope as heade of the Church to take from her all the superioritie power and authoritie which before you claymed for her and so you make the Church but a cloke-bagge to carrie the Popes titles after him but staie your wisedomes the Church may bee superiour and yet the Pope subiect to Princes Kinges may serue the Church and yet commaund your holie father and his gymmoes the parish Priestes of Rome for their turning winding euery way iustly called Cardinals Phi. Can Princes bee supreme and the church their superiour Theo. Why not Phi. If any thing bee superiour Princes bee not supreme Theo. That I denie The Scriptures bee superiour to Princes and yet they supreme the Sacramentes bee likewise aboue them and yet that hindereth not their supremacie Truth Grace Faith Prayer and other Ghostlie vertues bee higher than all earthly states and all this notwithstanding Princes may bee supreme gouernours of their kingdomes and Countries Phi. You cauill nowe you shoulde compare persons with persons and not thinges with persons there may bee thinges aboue Princes and yet they supreme but if anie persons bee superiour then can they not bee supreme Theo. No The Sainctes in heauen and Angels of God bee persons superiour to Princes and yet may Princes bee supreme Phi. Why Theophilus these bee wrangling quiddities for shame leaue them The Sainctes bee superiour in perfection and dignitie but not in externall vocation and authoritie Theo. I like that you saie but if you looke backe you shall see Philander that you giue iudgement against your selfe Phi. Against my selfe Why so Theo. The Church is superiour to Princes for those very respectes which I nowe repeated First because the Saincts in heauen which are part of the church in happines perfection and dignitie bee many degrees aboue worldely states Secondly though the members of the Church bee subiect and obedient to Princes yet the thinges contayned in the Church and bestowed on the Church by God him-selfe I meane the light of his worde the working of his Sacramentes the giftes of his grace and fruites of his spirite bee farre superiour to all Princes Nowe view your consequent The Church in respect of her members in heauen and graces on earth is aboue the Prince ergo the Prince is not supreme but subiect to the Pope This is worse than wrangling You confound things and persons heauen and earth God and man to beare out the Popes pride Phi. You stretch the name of the church whither you list Theo. I may better stretch it to these thinges which I specifie than you restraine it to one onelie man as you doe But why doe I stretch the church farther than I should The Sainctes in heauen bee they not members of the church Phi. They bee membees of the church which is in heauen Theo. And the church in heauen is it an other church from this on earth or the same with it Phi. I thinke it bee the same Theo. You must not goe by thoughtes Sainct Paul saith You are of the same citie with the Sainctes and Ierusalem which is aboue is no straunger to vs but the mother of vs all Cum ipsis Angelis sumus vna ciuitas Dei cuius pars in nobis peregrinatur pars in illis opitulatur Wee saith Austen are one and the same citie of God with the Angels whereof part wandereth on earth in vs part in them assisteth vs. And againe The true Sion and true Ierusalem is euerlasting in heauen which is the mother of vs all She hath begotten vs shee hath nurced vs in part a stranger on earth in a greater part remaining in heauen For the soules of the godly that be dead be not seuered from the church which euen now is the kingdome of Christ. Certaynely Christ hath but one bodie which is his church and of that body since the Sainctes be the greater and worthier part they must bee counted of the same Church with vs. Phi. I stick not at that so much as at the next where you make the word and Sacramentes togither with their effectes and fruites to be parts of the church Theo. I do not say they be members of the Church but thinges required in the church without the which we can neither become nor continue the members of Christ. In a naturall bodie the spirits and faculties be no members yet without them the members haue neither life motion sense nor action So in the mysticall bodie of Christ the members be men but the meanes and helpes to make vs and keepe vs the members of Christ are the word and Sacraments without the which we can neither be planted quickned nor nourished in Christ. For the members be dead if they liue not by faith if they grow not by grace if they cleaue not by loue to their heade and moue at his will by obedience And therefore these thinges though they bee not members yet they bee ioyntes and sinewes vaines and vessels that giue life groeth strength and state to the bodie of Christ which is his church and may iustly bee called the principall powers or partes of his bodie Phi. Powers if you will but not partes Theo. As though the powers of the soule were not partes of the soule Phi. Not properly partes but powers and faculties Theo. What call you partes Phi. Whereof the whole consisteth Theo. And since without these there can be no Church ergo these be partes of the church Phi. You take partes very largely Theo. No larger than I should The foundation of the house is it not a part of the house Phi. Yes a chiefe
corporis quod monemus in ore cum loquimur signa vtique rerum dantur non res ipsae proferuntur propterea translato verbo linguam appellauit quaÌ„libet signorum prolationem priusquaÌ„ intelligantur Because by the toung I mean that part of the body which we moue in our mouthes when we speak the signes of things are deliuered not the things themselues therefore the Apostle to the Corinthes by a kind of translation calleth any vttering of signes or words before they be vnderstood a toungue Phi. In deed S. Paul speaketh of tongues not vnderstood when he saith they neither profite nor edifie but hee that thinketh S. Paul speaking of edification of mans mind or vnderstanding meaneth the vnderstanding of the words onely is fouly deceiued For what is a child of fiue or six yeres old edified or increased in knowledge by his Pater noster in english It is the sense therefore which euery man can not haue neither in English nor latin the knowledge whereof properly and rightly edifieth to instruction and the knowledge of the words only often edifieth neuer a whit somtimes buildeth to error destructioÌ„ as it is plain in al heretikes many curious peâ—sons besides Phi. As we should shewe our selues to be mad if we should say that English prayers doe edifie children before they come to the yeares of discretion or that the very hearing of their mother tongue doth sufficiently instruct English men though the sense of that which is spoken be neuer so darke obscure parabolicall and mysticall for then we shoulde crosse the very Principles of nature and the whole discourse of the Apostle who mainely teacheth that no man is edified except he vnderstande and meaneth by vnderstanding both the knoweledge of the words that enter our eares of the sense that affecteth our hearts so are you woorse than mad to defend that men may be edified by speach whereof they vnderstand not so much as one word to confute so shamefull an absurditie we neede neither Scriptures nor Fathers Children of sixe yeares old wil tell you they bee no whit the better for all your paines if they vnderstand not your wordes What will you not say that wil say this And when you that be masters in Israel are so blinde how great must the blindnesse of others be that take their light from you You resist not onely God and his trueth but you force your owne tongues to speake against your owne heartes For say your selues if a man speake Welch or Irish to you that vnderstand it not what will it profit you or which way can you be edified by it Phi. Welch or Irish would do vs no good but Greeke or Hebrewe would Theo. What difference between Hebrew and Irish to him that vnderstandeth a word of neither When the heart conceiueth not the sense of the words nor so much as distinguisheth the tongue whether it be Hebrewe or Irish for lack of knowledge howe can the Hebrewe or greeke tongue though the one bee sacred and the other learned instruct the hearer or helpe his vnderstanding more than Welch or Irish can The Apostles Rule If I come to you speaking with tongues not vnderstood what shall I profit you â—s generally true of all tongues Nemo edificatur audiendo quod non intelligit No man saith Augustine is edified with hearing that which he vnderstandeth not Linguas loquens seipsum edificat quod quideÌ„ fieri non potest nisi quae loquatur norit He that speaketh with tongues edifieth himselfe which is not possible except he knowe what hee saith as Chrysostome noteth And Ambrose Si vtique ad edificandum Ecclesiam conuenitis ea dici debent quae intelligant audientes If you come together to edifie the Church those thinges must bee spoken which the hearers may vnderstand If then there bee no edification where nothing is vnderstood a strange tongue bee it Hebrewe Greeke Welche or Irish cannot edifie the hearer that is ignorant of them by reason the heart perceiueth not the words much lesse the sense of that which is spoken Phi. We say the simple people and many one that thinke themselues some body vnderstand as litle of the sense of diuers Psalmes lessons and Oraisons in the vulgar toung as if they were in Latine Theo. And we say you do nothing now but cauill which in matters of trueth is not tolerable For what if the vulgar sort vnderstand not the perfect sense of euery verse or worde that is read in the Church will you thence inferre that the diuine seruice in a knowen tongue doth not edifiâ— Your selues steppe out the prowdest of you vnderstand not euery line letter that is written in the old New Testament Do the Scriptures therefore not edifie or blame you the holy Ghost for writing them because you doe not euery where reach to the depth of them What teacher can be so plaine but in debating matters of faith and saluation he shall be many times forced to passe the capacity of rude ignorant men Wil you therefore conclude against S. Paul that neither Prophets nor Preachers edifie In the epistles and so no doubt sermons of Paul himselfe there are and were some things hard to be vnderstoode Were the Preachings and writings therefore oâ— the Apostle vnprofitable Phi. We reason against your seruice not against the Scriptures Theo. As though the Psalmes and lessons in our seruice were not partes of the sacred Scriptures If therfore our diuine seruice do not edifie in respect of the psalms and lessons there song and read then the Scriptures themselues do not edifie and consequently S. Paul was ouershot when hee saide whatsoeuer things are written were written for our instruction and the Holy Ghost deceiued when he witnessed that the whole Scripture is profitable to teach correct and instruct Or if the spirite of God be trueth as there is no question he is then are you voide both of his spirite and of trueth also to say that diuers psalms and lessons do not edifie Phi. You be very snappish we speak of your praiers as well as of the Psalmes and lessons Neither doe we say the Psalmes and lessons do not edifie but yâ— the simple vnderstand not diuers of them no more than if they were in Latine Theo. They must be very simple that vnderstand not our praiers They containe nothing besides the confession of our sinnes to god the rendring of thankes for his graces and mercies bestowed on vs in Christ his sonne and the asking of such things at his hands as his wisedome seeth to be needfull and his goodnesse thinketh expedient for vs and all mankind And these things if any man vnderstand not being distinctly and daily pronounced in his mother tongue you may begge him for a naturall and doe him no wrong As for the Psalmes and Lessons since they be Gods not ours the question must not
forefinger with twenty such nicefinities curiosities haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs action nor institution nor to his Apostles doctrine nor doings who knew their masters meaning and continued their masters example with words gestures reuerent sufficient to satisfie his heauenly will and precept for this matter Phi. You doe not so much as vse any words vpon the elements but let the bread and the wine stand aloofe as if you were afraid to touch them Theo. In déede we blesse with our hearts and voices not with our fingers and therefore we make our account that our praiers are as forceable and as effectuall at sixe féete length as at six haires bredth And to deal friendly with you that blessing with mouth taketh no place except the hand be also winding turning the patene and chalice after your maner we can not beléeue it afore we sée some reason for it sorcerers and coniurers haue such circumstances but we hope you be not of their Seminaries Phi. Did not Christ take the bread likewise the cup into his hands Theo. Yes verily He could not BREAK it with his hand vnles it were in his hand neither could he GIVE it out of his hand afore he TOOKE it into his hand Phil. Then Christ TOOKE the bread so the cup into his hands before he did consecrate so you do not Theo. You would say before he did distribute For breking giuing which wer the ends of his taking are parts of distributiō not of cōsecration Phi. What blasphemy haue we heer did Christ distribute before he did cōsecrate the bread Theo. You be so busie about blessing the host and the chalice that you charge the sonne of God in his doings and the euangelists in their writings with blasphemy Phi. Nay we charge you with blasphemie for saying that Christ gaue vnconsecrated bread and wine to his disciples Theoph. Doth not the Scripture say the same Iesus taking bread and giuing thanks brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and saide take ye eate ye this is my bodie And taking the cup and giuing thanks he gaue it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament c. He tooke bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples bidding them take it and eate it before he said this is my body Now if these words this is my bodie be the words of Consecration ergo distribution went before Consecration and when Christ did consecrate the bread was in his disciples and not in his owne hands Phil. But he blessed as we call it or as you terme it he gaue thanks before he brake it Theop. That thanksgiuing or benediction was not consecration as your selues confesse and would séem to prooue by an whole heape of fathers and therfore in spite of all that you do or can say Christ did consecrate by word of mouth whē the disciples had the bread cup in their hands Phi. Would you haue the priest then not at al to touch the elements Theo. When we diuide them we cannot choose but touch them as Christ did Mary they may be sanctified by prayer and made Sacraments by repeating the words of Christ though at that instant we touch them not And therfore your vnsound quidities that Christ blessed the very element and vsed power actiue words vpon the bread and ouer the bread which we doe not but let the bread and wine stand a loofe and occupie the words of Christ by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed these nice and new found quddities I say be méere fooleries since the words of Consecration take their effect not from our fingers or gestures but from Christs mouth and commandement that we should do the like Phil. You neuer apply these words this is my body more than the whole narration of the institution nor recite the whole otherwise than in historical maner and for that cause you make it no Sacrament at al. Theo. Can you tell what you say Phil. Why doubt you that Theo. Because it is a wicked and blasphemous lie for the priest to say this is my bodie otherwise than by way of rehearsall what Christ said And therefore your braines be more than distempered if you would haue vs or any other Christian ministers to say it otherwise than by report what Christ saide and commanded vs to do in remembrance of him Phil. Doe you thinke we meane the priest should say of his owne person this is my bodie Theo. If you do meane it Bedlem is a fitter place for you than either Rhemes or Rome Phil. You may be sure we do not Theo. Why then reprooue you vs for repeating the words of Christ by way of rehearsall what he did and saide Phil. You should apply them to the matter proposed Theo. How By praier precedent and consequent or by glozing and interlacing Christs wordes with ours Phil. You should actiuely and presently apply them to the elements of bread and wine Theo. I must aske you the same question that I did before The wordes were spoken by Christ in his own person and cannot actiuely and presently be pronounced by any priest but by way of report what Christ saide without apparent and horrible blasphemie And therefore the application of them in our words must either go before them or after them and not exactly with them much lesse to be comprised in them Phil. We tell you you doe not apply them actiuely and presently Theo. We tell you you knowe not what you say The words of Christ this is my body this is my blood mauger all the diuels in hell must be pronounced in no mans person but only by way of repetition what Christ at his last supper said in his owne person and your Iesuitical nouelties of actiuely and presently be so far from the soundnes of faith and substance of truth that your selues are not able to expound what you speake Phil. Yes that we are Theo. So it should séeme by the readinesse of your answere What then is the present and actiue application which you striue for or which way is it made By word of mouth or intention of hart The Priest when he saith this is my body cannot iointly with those words vtter any other words of his owne to apply them Intention of heart cannot alter the sense of the spéech but only direct before God the purpose of the speaker And vnlesse the meaning of the Priest be to recite the words of Christ by way of repetition I sée not how you can excuse either the Priests hart or mouth from outragious and monstrous impietie Phil. We haue a present and actiue application of the words which you haue not Theo. What is it Phil. The Priest intendeth to doe as Christ did and therefore vttereth the words distinctly and aduisedly ouer the elements that are in his hands and vnder his eies
doubt arise not touching the creatures of breade and wine but touching the fleshe and blood of Christ which are the Principall partes of this mystery the solution and explication of euery such doubt must be fet from the place where the Lord first reuealed this secret rebuked the Capernites for the misconstruction of his words and taught his Disciples how they should be both fruitfull partakers of his flesh rightful interpreters of his speech Phi. You woulde faine haue it so but wee meane to barre you that chaâ—ce Theo. You cannot bar vs but you must bar Chrysostom Cyprian Cyrill Austen and others that confesse the same trueth before vs. How chanced saieth Chrysostome the Disciples were not troubled when they heard this take eate this is my body Because their master had debated the same matter largely and profoundly before For at first when he spake of these thinges many were offended at the very words So Cyprian To the sonnes of Abraham doing the workes of Abraham the high Priest bringeth foorth bread and wine saying this is my body There arose before this as we reade in the Gospell of Iohn a question touching the nouelty of this speech and at the doctrine of this mysterie the hearers were amazed So Cyrill The Capernites before they beleeue question busily with him Therefore the Lord did not tell them how that might be but exhorteth them to seeke for it with faith mary to the beleeuing disciples he gaue peeces of breade saying take yee eate ye this is my body Likewise the cuppe hee deliuered round saying drinke yee all of this Thou seest that to those which asked without faith hee did not open the maner of this mysterie but to those which beleeued yea when they did not aske hee declared the same And Augustine When Christ spake of the Sacrament of his body and bloode they saide this speech is hard Who can heare it You see by the constant opinion of these Fathers that our Sauiour in the sixt of Iohn taught his Disciples what manner of eating his flesh and drinking his blood they should expect at his last Supper and that they therefore started not at these words this is my body because they learned of him before what to looke for and well remembred his interpretation of himselfe when the Capernites staggered at the like speech Then perforce what sense the wordes of Christ in the sixt of Iohn doe beare the same must the wordes of the supper retaine but there Christ teacheth the spirituall eating of his fleshe by faith his wordes bee figuratiue ergo the Lordes supper doeth not import any corporal eating of his flesh nor literall exposition of his wordes And why The performance may no way differ from the promise The promise made by Christ in the sixt of Iohn the bread which I will giue is my flesh was figuratiue The wordes then of the Supper THIS which I now giue is my body perfourming the same must likewise be figuratiue For Seales doe not alter or infringe but strengthen and confirme that which was promised The creatures of bread and wine Christ ordained at his last Supper to bee Sacramentes and Seales of his former promises vttered in the sixth of Iohn ergo they change not his meaning expressed before That was spiritual figuratiue therefore the wordes of the Supper can not be corporall nor literall And the wordes of Origen expounding the sixt of Iohn are a iust proofe that if in the wordes of the Supper you follow the letter that letter killeth Phi. This can not be Christ in the sixth of Iohn you say teacheth a spirituall and figuratiue kinde of eating his fleshe and in deliuering the Sacrament we be sure he spake of a corporall not of a spirituall eating his body For when our Lord saide take eate this is my body did hee not meane they should take it with their handes and eate it with their mouthes And therefore either the one place doth not serue to expound the other or else in both places is prescribed a reall and corporall eating the flesh of Christ drinking his blood which we rather imbrace as the likeliest Theo. In those wordes take and eate spoken at the last Supper hee ment no doubt the corporall taking and eating of that creature which hee gaue them and when hee added this is my body which hee tolde them before they must eate if they would haue any life in them he recalled to their mindes as Chrysostom noteth the doctrine hee had taught them of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in which because they were wel instructed by the Capernites error and their masters declaration of himselfe that the wordes which he spake were spirite and life they neither started nor stumbled at his speech but presently perceiued the Lord was ordayning a Sacrament to confirme their faith and not hiding his fleshe vnder accidentes or any other couerts to enter their mouthes for which grossenes the Capernits were before reproued Christes exposition therefore in the sixt of Iohn was purposely made to confute the carnal Iewes who when they heard of eating mans flesh and drinking blood dreampt of no kind of eating and drinking but with their bodily iawes lips and for that cause murmured as if they had beene inuited to some barbarous brutish act next to teach the disciples that indured his words in what sort they should looke for a diuiner purer kind of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood by beleeuing hoping and reioycing in his fleshe that was wounded and blood that was shed for their sinnes This he assured and ratified vnto them by ordaining afterward a Sacrament which they shoulde visibly see but inuisibly vnderstand corporally receiue but spiritually interprete in beleeuing the same by the power of his worde and spirit to haue in it cary with it the fulnes of his trueth mercy openly sealed with those pledges of his promises instruments of his grace lest their faith should faint by reason of his departure absence from theÌ„ or their harts faile them as if they were destitute of his protection fauor amidst so many troubles as should inclose them Phi. If you will needes haue the sixt of S. Iohn to pertaine to the Sacrament then is there say we a reall corporall kind of eating established in that chapter For Christ in plaine speech saith my flesh is meate in deede and my blood is drinke in deede Theo. It is well that you bethinke your selfe at last you were about to dissent both froÌ„ the fathers from your own felowes For the fathers as I haue shewed you confesse that the Disciples were by the words of Christ in this place instructed how they should eate his flesh drinke his blood euen in the sacrament that made theÌ„ vnderstand him when he said take eate this is my body drink ye al
on his flesh and that they might thenceforth learne that the flesh of which he spake was celestiall foode from heauen and spirituall nourishment which hee giueth Augustine Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy bellie BELEEVE AND THOV HAST EATEN To beleeue in him this is to eat the liuing bread HE THAT BELEEVETH EATETH He is inuisibly fedde because hee is inuisibly regenerated He is inwardly a babe inwardly new In what part he is renewed in that part is he nourished Bernard that in respect of antiquitie liued but yesterday can teach you the meaning of this place When they heard him say except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud they saide this is an hard speach and departed from him And what is to eate his flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and imitate that conuersation which he ledde here in flesh The text it selfe doth in sight conuince so much The Lord often times expoundeth his owne wordes purposly to this effect Worke not for the meate which perisheth but for the meate which dureth to eternall life and this is the worke of God that you beleeue in him whom he hath sent I am that bread of life he that commeth to me not by walking but by beleeuing shal not hunger he that beleeueth in me shal neuer thirst Hunger and thirst are no way quenched but with eating and drinking Then how can the beleeuer but still hunger and still thirst except we graunt that he which beleeueth both eateth and drinketh Verily verily I say vnto you except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you He then which hath life per consequence eateth the flesh of christ and drinketh his bloud but he that beleeueth hath eternall life as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place with no lesse vehemencie Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life ergo he that beleeueth eateth the flesh and drinketh the bloud of Christ. For if eating and drinking in this place were referred to the mouth and teeth how could Iudas or any other of the wicked that is once partaker of the Lordes table perish The wordes of Christ be plaine Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and are dead If any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life But the wicked notwithstanding the corporal chamming of this Sacrament die the death of sinners ergo they neither eat the â—lesh of Christ nor drink his bloud not because their teeth or iawes faile them but by reason they want faith which is the right and proper instrument of spiritual eating Since then man beleeueth with his heart vnto righteousnes as Paul teacheth not with his iawes nor lippes ergo the soul of man which only beleeueth only doth eate the flesh of Christ and our bodies which haue no meanes to beleeue can neither eate nor drinke in that sort and sense that our Sauiour there speaketh of You cannot with honestie steppe from so manifest both Scriptures and Fathers as these bee that I haue brought or if you can dally with so good and graue witnesses in so weightie matters I trust the Godly will bee fully resolued that the manner of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloud which the Lord himselfe first proposed in the sixt of Iohn was not LITERALL NOR CORPORALL as the Capernites vnderstand him and were deceiued but ALLEGORICALL AND SPIRITVALL ALLEGORICALL in respect of the words which be not there precisely taken in their vsuall signification for grinding with the teeth and straining downe the throate but figuratiuely spoken and import as much as confessing imbracing with hart and inward affectioÌ„ SPIRITVAL because not our mouths but our minds not our bellies but our spirites are nourished with the flesh and bloud of Christ and that not by chewing or swallowing but by remembring and beleeuing that his bodie was wounded and his bloud shedde for our perfect and eternall redemption Now the Lords Supper is correspondent not contrarie to the first of Iohn as we saw before by the verdit of the fathers confession of your selues therefore the Lords table teacheth no literall nor carnal but a spirituall mysticall eating of the â—lesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud which you cannot obserue so long as you presse the letter of these wordes Take eat this is my body For taking and eating in the Supper bee corporall actions euen as breaking the bread and deliuering the cup are Then if the wordes this is my bodie bee literall the consequent is ineuitable that the flesh of Christ is really taken with hands actually brused with teeth corporally lodged in the belly But this error the Lorde in his own person confuted and the Catholike fathers refell as impious irreligious and haynous ergo the wordes of the Supper this is my body bee not literall but rather aunswerable to the doctrine proposed in the sixt of Iohn which is nothing lesse than literal Phi. You make but a double manner of eating Christes flesh where you should make a triple A carnal spirituall and Sacramentall A carnal which the capernites dreampt of when they supposed they should haue eaten raw flesh to sight and tast as they did other meates A spirituall by faith and vnderstanding in which sort euery good man may eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud at any time without the mysteries A Sacramentall as when wee eate the flesh of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine though we neither see nor â—ast flesh or blood Of these three sortes the sixt of S. Iohns Gospell refelleth onely the carnall which the Capernites grossely fell to when they heard our Sauiour speake of the Sacrament Theo. I blame you not if you bee loath to be counted Capernites They were reproued by our Sauiour as grosse mistakers of his speach and lewde forsakers of his fellowship but would God you were as willing to leaue their error as you be to refuse their name Phi. Wee be farder than you from their opinion And you be rather Capernites that aske how can he giue vs his flesh to eate and will not beleeue any eating of Christes bodie with the mouth except your eyes and tongues maie first discerne and tast the same Theo. We aske not him how he can doe anie thing that he will but wee aske you how you know that both his will and his worde are changed since he rebuked the Capernites for their grossenes Phi. We doe not say that either his will or his word are chaunged Theo. Then the doctrine of eating his flesh and drinking his blood which he delâ—uered in the sixt of Iohn remaineth in the same force and strength that it did at first when he reuealed it to his disciples Philand It doth
mysterie that Christ is eaten vnder the formes of bread and wine Theo. None at all if you set your teeth and iawes on worke to eate him as the Capernites thought they should when they peruerted the wordes of Christ. Phi. They supposed they should haue seene and tasted mans flesh which is horrible Theo. Eating as I haue shewed you doth consist not in seeing or tasting but in chamming and swallowing since you therein consent with the Capernites though you could alleadge twentie diuersities betweene their maner of eating yours yet both are corporal and contrary to that doctrine which Christ deliuered in the sixt of Iohn â— For that as I haue proued was intended and referred to the soules and spirits of men not to their throats or entrals and therefore well in couering the body of Christ and deluding your senses you may differ from the Capernites but in preparing your teeth and iawes for the flesh of Christ and in drawing his wordes from their mystical and figuratiue sense you ioyne with the Capernites against all the Catholike Fathers that euer wrate in the Church of Christ. Phi. Haue we thinke you no fathers with vs as well for the literall construction of Christs wordes as for the corporal eating of his flesh in the Sacrament Corporall I call it not because we see it or tast it as we doe other meates but because we be sure it entereth our mouthes when we receiue our rightes and is really contained in our bodies Theo. You may abuse some fathers to make a shew but otherwise you haue no ground in them either of your literall vnderstanding Christs speach or corporal eating of christs â—lesh Phi. Haue we not S. Damascen S. Epiphanius Theophilact Euthymius and others earnestly presse the literal construction of christs words against your signes and figures and as for eating the flesh of Christ with our very mouthes S. Austen S. Chrysostom S. Leo S. Gregorie S. Cyril Tertullian others are resolute whoÌ„ I trust you wil not condemn for Capernites By this way the simple learne what to looke for at your hands that wil out-face so plaine a trueth Theo. He that will be good at outfacing let him studie your Testament and hee neede none other teacher but what trueth is it that we outface Phi. Neuer father you said auouched the literal sense of Christes wordes Theo. I said no ancient father of which number I do not account these late Grecians to be And therefore if they did contradict that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others did teach long before them wee would not regard them but as yet I seeâ— no such thing proued by them Phi. The proofe is easie S. Damascene rehearsing the wordes of Christ This is my body immediately addeth not a figure of my body but my body not a figure of my bloud but my bloud S. Epiphanius likewise Christ said take eate this is my body Hee saide not take eate the Image of my body And Theophilact Bread is the very bodie of our Lord and not a figure correspondent For he said not this is a figure but this is my body And so Euthymius Christ said not these are signes of my body but these are my body These be manifest places and yet such is your impudencie that you affirme no father euer vrged the literall force of Christes words And so for the corporall eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes S. Augustine saith It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in the honour of so great a Sacrament our Lordes bodie should enter into the mouth before other meates And S. Chrysostome Our mouth hath gotten no small honour receiuing our Lordes bodie And S. Gregorie The bloud of the lambe is sucked not only by the mouth of the heart but also by the mouth of the body And S. Leo That is receiued by the mouth which is beleeued by the heart And Tertullian Our flesh doth feede on the bodie and bloud of our Lord And S. Cyril It was needfull that this rude and earthly body should be recouered to immortalitie by touch tast and foode of the same kind with it selfe You aske for fathers here they be both many in number and auncient in time to discharge vs that we be no Capernites and to refell your foolish vaunt that all antiquitie were of the verie same mind that you are now It may bee you neuer heard the places before If you did not I will pardon your ignorance so you repent your rashâ—es Theo. Yeas sir I haue seene them and â—â— may bee weighed them better than euer you did And notwithstanding your magnificence it will appeare you be not free from ignorance whatsoeuer you be from impudencie Phil. I will burne my cloathes to my shirt if euer you answere them Theo. But saue your skinne from the fire though you spare not other mens blood nor bones Phi. We vse you but as heretikes should be vsed Theo. If it be heresie for vs to serue god according to the Gospel of his sonne what is it for you to serue him with your own medlees Phi. You would flie the fielde rather than your life but I must keepe you to it Theo. You runne so fast from God and your Prince that you may soone ouer-goe vs if we would flie but as yet I see no cause Damascene Theophilact and Euthymius presse the letter of christes speach not to deriue thence your carnal and guâ—tural eating of christs flesh nor to controll that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others men of farre greater learning and authoritie than these taught long before them in the church of God but to shew that bread and wine be not only tokens and bare signes of christes fleshe and bloud but also cary with them and in them the vertue power and effect of his death and passâ—on Euthymius Christ said not these be the signes of my body and bloud but these are my bodie and bloud We must therefore NOT LOOKE TO THE NATVRE of the giftes which are proposed BVT TO THE VERTVE Against them which defend that this Sacrament doth only figure not offer signifie not exhibite grace the letter may wel be forced to proue the diuine power and operation of the mysticall elemenets Against vs which hold the visible signes in substance to bee creatures in signification mysteries in operation and vertue the things themselues whose names they bearâ— this illation concludeth nothing Yet for the better explication of him selfe and others vsing the like kind of speach Theophilact addeth this worde ONLY Marke that the bread which is eaten of vs in the mysteries Non est TANTVM figuratio quaedam carnis Domini is not an only figuring of the Lords flesh but the Lords very flesh For he saide not the bread which I will giue is a figure of my flesh but is my flesh Their meaning was as we see
after the same sort the blood of christ euen so the sacrament of faith meaning thereby baptisme is saith We he buried saith Paul with christ through baptism into his death Hâ— saith not we signifie that his burial but he saith plainly we 〈…〉 The sacrameÌ„t of so great a thing he would not cal but by the 〈…〉 thing it self Upon this verie ground be concluded as you heard 〈…〉 Lâ—â—d doubted not not to say this my body when he gaue the signe of his body What maâ—uell then if the catholike Fathers vsed often the names of the body blood of Christ where the materiall elementes of bread and wine must be vnderstood since this is the certaine rule of al sacraments and the common order of all ancient diuines writing of the Lordes supper to call the giftes proposed at the Lordes table the body and blood of Christ. The wilfull contempt of which obseruation hath miserably snared and hampered you and your fellowes euerie where referring and forcing that to the naturall fleshe of Christ which by the learned and godly fathers was spoken and ment of the visible signes called by the names of the body and blood of Christ. The second thing that you sticke at is the substance of bread which we say remaineth and abideth as well after consecration as before You wil haue it either vanish to nothing or else to bee turned and conuerted into the very fleshe of Christ there present God maÌ„ vnder the whitenes roundnes such like shewes appearances of bread left only to content the sight and palate least the raw flesh of Christ should displease your eyes or offend your tast This is your doctrine and this we say is not catholike The church of Christ neuer held that the substance of bread perished or ceased after consecration it is a late deuise you can bring no father that is ancient for this assertion they neuer taught they neuer heard they neuer dreampt any such thinges They taught that the mysticall signes were creatures well knowen not straunge and miraculous accidentes that the substance of bread was not changed but remained still after consecration and this they taught in as plaine words as heart can imagine or tongue expresse lette the Reader bee iudge if I â—aye not the truth Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome for his antiquitie reuerenced of vs for his place not to be refused of you writeth thus against Eutiches The sacraments which we receiue of the body blood of Christ are a diuine thing by them are we made partakers of the diuine nature yet for all that ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread wine to be Theodoret The mystical signes do not after sanctification depart from their own nature for they remaine in their former substance figure forme Ambrose Thou camest to the altar â—awest the sacraments theron wonderest at the very creature yet it is a â—olemn known creature Ireneus Christ counseling or willing his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of those creatures tooke that bread which is a creature gaue thankes saying this is my body We must therefore in all thinges be found thankefull to God the creator offering the first fruits of those creatures which be his and this oblation the Church onely maketh in puritie to the creatour offering to him of his own creatures with thankes giuing Origen The Lords bread according to the material partes thereof goeth into the belly and thence to the draught so that it is not the matter of breade that doeth proâ—itte the râ—ceiuer but the worde rehearsed ouer it Epiphanius That which our Sauiour our tooke in his hand and saide this is my body wee see to bee neither proportional nor like to his image in flesh nor his inuisible Deity for this is of a round figure hath no power of sense but our Lord wee knowe to bee wholy sense wholy sensitiue Cyprian Since the Lord said do this in my remembraÌ„ce this is my flesh this is my blood as often as with these words this faith we do that he did this substantial bread cup sanctified with a solemn blessing is profiâ—able for the life safegard of the whole man being both a medicine to heal our infirmities a sacrifice to clense our iniquities Chrysostom After coÌ„secration it is deliuered from the name of bread reputed worthy to be called the Lords body nothwithstanding the nature of bread still remaine Austen These things are therefore called Sacramentes because in them one thing is seen an other thing vnderstood That which is seen speciem habet corporalem hath a corporal shape or kind that which is vnderstood hath a spiritual fruit This is of al other a miserable seruitude of the soule to mistake the signes for the things themselues not to be able to lift vp the eye of the minde aboue the corporall creature to behold the light that is eternall The councell of Constantinople Christ commaunded the whole substaunce of breade chosen for his image to bee set on his table least if it resembled the shape of a man idolatrie might bee committed Bertram The signes as touching the substances of the creatures are the same after consecration which they were before Can you looke for plainer or directer witnesses Do they not all ioyne together in one profession and succession of truth that the mysticall signes after consecration be knowen corporal and senselesse creatures abiding in their proper and former yea their whole nature and substance Be not these wordes significant and pregnant directly conâ—uting your reall inclosing and corporall eaâ—ing of Christ vnder the shewes and accidentes of bread and wine The third thing that I saide was to bee considered in the elementes of bread and wine is their power and operation For since the substance of the creatures is not chaunged the signes coulde not iustly beare the names of the thinges them-selues except â—â—e vertue power and â—ffect of Christs fleshe and bloode were adioyned to them and vnited with them after a secrete and vnspeakable manner by the working of the holy Ghost in such sort that whosoeuer duelie receiueth the signe is vndoubtedly partaker of the grace offered vnto all but inioyed onely by those that with fayth and repentance clense the inward man from that corruption of flesh spirit which Christ abhorreth Cyprian of Sacraments in generall writeth thus To the elements once sanctified not now their owne nature giueth effect but the diuine vertue worketh in them more mightily the trueth is present with the signe and the spirit with the Sacrament so that the worthines of the grace appeareth by the verie efficiencie of the things Of the Lordes Supper in speciall thus he saith b There is giuen the foode of immortalitie differing from commoÌ„ meates Corporalis substantiae etmens speciem retaining the kind or truth
example without warrant of God or man Phi. Theodoret hath set you vppe in your Ruffe but I would you knew it in this case we care neither for Theodoret nor you if that were his opinion as it is yours Theo. And who hath put you into your ruffe that you not only despise that learned and auncient Bishoppe but the whole Church in him which then so beleeued and you cannot auoide at this day except you will bee Eutichians Phi. The Maior is not altogether so sâ—und as you thinke it Theo. Yet did Gelasius and Theodoret confound that error with that comparison and S. Augustine long before thâ—m did vrge the same This is it that wee say this is it that by all meanes we labour to confirme to witte that the Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible kinde of elementes and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ the Sacrament and the thing of the SACRAMENT euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for so much as euery thing containeth the nature and trueth of those things of which it consisteth By which rule it is certaine there musâ— be in the sacrament the nature truâ—th and substance of bread and wine euen as in Christes person either nature hath his trueth and substance without confusion or distraction Phi. We haue fathers to the contrary if the time did serue to produce them as anon I will In the meane while what is this to Leo Theophil Leo in few words abbridgeth the sumâ— of this reason and saith the followers of Eutiches doe in vaine with their mouthes receâ—ne the Sacrament since with their hartes they doe not beleeue the tâ—ueth of Christs humane nature and answer AmeÌ„ to no purpose so long as they dispute against that which they would seâ—m to enioye by receiuing the seale and pledge thereof in the church with others Phi. This is your Commentarie besâ—des the text his wordes are The selfe same bodie which wee beleeue with faith is receiued with mouth Which you cannot interprete to be mâ—ant of the bread For the breade is not beleeued with hart and against the trueth of Christs bodie not against the bread did the followers of Eutiches dispute Theo. Doth Leo â—aie the selâ— same bodie Phi. He saith Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur that is receiued with the mouth which with our faith is beleeued and that cannot be the bread The. Much lesse maie it be the natural bodie of Christ. For then Leo had mightilie confirmed not confuted Eutiches opinion His error was that the humanitie of christ after his ascension was swallowed vp of his diuinitie and so changed that it was now no naturall bodie Against this if Leo should haue opposâ—d your reall presence in the Sacrament where Christs body is without quantity shape circumscription distinction of partes and all other conditions of a naturall body he had beene a Proctour â—or Eutiches impiety not a confuter of it Neither could Eutiches himsâ—lfe haue wished a better defence for his heresie than the confessâ—on â—f such a bodâ—e as you imagine in the sacrament and therfore you haâ—k that HOC ilfauouredly when you make Leo rather a consenter with Eutiches than a disprouer of him with your fantasticall presence which is an approbation and no refutation of Eutiches error Phil. What a slander this is that the reall presence should be a refuge for Eutichâ—s error Theoph. Such a slaunder as with all your cunning you shall neuer wipe awaie Phi. Doe we not affirme the substance of Chrisâ—es humane flesh to be in the Sacrament The. Such a substance as Eutiches him selfe imagined hauing neither proportion of shape nor position of parts nor repletion of place nor anie condition incident to a naturall bodie but the godly fathers were farre from vrging such a substance against Eutiches They pressed him with the bodilie shape circumscription extension and perfeâ—â—ion of Christes flesh as well in all other requisites as in substance and to prooue this amongst other arguments they brought as I haue shewed the Sacrament for a resemblance and demonstrance of both natures in Chrisâ— that as the bread after consecration keepeth his quantity quality shape and substance notwithstanding it be vnited and annexed to the heauenly grace that worketh in the sacrament so the bodie of Christ after his assumption retaineth his former perfection proportion figure and substance loosing no poinâ—â— nor part of his humane nature but only replenished with immortall glorie This must be Leoes Hoc if he will do any good with alleaging the Sacrament against Eutiches as I haue proued by Austen Gelasius and Theodoret Otherwise if he do but mention your real presence he openeth the gappe and leuelleth the way to Eutiches furie and runneth headlong against the rest of his fellow seruants and successours that vsed the same argument to confute Euâ—iches with a manifest contradiction of your reall presence Phi. I bring you Leoes wordes Theo. Leoes wordes haue nothing in them to crosse that sense which I establish Hoc signifieth any thing and hath no relation to Christes flesh in the sacrament but to the proportion rather betweene Christ the sacrament in that they beleeued no other thing of Christ than they saw with their eyes receiued with their mouths in the Sacrament to wit the perfect shape substance of bread after Consecration consequently they must holde the same opinion of Christs humanitie after his ascension Phi. If you vse this trade you may peruert all the fathers writings and make what sense you list to their sayings Theo. Peruert them no more than we doe and you shall neuer euert the maine doctrine as you haue doone We measure â—heir wordes by their owne warrant and suffer nâ—t a phrase here and there which may bee well reuoked to their rules to vndermine the chiefe grouâ—des of their faith Phi. No more doe we Theo. Why then rage you to heare vâ— say that these few places which you haue brought for eating christs bodie with your mouthes and iawes may be referred to the signes called by those names as well as to the things themselues Phi. You take vpon you to bee Iudges and to pronounce at your pleasures when the wordâ—s shall belong to the one and when to the other so that no father shall say any thing against your heresie but yet will by and by turne it and wind it I knowe not whither Theo. Nothing more hindereth the search for trueth than a desire to lye We shew you the general admonition of the fathers themselues that after consecration they call the visible signes no longer by their woonted names but by the names of those things whose signes they are and whose vertues they haue This Rule we say is then to take place when the speach which we find in a father if it should be referred to the things themselues would be both absurd and repugnant to
Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera manducare corpus Christi eius sanguinem bibere The Lord sheweth what it is to eate the flesh of christ drinke his bloud not by way of a sacrament but in deede As if he had said hee that remaineth not in me and in whom I doe not likewise remaine let him neuer say nor thinke that he eateth my flesh or drinketh my bloud That which here he calleth Sacramento tènus before in the same Chapter hee called solo Sacramento opposing against it reuera maÌ„nducare prouing that neither heretikes nor wicked Christians do in deede eate the bodie of Christ but only the Sacrament that is the sacred signe of his bodie They rightly vnderstand that he must not be said to eate the bodie of christ which is not in the body of christ as heretikes be not and of wicked liuers though they keepe in the Church he saith Nec isti dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quia nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Neither are these that liue wickedly to bee saide to eate the bodie of christ since they must not be counted the members of Christ. Phi. Not spiritually but Sacramentally they do eate the bodie of Christ though they be wicked and so Sainct Augustine teacheth Theo. Keepe the wordes and sense which S. Augustine hath you shall be free from this error which now you are in He that remaineth not in Christ and in whom Christ abideth not without all doubt doth not spiritually eate his fleshe nor drinke his bloud though carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie and bloud Sacramentall eating is the carnall and visible pressing with teeth the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud it is not the reall eating of Christ himselfe Phi. The Sacrament is Christ we say Theo. But so said not Sainct Augustine He diligently distinguisheth Sacramentum rem Sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing which is the other part of the Sacrament interpreting the Sacrament to be Sacrum Signum a sacred Signe and the thing it selfe to be the bodie of Christ. The Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two parts Sacramentâ— re Sacramenti id est corpore Christi of the sacrament the thing of the Sacrament which is the bodie of Christ. There is therefore the Sacrament the thing of the Sacrament to witte the body of Christ. Of the Sacrament he saith It is receiued at the Lordes table of some to life of some to destruction Res vero ipsa cuius Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit But the thing it selfe whereof that is a Sacrament is receiued of all men to life and of none to death whosoeuer is partaker of it The rest ioyne with him in that assertion Heretikes saith Hierom doe not eate his fleshe whose fleshe is the meate of the faithfull Whosoeuer saith Ambrose eateth this bread he shall not die for euer and it is the bodie of Christ. None is partaker of this lambe saith Cyprian that is not a right Israelite The worde saith Origen was made fleshe and true meate the which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer Quem nullus malus potest edere whom no wicked person can eate The Sacraments that is the sacred signes of Christes bodie and bloude the wicked doe eate Christ him-selfe they doe not And why The Sacraments are carnally pressed with teeth which they are partakers of as well as the Godlie but Christ him-selfe is not eaten with teeth and therefore the wicked wanting both spirite and faith by which he is receiued cannot possibly eate his fleshe or drinke his bloud though they come to his table neuer so often Phi. If Christ be really contained in the visible Sacrament how can they receiue it but they must receiue him also Theo. If hee were locally and substantially there inclosed it could not be auoided but receiuing the one into their mouthes they must needs also receiue the other into the same passage but because neither he is eaten with teeth nor entereth the bodies of the wicked as where hee abydeth not therefore wee rightly conclude that hee is not corporally couered with the accidentes of bread and wine as you grossely conceiue Phi. The lambe of God lieth on the Altar by the very profession of the first Nicene Councel we aske you now where and how if not vnder the forms of bread and wine Theo. The best handfast you haue in fathers or Councels for this cause is a few speeches wrested and forced from the inward man to the outward from the soul which they ment to the bodie which you vrge thereby to settle your reall and bodily presence but all in vaine For as we doubt not that Christ is alwaies present on his table in trueth grace vertue and effect if we open the eyes of our faith to beholde him and mouth of our spirites to receiue him so the local and corporal hiding of his humane substance vnder the shewes of breade and wine was neuer taught by any Catholike father or councel least of al by the first Nicen Synode exhorting vs in those mysteries or on that sacred table by faith to consider the lambe of God that tooke away the sinnes of the world Whâ—ch if any doe not both professe and perfourme he is not worthie to be counted a Christian. Phi. How saith S. Chrysost wilt thou stand before the tribunal of Christ which inuadest euen his own bodie with wicked hands and lippes Theo. This is not the way to seeke for trueth but to shadowe the same with phrases of speeches And yet in these and al other your allegations out of Chrysostom and others you coÌ„mit these two grosse ouersightes You vnderstand that of the sensible creatures in the sacrament which was spoken of the insensible grace you refer that to the visible parts of our bodies which was inteÌ„ded to the inuisible powers of the mynd with these false fouÌ„dations you run along the fathers peruerting euerie place that you quote as a meane diuine may soone perceiue Phi. These be your shifts to auoide the fathers which we bring because you will not acknowledge the real corporal presence of christ in the sacrament Theo. First proue that Christ is really and corporally present vnder the forms of bread and wine then reproue vs if we do not â—cknowledge it Phi. Doubt you that Theo. Can you proue that Phi. What That Christ is present in the sacrament Theo. Is that the thing which we deny Phi. For ought that I see you graunt not so much The. God forbid we should deny that the flesh bloud of christ are truly present truely receiued of the faithfull at the Lords table It is the doctrine that we â—each others and comfort our selues with Wee neuer
doubted but the trueth was present with the signe the spirite with the sacrameÌ„t as Cyprian saith We knew there could not follow an operation if there went not a presence before Set a side your carnal imaginations of Christ couered with accidences his flesh chammed betweene your teeth and say what you will either of his inuiâ—â—ble presence by power and grace or of the spiritual and effectuall participation of his flesh and bloud offered and receiued of the faith-full by this Sacrament for the quickening and preseruing of their soules and bodies to eternall life we ioyne with you no wordes shal displease vs that any way declare the trueth or force of this mysterie Your locall compassing of Christ with the shewes and fantasticall appearances of bread wine your reall grinding of his flesh with your iawes these be the points that we deny to be Catholike these doe the fathers refute as erroneous and in these your owne fellowes be not yet resolued what to say or what to hold Phi. Be not we resolued what to hold of Christes reall being in the Sacrament and the corporall eating his flesh with our mouthes Theo. How you be secretly resolued I know not your iudgementes laid downe to the world in writing are cleane contrarie Phi. Ours Theo. Whose said I but yours Phi. Howsouer in other thinges we retaine the libertie of the Schooles to dispute pro con yet in this you shall finde vs all together Theo. Together by the eares as dogges for bones Omit your contentions what the pronowne H O C supposeth what the verbe E S T â—ignifieth when and how the bread is abolished whether by conuersion or annihilation what bodie succeedeth and whether with distinction of parts and extension of quantity or without what subiect the accidents haue to hang on whether the aire or the body of Christ what it is that soureth and putrifieth in the formes of bread and wine whether it be the same bodie that sitteth in heauen and if it be how so many contradictions may be verified of one the same thing Omit I say these with infinite other like contentions the corporall eating of christ with your mouthes are you all agreed about it Philan. We are Theo. Your two Seminaries are perhaps because they hearken rather for sedition in the realme than for Religion in the Schooles But the great Rabbins of your side are they in one opinion concerning this matter Phi. Great and small consent togither against you Theo. Against trueth they doe but in their owne fantasticall error they doe not The cheefest Pillours of your church when they come to that point which is now in handling wander in the desert of their owne deuises as men forsaking and forsaken of trueth Your Gloze is content if a man gape wide that the body of christ shall enter his mouth but he holdeth it for an heresie that the teeth should touch the same and therefore when the iawes beginne to close he dispatcheth away the body of christ in post towards heauen Certum est It is no coniecture but certaine that as soone as the formes of bread be pressed with the teeth tam cito presently the bodie of christ is caught vp into heauen Durandus is more fauourable to the teeth and will haue christ present in the mouth chamme he that list till his â—awes ake but hee is as strait laced against the stomack as the glozer is against the teeth and wil by no meanes haue the bodie of christ to passe thither building himselfe on these wordes of Hugo Christ is corporally present in visu in sapore whiles wee see or tast the sacrament As long as our bodily senses are affected so long his corporall presence is not remooued but when once the senses of our bodie beginne to faile that we neither see nor tast the formes then must wee seeke no longer for a corporall presence but retaine the spirituall because christ passeth from the mouth neither to heauen as the Gloze said nor to the stomack as the rest affirme but to the hart And better it is that he goe straight to the mind than descend to the stomacke Others is whome Bonauenture more inclineth will no way but Christ must take vp his lodging as wel in the stomacke as in the mouth maâ—y thence they suffer him not to wagge neither vpward nor downward whatsoeuer become of the accidentâ—l forms of bread and wine And lest it should be â—hought as Durand and Hugo say that the bodie of Christ goeth to the hart he repâ—ieâ—h that Quantum ad substantiam corporis certum est quod non vadit in meâ—tem sed vtrum sic vadâ—t in ventrâ—m dubium est propter diuersitatem opinionum as touching the substance of his bodie it is cleare that he passeth not to the mind but whether he so come that is in the substance of his bodie from the mouth to the belliâ— this is yet in doubt by reason of the diueâ—sitie of opinions in so great varietie what to hold is haâ—d to iudge Yet he liketh not that Aut mus in ventrem traijceret aut in cloacam descenderet the bodie of Christ shuld goe into the bellie of a mouse or be cast foorth by the draught because the eares of well disposed persons would abhorre that sidiceremus haeretici infideles deriderent nos irriderent and if we should defend that the heretiks and infidels would iest at vs and laugh vs to scorne This notwithstanding Alexander de Hales in spiâ—e of al heretikes and infidels â—entereth on it If a dog or an hogge saith he should eat the whole consecrated host I see no cause but the Lords bodie should goe therewithall into the bellie of that dog or hog Thomas of Aquine sharpely reprouâ—th them which thinke otherwise Some haue saide that as soone as the Sacrament is taken of a mouse or a dog streight way the bodie and bloud of Christ cease to be there but this is a derogation to the trueth of this Sacrament In â—auour of Thomas Petrus de Palude Ioannes de Burgo Nicolaus de Oâ—bellis with the whole sect of Thomists neither few in number nor mean in credite with the church of Rome defend the same yea where the master of the sentences seemed to shrinke from this loathsome position It may wel be said that the bodie of Christ is not receined of brute beasts the facultie of diuines in Paris with full consent gaue him this check here the master is refused And for feare lest the field should be wonne without him in steppeth Antonius Archbishoppe of Florence and recompenseth his late comming with his lewd writing First hee telleth how Petrus de Palude dressed the Glâ—ze for saying that Christ is caught vp to heauen as soone as the formes of the sacrament are pressed with our teeth Quod dicere est haereticum which
meaning is plainer as shall appeare when we come to the drift of their conclusion Neuer Catholike father saide the substance of bread was abolished by consecration as the Iesuits saie If the signes bâ—aâ—e tâ—e nâ—mes of the things themseluâ—â— â—hen the leâ—â—â—s authâ—â—â—ties are vnâ—uâ—ficient to conâ—lude thâ—t Châ—â—st is eaten wiâ—h our teeth We must ascâ—nd to heauâ—n before we eate Christ which with our mouthes we cannot If the fathers of â—â—ne that Christ is not eaten wâ—th teeth as they do â—hen these plâ—â—es must be â—nderstood of â—he signes and noâ— of the thâ—â—gs themsâ—lâ—es As many as theâ—e be â—â—â—es in the ball of myne eye 〈…〉 â—18 b 〈…〉 23. 〈◊〉 a â—dimant cap. 12. d 〈…〉 29. 〈◊〉 2 Cor. e Idâ—â— aâ— Câ—sar Mâ—nach f g Idâ—â— contra 〈◊〉 lâ—b 4. The Iesuâ—â—s hâ—ue no hold in these â—athers but only because they call theÌ„ signes by the names of the thingâ— which is as commoÌ„ with them as sand with the Sea h Cyriâ—l lib 4. cap. 14. in Iâ—h By cognato tacti◠〈…〉 ciâ—o Cyâ—il meaneth the suâ—stance of bread and wine nâ—t of Christs bodie i De censâ—â—râ—t â—ist § 2. quid sit * As â—â—ough in strict and 〈…〉 any thing could be druÌ„k both by the soule and the bodie k De cons. dist 2. ¶ species in hom Pascha l â—eo de ieiunio 7. mensis sermo 6. * Leoes wordes examined * But Eutiches against whome Leo spake imagined that Christes body had neither shape quantitie nor circumscription and so doe the Iesuites dreame of Christ in the Sacrament If Leo refel Eutiches he must also refel the Iesuits for they spoile Christ of the naturall conditions of a bodie as Eutiches did By this argument it is euident in what sense Theodoret Gelasius vse the word substaÌ„ce when they saie the substance of bread remaineth The Iesuites reiect the maior minor conclusion of the auncient fathers against Euâ—iches be they not then quarter masters in his shippe Gelas. contra Eutich If Christ consist of two substances diuine and humane the sacrament likewise coÌ„sisteth of two substaÌ„ces an heauenlie and an earthly Theod. dialog 2. If the sacrament be traÌ„ssubstantiated so must the humanitie of Christ be likeâ—wise changed Theodorets conclusion against Eutâ—ches Theod. dial 2. If Christs humane nature in heaueÌ„ keep his former substance so doth the bread which is an Image of that mystery Both their Seminaries cannot answâ—re this aâ—gumeÌ„t but by condemning Gelasâ—us and Theodoret foâ— hereâ—ikes or at least themselues De consecrat distinct 2. hoc est quod dico Therâ— must be two different substancâ—s in the Sacrament as there are in the peâ—son of Christ. Leoes words wâ—râ— intended against the Eutichians Hoc doth not signifie the selfe same bodie but the selfesame pointeâ— of â—aith or propoâ—tion of the image and the original The real presence had beene the next way to help Eutiches error The substaÌ„ce of it you affirme in wordes but you spoile â—t of all naturall shape quantitie and circumscription Christs bodie in the Sacrament is euen such a bodie as Eutiches did imagine Leo doth not saie that Christs bodie was enclosed in the host but they ought to beleeue that of Christs bodie in heauen which they saw in the elements receiued with their moutheâ— to wit the perfect continuance of their former substance We doe not interpret the fathers as pleaseth vs but we take heede that we subuert not their maine doctrine by some of their phrases which by their owne rules maie be reuoked to a good sense * If this be not lawfull in expounding the fathers I maruell what is You are angry because the fathers doe not serue your follies no better It cannot be now mistaâ—iâ—g they have so often beene tolde of thâ—ir error they still deferâ—d it as they did before Vide supra fol. 760. This is spoken of the thinges theÌ„sâ—lues ergo the Iesuitâ—s places must be ment of thâ— signes called by â—he names of Chrâ—sts bodie and blood â—r elâ—e there is a maniâ—â—st contradiction in the fathers Weâ—e we not wisely occupied to followe the Iesuits in this pointâ— Eating is in vaine without nourishing If then Christes flesh doe enter our mouthes it must nourish our bodies * We would not haue it so but if you vnderstand the fathers when they say the one why doe you peruert them in the other a Iust. Apol. 2. b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. c Idem lib. 5. d Ibidem * So Cyprian saith panis in carnem sanguineâ— mutatus 〈◊〉 vitam increâ—entum corporiâ—â—â— A man would thinke this were plaine enough for farre yonger scholers than the Iesuites would seeme to be Our resurrection doth not depend vpon the touching of Christes flesh with teeth for then the wicked should â—ise to eternal life Concil Nicen. 1. c Hom. 45. in Iohannem f Chrysost. hom 45. in Iohan. As Christ is seene touched so is he eaten and digested Both these speaches the flesh of Christ entereth our mouthes and increaseth the substance oâ— our flesh haue oâ—e and the selâ—esame construction Ambros. in 9. Lucae li. 6. § 〈◊〉 vir cui nomen Iairus h Idem in precatiâ— praeparaÌ„t ad Mâ—ssaâ—â— i Cypr. de caena Domini That eating of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t which wee teach the Church helde for a 1000. yeares theirs is not yet agreed on amongst themselues What manner of eating Christ in the Sacrament the fathers taught k Origen tract 35. in 26. Mat. l Idem in Leuit. hom 9. m Idem tract 35. in 26. Mat. n Athana in illud quicunque dixerit verbuÌ„ * Not corporally lodged in the stomacks but spiritually distributed to your soules o Cypr. de caena Domini This nourishment is proper to the spirit ergo not common to the bodie p Ambros. in oratio praeparan ad Missam 1. How hapned S. Ambrose had quite forgotten his mouth and his iawes in all this long praier before his approching to the mysteries q Aug. in psal 103. * Not the stomack nor the bellie r Idem tract 26. in Iohan. * The bodie is not regenerated the body therefore is not fed with the true flesh of Christ. s Idem in serm de corp saâ—guine Domini Ciâ—â—tur à Beda in 1. Cor ca. 10. t Aâ—st in serm de verbis Euangelij Citatur à Beda ibidem Idem in Euang Luc. serm 33. x Macar ho. 27. Euseb. Emissenus de cons. dist 2. ¶ quia corpus * Not with the hand of thy bodie * What shall the mouth haue if the inward man must swallowe the whole a Bertram de corpor sang Domini * Not accidents without a subiect b Ibidem c Ibidem d Ibidem e Ibidem The flesh of Christ then is neither pressed with teeth nor broken in peeces Ibidem g Paschas de corp sang Domini ca. 9. h Cap. 11. i Cap. 12. k Cap. 14. * Doe the Angels eat flesh