these things hang together for my part I cannot see Would to God your selfe had taken the paines to shew it But this is your solemne fault you quote the sayings of the Fathers and leaue mee to gather your Conclusions I may well thinke because you saw no great force or strength in them And whether Gregory did favor Transubstantiation or no let it be tried by these words As the Divinity of the word of God is one which filleth all the world so although that body bee consecrated in many places at innumerable times yet are there not many bodies of Christ nor many cups but one body of Christ and one bloud with that which he tooke in the wombe of the Virgin and which he gaue to the Apostles For the Divinity of the word filleth that which is every where and conioyneth and maketh that as it is one so it bee ioyned to the body of Christ and his body be in truth one Here according to Gregory the body of Christ doth not succeed and fill vp the roome of bread after the substance thereof is abolished but the fulnesse and vertue of the Divinity which filleth the bread maketh it â—o passe into the body of Christ and so to be one body of Christ. Which how it can stand with your Transubstantiation iudge you N. N. These Hereticks admit not the Eucharists and oblations because they will not confesse that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Iesus Christ which hath suffered for our sins which the Father hath raised vp againe by his goodnesse These words alleaged by Theodoret are reported by him to be the words of St. Ignatius the Apostles scholler written in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses and therefore of greater antiquitie I. D. These words are not found in that Epistle ad Smyrnenses which is now extant Whereby you may perceaue it is true that I said the Epistles of Ignatius are not come perfect to our hands Of this Epistle saith Eusebius Ignatius when he wrote to them of Smyrna vsed words I knowe not whence taken And Hierome If you vse not his testimonies for authoritie at least vse them for antiquity And the Abbot of Spanheâ—m reckons it not among the rest of his Epistles as being doubtfull Yet for all this the credit of this Epistle shall not be questioned by mee I answere therefore the Heretikes which Ignatius meanes were Menander and the Disciples of Simon These denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and consequently that hee had Flesh. Wherevpon they reiected the Eucharist also least thereby they should be constrained to confesse that he had true Flesh. For granting the signe of a body you must also grant a true body Figure and Truth being Correlatiues whose Relation is to figure and to be figured And thus they added aloes vnto wormwood one error vnto another first denying the truth of Christs body and then that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of his body or that it was Sacramentally his body More then this cannot bee meant For I presume Theodoret would not alleage this to crosse himselfe who holdeth that Bread and Wine still remaine and argueth from them for the verity of Christs body because they are symbols of his body as is aboue declared N. N. Doth not the Evangelist Iohn say in the Apocalyps If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke and if any man shall minish of these words of the booke of this Prophecie God shall take away his part out of the booke of life and out of the holy City and the things which are written in this booke Is this malediction or curse lesse to be feared here that we diminish not or put any thing to the words of him that said This is my body which shall be delivered for you this is my bloud of the New Testament which shall be shed for many in the remission of sinnes For when he saith This is my body wee shall put to an vnderstanding saying a Figuratiue Body or that it is spoken by a similitude when I say he saith this is my Body we shal say this signifieth my Body is it not much that we put to his words or by an evill change take from them and make a sense which so great an author God man in no place hath spoken nor at any time did ascend into his heart This man especially with many of the rest answereth M. Downe and all Protestants fully I. D. In this Authority I cannot but greatly pitty you to see how miserably you are gulled and beguiled by your Author For what was this Rupertus but a man of yesterday one that liued towards twelue hundred after Christ and a very Heretike in this point of the Sacrament For he maintained that the Eucharisticall Bread is hypostatically assumed by the Word iust after the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by the same Word This he expresseth in words as cleare as the noone day For expounding that of our Saviour The Bread which I will giue is my Flesh he saith That the eternall word by incarnation was made man not destroying or changing but personally assuming the humanitie and after the same manner by consecration of the Eucharist the same word is made Bread not destroying or changing but personally assuming Bread This he declareth elsewhere very largely shewing that Bread is made the Body of Christ not by turning it into his Flesh but because it is assumed by the Word Whence it followeth that Bread is the Body of Christ yet not his Humane or Carnall but Bready Body much differing from that which he tooke of the Virgin That yet these two bodies may be said to be One because the Person is but one or Christ is one who assumed them both so that the same Christ aboue that is in heauen is in the Flesh and beneath that is on the Altar is in Bread This grosse errour Algerus who liued in the same time with Rupertus confuâ—ed calling it as it iustly deserued a new and most absurd heresie What say you now to this good sir Is this the man who especially among the rest fully answereth Mrâ— Downe and all Protestants Doth he not as fully answere you Papists who cleane contrary to his Tenet destroy and change the bread to make it Christs body Yea but we adde vnto the Text vnderstanding it to be a Figuratiue body That is a shamelesse slander for wee place no Figure in the word bodie but litterally interpret it of Christs naturall body At least we say bread signifieth his body So wee say indeed and so say the Fathers also And to giue the true sense vnto a Text is not to adde vnto it Neither can I conceaue why it should be counted addition in vs to say This is my body Sacramentally or by way of signification more then in you to say it is so by way of Transubstantiation or
vntill Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory being advanced to the Crowne hee returned into England where hee was according to his worth soone after preferred to the Bishoprick of Salisbury Now if so obscure a man as your vnkle liuing but as a serving Priest beyond seas doe so much strengthen you I hope the example of so profound a Clarke and so reverend a Bishop and Confessour as my vnkle may much more confirme and settle me But it is high time to heare the reasons why you cannot beleeue the Fathers meaning to be as I say N. N. Your first reason some of our writers giue the same sense to the Fathers that you doe as Mason Perkins Field Covel Sir Edwin Sands Midleton Morton the now Archbishop of Canterbury I. D. Suppose all this were true yet seeing the sense I giue I haue by sundry plaine arguments demonstrated to bee the right sense the bare saying of others cannot be a sufficient reason why you should forbeare assent But what Doe all these indeed interpret the Fathers as you doe A vast vntruth vtterly incredible saue only to those whom the Romish Circe hath turned out of their wits For would any man thinke that they who so confidently alleage the Fathers against Transubstantiation should notwithstanding in their writings acknowledge that their meaning is cleane contrary to that they alleage thē for Were it not that you haue bound your Faith absolutely to beleeue what every Popish shaueling tell◠you how vnlikely soeuer it be and never to beleeue vs with what strength of reason soever we speake so absurd a thought as this could never haue entred into your mind Let vs yet examine the Particulars N. N. Mason is forced to these Words St Ambrose testifieth that imposition of hands is certaine mysticall words whereby he that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed receiving authority his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may be bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lords steed S. Chrysostome saith in many places there is offered not many Christs but one Christ every where being full and perfect S. Augustine saith that Christ commanded the Leper to offer sacrifice according to the law of Moses because this sacrifice the holy of holies which is his Body was not yet instituted And elsewhere what can be offered or accepted more gratefully then the Body of our Priest being made the flesh of our sacrifice And Cyril Leo Fulgentius and other Fathers haue commonly the like I. D. First these words are altogether impertinent to the matter of Transubstantiation being vouched for the Sacrifice of the Masse and therefore no way opening the meaning of the Fathers for you in that point Secondly these are not the words of Mason but the Obiection of a Papist For you are to knowe that this booke of Mason is written Dialogue-wise as a conference betweene Philodoxus the Papist and Orthodoxus the Protestant Now these words are by Mason put into the mouth of Philodoxus and are indeed obiected to vs by Bellarmin whom he calling himselfe Orthodoxus vndertaketh in that place to answere Whereby you may easily perceaue what credit is to be giuen vnto such cheating companions as your Author is who beare you in hand that the Objection of a Papist is the resolution of a Protestant Which that it may yet more plainely appeare take Masons Answer also S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe saying What therefore doe we Doe we not offer daily Truly we offer but so that wee make a remembrance of his death And againe We offer him alwaies or rather we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place We offer him or rather we work a remembrance of the sacrifice What S. Augustines meaning was let himself declare Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe And yet he is offered in a Sacrament not only at all the solemnities at Easter but every day to the people Neither doth he lye that being asked doth answere that he is offered For if Sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not be sacraments at all And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues Therefore as after a certaine manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of Faith is Faith And else-where The flesh and bloud of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before he came was performed intruth and indeed when he suffered is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascended Thus he Whereof nothing maketh for your sense but every thing rather for the contrarie N. N. Mr Perkins writeth thus the ancients when they speak of the supper haue many formes of speech which shew a conversion S. Ambrose vseth the name of conversion and mutation S. Cyprian saith it is changed not in shape but in nature Origen saith that bread is made the body Gaudentius saith Christs body is made of bread and his bloud of wine Eusebius Emissenus that the Priest by secret power changeth the visible creatures into the substance of Christs body and bloud and that the bread doth passe into the nature of our Lords body I. D. Here Mr Perkins only reporteth the words of the Fathers but declareth not the sense of them That hee doth by and by in the words following The ancient Doctors saith he when they speake of the conversion and changing of bread vnderstand the change of vse and condition not substance In the reading of them therefore the Sacramentall change in signification and obsignation is to bee distinguished from substantiall And we are to know that for 800 yeares at least they knew not Transubstantiation but condemned it rather And all this he proues by the sayings of Cyprian Ambrose Theodoret Gelasius and others which I forbeare here to set downe because you haue them already in my answere Now if your meaning accord with this of M. Perkins I am the gladder If not it was too great boldnesse to say he vnderstood the Fathers in the same sense you doe N. N. D. Morton the Centuriators and others are plentifull in such citations and so manifest for the verity that D. Field writeth thus that the Primitiue Church thought the sanctified and consecrated Elements to bee the body of Christ. D Covel saith the Omnipotency of God maketh it his Body I. D. Quote the sayings of the Fathers they may and that plentifully But Transubstantiation or your sence they doe not nor cannot find in them for they never dreamed of it The words of Dr Field are these The manner of the Primitiue Church was as Rhenanus testifieth if any parts of the consecrated Elements remained so long as to bee musty and vnfit for vse to consume them with fire which I thinke they would not haue done to the
Body of Christ. This sheweth they thought the Sanctified Elements to be Christs Body no longer then they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithfull by partaking in them Here wee haue a plaine argument against Reservation and that the Fathers thought not the Elements properly to bee Christs body For had they so thought they would never haue burnt them He intimateth indeed that they thought the Elements to be the Body neither doth any deny it For as I haue shewed in my Answer they all vnderstood Christ as if he had said This bread is my Body But Bread in proper sense is not Christs Body nor cannot be as your owne Bellarmine confesseth How then Tropically only as Circumcision is the Covenant and Water in Baptisme Regeneration And so as St Augustine saith the Sacrament of Christs body is after a manner Christs body to wit Sacramentally the outward signe putting on the name of the thing Signified And whereas Dr Covel addeth that Gods Omnipotency maketh it his Body neither doth this import Transubstantiation For as you might haue learned out of my Answere no power is able to make a Sacrament and by earthly Creatures to convay vnto vs heavenly graces saue only that which is Omnipotent and Divine N. N. Sir Edwin Sands With Rome the Greeke Churches concurre in the opinion of Transubstantiation and generally in the Service and whole body of the Masse in offering of sacrifice and prayer for the dead their liturgies be the same that in the old time namely S. Basils S. Chrysostoms S. Gregories translated And another among all these nations Greece Asia Africa Ethiopia Armenia c. all places are full of Masses there be seaven Sacraments c. I. D. Ergo what That the Knight vnderstands the Fathers as you doe Ridiculous For the now Grecians are not the ancient Fathers Or thus therefore you are in the right Absurd for they are in your opinion but Schismaticks and Hereticks Yet saith the Knight they hold Transubstantiation He saith so indeed but by his leaue I much doubt thereof For the Patriarch Ieremy expresly saith that when our Saviour said take eat this is my body and my bloud the flesh of the Lord which he carried about him was not given to the Apostles to eat nor his bloud to drinke nor is now in the divine celebration of those mysteries What then Surely an extraordinary bread which yet is his Body but how saith hee a thousand tongues are not sufficient to vtter As farre as I can conceaue this they hold that the matter of the Bread still remaineth and the Body of Christ still continueth in Heaven but yet the forme or hidden qualities and properties of his body are after an vnspeakable manner derived to the Bread And because as the same Patriarch saith the better things haue the preeminence therefore is it not from thence Bread but Body And even as Iron vnited with fire becometh fire and yet the matter of Iron remaineth and Christs Body vnited with vs changeth vs into it not it into vs our nature still continuing so the secret properties of Christs flesh being imparted to the Bread by putting on this new forme it becometh Flesh and yet still retaineth the matter of Bread This in my shallow vnderstanding is the meaning of the Greeke Church in this point which as you see no way sutes with Transubstantiation But to put the matter out of all doubt the Councell of Florence held some two hundred yeares after that of Lateran plainely declareth that that Church flatly refused to yeeld vnto them therein And if so then neither doe they admit of your Sacrifice which hath no other ground then Transubstantiation Prayer also for the reliefe of soules tormented in Purgatory how can they hold not beleeuing that there is a Purgatory The rest that followeth is little to the purpose and your other author is so misnamed both in your text and margent that I cannot imagine whom you should meane Transeat Ergo. N. N. Midleton witnesseth that the Dead were prayed for in the publike Liturgies of Basil Chrysostome and Epiphanius that the Sacrifice of the Altar and vnbloudy Sacrifice were vsed in the Primitiue Church that to pray make doles and offer Sacrifice at the Altar for the Dead was a tradition of the Apostles and Fathers I. D. Still you wander out of the way For how doth it appeare from hence that Protestants vnderstand the Fathers in point of Transubstantiation as you doe But as you lead so must I follow There are two Liturgies that passe vnder the name of St Basil the one in Greeke the other lately translated out of Syriake by Andreas Masius Betweene which there is such difference that they seeme not both to haue had one Father Of these the Greeke is the prolixer and as the said Masius censureth neither doth Possevin the Iesuite mentioning it disproue thereof hath suffered much change by many alterations and additions and those superstitious too so that whosoeuer be the Author it is not now the same it was at first That which goes vnder the name of St Choysostome either is supposititious or in processe of time much corrupted In it Prayers are made for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius whereof the one liued almost fiue hundred the other about seaven hundred yeares after Chrysostome And that many things are added your Claudius Espencaeus freely doth confesse So that these Liturgies cannot be of any great authority For as for Epiphanius I cannot yet find that ever he composed any But what saith Midleton of them That the Dead were praied for in them What dead Patriarks Prophets Apostles Evangelists Confessors Bishops Anachorits and the blessed Virgin Mother And for what Not to releeue them but to glorifie God in his Servants and to profit the Church by commemoration of their vertues Thus hee which I trow is not according to your meaning He saith farther the sacrifice of the Altar and vnbloudy sacrifice were vsed in the Primitive Church Suppose so yet hee saith withall that the sacrifice of the Altar hurts vs no more then the Sacrifice of the Table doth you and the Vnbloudy sacrifice hurts you more then vs. For in your Sacrifice Bloud is offered and there is no more reason why you should call it Vnbloudy then Vnfleshy If you say because Bloud is not shed therein I say neither is Flesh broken therein Lastly he saith that Prayers Doles and Sacrifices at the altar for the Dead is a tradition of the Apostles and ancient Fathers But here your author overlasheth for he saith expresly from the Fathers not from the Apostles And addeth yet notwithstanding prayer was then made not after the Popish fashion to ease the dead of the paines and torments of Purgatory but to perswade the liuing that they are not vanished into nothing but liue and haue their being with the Lord which knocks out the braines of Purgatory And by and by This
say that he brought forth Bread and Wine and not to God as an Oblation but to Abraham for his refection If he had offered vp Bread Wine as a Sacrifice to God how commeth it to passe that the Apostle comparing the Priesthood of Christ and Melchizedeck so particularly maketh no mention at all thereof For certainly the point being so materiall and the place so fit it must needs bee great ignorance or negligence to omit it To say nothing that if your owne reason be good the Sacrifice of Melchizedeck shall be inferiour to that of Aaron Bread and Wine being of lesse value and not so evidently representing the death of Christ as the slaying of Beasts doth Secondly you say that the true Flesh of Christ is contained in this Sacrament and that the ancient Fathers with one consent testifie the same which in your sense and meaning is vtterly false For neither is the Flesh of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread by Transubstantiation neither doth any of the ancient Fathers testifie it as in the sequele God willing shall more plainely appeare Thirdly where you say and many others as my Author setteth downe it seemeth that in this point you beleeue but by an Attornie pinning your Faith vnto the credit of I knowe not whom The true flesh of Christ say you is contained in the Sacrament How knowe you that By the ioint consent of Fathers And how know you they consent therein My Author tells me so And what may he be Peter or Paul or one of them vpon whom clouen tongues descended I trow no but some equivocating Priest or Iesuite A sure rock I promise you to stay your faith vpon You say lastly that the Bloud of the Testament described Exod. 24. Heb. 9. was fulfilled when Christ said This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud False For then hee did but institute the Sacrament of his death and fulfilled it the day following when really hee suffered death vpon the Crosse. And what reason haue you to thinke it was performed in a Commemoratiue sacrifice wherein your selues confesse there is no effusion of Bloud rather then in the true Sacrifice vpon the Crosse wherein the pretious bloud of the sonne of God was plentifully shed N. N. Out of all which Figures is inferred that for so much as there must bee great difference betwixt the Figure and the thing prefigured no lesse if we beleeue S. Paul then betweene the Shadow and the Body whose Shadow it is it cannot be imagined by any probability that this Sacrament exhibited by Christ in performance of the Figures should be only creatures of Bread and Wine as Sacramentaries doe imagine for then should the Figure be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured it selfe For who will not confesse but that Elias his Bread made by the Angell that gaue him strength to walke fortie daies vpon the vertue thereof was equall to our English Communion Bread and that the Manna was much better I. D. The Antecedent being as we haue shewed vntrue it is no matter what Consequence soeuer you deduce from it Neverthelesse let vs for the present suppose it to be true What inferre you therevpon The Real Presence and Transubstantiation How so I pray you Because otherwise the Figure would be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured which is absurd and contrary to the rule of S. Paul This indeed I confesse would bee absurd but how doe you shew it to be so in this particular By a double instance of Elias his bread and Manna whereof you say the one was equall the other more excellent then our English Communion Bread But still I deny the consequence the weaknesse whereof if you see not in this I hope you will in the like Argument The Cloud the Red sea and Circumcision were all as you say Figures of Baptisme and the Figure is euer inferiour to the thing Figured If therefore Baptisme be only Water and suffer no Transubstantiation at all the Figure is equall or more excellent then the thing Figured For the Water of the Cloud the Red sea was equall to the Water of Baptisme and the Foreskin in Circumcision is much better as being part of the Flesh of man What say you now Doth this Argument follow yea or no If yea then haue wee a Real Presence also in Baptisme by Transubstantiation of Water which I suppose you will not admit If no then neither doth it follow in the Eucharist for the reason is exactly the same in both Would you yet more plainely see your errour It is this your Disiunction is not sufficient either there is a Real Presence or the Iewish Figures equall our Sacraments For there are diuers other waies wherein our Sacraments excell theirs although there be no such Presence at all What waies will you say Verily not in the worth or value of the outward Elements for therein they may be exceeded nor in the thing signified for it is one the same in both even Christ Iesus Wherein then Even in these particulars First their Sacraments respected Christ yet to be exhibited in the flesh our Christ alredy exhibited Now as the Faith of things future is ever more languid and faint then of things past so is the adumbration and shadowing of them vnto Faith more obscure also Secondly although Flesh may perhaps seeme better to expresse Christs body then Bread the killing of the sacrifice his death then the breaking of Bread yet in regard of the word annexed vnto ours plainly declaring what they are to what end instituted and what proportion there is betweene the signe and the thing signified ours must needs be more evident and cleare then theirs Even as a Picture to vse S. Chysostomes similitude when it is perfected and set forth with liuely colours better representeth the person of the Prince then when no more but the first lineaments thereof are drawne or it is yet but darkly coloured Thirdly in the Eucharist are figured two things the Death of Christ our Communion with him That without this availes no more to our soules health then the sight of meat without touching it to the nourishment of our bodies That is shadowed by the breaking of Bread and powring out of Wine Not so expresly will you say as by the Leviticall sacrifices Suppose it though in regard of the Sacramentall words the cleare knowledge we haue of this mysterie it is far otherwise Yet this I meane our Communion with Christ is as exactly represented by the Eating of Bread and Drinking of Wine as nothing can be more Finally seeiâ—g the Iewes were strictly commanded to abstaine from Bloud and we on the other side are charged Sacramentally in the Wine to drinke Bloud and in the Bread to eate Flesh our Sacrament even in regard of the externall ceremonie is to bee preferred to the Iewish And thus you see wherein our Sacraments excell theirs Now where you affirme that
so doth Saint Augustine expound himselfe elsewhere Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly Beleeue and thou hast eaten Wherevnto St Cyprian also accordeth calling the blessed Body of Christ the food of the mind and not of the belly But St Augustine farther addeth No man eateth that flesh but first adoreth it Adoreth I grant that flesh which is hypostatically and inseparably vnited to the Deity but not the mysticall signes in the Sacrament for that were foule idolatry Now if to eat the flesh of Christ be to beleeue in him as the fame St Augustine oftentimes affirmeth and none adoreth but he that beleeueth it necessarily followeth that neither Iudas nor any other Hypocrite partaking of the Sacrament eat the flesh of Christ because they neither beleeue in him nor adore him which maketh strongly against Transubstantiation The third Author you alledge is Hesychius who saith no more but this that he gaue the selfe-same body which should be conceaued of the Holy Ghost which wee readily yeeld vnto you For the selfe-same Flesh is in the Sacrament truly offered and giuen vnto our Faith But that Hesychius never dreamed of your Reall Presence may appeare by these words His flesh saith he which before his passion was vnfit to be eaten for who desireth to eat the Lords flesh hath he after his passion made fit for meat For if he had not beene crucified wee had not eaten the sacrifice of his body but now wee eat that meat receiuing it in memory of his Passion From Hesychius you returne vnto Saint Chrysostome againe where he saith that Christ is seene on the altar and in the hands of a Priest What literally and with the eye of the body I trow no. For though Transubstantiation were granted you yet is it not the Body of Christ but the Accidents only of Bread and Wine which wee see How then Surely as your owne Sixtus Senensis obserueth Saint Chrysostome is full of hyperbolicall speeches which if they be rigorously interpreted cannot possibly bee true Such is this here and such are those other of touching Christ and feeling him with the hand of fastning our teeth in his flesh of making our tongues red with his bloud that we receiue not the body of God from a man but from the Seraphims themselues taking vp fire with their tongues such as Esaias saw and the like All which Phrases how they are to be vnderstood Saint Chrysostome himselfe teacheth vs oftentimes adding an as it were vnto them As hauing said The spirituall blood floweth on the table within a few lines after he saith Thinke that the saving blood issueth as it were out of the divine and vnpolluted side and that thou doest as it were sucke it from his side In like manner doth Theophilact his Abridger interpret him For whereas Chrysostome saith Wee are in this Sacrament mingled with Christ Theophylact for explanation addeth after a certaine manner Whereby it is manifest that the meanin of your author in this passage also is as if hee had said Thou seest him as it were on the Altar and as it were in the hands of the Priest that is Sacramentally and by Faith for with other eyes then those of the spirit he is not there to be discerned But if wee come with faith according to that which elsewhere he saith Without doubt wee shall see him lying in the cratch for this table is vnto vs insteed of the cratch Lastly you vouch Saint Augustine the second time where he saith that Christ in his last supper bare himselfe in his owne hands Wherevnto I might answere that Saint Augustine whether misled by a wrong translation or vpon some other mistake was much overseene to alledge that for Scripture and to make it his ground which is no where to be found in Scripture For the text intended by him hath it farre otherwise then so The vulgar Bible saith Hee fell downe or reeled betweene their hands Saint Basil He was carried by the hands of the servants The Originall He plaid the foole or madman in their hand or while he was in their power All which is much differing from that of Saint Augustine He was carried in his owne hands And no marvaile if a fained text which hee vnderstood not drew from him such a violent interpretation To say nothing how carelesse hee is of the letter in his Enarrations vpon the Psalmes and how hardly it beareth his Mysticall constructions But this notwithstanding Saint Augustine you will say plainely deliuereth his judgement touching the Sacrament when hee saith Christ therein was carried in his owne hands Not so plainely for your purpose if Saint Augustine who knew his owne meaning best may be his owne interpreter For thus doth he expound himselfe How was he carried in his owne hands Because when hee commended his very Body and blood he tooke into his hands that which the faithfull know and after a sort carried himselfe when he said This is my Body He saith not Really or Substantially or Corporally but after a sort even as elsewhere also The Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine manner the body of Christ that is to say Sacramentally Significatiuely For if he had meant properly and litterally hee would never haue said after a sort but speaking in that manner it is evident he meant improperly and figuratiuely He carried himselfe that is the Sacrament or Symbole of himselfe N. N. But yet farther Thou must knowe and hold for most certaine saith S. Cyril that this which seemeth to bee Bread is not Bread but Christs body though the tast doth iudge it Bread And againe in the same Father Vnder the forme or shew of Bread is giuen to thee the Body of Christ and vnder the forme or shape of Wine is giuen to thee the Bloud of Christ. And S. Chrysostome to the same effect We must not beleeue our senses easie to bee beguiled c. We must simply and without all ambiguitie beleeue the words of Christ This is my Body c. How many say now alwaies I would see him I would behold his visage his vestments c. But hee doth more then this for he giueth himselfe not only to be seene but to be touched also handled and eaten by thee I. D. First what if I should except against this Cyril as an vnsufficient witnesse For perhaps he deserueth it and so doing I shall not at all wrong him That there was an ancient Father of that name Bishop of Hierusalem I confesse that he wrote Catechismes is testified by S. Hierom but withall that he wrote them in his youth and long before he was Bishop which much elevateth the weight of his testimonie Howbeit you are father to knowe that those Catecheticall bookes now entitled vnto him are but of a very late edition For your owne Harding acknowledgeth that in his time namely about sixtie yeares since
they were only manuscript and knowne but to a few learned men Since which time they haue beene published in print and perhaps to winne more authority vnto them mis-fathered vpon Cyril of Hierusalem For if wee may beleeue Gesner or Simler or your owne Gretzer a Iesuit sundry written copies entitle them to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem one who liued well neere eight hundred yeares after Christ even then when the quarrell about Images and relicks was on foot Whence happily proceeded that overlashing speech that the wood of the Crosse was so multiplied as the whole world was now full of it Howsoever seeing they are come to our hands from no better places then Trent the Popes Vatican and Cardinal Perrons Library you cannot blame vs if we vehemently suspect that they haue passed through Purgatory and suffered much addition and substraction For wee are not ignorant of your Pious fraudes and holy couznages in purging of bookes not permitting them to speake what their Authors wrote but what maketh most for your owne advantage But let it be supposed for the present that your author is the right Cyril of Hierusalem and free from all corruption and if you will also that he wrote his Catechismes in his elder yeares what then is the testimonie that begiueth for Transubstantiation Forsooth that which seemeth to be Bread is not Bread but Christs body though the tast iudge it Bread And againe Vnder the shew of bread and Wine the Body and Bloud of Christ is giuen Wherevnto I answer and first to the former that the common Latine Translation reads it otherwise thus This bread which wee see is not bread so denying it to be Bread that yet hee affirmeth we see Bread Which seeming contradiction is easily accorded by Cyril himselfe where hee saith it is not simple or naked or common bread as if hee should say Bread it is yet not only bread but something else besides Even as when we deny Christ to be meere man we meane not that he is no man but that he is Man and besides that God also It is not then bread that is Prophane or Vnsanctified bread but the Body of Christ that is bread sanctified to bee a Type or Sacrament of Christs Body And although our tast iudge it to bee no more then bread yet Faith teacheth vs not to stay on bread but to mount higher even vnto the Body of Christ. I beseech you when Pachymeres saith The holy oyle is no longer called oyle for the oyle is Christ doth he meane it hath lost its nature and is transubstantiated into Christ I trow no. In like manner might Cyril say The bread we see is not bread but Christs body and yet neuer dreame of your Real Presence For in his opinion there is the like reason of both Even as saith he the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so also this holy ointment is no more bare or common ointment after it is now consecrated but a grace which worketh the Presence of Christ and the holy Ghost To the second passage I answere that your Author whosoeuer hee bee hath rendred it captiously vnder the forme or shew or shape of Bread and Wine as if hee had meant your Accidents without substance whereas indeed Cyrils owne words are in the Type or Figure of Bread and Wine And this wee acknowledge to bee most true For in the receauing of the Bread and Wine which typically are the body and bloud of Christ wee truly and really after a spirituall manner receaue his very body and bloud also In regard whereof as he calleth bread winetypes so he maketh the body bloud of Christ their Anti-types They are commanded saith he to tast not of bread and wine but of the Anti-type the body and bloud of Christ. The body therefore and the bloud is in the bread and in the wine as the Anti-type is the type or the thing figured in the figure which I hope may be done without any Transubstantiation Certainely if wheresoeuer you read of Formes shewes or shapes you by and by conceaue of nothing but Accidents without substance it cannot be avoided but you must needs fall into dangerous errours When Saint Paul saith that Christ being in the forme of God counted it no rapine to be equall with God Neverthelesse emptied himselfe taking the forme of a servant made after the similitude of men and being found in figure as a man humbled himselfe c. What will you conclude hence that Christ is onely shew without substance and neither true God nor true Man I knowe you will not And seeing you dare not doe it in this I would advise you to beware how you coÌ„clude so in the like As for the testimonie of S. Chrysostome I answere vnto it breefly We must not beleeue our senses saith he True for they discerne nothing else but bare bread and Wine and are not capable of the mystery signified and exhibited by them To apprehend that belongeth vnto Faith and not sense Yet is not sense every way to bee discredited for we beleeue it is Whitenesse which we see and sauour which we tast yea we may safely beleeue it is bread which we take and eat Wherein then may we not beleeue sense That it is meere bread For it perceaueth not that it is sanctified and sacramentall bread But of this more hereafter Againe We must saith he simply and without all ambiguity beleeue the words of Christ saying This is my body Questionlesse we must and hee that beleeueth them not is an infidell But seeing as your selues confesse bread in proper signification is not the body of Christ neither was it Christs meaning we should beleeue it to be so To beleeue Christs words then is to beleeue them in Christs meaning which because it is not literall as we haue said it must needs be Figuratiue thus This bread sacramentally is my body But of this also more hereafter Lastly saith he He giueth himselfe not only to bee seene but also to bee touched handled and eaten This is sufficiently answered already whether to avoid tautologie I referre my selfe Only I adde that if properly we see touch tast Christ theÌ„ may we beleeue our senses contrary to that which Chrysostome saith But if we may not beleeue them then neither doe we see nor touch nor tast him properly but as himselfe interpreteth himselfe after a manner that is in a sacrament spiritually and by Faith which importeth not your Real Presence N. N. Nor only doe the Fathers affirme so asseverantly that it is the true naturall Body of Christ though it appeare to bee Bread in forme and shape and that we must not beleeue our Senâ—es herein but doe deny expresly that it is Bread after the words of Consecration as appeareth out of S. Ambrose in his booke de Sacramentis Imetandis Before the words of consecration
beleeue and aske not How as if wee doubted of the truth of them Nay wee constantly adhere vnto them though we thinke it impossible to know the manner How But your words vnlesse you demonstrate them wee are not bound to beleeue and wee may without offence as I thinke demand How that may be which you affirme yea reiect it too if wee find it repugnant to the rule of Faith or of right reason N. N. I forgot to set downe this place of Saint Paul in his due place which is a cleare confirmation of S. Paul who for resoluing doubts as it seemed had conference with Christ himselfe after his ascension for before he could not being no Christian when Christ ascended the matter will bee more evident His words are these to the Corinthians For I haue receiued from our Lord himselfe that which I haue deliuered vnto you about the Sacrament And doe you note the word For importing a reason why he ought specially to be beleeued in this affaire for asmuch as hee had receiued resolution of the doubt from Christ himselfe and then he setteth downe the very same words againe of the institution of this Sacrament that were vsed by Christ before his Passion without alteration or new exposition which is morally most certaine that hee would haue added for clearing all doubts if there had beene any other sense to haue beene gathered of them then the plaine words themselues doe beare I. D. Omitting your amplifications of Pauls conference with Christ of his learning thereby to resolue all doubts of rendring it as a reason why he is to be beleeued in this matter of the Sacrament although I for my part know of no such conference as you speake of but only of an immediat inspiration into him by the Spirit of Christ of all truths wherein hee was to informe the Church which why you should call a Conference I cannot guesse Omitting I say all these Circumstances and by talks the substance of your argument is this If the words had had any other sense then the plaine words themselues doe beare then certainly S. Paul would haue cleared it But this hee endeavoureth not for he doth but repeat the words of institution and that without alteration or exposition Ergo the words haue no other sense then the plaine words themselues doe beare I answere the plaine words are This namely This bread is my body Which Proposition taken precisely and according to the letter cannot possibly be true The best of your owne side as hath already and shall againe bee shewed confesse so much Why therefore did not S. Paul more plainely expound it Hee needed not for it was a Sacramentall speech And whosoeuer knewe the nature of a Sacrament could not but vnderstand it Sacrameâ—â—ally thus This is the Sacrament of my Body But where you say St Paul added nothing for clearing of doubts you are much deceaued For the sixth seuenth and eight and twenty verses are added to that end In which among other things three times he calleth that Bread which wee eat in the Lords Supper And if that which wee eat then that which is consecrated And if that which is consecrated then Bread remaines after consecration which vtterly overthroweth your Transubstantiation And it is farther to be noted that Saint Paul comming after our Saviour Christ it is to be presumed that he meant rather to cleare and enlighten his words then to obscure darken them Yet he darkens them if that which we eat â—ee truely and properly Christs Body and not Bread Yeâ— hee entiâ—eth people into errour and diggeth a pit for them to fall into For it appearing Bread vnto the Sense and man naturally yeelding credit to the report thereofâ— hee should rather haue called it as it is Flesh if it be Flesh and not feed vs in errour by calling it so often Bread But to this you reply as followeth N. N. I was the more willing to set downe those words of S. Paul although not in their due place because M. Downe iâ— his writing seemeth to take so much â—old of S. Pauls words in calling it Bread in divers placâ—s wherein S. Paul meanâ— no other Bread then that Christ declared it to bee 〈◊〉 his lâ—st Supper and as one of the Fathers before cited calleth it the heavenly Bread the Bread of life I. D. What hold soeuer M. Downe tooke of S. Pauls words this answer is not able to remoue it By Bread say you the Body of Christ is meant If so then haue wee found that which hetherto you could not endure to heare of a Figuratiue speech in the Sacrament for Christs body properly is not Bread But why doth hee call it Bread Because before consecration it was Bread as some say Noâ— so for it was never Bread Or because it seemeth to bee Bread as others say Noâ— so for Christs body nor is nor seemeth Bread Why then because in Scripture all nourishment is called Bread Nor so for in that sense vnder Bread Drinke is comprehended whereas our Apostle distinguishes them as divers things Let him eat saith hee of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Is it lastly because Christs body lies hid vnder the shewes of bread Absurd for by the same reason you may call the Casket by the name of a Diamond because it containes it The truth is S. Paul vnderstands by bread not Christs body but that which in proper speech is so For Christs true body cannot be broke but this bread even after consecration is broken For so he saith The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the body of Christ N. N. All which laid together and the vniforme consent of expositions throughout the whole Christian world concurring in the selfe-same sense and meaning of all these Scriptures about the Real Presence of Christs true Body in the Sacrament you may imagine what motiue it is end ought to be to a Catholike man who desireth to beleeue and not to striue contend Besides this Protestants haue not one authority nor can produce any one at this day that expresly saith that Christs Reall Body is not in the Sacrament 〈…〉 only a Figure Signe or token thereof though divers impertinent peeces of some Fathers speeches they will now and then pretend to alleage So on the contrary side the Catholikes doe behold for their comfort the whole â—â—nke of ancient Fathers throughout every age standing with them in this vndoubted truth I. D. Indeed if you haue the Vniforme consent of expositions throughout the whole Christian world concurring with you and the whole ranke of Fathers throughout every age standing with you in this as you suppose vndoubted truth I must needs confesse it both is and ought to be a sufficient Motiue vnto you to perswade assent vnto the truth thereof But if vpon due examination you finde that not one of them all doth so expound as you doe and that your Author hath presented you with a list
CERTAINE TREATISES OF THE LATE REVEREND and Learned Divine Mr Iohn Downe Rector of the Church of Instow in Devonshire Bachelour of Divinity and sometimes Fellow of Emanuell Colledge in Cambridge Published at the instance of his friends Opera eorum sequentur cos OXFORD Printed by Iohn Lichfield for Edward Forrest A.D. 1633. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD the Lord Bishop of Exeter his worthy Diocesan AS ALSO TO HIS FELLOVV BRETHREN THE REVEREND DIVINES of that Diocesse THE PVBLISHER OF THESE ENSUING WORKES makes bold to dedicate them in the name of his deceased Friend The Contents of these treatises 1 The funerall Sermon on behalfe of the author of these ensuing workes 2 A letter of the Lord Bishop of Exeter concerning the Author of these workes 3 A treatise concerning the force and efficacy of reading 4 Christs prayer for his Church 5 A Godly discourse of selfe-denyall 6 An apology of the justice of God 7 An Amulet or preservatiue against the contempt of the Ministry 8 The Dowe-like serpent 9 Subiection to the Higher Powers 10 A defence of the lawfulnesse of Lots in gaming against the arguments of N.N. 11 The reall presence by Transubstantiation vnknowne to the ancient Fathers 12 A defence of the former answere against the replie of N.N. THE FVNERALL SERMON ON BEHALFE OF THE AVTHOR OF THESE ensuing workes PREACHED BY GEORGE HAKEWILL Dr OF Divinity and Arch-deacon of Surrey a neere neighbour and deere friend vnto him OXFORD Printed by I.L. for E. F. 1633. DAN 12.3 They that be wise or teachers shall shine as the brightnesse of the firmament and they that turne many vnto righteousnesse as the Starres for ever and ever WORDS worthy to bee drawne out in Capitall letters of Gold to bee written with a beame of the Sunne or as Chrysostome speakes in another case with a quill taken from the wing of a Seraphin words which as I am now informed this deare and Reverend Brother of ours deceased the occasion of this present meeting aboue twenty yeares since made choice of vpon the like occasion at the funerall of a worthy divine well knowne to a great part here present so that I cannot but herein obserue the speciall favour of God pointing mee as it were with the finger of his providence to the very same text which himselfe made choice of vpon the like occasion but my doubt is that neither the straits of time nor my slender abilities will permit mee to handle it as I am assured hee did though I heard him not They are the words of the Lord of hosts the great Iehovah sent by an Angel to the Prophet Daniel highly favoured of his God and as highly commended for his singular vprightnesse and great Wisdome and by him as a principall Secretary of the holy Ghost left vpon record to posterity for the Churches vse so that whether we regard the matter of them or the Author from whom they are sent or the Person to whom wee haue every way great reason to afford them our best attention Now that we may somewhat the better conceaue the sense of them it shall not perchance be amisse a little to reflect vpon the words going before from the beginning of the chapter 1 At that time shall Michael stand vp the great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time and at that time thy people shall be deliuered every one that shall be found written in the booke And many of them that sleepe in the dust of the earth shall awake some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt Where by Michael as I take it mystically at least if not historically Christ is meant hee being the great Prince both of his and Daniels people which is his Church by his standing vp his comming to judgement by the time of trouble the day of the worlds dissolution which shall be indeed terrible and troublesome to the vnbeleevers and impenitent but to the righteous a day of refreshing and deliverance whose names are written in the booke of life Then many that is all of them that sleepe that are dead and buried and it may bee rotten in the dust of the earth shall be awaked or raised vp by the power of God some that is the godly to everlasting life a life of ioy and happinesse and some that is the wicked to everlasting shame and contempt not only so but to everlasting paine and torment To which very words our Saviour seemes to allude The houre is comming in the which all that are in the graues shall heare his voyce And shall come forth they that haue done good vnto the resurrection of life and they that haue done evill vnto the resurrection of damnation The day of judgement and the resurrection of the dead thus described then follow the words of my text resuming the former branch of the precedent division They that are wise shall shine as the brightnesse of the firmament and they that turne many vnto righteousnesse as the starrs for ever and ever Which without straining kindly enough and of themselues fall asunder into two parts the Persons to be rewarded and the Reward In the persons rewardable we haue a gift required and two acts issuing from this gift The gift is wisedome the first act issueing there from is teaching the second turning of men vnto righteousnesse by vertue of teaching As our wisedome is from God so it should be in part referred to the teaching of others and our teaching be directed to the converting or iustifying of sinners as the Hebrew hath it In the Reward we haue the condition of it shining the different degrees of this shining resembled by the brightnesse of the firmament and that of the starrs the latter farre surpassing the former and lastly the perpetuall duration of both these degrees for ever and ever I will beginne with the gift to be rewarded wisedome Wisedome is of all vertues the most eminent and excellent the most soveraigne and divine making vs most like vnto him who is the only wise God shee is the Mistres the Lady the Queene the crowne of them all and where shee is none of them can be wanting Nullum numen abest si sit prudentia If they were all compacted into one body one chaine one ringe the eye of this body the medaile of this chaine the gemme of this ringe could be none other then wisedome The kinds thereof are diverse being taken in the better sense I will reduce them to foure heads Intellectuall Morall Civill and Spirituall whereof the first consists in the activity of the rationall powers of the minde in the knowledge of the languages and the liberall arts and sciences the second in a gracefull a comely and discreet carriage of our selues the third in an orderly government of corporations and societies committed to
so pleased haue vsed some other meanes for the appeasing of his wrath Yes doubtlesse for he had abundance of spirit wisdome But he chose this as the best course for the declaration of his iustice and mercy justice in the rigorous exacting of satisfaction for sinne yea even from his owne sonne mercy in the free pardon of sinne by the death and passion of his sonne Excellently to this purpose Cameracensis God in the beginning gaue vnto man truth to instruct him iustice to direct him mercy to preserue him and peace to delight him But he rebelling against his creator they all fled from him returned vnto God Where iustice called vpon him for satisfaction and truth required performance of his word but Peace sought mitigation of wrath and mercy sued for pardon In this difficulty wisdome interposed her selfe and found out a meanes to content all namely by the incarnation and suffering of the sonne of God Wherevnto the Father yeelding all were soone accorded and so mercy and truth met together and justice and peace kissed each other For further ratification whereof it pleased the Father solemnely and vnalterably to decree that his sonne should suffer in the flesh Wherevpon our Saviour saith it was so determined and the Scriptures as they foretell it so they affirme that thus it must be and that Christ ought to suffer And according to this determinate counsell and fore-knowledge of God when the houre appointed was come he was delivered and taken and by wicked hands crucified and slaine Of which great worke being now to speake and to enquire into the Punishment fore appointed vnto him by his Father because some extenuate it too much as if he seemed only to suffer or suffered not what indeed hee did others againe too much aggravate it as if he suffered the very paines of the damned in hell wee will as warily and as carefully as we can steere betweene that Scylla and this Charybdis And to this end wee will diligently enquire foure things the species or kinde of punishment he suffered the extention the intention and the duration thereof And of each of these briefely in a word The kind of punishment was that which was due to sin and every way equivalent for the expiation thereof howbeit so farre forth and no further then was convenient for such a person First therefore he suffered not that Punishment of sinne which is sinne for God many times and that iustly punisheth one sinne by another The reason for that then he should haue beene a sinner either by inherent or actuall sinne and so could never haue made sufficient satisfaction for the sinnes of others Neither secondly did he suffer the personall punishment of this or that man as the gout the stone the dropsie and the like For he tooke not the person but the nature of man into him and so made himselfe subiect not to Personall but to Naturall infirmities only To say nothing that those paines are many of them so contrary and repugnant one vnto another as they are incompatible in the same person Nor yet thirdly did he suffer those punishments which proceede either from the conscience of inherent sinne or the eternall continuance of sinne such as are Remorse and despaire For in him was never any sinne whether Originall or Actuall Only it was imputed vnto him inasmuch as he vndertooke to satisfy for it These foreprised and excepted all other sorts of Punishment were laid vpon him And because in Sinne there is a double act an Aversion or turning away from God the chiefest good and a Conversion or turning vnto that which is only a seeming good and consequently the desert of a double Punishment the one of losse to be depriued of the true good in regard of the Aversion the other of sence to feele smart both in body and soule in regard of the Conversion our blessed Lord and Sauiour suffered both The Punishment of Losse being in regard of present comfort and ioy left vnto himselfe and in a sort forsaken of his Father of which againe anon in the due place The punishment of Sence for he felt during the while extreame both torment and paine outwardly in the body and horror and anguish inwardly in the Soule The Extension whereof was also exceeding generall for he suffered from all that any way could afflict him and in all whatsoever belonged vnto him From his Father therefore he suffered who for a time abandoned him and delivered him into the hand of sinners from the powers of darknesse who laid vpon him whatsoever their malice could devise from the Iewes who stumbled at him and despised him from the Gentiles who made a game and laughing-stocke of him from Magistrates who convented and condemned him from the people who arrested and accused him from the Clergie who charged him with cozinage and blasphemy from the Laity who cryed out crucifie him crucifie him from his enimies who cruelly persecuted him from his friends who in his greatest need started aside from him from forrainers who disdainfully shooke the head at him from those of his owne houshold who most treacherously betraied him and in a word from all sorts both of men and women yea from the Heaven which denied to giue him light from the aire which refused to vouchsafe him breath from the earth which would not so much as beare him frō what not And as from all so hee suffered also in all In his goods being stript even of his raiment and lots cast thereon in his good name being esteemed a deceiuer a blasphemer a drunkard a glutton a magitian a traitor to Caesar in his friends who were scattered as soone as the shepheard was smitten in his mother through whose heart a sword was driuen in his soule by strong feare before his passion and extreame sorrow in his passion in all the parts of his body his head being crowned with thornes his face spit vpon his cheekes buffited his hands feet nailed his sides peirced his backe armes scourged and the whole vpon the crosse barbarously stretched and racked in all his sences the touch by wounds the tast with myrre and vineger the smell with the loathsome savour of Golgotha the hearing with shamefull taunts and revilings and the sight with mowes and disdainefull behaviour finally in the whole person by death the separation of the soule from the body The Intension of all which was likewise exceeding vehement even proportionable vnto the desert of sinne wherefore he sticketh not to say Behold and see if there be any sorrow like vnto my sorrow And againe the sorrowes of hell compassed me round about Not that he felt the flames of hell fire or the same kind of torment which the damned suffer in hell farre bee such impiety from our thoughts but that which is equivalent therevnto Had he suffered only the death of the crosse and no more his martyrs might seeme to haue endured more bitter paines
Chrysostome doe proue not only this but the Resurrection also of our Bodies by the truth of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament for that our Flesh ioyning with his Flesh which is immortall shall bee immortall also I. D. The truth of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament and the Coniunction of our Flesh with his Flesh neither is nor ever was by vs denied And therefore to heap vp Fathers for the proofe thereof is but to spend your labour to no purpose That you should proue is the Presence of Christ by Transubstantiation Which hitherto you haue but little aymed at In the Sacrament say these Fathers our Flesh is ioyned to Christs Flesh Ergo our Flesh shall rise againe The Antecedent is true and the sequele is good But what ioyning doe they meane The taking of Christs flesh into the mouth They neuer dreamt of it And if it were so it would follow that all they that eat Christ Sacramentally among whom how many Reprobates are there shall rise againe vnto life everlasting For I hope you will not say that the sacred Flesh of Christ doth quicken any vnto everlasting death How then is it By eating him not only Sacramentally but also spiritually and by Faith For by this meanes Christ becomes the food of our soules which redounding vpon the Flesh by making it the Temple of the Holy Ghost and an instrument of righteousnes fitteth and prepareth it to a glorious Resurrection Hence our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath life everlasting and I will raise him vp at the last day And the Apostle S. Paul If Christ bee in you the Body indeed is dead because of sinne but the spirit is life because of righteousnesse But if the spirit of him that raised vp Iesus Christ from the dead dwell in you hee that raised vp Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortall bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you And that this is the meaning of the Fathers appeares by that they say Our bodies come not into corruption but partake of life by being nourished with the body bloud of the Lord. For that our bodies in litterall sense should be nourished with Christs body is to make it the food of the belly not of the minde then which saith Bellarmine nothing can bee deuised more absurd And what I pray you is Nourishment properly Only to take meat into the mouth No but the alteration and conversion of the substance thereof into the substance of that which is nourished which to affirme of the Body of Christ is horrible impiety Of force therefore must the Fathers be vnderstood to speake of such a Nourishment by the body of Christ as is spirituall Now if the Nourishment be spirituall such is the Eating also and it is as absurd to say that the soule is nourished by bodily eating as that the body is nourished by spirituall eating Will you haue all in a word The things that wee eat with our mouth in the Sacramēt are not the causes but the pledges of our Resurrection So saith the great Councell of Nice We must beleeue these things to be the symbols or pledges of our Resurrection N. N. And the same S. Irenaeus doth proue farther that the great God of the old Testament Creator of heauen earth was Christs Father For proofe whereof hee alleageth this reason that Christ in the Sacrament did fulfill the Figures of the old Testament and that in particular wherein bread was a figure of his Flesh which he fulfilled saith Irenaeus making it his Flesh indeed I. D. The Marcionites whom Irenaeus confuteth taught that the God of the old Testament was not the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ and that the Creator was knowne but the Father of Christ was vnknowne Against this hee endeauoureth to proue that the Father of our Lord was he who created the world That this he intendeth manifestly appeareth by those words where hee saith Others saying that another besides the creator is his Father and offering vnto him those creatures that are here amongst vs shew that he is greedy and covetous of that which is anothers And among other arguments this he vseth for one Bread and Wine are the creatures of the Creator of the world which creatures Iesus Christ vseth in the Sacrament the one to be his Body and the other to be his Bloud and therein are they offered to his Father Ergo the Creator is his Father Were he not his Father he would never haue takē that which belongs vnto another or whervnto he had no right and convert it to his owne vse So that here your Author hath notably deceaued you For Irenaeus proueth Christ to bee the sonne of the Creator not by his omnipotence in turning Bread and Wine into his Flesh and Bloud a thing that neuer came into his thought but from his right and title to the Creatures which maketh nothing for Transubstantiation Touching the Figures of the old Testament and how they prefigured our Sacraments we haue spoken enough already N. N. What is so sacrilegious saith Optatus Milevitanus as to breake downe scrape and remoue the altars of God on which your selues haue sometimes offered and the members of Christ haue beene borne c. What is an altar but the Seat of the Body and Bloud of Christ And this monstrous villanie of yours is doubled for that you haue brokē also the chalice which did beare the Bloud of Christ himselfe When the mixed chalice and the Bread broken taketh the word of God the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ is made Bread receauing the calling of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one earthly another heavenly the earthly thing is the old forme of bread the heavenly is the body of Christ newly made vnder that forme Let vs now consider also the persons to whom this Commandement was giuen they were those twelue Apostles whom Christ at his last Supper taught the new Oblation of the new Testament giuing them authority by this precept to consecrate to make present and to offer to God his body and bloud I. D. Where little or nothing is objected the answer is soone made Optatus saith that the altar is the seat of Christs body and bloud and that the chalice beareth his bloud Irenaeus saith that after consecration the Eucharist of the body and bloud is made that in it there is a heavenly thing and the Apostles had authority to make present the body of Christ. Ergo the body and bloud of Christ is really corporally locally and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament A poore and silly consequence which all the wity our author hath wil neuer be able to make good For those words of the Fathers may be salued and verified if Christ be Present any other way And Present hee is Sacramentally to the signes and spiritually to the Faith of
in Rupertus himselfe by way of Impanation N. N. Let vs therefore beleeue God alwaies and not repine against him although that which he saith seemeth absurd to our sense and vnderstanding Let his words surmount and passe both our sense and reason which thing wee ought to doe in all things but chiefly in the mystâ—ries having more regard vnto his words then to things which lye before vs. For his words are infallible but our sense may very easily be deceaued they cannot possibly bee false but this sense of ours is many and sundry times beguiled Seeing therefore he said This is my Body let vs haue no doubt but beleeue and behold it with the eyes of our vnderstanding I. D. Whatsoeuer Christ saith must be beleeued although to our sense and reason it seeme neuer so vnlikely This I grant for he is truth it selfe and can neither deceaue nor be deceaued But Christ saith This is my body And this also I grant for they are part of the words of Institution Ergo these words must be beleeued And let them bee esteemed as Gentiles and Publicans that beleeue them not But what meaneth he when he saith Let vs behold it with the eyes of our vnderstanding In the words immediatly following he declareth it thus Christ deliuered no sensible thing vnto vs but by sensible things things intelligible And this he illustrats by the Sacrament of baptisme So also in baptisme saith hee by water a thing sensible the gift is giuen but that which is wrought namely Regeneration and Renovation is intelligible By all which you may easily see what St Chrysostome intendeth namely to draw our eyes from the sensible Obiect vnto the spirituall and Intelligible Grace exhibited to our vnderstanding by it as knowing that Water and bread are now become instruments in the hand of Christ of the spirituall Renovation and Refection of our soules Which as it is effected in Baptisme without the Transubstantiation of Water so for ought St Chrysostome saies it may bee done in the Lords supper also without Transubstantiation of bread N. N. What wil you say then if I shew you that so many of vs as be partakers of the holy mysteries doe receaue a thing farre greater then that which Elias gaue For Elias left vnto his Disciples his cloake but the sonne of God ascending into heauen left with vs his Flesh. And againe Elias went himselfe without his cloake but Christ left his flesh with vs and ascended hauing with him the selfe-same Flesh. I. D. Here Christ ascending into heauen and carrying his true flesh with him is compared to Elias who also ascended and carried his flesh thither with him But the flesh that he left here with vs is compared to Elias cloake which he left with Elizeus And the comparison standeth thus that as the Cloake which Elias left was a symbol of the spirit and Vertue which fell from him vpon Elizeus so the mysticall elements in the Sacrament are pledges and tokens vnto vs of the true flesh of Christ in the Church Thus therefore is St Chrysostome to be vnderstood as if he had said Christ ascending carried his true flesh with him corporally into heaven and left his mysticall flesh here vnto vs spiritually in the Sacrament N. N. The supper then being prepared both old and new ordinances met together at the Sacramentall and mysticall delicates and the Lamb being consumed which the old tradition did set forth our Master setteth before his Disciples a meat which cannot be consumed Neither is the people invited now to sumptuous costly and artificiall banquets but the food of immortalitie is giuen which differeth from common meats keeping the outward form of the corporall substance but prouing declaring that there is present by an invisible and secret working the presence of a divine power I. D. Thâ— booke of the Cardinal workes of Christ divided into twelue Tracts among which this De coenâ Domini is one is none of Cyprians that was Bishop of Carthage Pamelius staggers For although the Words and phrases and figures and the like seeme vnto him to make for Cyprian yet he professeth that of certainety hee hath nothing to say But Possevine is peremptory that it is falsly fathered on Cyprian So is Sixtus Senensis also and Cardinal Bellarmine And they render reasons For that Cyprian never refused to set his name to his bookes which this Author doth Neither would hee haue called his writings Childish toyes or haue said that the sublimitie of Cornelius ought to be delighted with his stammering tongue Nor finally would he haue vsed so many barbarismes nor haue written things contrary to himselfe As for this particular Tract de coenâ Domini Bellarmin ingeniously acknowledgeth that not Cyprian but some one later then hee wrote it Howbeit they all conclude that the Author of these Tracts is ancient How ancient It is cleare saith Pamelius that this booke was written in the time of Cornelius and Cyprian and therefore deserueth the same authoritie with Cyprian Nay not so saith Bellarmine for the Author thereof is later then Cyprian yea without doubt later then S. Augustine that is a hundred and fifty yeares yonger then Cyprian at least And who certainely knoweth but he may yet be much younger then so In the Library of All Soules College in Oxford there is a Manuscript very ancient of all these Tracts vnder the name of Arnoldus Bonavillacensis dedicated not to Cornelius as it is now falsely inscribed but to Hadrian the fourth the which Arnoldus liued not much lesse theÌ„ twelue hundred yeares after Christ. Which inscription if it be true as it is not vnlikely then is not this author the man you tooke him for namely that graue Father and Martyr as in the next Section you tearme him to wit St Cyprian If false yet because it is vncertaine who he is and in what age he liued his authority cannot be of of any great value Neverthelesse whatsoeuer he be let vs in a word or two examine his testimonie And first be it obserued that all the Presence hee speaketh of in these words is but the Presence of divine vertue or power which falleth short of that Real Presence of the naturall Body of Christ which you intend But after the Lambe saith Cyprian was consumed our Lord set before his Disciples an inconsumptible meat which cannot be Bread Indeed it cannot and who saith it is For the meat that cannot be consumed is the Body of Christ offered and exhibited in the Sacrament together with Bread And this is also that food of immortalitie which hee speaketh of represented and figured vnto vs by Bread it being so truly Bread sacramentally But it followeth differing from common meats and keeping the forme of bodily substance and these happily are the words which you thinke strikes all dead What for Transubstantiation Suppose then your Author had said The water in Baptisme differeth from common water
retaining the forme of bodily substance by invisible working proueth the Presence of Gods power to be there would you from hence conclude Transubstantiation I knowe you would not No more can you from this And indeed the word species which you translate Forme yea and outward Forme too though the word outward be not in the text doth not signifie shew without substance or Accident without subiect but in the writings of the Fathers vsually it signifieth the truth nature or kinde of a thing So Ambrose I see not speciem the truth of bloud speaking of the Lords Cup but it hath the resemblance which afterward repeating I see the resemblance saith he but I see not veritatē the truth of bloud Again the word of Christ changeth the species of the Elements What is that The Formes or Accidents of the Elements No for they you say remaine What then but the Elements or things thēselues And St Augustin Their meat was the same with ours but the same in signification not in specie that is in kinde So that when your Author saith it keepeth the species of bodily substance it is not necessary to render it by Forme that is Accident or Shew void of substance for you may as well turne it thus it still retaineth the nature or truth of its bodily substance N. N. This graue Father and Martyr doth plainely shew how Mr Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For the Popes and the Doctors of the Church did agree alwaies in matters of Faith notwithstanding the great shew M. Downe hath made to the contrary For here S. Cyprian sheweth you that this food of immortality keepeth the outward forme of the Bodily Substance but prouing that there is present a divine power which is confessed by Gelasius And therefore when Gelasius saith the nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not to be his meaning is the outward forme of the corporall Substance And with this agree many of the Fathers which are also wrested from their true meaning as appeareth manifestly by the manifold plaine places of the Fathers by me here set downe I. D. If to neglect the Premisses and to contradict the Conclusion by the right way of answering arguments then haue you taken the right course and made vp my mouth for ever replying vpon you For whereas M. Downe as you say hath made a great shew to proue that the Fathers disagree among themselues in some points you passing by all the proofes thinke it sufficient to affirme the contrary that the Popes and Doctors of the Church doe agree Wherevpon you farther inferre that M. Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For although hee haue proued by the expresse words of Gelasius that the Bread is not transubstantiated because the substance thereof stil remaineth yet is the conclusion false For Popes and Doctors Gelasius and Cyprian must needs agree But questionlesse if Cyprian for for the present wee will suppose him to bee the right Cyprian doe by Forme of bodily substance vnderstand nothing else but shew without Substance it is impossible to make him agree with Gelasius For Gelasius saith The Substance or nature of Bread and wine cease not to be and Substance cannot possibly be shew without substance So to interpret is to expound white by blacke and light by darknesse and would argue extreame either stubbornesse against the truth or brutishnesse But Cyprian by Forme vnderstandeth not as wee haue shewed Accidents miraculously subsisting without Subiect but them together with the Subiect or the verity and truth of the thing And so hee perfectly agrees with Gelasius and the rest of the Fathers and all of them against Transubstantiation For as for those manifold plaine places by you here set downe I hope by this time they appeare not so plaine vnto you but are all of them fully answered and that without wresting any one of them from his true meaning N. N. Therefore though the Fathers doe sometimes call the Sacrament a Figure or Signe Representation or Similitude of Christs Body death passion and bloud they are to bee vnderstood in the like sense as those places of St Paul are wherein Christ is called by him a Figure the substance of the Father and againe an image of God and farther yet appearing in the likenesse of man all which places as they doe not take away from Christ that he was the true substance of his Father or true God or true man indeed though out of every one of those places some heresies haue beene framed by ancient heretiks against his Divinity or Humanity so doe not the foresaid Phrases sometime vsed by the ancient Fathers calling the Sacrament a Signe Figure Representation or Similitude of Christs Body exclude the truth or Reality thereof I. D. That the Sacraments by the Fathers are called Signes Figures Representations Similitudes and the like is so cleare that you cannot deny it and I feare it greeueth you much to read it in them because it maketh so directly against you Wherefore to salue all some pretty shift or colour must be devised those tearms must bee vnderstood as St Paul meaneth when he saith Christ is the Figure of his Father the Image of God and appeared in the likenesse of man For as here they deny not either the Godhead or Man-hood of Christ so neither in the Fathers doe they exclude the Body or Blood of Christ from the Sacrament And doe they not indeed Why then when Cyprian ere while said Retaining the forme of Corporall Substance did you so hastily exclud Substance and fancy to your selfe shewes subsisting of themselues without it But let vs examine this a little farther A Symbole saith Maximus is some sensible thing assumed insteed of that which is intelligible as Bread and Wine for immateriall and divine nourishment and refection And againe These are Symbols not the truth Sacraments saith Augustine are signes of things being one thing and signifying another It were no figure saith Chrysostome if all things incident to the truth were found in it And Saint Augustine againe If Sacraments haue not a resemblance or Similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they are not Sacraments These sayings of the Fathers plainely shew that in Sacraments they never conceiued the Figure and the Truth to be one and the same thing but that the signe is one thing and the thing signified cleane another And herevpon in expresse tearms they affirme that they are two not one The Eucharist saith Irenaeus consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly And Saint Augustine The sacrifice of the Church is made of two and consisteth of two things the sacrament or sacred signe and the thing of the Sacrament And it is to be noted that they speake generally of all Sacraments so as in the Lords Supper the Figure is no more the same with the Truth then it is in Baptisme And indeed vnlesse you can make Sensible and Insensible Corporall and Spirituall Earthly and
later shorter and taller broader and narrower thicker and thinner greater and lesser then himselfe and such like of the same garbe But I study to be briefe it is high time to remoue my hand as they say from the Table Onely I must forewarne you that if being vnable to vntie these knots you shall attempt to cut them asunder with the sword of Gods Omnipotence you shall but loose your labour For if they be contradictions as vndoubtedly they are your Angelicall Doctor can tell you that they fall not within the compasse of Divine Power So that of force you must either demonstrate that these things are not contradictorie which I am sure you can neuer doe or as becommeth Christian ingenuity you must for ever bid farewell to Transubstantiation and yeeld vnto the truth discouered vnto you And thus at length by Gods assistance haue I finished the taske you haue laid vpon me fully answered whatsoeuer here you haue alleaged in maintenance of your Reall Presence My desire now is that laying aside all prejudice you will but with indifference read what I haue replied therevnto Which if you shall vouchsafe to doe I perswade my selfe it will make you to remit much of that confidence you had in this cause when first you sent this Schedule vnto me Especially if withall you consider that the wittiest and subtlest heads amongst you could never finde it so clearely and strongly grounded either vpon Scripture or Fathers as you pretend Scotus sirnamed the subtle Doctor affirmeth that there is extant in Scripture no place so expresse as without declaration of the Church can evidently constraine a man to admit of Transubstantiation And this saith Bellarmine is not altogether vnprobable For although the scripture may seeme vnto vs so clear as it may constraine a man that is not froward yet it may iustly be doubted whether it be so seeing most learned and witty men such as Scotus specially was haue thought the contâ—ary The same Scot farther saith that were it not for the authority determination of the Roman Church the words of Christ and of the Fathers might more simply plainely truly be vnderstood and expounded Nay hee yet farther addeth and your Cardinal Bellarmine confesseth it that before the Lateran Councell Transubstantiation was not a doctrine of Faith and he wondreth that being no principle article and such as exposeth the Christian Faith to contempt it could be receaued and beleeued The Cardinall of Cambray also doubteth not to avouch that that manner which supposeth the substance of Bread still to remaine is possible neither is it contrary to reason or the authority of scripture Nay it is easier to conceaue and more reasonable then that which saith the substance doth leaue the accidents And of this opinion no inconvenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And he addeth that the opinion which holdeth the substance of Bread not to remaine doth not evidently follow of the Scripture nor to his seeming of the Churches determination Cardinall Cajetan is as peremptory that there appeareth nothing in the Gospell that can force a man properly to vnderstand these words This is my body and that were it not for the interpretation of the Roman Church they might very well admit another sense as that of the Apostle the Rocke was Christ. To these Cardinals may wee ioyne another Cardinall though happily he neuer ware the Cap I mean Fisher Bishop of Rochester who expresly averreth that in that place of Mathew where the institution of the Sacrament is recorded there is never a word whereby it may bee proued that there is made in the Masse the true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ. Gabriel Biel also The Scriptures may be salved and expounded after a more easie vnderstanding And Occam This doctrine that the substance of bread remaineth is subiect to lesser inconveniences and is not so repugnant to reason the Scriptures And Durand It is great rashnesse to say that the body of Christ cannot by divine power be in the Sacrament but by converting bread into it Howbeit if that way which supposeth bread to remaine were indeed true many doubts which meet vs holding it not to remaine were dissolued The Master of the Sentences also freely confesseth that if it be demanded what that conversion is whether formall or substantiall or of another kinde he is not sufficient to define From these your Iesuits swarue not very much Gregory de Valentia saith that the Fathers spake of Transubstantiation somewhat obscurely simply as thinking they could not be vnderstood of Catholikes but Catholikely and least they should haue exposed the mystery to be laughed at of Infidels if in their popular Sermons they should haue vnfolded their minds Your Secular Priests affirme that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Societie and what Catholike would not beleeue them that the Fathers haue not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation Finally not to muster vp any more it is well knowne that divers of your Priests being demanded if after sentence of death pronounced vpon them that very morning when they were to be executed they might haue leaue to say Masse to the intent they might be certaine of their owne intention to consecrate and not doubtfully depend vpon anothers whether after consecration for the confirmation of our Faith in the point of Transubstantiation they durst to say thus vnto the multitude Vnlesse that which is now in this Chalice whose Accidents you see be the very selfe same bloud which issued out of the side of Christ hanging on the crosse let mee haue no part either in the bloud of Christ or in Christ himselfe for ever and so with these last words bid farewel vnto the world being I say demanded whether they durst adventure to doe so they all with one voice denied it And Father Garnet in a conference with the Deanes of the Chappell Pauls and Westminster being in particular asked the like answered very perplexedly not daring to hazard his saluation therevpon All these testimonies duly pondered and considered you must needs acknowledge vnlesse you see better then these quick-sighted Eagles that you haue not so strong hold either in Scripture or Fathers or right reason as you imagined and that not only the name but the Doctrine also of Transubstantiation hath beene but of late created an article of your Faith It remaineth that I entreat you these things vndoubtedly being thus that you suffer not your selfe any longer to be beguilded with novelties vnder pretence of antiquitie but rather that you open your eyes and stretch forth your armes to embrace the truth now that she offereth her selfe so manifestly vnto you And this I intreat the more earnestly because of the great danger that followeth vpon this errour For if Christ bee not present in the Sacrament in such sort as you hold there
Bellarmine this confession that it followeth not necessarily where succession is there is a Church Nor Continuance For the malignant Church hath lasted hitherto and will yet longer and many of the Churches planted by the Apostles are now failed which yet were true Churches Nor Visibility For the Church of Greece which you count Hereticall hath ever since the first founding of it beene and is still Visible And such Persecutions and Scandalls may arise in the Church as may much eclipse the glory thereof reducing the Saints to a small number scattering the Ministers suspending the exercise of Ecclesiasticall discipline and interrupting the publike service so as the true Professors seeking shelter from the storme shall hardly bee discerned So was it vnder the old Testament in the daies of Elias so vnder the new when the whole world groned vnder Arianisme and so shall it bee in the time of Antichrist as out of your writers in the former treatise I haue already declared Nor lastly Vnitie For as the Church of God is one so the Divels Babylon is also one And who knowes not what jars and dissentions sometimes were among the Corinthians and Galatians and betweene the East and West Churches about the celebration of Easter which neverthelesse were true Churches And thus you see how vncertaine and deceivable your notes be If this yet be not enough to perswade you I hope being backed with authority of your great Cardinall Bellarmine it may suffice who maketh them in themselues to bee but probable N. N. If it could be proved that these notes belong to the Protestant Church it would much alter your opinion I. D. It seemes you take for granted that these notes are to be found in the Romā Church But you presume too farre Was never a more broken Succession in any Church then that Who at the first succeeded whom is vncertaine namely in what order Linus Clemens Cletus Anacletus should stand About thirty Schisms haue beene therein some of them continuing scores of yeares together in which haue beene two Popes three Popes at once neither could it easily bee discerned which was lawfull Pope Fifty of them in a row were Monsters rather then Men Apotacticall and Apostaticall rather then Apostolicall How many haue intruded themselues into that See by Simonie How many haue beene intruded at the pleasure of harlots Yea a Whore hath sitten in the Pontificall chaire So saith Sigebert Marianus Scotus Bergomensis Iohannes Stella Nauclerus Iohannes Lucidus Baptista Ignatius Balaeus Sabellicus Ranulphus Petrarch Boccace Mathew Palmer Trithemius and Martinus Polonus all which it will bee hard for your new vpstarts of yesternight to outface or controle As for the rest of your Notes if the present Church of Rome be much degenerated from its Primitiue purity and nothing resemble that which Saint Paul first planted there as I am ready to proue whensoever you shall call vpon me for it then are they not to be found therein For neither hath it continued the same nor is the profession by which it is Visibly the same nor is it One with it selfe For of other differences and dissentions among you you shall heare more anon in the due place But can wee finde them in the Protestant Church Let vs trie That the Succession of Bishops in the Church of England vntil Arch-Bishop Cranmers time was lawfull I know you will not deny That he and all the Bishops in the time of K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth and so downeward were Canonically called and consecrated what stronger proofe can you desire then the publike Registers of every See Out of which so much as concernes this businesse is now published to the view of the whole world designing both the time when the place where together with the names of those Bishops that imposed hands And this is so cleare that your owne Cudsemius comming into England of purpose to obserue the state of our Church thus writeth concerning the state of the Calvinian sect in England it so standeth that it may either endure long or be suddenly changed and in a trice in regard of the Catholike order there in a perpetuall line of their Bishops and the lawfull succession of Pastors receiued from the Church for the honour whereof wee vse to call the English Calvinists by a milder tearme not Hereticks but Schismaticks Touching your other three Notes I presume it will not be denyed that a Church professing to beleeue in the Lord Iesus and by him in the holy and blessed Trinity and confessing all the Doctrines contained in the Scriptures together with the three Creeds of the Apostles the Nicene and of Athanasius hath hitherto continued Visible and in Vnity from the Apostles times And such is the Church of the Protestants for all this we both professe and confesse and whatsoever wee affirmatiuely hold the same in a manner doe you affirme with vs. For as for the Negatiues they are but novelties nor can you proue them out of any Antiquity Succession therefore Continuance visibility vnity belong vnto our Church I must entreat you to remember your promise and according therevnto to alter your mind And so much for your preamble N. N. Your treatise was not intended to me Howbeit you thank mee for my reply acknowledging your inability to answer and hoping I expect it not from you I. D. Whether your Treatise were intended to me or no is not much materiall Sure I am it was delivered mee as from you and therevpon did I returne you that reply which had it taken due effect I should haue had more cause to thanke God then now you haue to thanke mee Answer from your selfe I confesse I expected none◠for I knew your insufficiency But I hoped you would haue taken counsell of some more sufficient then your selfe and vpon conference with them haue sent me your common Answer Which because you haue not done being conscious to your owne inability it is a manifest argument of wilfull obstinacy and that you will not bee perswaded though be perswaded N. N. Notwithstanding you haue no reason to beleeue mee seeing other Divines not Papists only but Protestants also seeme to vnderstand the Fathers as you doe I. D. It is a foule vntruth that Protestants vnderstand the Fathers as you doe as shall by and by to your shame appeare In the meane season know that what I haue said I haue not barely affirmed but soundly proved and neglecting demonstratiue reasons meerely to bee swayed with humane authority is no other then to put off common sense and to forget that wee are reasonable creatures N. N. I except only against two or three passages the rest therefore are truly related and the letter of them is for the reall Presence Which how it can bee and yet no Transubstantion you vnderstand not The word Transubstantiation was indeed devised in the counsell of Lateran but the thing was alwaies beleeved of the ancient Fathers as appeareth by their words
tradition of the Fathers was no more but Memoriam facite keepe the memory as we may see evidently in Cyprian Nothing of all which I trow maketh any whit for your meaning N. N. Dr Morton citeth out of Bibliander that it was a most common opinion among the Iews that at the comming of the Messias all the legall sacrifices should cease but the sacrifice of Thoda in Bread and Wine should not cease Wherevpon he is forced against Mason and his directors to say The Protestants acknowledge in the Eâ—charist a sacrifice Eucharisticall He might as well haue acknowledged with those of Basil Frankford and Stancarus what this Sacrifice should be For they cite these words of the Rabbins the sacrifice that shall be made of wine shall not only be changed into the Substance of the bloud of the Messias but also into the substance of his Body And in the sacrifice that shall be made of bread notwithstanding it be white as milke the substance shall be turned into the Substance of the body of the Messias Thus R. Cahana who liued long before Christ and so R. Iuda R. Simeon and others whose testimonies saith Dr Morton are so direct for Transubstantiation as no Romish Doctor for a 1000 yeares after Christ is so expresse yea they are more pregnant then the sayings of Transubstantiaâ—ors themselues I. D. I am very sory that I haue not Dr Mortons booke now at hand by me For I am very confident that where your Author found his Obiection there I should also meete with a full solution In the meane season till I haue procured it which I hope will be ere long briefly thus First the Passage cited out of Bibliander maketh against you not vs. For if it be Bread and Wine which is sacrificed then they remaine after Consecration which overthroweth Transubstantiation If they doe not remaine and the Body and Bloud of Christ only be offered then were those Iewes false Prophets and foretold nothing but lies Secondly the Doctor acknowledging an Eucharisticall Sacrifice neither is forced therevnto by any such testimony nor is against Mason or any other Protestant for they all acknowledge the same together with him But I thinke you knew not that Eucharist signifieth Thankesgiuing or else you would never haue thought it strange he should acknowledge a Sacrifice of Thanksgiuing Lastly I am strongly perswaded that when these testimonies of R. Cahana R. Iuda R. Simeon and the rest shall come to the ripping they will proue Hippocentaurs and meere fictions For supposing you are in the right is it likely that such fellowes as these should either know or speake more clearly of the mysteries of our Faith then any of the ancient Prophets inspired of the holy Ghost and sent of purpose to foretell to them Or is it probable that your greatest Rabbins and among them Cardinall Bellarmine searching curiously into every corner to find witnesses of all sorts would yet carelesly omit these if they were so plaine and pregnant for you as you pretend Verily when the Doctor saith that no Doctor for a 1000 yeares after Christ no nor Transubstantiator almost ever spake more plainely it is a meere flout and argues how lightly he esteemes of the authority But of this enough vntill I bee more certainly informed Only thus to alleage Iewes is not to approue your sense of the Fathers N. N. The now Archb. of Canterbury saith and with him Midleton agreeth that Berengarius was called into question for denying Transubstantiation and he yeelded once or twice to recant and abiure the Doctrine he held Ergo hee assureth vs Transubstantiation was the Doctrine of the Church constant and generall hundreds of yeares before the Lateran councell defined it yea farther hee assureth vs that to deny it was Heresy to be recanted I. D. Had not your Author wanted or forehead or braine or both he would never haue made such a shamelesse senselesse inference If he had said Ergo many beleeued Transubstantiation before the Lateran councell hee had kept his tongue within compasse but saying Ergo it was the constant and generall doctrine for hundred of yeares before his mouth overfloweth it is a lye with a latchet For be it knowne vnto you the Church of England held it not as I haue already proued out of the Homily of Abbat Aelfrick Neither did the Waldenses hold it whose number yet was very great and they dispersed through all the countries of Christendome And if you thinke that Berengarius stood single by himselfe in this point you are much deceaued for hee had as many for him as were against him and it was nothing but the tyranny of the B. of Rome that bare him down Howbeit the French Churches still resisted both him and his Synods divers meeting together in Anjow and Turon resolue against him and subscribe vnto Berengarius But to put the matter out of all doubt it is reported of Pope Hildebrand that he appointed a Fast of three daies together with a solemn Procession to entreat of God some signe from heaven whereby he might be assured what he was to determine in this businesse If at that time the head of the Church himselfe staggered and doubted which way to resolue is it credible that the rest of the body could bee so setled therein as generally constantly for hundreds of yeares to maintaine it Apellas the Iew may beleeue it if hee list not I. Breefly Transubstantiation might well be disputed of some while before the Lateran Councell but held for an Article of Faith it was not vntill then as I haue elsewhere shewed out of Tonstal and Scotus N. N. The same Bishop and Dr Field tell vs that the Greeke Church is a true Church Yet their Patriarch Ieremie saith It is the iudgement of the Church that in the holy supper after consecration and benediction the bread passeth and is changed into his Body and the Wine into his Bloud I. D. Yet the same Bishop and Doctor tell you also that a true Church may erre so that Transubstantiation might be an errour though the Grecians held it But the truth is that the Greeke Church never held it as I haue aboue shewed out of the same Ieremie the Councell of Florence which you are bound to beleeue For though the Patriarch say Bread is changed into Body yet hee addeth by and by the flesh of the Lord which he carried about him was not giuen to the Apostles to eat nor his bloud to drinke nor is now in the divine celebration of those mysteries which directly overturneth your Change by Transubstantiation But of this see more aboue And thus much in answer vnto your first reason which before I passe vnto the next I must craue leaue to retort vpon you If you may not yeeld vnto the sense I giue the Fathers because some Protestants allow your sense neither may I yeeld to the sense you giue because many Papists allow mine For there is the same law