that which is meerely figurative and barely representative and importeth as much as effectually 3. As it is opposed to that which is spirituall and importeth as much as corporally or materially Conclusion the first 1. We beleeve Christ to be present divinely and that after a speciall manner at his table spiritually in the hearts of the Communicants Sacramentally in the elements but not corporally either with them by Consubstantiation or in the place of them by Transubstantiation Conclusion the second The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is reall in the two former acceptions of reall but not in the last 〈◊〉 he is truly there present and effâ—…ctually though not carnally or locâ—… And that this is the generall doctrinâ—… the reformed Churches and co sequently that all your discourse p. 25 26 28 47 51. and through your whoâ—… booke generally against empty types bare signes void figures excluding the verity is uâ—…terly void and of none effect and a meere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fightiâ—… with your owne shadow I prooâ—… by undeniable and impeachable evidences extant in the booke intiâ—…uled Harmony of confessions and I will compasse you in both with such a cloud 〈◊〉 witnesses that you shall see no way to get out The English as it well deserveth shall have the first place The Supper of the Lord is not onely a signe of the lovâ—… that Christians ought to have among themselves one to the other but rather 〈◊〉 is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christs death in so much that to such a rightly worthily and with faith receive the same the Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. The rest shall follow as they are martialled by the compiler of that worke The Helvetian The faithfull receive that which is given them by the Minister of the Lord and they eate of the Lords Bread and drinke of the Lords Cup and at the same time inwardly through the helpe of Christ by the Spirit they receive the flesh and blood of the Lord he that outwardly being a true beleever receives the Sacrament he receives not the signe onely but enjoyeth also the thing signified The confession of Basil. Bread and Wine remaine in the Lords Supper in which together with the Bread and the Wine the true Body and Blood of Christ is prefigured and exhibited The French We beleeve that those who bring to the Lords Table pure faith as it were a vessell doe truly receive that which there the signes testifie for the Boand Blood of Iesus Christ are no lesse 〈◊〉 meate and drinke of the soule then brâ—… and wine are the foode of the body The Belgicke confession Chrâ—… instituted Bread and Wine earthly aâ—… visible creatures for a Sacrament of 〈◊〉 Body and Blood whereby he testifetâ—… that as truly as we receive and hold 〈◊〉 our hands this Sacrament and eat 〈◊〉 with our mouthes whereby this our life 〈◊〉 maintained so truly by faith which 〈◊〉 as the hand and mouth of the soule we receive the true Body and Blood of Christ our onely Saviour in our soules to holi and nourish spirituall life in them The Augustan In the Lords Supper the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to the Communicants or as we read in a later edition they are truly exhibited with the breaâ—… and wine The Suevick The most holy Supper of our Lord is by us most devoutly and with singular reverence ministred and taken whereby your sacred Majesty may understand how falsly our adversaries charge us that we change Christs words and corrupt them with mans glosses and that nothing is ministred in our Supperâ—… but bare bread and meere wine By all which it appeares as how falsly your Lordship and S. E. relate our tenet so how no lesse blasphemously then slanderously Noris compareth the Protestants Supper to Heliogabalus his feasts he should rather have compared your private Masses to them For as that Emperour invited his servants to a banquet where he ate all himselfe and they onely looked on so you invite the people to your Masse and bid them eate and drinke rehearsing the words of our Saviour Take eate this is my body and drinke you all of this c. yet you eate all and drinke all your selves As the Priests under the Law among the Jewes had their panes propositionis their show-bread which the people â—…ever touched so you though under the Gospell have panem propositionis shew-bread and alwaies vinum propositionis shew-wine for the people very seldome eate of the bread but never drink drop of the consecrated cup. Me thinkes I heare you say if wee both acknowledge Christs Body and Blood to be thus really present in the Sacrament as hath beene shewed how fell we out why may we not be good friends wherein stand we yet at odâ—… about this Sacrament and Christs presence there In five points First You teach there remaines nâ—… the substance of Bread and Wine after consecration we teach that they remaine Secondly You beleeve that Christs body is contained under the superficies or accidents of bread and taketh up the roome of the substance of the element this is no part of our beliefe Thirdly You hold that the host or Sacrament is to be adored cultu latriâ—… the worship proper unto God wee beleeve that though honour and reverence which Saint Cyrill and Saint Chrysostome call for is due to the Sacrament and that with all due respect and a most humble gesture it ought to be handled and received yet no divine adoration may be used to it To yeeld that to any creature is Idolatrie Fourthly You averre that Christs very body is eaten with the mouth we cannot brooke such a grosse and caperâ—…aiticall conceit Fiftly You professe and I know not whether you beleeve it that infidels yea some of you also that rats and mice may eate Christs very body we abhorre that blasphemy For though it might fall out through some negligence that a rat or a mouse or who is worse then either an Insidell may somtimes seize on the Sacramentall bread yet we say Christs Body and Blood are out of their reach their unhallowed hands or mouthes cannot come neare it PAR. 9. Twelve passages out of Tertullian against Transubstantiation vindicated and all objections out of him for the carnall presence answered THis was or should have beene the Rodus our stand now let us measure the leape of which you have made seven jumpes Thus I took my rise That doctrine which hâ—… no foundation in the Word of God is repugnant to the doctrine of the true ancient Church and overthroâ—… eth the principles of right reason iâ—… plying palpable absurdities and apparant contradictions is to be rejected a erroneous and hereticall but the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Christs
to be the Symbole or Sacrament of his body as also why hee rather chose wine then any other licour to bee the embleme and memoriall of his blood we can assigne certainely no other reason then his meere will Tertullian his guesse is but probable that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament in the formes of bread and wine had an eye to the Prophecy of Ieremy or Iacob But be it probable or necessary it matters not seeing it is confessed on all hands that bread is a figure of Christs body though not now a Legall Type yet an Evangelicall Being both it makes the stronger for this glosse of Tertullian this bread is my body that is a figure of my body But here S. E. helpes you at a dead lift alleadging a testimony out of Tertullians booke de resurrectione carnis for the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament The words of Tertullian are these The flesh is washed that the soule may be cleansed the flesh feeds upon the body and blood of Christ that the soule may be fatted by God Of this place of Tertullian he is as proud as Pâ—…lius in the proverbe was of his sword not observing that the point of it lyeth against himselfe for if hee expound these words according to the rule of the Fathers the signes have usually the names of the thing signified by them then hee confirmes our figurative interpretation understanding by the body of Christ the Symbole or signe thereof upon which our flesh seeds when we receive the Sacrament but if he understand the words of Tertullian properly as if our very flesh or stomach turned Christs Body into corporal nourishment and so really fed upon it to fatten or cheare our soules he makes Tertullian blaspheme and hee gives the lie to his Lord your selfe who page 65. in expresse tearmes affirme that in the Fucharist there is no violence offered to Christ his flesh in it selfe nor is it eaten to the end our bodies may thereby be nourished To affirme that the substance of our mortall body is nourished or increased by the flesh of Christ taken in the Sacrament is to make the Eucharist cibum ventris non mentis the foode of the belly not of the soule then which grosse conceit nothing can bee more absurd in the judgement of your owne Cardinall Bellarmine Tertullian disclaimes this carnall fancy in the very words alledged by your Chaplaine ut anima saginetur the flesh saith the Father feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ that the soule may bee fatted the soule not the body If hee demand how can the soule bee satisfied or fatted by the bread in the Sacrament if it bee not turned into Christs Body I answer out of the former words of Tertullian even as the soule is cleansed in Baptisme by washing the body with water though that water be not turned into Christs blood You have heard that Tertullian doth not so much as lispe in your language heare now how lowd hee speakes in ours The sense of the word saith he is to be taken from the matter for because they thought his speech hard and intolerable unlesse ye cate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. as if hee had appointed his flesh truly and in very deed to bee eaten of them he premised it is the Spirit which quickneth and a little after appointing his Word to be the quickner because his Word is spirit and life he called the same his flesh for the Word was made flesh therefore to be desired with an appetite to give and maintaine life in us to be eaten by hearing to be chewed by understanding to be digested by beleeving These words are so plaine that you cannot mistake the meaning of them and if you should goe about to draw them to any carnall sense or eating Christ with the mouth he will checke you in the words following where he saith that Christ used an allegorie in this place now an allegorie is a figure in which an other thing is to be understood divers from that which the words import taken in the usuall and proper sense Doubtlesse he who held the bread at the Lords Table to be a representation of Christs body and the wine a memoriall of his blood beleeved not that the bread was turned into his body or the wine into his blood for no picture is the life it selfe no memoriall is of a thing present but absent But Tertullian called bread that whereby Christ represented his owne body taking the word represent in the same sense which Saint Bernar doth As Christ after a sort is sacrificed every day when we shew forth his death so he seemeth to be borne whilest we faithfully represent his birth As the figure signe or that whereby any thing is represented or set before the eye is not the thing it selfe so neither a monument or a memoriall of our friend is our friend the wine therefore which Tertullian saith Christ consecrated for a memoriall of his blood cannot bee his very blood The same Father in his booke of the flesh of Christ smiled at the heretickes who imagined Christ to have flesh hard without bones solid without muscles bloody without blood c. They saith he that fancy such a Christ as this that deceiveth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings should not bring him from heaven but fetch him rather from some jugglers box I trow hee meant not your Popish Pix yet sure such a flesh it encloseth hard if it bee so without bones solid without muscles and bloody without blood for you say Christs blood is there and shâ—…d too and yet tear me your Masse an unbloody sacrifice I take you to be so ingenuous that you would not belie your senses I am sure you will confesse that you see nothing in the pyx but the whitenesse of bread in the Chalice but the rednesse of wine no flesh or blood colour in either You tast nothing but bread in the one and the sapour of wine in the other you touch no soft flesh with your hand nor quarrie blood with your lips or tongue But I inferre out of Tertullian You must not question the truth of your senses lest thereby you weaken the sinewes of our faith lest peradventure the heretickes take advantage thereupon to say that it was not true that Christ saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven that it is not true that he heard a voice from heaven but the sense was deceived Were not the senses competent judges of their proper objects even in the case we are now putting viz. the discerning Christs true body Christ would never have appealed to them as hee doth Behold my hands and my feet that is I my selfe handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have I have given a touch hitherto but upon singâ—…e testimonies as it were
tearmes Christs typicall and symbolicall body and saith it goeth into the belly c. you dare not say Christs body For it is blasphemy in the highest degree to say that his glorified body passeth through the guts and is cast out into the draught Substance of bread you say there is none and to call accidents a body and the matter or materiall part of bread is as absurd in speech as it is in sense that a man can void tasts and colours and figures without substance Fiftly I alleadge against you in the same Commentarie upon Saint Matthew his interpretation of the words of the institution which can no way stand with your doctrine of Transubstantiation Take eate saith he This is my body the bread which God the Word saith to be his body is the Word which nourisheth the soule the Word which proceeds from Gods mouth by which man liveth bread the heavenly bread which is set upon that Table of which it is written Thou hast prepared a table before me And the drinke which God the Word calls his blood is the Word making glad the hearts of the drinkers Marke I beseech you hee saith that Christ calleth bread his body which he could not but by a trope or figure sith bread and his body are substantiae disparatae substances of divers kinds which cannot in truth and propriety of speech one be called the other Secondly hee saith that this bread is the foode of soules and this drinke refresheth and maketh glad the hearts of them that drinke it is the foode of soules not bodies and the drinke of the heart not of the mouth if wee beleeve this Father Sixtly I retort your owne allegation against you out of the fift Homily The Lord saith hee even now comes under the roofe of Beleevers two manner of waies The one when thou entertainest into thy house the Governours or Pastours of the Church for by them the Lord enters into thy house and by them thou becommest his Host. The other manner is when thou takest that holy and uncorrupted banquet when thou dost enjoy the bread and cup of life eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord doth enter under thy roofe wherefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou come under my roofe Observe I pray you as before that the faithfull enjoy the cup of life as well as the bread whereof you utterly deprive them and that by roofe hee meanes the heart which entertaines Christ not the mouth That which S. E. addeth suppose the soule bee wicked this Author saith Christ goeth In he adds of his owne Origen saith no such thing that Christ eâ—…ters into the soule or heart of a wicked man but all that he saith is this where hee enters in unworthily he enters in to the condemnation of him that receives that is where the party unworthily eates of that bread and drinkes of that cup for in that bread Christ entereth in his typicall and symbolicall body as hee calls it before not in his true and naturall which hee proved unto us there no wicked man can eate Seventhly I conclude this Section with a testimony out of the last booke of Origen If as these men cavill or upbraid us Christ was destitute of flesh and without blood of what flesh of what body and of what blood did be administer the bread and the cup as signes and images commanding his Disciples by them to renew the memory of himselfe Heare you how briefe he speakes how fully in the language of the reformed Churches bread and the cup are not the very body and blood of Christ by Transubstantiation but signes images and memorialls thereof by representation And if now you are cast as your conscience will tell you you are by severall verdicts of Origen thanke your selfe who would needs referre the matter to him among others and bee tried by the bench of antiquity whereby you are clearely overthrowne as you will be in your owne Court by your owne feed judge Gratian your great Canonist of whom in the next Paragraph PAR. 12. Eighteene places out of Gratian the Father of the Canonists against Transubstantiation vindicated and objections out of him answered GRatian de consecratione distinctione 2. capite hoc est quod dicimus saith as the heavenly bread which is Christs flesh is after a sort called the body of Christ whâ—…n as in truth it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ I meane of that which being visible palpable mortall was put upon the Crosse and that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest is called the Passion death and crucifixion not in the verity of the thing but in a signifying mystery so the Sacrament of faith Baptisme is faith The glosse addeth the heavenly Sacrament which truly doth represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly wherefore it is said in a sort but not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie This testimony of Gratian is like a great torch throughly lightened which a strong blast of winde bloweth not out but maketh it blaze the brighter Three puffes you and your Chaplaine have at it First you say Gratian is no authenticall Author with you much lesse the glosse Secondly you say his words are meant of the accidents which are a Sacrament onely of Christs body Thirdly your Chaplaine addeth that the flesh of Christ on the Altar is a Sacrament of Christs visible and palpable body upon the Crosse you say the lesse to the purpose by saying so much and your answers interfere on the other For if Gratian bee no authenticall Author with you why doc you straine your wits to make his words reach home to the truth why doe you contradict one the other to make Gratian agree to himselfe the truth is you have a Woulfe by the eares you can neither safely hold him nor let him goe For if you reject Gratians authoritie all the Canonists like so many Hornets will bee about your eares if you admit him you loose your cause for then you must confesse that after consecration that which remaineth on the Altar is not indeed Christs body but a Sacrament thereof whcih is no otherwise called Christs body then your oblation in the Masse is called the crucifying of Christ and that I am sure you will say and sweare too is not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery To examine your answers severally First you impeach Gratians credit telling us that with you he is no authenticall Author What you meane by authenticall I know not a classicall Author sure he is with you who preferre him before Dionisius Exiguus Isidorus Cresconius Burchardus Ivo and all other compilers of antient decrees and reade him publikely in your Schooles What esteeme Aristotle is in with Phylosophers Hypocrates with Physitians Euclides with Geometricians
Body and Blood of our Savior be not in the Eucharist truly accordiâ—… to the verity and substance of the thing signified by those names but that the Eucharist is a signe and figure of them 〈◊〉 For proofe whereof he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shreds and snips of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…ght Perkins Zuinglius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calvin taken from your shop-boord If it bee no disparagement for him yet certainely it cannot but be a great blemish in you to understand no better the Doctrine of the Protestants we impugâ—…e the Sacramentarians as well as you â—…our Chaplaine might have learned as â—…uch out of the Hand-Maid to Devotion Let no hereticall Harpie pluck from thee thy heavenly dish or meate as Celeno did Aeneas ' s. Beware of two sorts of heretickes especially which seeke to â—…guile thee in the Sacrament or rather of it viz. Sacramentaries Papists The one denying the signe the other the thing signified The one offereth thee a shadow without the body the other the â—…ody without the shadow and consequently neither of them giveth thee the true Sacrament to whose nature and essence both â—…re requisite The Sacramentaries 〈◊〉 rob thee of the jewell the Papists of the casket As Christ at his Passion was crucified betweene two theeves so the Sacrament of his Passion is fallen among two theeves likewise the Sacramentaries who take away the substance of Christ bodie and you Transubstantiators who take away the substance of the elements We take part with neither of you but endite you both of felonious Sacriledge But because you are a Bishop in title at least I referre you to bee instructed in thâ—… point by a Reverend Bishop of oâ—… Church It is well knowne saith hâ—… whither he naming there the priâ—… patron of the Sacramentarians leaneâ—… that to make this point streight he boâ—… it too farre the other way to avoid est iâ—… the Church of Romes sence he fell to bâ—… all for significat and nothing for est 〈◊〉 all and whatsoever went further thâ—… significat he tooke to savour of the caâ—… nall presence for which if the Cardinâ—… mistike him so doe we And so he dâ—… not wellâ—… against his owne knowledge 〈◊〉 charge his opinion upon us Neither do you who if you have read your selâ—… the passages which you cote out oâ—… Iewell Cartwright Martyr Musculâ—… Perkins Beza Calvin c. and tookâ—… them not up upon trust cannot be know that they are meant of the outward element which is not indâ—… Christs Body as Iewel not properly 〈◊〉 Body as Martyr not the very Body aâ—… Musculus but onely a signe as Cartwright a figure as Beza or at the most a seale as Perkins is alledged bâ—… you to call it None of them affirme that in the Eucharist or holy Sacrameâ—… â—…selfe an emptie figure or a bare signe â—…exhibited Let Iewel Calvinâ—…d â—…d Perkins speake for the rest We â—…firme that the Bread and Wine are the holy and heavenly mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ and that by them Christ himselfe being the true Bread of â—…ternall life is so presently given unto us as that by faith we verily receive his Body and Blood And a little after we abase not the Lords Supper or teach that it is but a cold ceremony onely as â—…any falsly slander us you and S. E. for â—…ample For we affirme that Christ â—…oth truly and presently give himselfe wholy in his Sacraments in Baptisme that we may put him on and in his Supper that we may eate him by faith and spirit and may have everlasting life by his Crosse and Blood and we say not that this is done sleightly or coldly but effectually and truly Calvin Taking away these absurdities he speaketh of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation whatsoever may be said to expresse tâ—… communication of the true and substantiall Body and Blood of the Lord whiâ—… are exhibited to the faithfull under tâ—… holy Symbols of the Supper I willingly admit and that in such sort that the participation may be understood not 〈◊〉 imagination onely and apprehension 〈◊〉 the minde but a reall fruition to neurâ—… the body and soule to eternall life and againe I say that the holy mystery of the Supper consists of two things bodily signes and the spirituall truth which is both figured and exhibited by the signes For the Spirit truly uniteth those things which are severed in place From the exhibition of the signe we rightly inferre the thing signified by it to be exhibited to us and when we receive the signe we are confident that we receive the Body it selfe Perkins is as full we hold and beleeve a presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that no feigned but a true and reall presence 1. In respect of the signe by Sacramentall relation 2. In respect of the Communicants to whose beleeving heart he is also really present Thus you heare we stand all for a reall presence and that so universally that Andrew Rivet saith peremptorily none of us beleeveth that Christ giveth unto us onely a signe of his Body or onely grace because as truly as the Bread which is the signe of Christs body is given to our bodies so truly is the Body of Christ given unto our soules The difference betweene us is about 1. The meanes 2. The meaning of eating Christ. The meanes We say is by faith mystically You by the mouth and properly The meaning You say is a carnall We say is a spirituall manducation Desire you a greater light because it seemes your eyes are dim thus then conceive of the doctrine of the reformed Churches 1. Christ is said to be present in holy Scriptures foure manner of waies 1. Divinely 2. Spiritually 3. Sacramentally 4. Carnally or corporally According to the first kind or manner he is present in all places Can any man hide himselfe in secret places that I shall not see him saith the Lord doe not I fill heaven and earth According to the second he is present in the hearts of true beleevers I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith According to the third he is present in the Sacrament both mystically or relatively and effectually also The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the blood of Christ the bread that we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ For we being many are one bread and one body for wee are all partakers of that one bread According to the fourth he was present in Iudea and the confines in the daies of his flesh And the Word was â—…ade flesh and dwelt amongst us but is now in heaven 2. As the word presence so also the word really is diversly taken sometimes 1. As it is opposed to that which is feigned and imaginarie and importeth as much as truly 2. As it is opposed to
second No signe Sacrament figure or memoriall of Christs body and blood is his very body and blood for signum signatum the signe and the thing signified the type and the truth are relatively opposed and therefore no more can the one be the other then the Father bee the Sonne or the Master the Servant or the Prince the Subject or the Husband the Wife in so much that Saint Chrysostome concludeth that Melchizedeck could not be a Type of Christ if all things incident to the truth that is Christ himselfe were found in him And Saint Austin apparantly distinguisheth betweene Sacramentum and rem Sacramenti and affirmeth that every signe signifieth something els then it selfe And that it is a miserable servitude of the soule to takâ—… the signes for the thing themselves For the signe of truths are one thing 〈◊〉 themselves and signifie anâ—…ther They are visibâ—… Seales but things invisible are honoured in them But that which we take at the Lords Table is a Mystery a Sacrament a Signe a Figure a Memoriall of Christs Body and Blood Ergo that which wee receive in the Lords Supper is not the very Body and Blood of Christ after your sense Touching the third If the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood recorded by the foure Evangelists and Saint Paul are to be taken Sacramentally Spiritually and Figuratively and not in the proper sense which the letter carrieth nothing can be from them concluded for the eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth for so to eate the flesh of Christ is to eate it corporally not Sacramentally carnally not spiritually properly not figuratively wheras to believe in Christs Incarnation to bee partaker of the benefits of his Passion to abide in him and to be preserved in body and soule to eternal life which are the interpretations Saint Austin giveth is not to eate Christ flesh properly but onely in an allegoricall sense But the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh in the judgement of Saiâ—… Austin are to bee taken Sacramentally Spiritually and figuratively For the words which our Saviour spake of this argument are either the words of the institution related by the three Evangelists and Saint Paul or they are set downe by Saint Iohn Chap. 6. The former Saint Austin affirmeth to bâ—… 〈◊〉 spâ—…llyâ—…d â—…d Sacramentally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 booke against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 12 and in his Commentary upon the 98. Psalme and in his 23. Epist. to Boniface and in his 33. Sermon upon the words of ouâ—… Lord the latter he expoundeth in like sort figurativeâ—…y in his 3. book de doct Christi c. 16. in his 2. Sermon of the words of the Apostle and in his 33. Sermon de verbis Dom. And in his 25. and 26. Tractats upon Saint Iohn All these passages are wel knowne to the Learned and although you cast a mist before some of them yet it will easily bee dispelled and the beames of truth in this holy Fathers Writings discover themselves so clearely that they will dazle all your eyes What words can be more conspicuous then those of this Father I coulâ—… interpret that precept of not eating blood figuratively understanding by blood that which it figureth for our Lord doubted not to say This is my Body when hee gave the signe of his body Here the antecedents possem dicere hoc praeceptum in figurâ positum esse and the words non dubitavit clearely demonstrate Saint Austins meaning to bee that though it might seeme harsh to call the bread which is a signe of Christs body his body as the blood of a beast slaine the soule yet by a figure Christ made no scruple so to tearme it Doubtlesse the blood of any beast slaine is neither properly the soule of that beast nor a signe of a soule present in it no more by Saint Austins comparing these Texts together is bread Christs body nor a signe of his body present in it but onely a Sacrament and memoriall thereof The next passage is as cleare You are not to eate that body which you see nor to drinke that blood which they will shed who crucifie me I have commended unto you a certaine Sacrament or mystery which being spiritually understood will quicken you And although it ought to be celebrated visibly yet it ougâ—…t to be understood invisibâ—… Put the parts of the sentence together and the meaning of the whole will be evidently this that which you are to eate and drinke is not my very body which you now see and the Jewes shall pierce and crucifie but a visible Sacrament thereof Which yet received with faith in my bloody death through the power of the Spirit shall quicken you If there could bee any obscurity in this passage it is cleared in the next When Easter is neare saith he we say tomorrow or the day following Christ suffered whereas hee suffered but once and that many yeares agoe so wee say on the Lords day this day the Lorâ—… rose whereas many yeareâ—… are past since hee rose why is no man so foolish as 〈◊〉 charge us with a lie in sâ—… speaking but because weâ—… call these daies according 〈◊〉 the similitude of those daies in which these things were done and say thâ—…s is such a day which is not that day but in the revolution of time is like unto it and that is said to be done that day by reason of the celebration or mysterie of the Sacrament which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in the Sacrament he is not onely offered at Easter but every day neither doth he lie who being asked shall answer that he is offered For if Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not bee Sacraments at all Now in regard of this resemblance for the most part they take the name of the things themselves As therefore the Sacrament of Christs body after a sort is Christs body the Sacrament of his blood is his blood so the Sacrament of faith hee meanes there Baptsime is faith But I assume Good-Friday last past was not the very day of Christs Passion nor the last Lords day the day of his Resurrection nor the celebration of the Sacrament the very offering of Christ on the Crosse nor Baptisme the very habit or doctrine of faith but so tearmed onely by a figure to wit a Metonymie therefore neither is that of which Christ said This is my Body his body in propriety of speech but onely so tearmed by a figure because it is the Sacrament and resemblance of his body For all these speeches Saint Austin in this Epistle makes to bee like I know not what can be more plaine except the words of the same Father Christ gave the Supper consecrated with his own hands
corpus hee alleadgeth out of Eusebius Emissenus these words When thou goest up to the dreadfull or venerable Altar to bee satisfied with spirituall meates by faith regard honour and admire the holy body and blood of thy God touch it in thy mind take it with the hand of thy heart drink it by the draught of the inward man What need hee to have said looke upon him with the eye of faith touch him with thy minde and with the hand of thy heart and draught of the inward man but to exclude your carnall eating and drinking him with the hand and mouth of the outward man 3. In the Chapter Vt Quid out of Saint Austins booke de remedio penitentiae hee quoteth these words Why dost thou prepare thy tooth and thy belly beleeve and thou hast eaten he that beleeveth in him eateth him if the tooth and bellie have nothing to doe in eating Christs flesh how doe you affirme that he is eaten with the mouth 4. In the Chapter prima quidem out of Saint Austin his Comment upon the fourth Psalme he repeateth those two testimonies which before I produced in Paragraph the eleaventh The first is a strong evidence against the carnall interpretation of Christs words the latter against the supposed existence of Christs body in more places at once The former is this spiritually understand what I have spoken you shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that blood which they who crucifie mee shall shed I have commended a kinde of Sacrament or mystery unto you which being spiritually understood will quicken you The latter is the body of Christ in which he rose must bee in one place his truth or divinity is every where 5. In the Chapter Non he mentioneth out of Saint Ambrose a sentence which directly excludes your eating Christ with the mouth it is not this bread which goeth into the body but the bread of eternall life which supporteth the substance of the soule 6. In the Chapter Qui manducat hee expoundeth out of S. Austin the phrase of eating and drinking Christ after this manner he that eateth and drinketh Christ eateth drinketh life to eate him is to be fed or refreshed to drinke him is to live that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament is in the truth spiritually eaten and drunke if in the truth hee is eaten spiritually hen not corporally or orally for a Spirit hath no flesh and bones and consequently no mouth and teeth In the same Chapter hee addeth that which is seene and our eyes tell us is bread and the cup but that which faith being to be instructed requireth is the bread is Christs body the cup is his blood but bread can no way bee Christs body properly as I have demonstrated before Austin therefore and Gratian stand for a trope or figure in the words of the institution 7. In the Chapter Qui discordat out of the same Austin hee debarres all wicked men from tasting the heavenly food of Christs flesh He who disagreeth saith he from Christ eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his blood though he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation and perdition But he who is at distance with Christ may and doth sometime eate of that which is in the Pix after consecration it is not therefore the flesh of Christ which no wicked tooth or mouth can touch but the Sacrament thereof onely which is set on your Altar 8. In the Chapter Panis est cap. Revera hee diggeth much ore out of Saint Ambrose his bookes de Sacramentis whereof I will trie a little at this present If there bee such force in the word of the Lord Iesu that thereby that began to be which was not before how much more operatorie or effectuall is it that things may be what they were and yet turned into an other thing that they may bee what they were in substance and changed into another thing in significancie and supernaturall efficacie Christ saith This is my body before the blessing of heavenly words an other kinde is named after consecration the body is signed or signified he tearmeth the cup his blood before consecration 't is called another thing after consecration it is called Christs blood Why because the Wine is turned into Christs blood no but because it is a Sacrament of Christs blood and beareth the similitude thereof so saith Ambrose in expresse words as thou takest the similitude of Christs death so thou drinkest the similitude of his blood 9. In the Chapter Iteratur he brings in Pope Pascasius transubstantiating if I may so speake your externall visible and proper sacrifice of the Masse into a significative and mysticall Because saith he we offend daily Christ daily is offered for us mystically and his Passion is delivered to us in a mysterie 10. In the Chapter De hac out of Hierom upon Leviticus hee determineth that it is lawfull for us to eate of that Host which is offered in memoriall of Christ but that it is lawfull for no man to eate of that Host in it selfe which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Crosse. Whereof no other good construction can be made then this that we may eate of the bread broken on the Lords Table whereby Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse is represented but not of the very body of Christ it selfe which was offered upon the Crosse. We may eate with the mouth Christs flesh in Symbolo but not in se or secundumse wee may eate it in the signe or Sacrament thereof but not properly and orally in it selfe What you alleadge for your selfe out of Gratian maketh very much against you the words are The sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible forme of elements and the invisible flesh of Christ both of a Sacrament and re Sacramenti as the person of Christ doth consist of God and man To this distinction wee fully subscribe that the Lords Supper or Sacrament consists of a visible part to wit the outward elements offered to our bodily senses and of an invisible or heavenly part the flesh and blood of Christ exhibited by the Spirit to the eye of our faith but you cannot allow of this distinction of parts For you have no elements at all For accidents without substance are no elements and besides accidents you have nothing in your Sacrament but Christs flesh which is the res Sacramenti Moreover if the Sacrament consist of the elements and Christs body as Christs person consisteth of his humane and divine nature as Gratian out of Saint Austin affirmeth then is not the substance of the element turned into the substance of Christs body but both remaine entire as the humane nature of Christ is not turned into the divine but remaineth entire What your Chaplaine urgeth out of Gratian for himselfe I have answered els where PAR. 13. That the words
for before his Incarnation hee had no body into which bread could bee then turned Cyprian speaketh of bread made of many cornes or graines and of wine pressed out of many grapes Ambrose speaketh of bread broken but super-substantiall bread or turned into Christs body is not broken bread Saint Hierome likewise speakes of broken bread and consequently not of the heavenly bread which is Christs flesh Epiphanius speakes of that which is of a round figure and without sense and such is bakers bread but not that bread which Christ said Iohn the 6. He would give us to wit his flesh for the life of the world Gaudentius speakes of bread consecrated before he gave it or said This is my Body but it was not according unto your doctrine turned into Christs body before the words this is my body are uttered neither â—…oth the Priest consecrate Christs body but the bread for consecrare is ex communi sacrum facere of a thing common before to make a thing Sacred or a Sacrament Saint Chrysostome and Saint Austin both speake of terrestriall bread or as you call it bakers bread not of transubstantiated or coelestiall bread for both of them observe in the bread and in the wine a representation of Christs mysticall body which is one consisting of many members as a loafe of bread is â—…c yet made of the flower of many â—…res or cornes and the cup of wine is one â—…ough made of the juyce of many grapes â—…int Isidore speaketh of bread which â—…engtheneth the body and therefore of â—…ead in substance and not in appeaâ—…nce onely Lastly Arnoldus Carmoâ—…nsis whom you mistake for Saint â—…yprian saith not that bread is called â—…hrists flesh because it is turned into it â—…t because the thing signifying and â—…ing signified are called by the same â—…ames Now to the shreds of sententes of Fathers which your Chaplaine takes from your bulke I will returne as short answers in the order as he hath laid them Irenaeus saith that the bread in the Eucharist is not common bread so say we also for it is consecrated to a holy and heavenly use Tertullian saith that hee made the bread his owne â—…ody that is as he expoundeth it himselfe in the same place the sigure of his â—…ne body Saint Hierom Epist. ad He dib q. 2. saith the bread came downe fâ—…om heaven but hee meaneth Christ himselfe not the Sacramentall bread for that came not downe from heavâ—… but was made of wheate growing upâ—… the earth Saint Austin as you quoâ—… but indeed Ambrose 15. de Sacram. c. speaketh of super-substantiall bread 〈◊〉 thereby he meaneth Christs flesh or thâ—… heavenly Manna not that bread 〈◊〉 eate in the Sacrament with the mouth as he admonisheth in the next wordâ—… it is not the bread which goeth in the body but the bread of eternall 〈◊〉 which supporteth the substance of 〈◊〉 soule with whom Saint Austin him selfe accordeth Ser. 29. de verb. Doâ—… Thy Shepheard and thy giver of life is thâ—… meate and eternall bread learne and teach live and feed what is sufficienâ—… for thee if thy God bee not Epiphanius saith that he who beleeved not thâ—… bread to bee as our Saviour said his body falleth from salvation 't is true hee that beleeveth not the bread to be our Saviours body as our Saviour said it to bee his body endangereth his salvation for hee questioneth the truth of our Lord but Epiphanius saith not that Christs words are to bee take litterally nay in that very place heâ—… proveth the contrary for the breaâ—… 〈◊〉 round and without sense but our Lord 〈◊〉 know is wholy sensitive or rather all sense Saint Cyrill saith that which seemes bread is not bread but Christs body but hee in the words going before and in his Catech. plainely sheweth his owne meaning Come not therefore as unto simple bread and wine or â—…are bread and wine The bread after the calling upon of the Holy Ghost is no more common bread as the ointment after benediction is no more common ointment but chrisme Yet oyle after benediction still retaineth the substance of oyle and so doth the bread after consecrasion the substance of bread The Author Decaen Dom. who is so much in your Bookes that wee finde him almost in every Section is not the blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian as Bellarmine proveth by many arguments but a farre later Writer by name Arnoldus Carmotensis as the Epistle Dedicatory to Pope Adrian who sate Anno 1154. extant in All-Soules Library in Oxford testifieth but bee hee Cyprian or Arnoldus who wrote the Treatises de cardinalibus Christi operibus hee is no friend to your carnall presence or Transubstantiation for in the Chapter cited by you hee hath these words wee whet not our teeth to eate but by sincere faith wee breake the holy bread And in the words immediatly following those words which you alleadge hee saith that Christ powreth his divine Essence into the Sacrament even as in Christ under the humane nature the divinity lay hid therefore according to this Author there remaineth the substance of bread together with Christs Body Sacramentally united as in Christ the humane and the divine nature remaine united hypostatically And moreover that when hee saith the bread is changed not in shape but in nature and by the Omnipotencie of the Word made flesh that hee speaketh of a Sacramentall change and not substantiall and that by nature hee meaneth the naturall and common use not the essence of bread appeareth by his owne words a little before in this Tract of the Supper of the Lord. That although the immortall food delivered in the Eucharist differ from common meate yet it retaineth the kinde of corporall substance And in the Treatise following Our Lord saith he at the Table in his last Supper gave bread and wine with his owne hands and on the Crosse hee gave up his body to bee wounded by the hands of the Souldiers pray take speciall notice that hee gave bread at the Table and his body on the Crosse not his body at the Table no more then bread at the Crosse that hee might expound to the Nations how divers names or kindes are reduced to the same essence and the things signifying and signified are called by the same names If Cyril would be comming in as your Chaplaine speaketh with his Conversion and Nyssen with his Transmutation and Theophylact with his Transelementation they shall be met with and repayed all three in their owne coyne Cyril who in his Epistle to Colosyrius if it bee his whereof Vasques doubteth in his 180. Disputation upon the 3. part of Thomas his summes saith the bread and wine are changed into the veritie of Christs flesh in his second booke upon Iohn Chap. 42. saith that the waters of Baptisme are by the operation of the Holy Ghost changed into a divine nature Nyssen who saith that bread
is transmuted into Christ body saith in the same Oration that Christs humane nature is transmuted into a divine excellencie And Gregory Nazienzes saith that by Baptisme we are transmuted into Christ. Theophylact who upon the 6. of Iohn saith the bread is transelementated into Christs body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that we are transelementated into Christ. You see therefore that neither Cyrils 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Nyssenâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Theopylact's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come home to your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they import no more then a spirituall 〈◊〉 Sacramentall change Were they 〈◊〉 bee taken in the most proper sense for a substantiall change yet would they not helpe you a whit for in the conversion of water into wine or the transmutation of one element into another the formes and accidents are changed but the common matter remaineth the same whereas in your Transubstantiation the whole matter and substance perisheth and the accidentâ—… onelâ—… remaine Thirdly I proove that the Pronoune hoc this standeth for hic panis by confession of our learned Adversaries Gerson wee must say that the Pronoune hoc demonstrateth the substance of bread Gardiner Christ saith plainely This is my Body pointing to bread Bellarmine The Lord tooke bread blessed it and gave it to his Disciples and of it said This is my Bodie Fourthly I proove it by force of reason when this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must signifie something then existent but that could not be Christs body under the accidents of bread for vour selves teach that the bread is not turned into Christs body till the last instant in which the whole proposition is uttered it remaineth therefore that the Pronoune hoc stands for haec accidentia which yee all disclaime or hic panis this bread as then unaltered Hereunto you answer that hoc doth signifie and suppose not for that instant in which it is uttered but for the end of the proposition when the praedicatum is in being as when I say this is a crosse and make it withall the word this doth suppose for the crosse not which is when the word this is uttered but which is within the whole time that I speak so when I say taceo I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am uttering this word but that I am silent when I have done uttering So saith your Chaplaine in these operative speeches of our Saviour Lazarus come forth young man arise the words Lazarus and young man did not signifie persons existent then precisely when they were uttered but when the speeches were compleat If Sophistry were the science of salvation these knack and querkes of wit might be in high esteeme wheras they no more befit Divinity then it would become grave Cato to cut many a crosse-caper I might justly remand you your Chaplaine to the disputations in parvis where such cummin as this is tithed or rather such gnats streigned by puneys in Logick yet because you shall not say that I let passe any apex or title in your booke I will examine all these your instances To which I replie first in generall that you beg what you ought to prove and use a base fallacie in all this diâ—…â—…d petitio principij you take it for granted that these words of our Saviour This is my Body are practicall in your sense that is worke a substantiall and miraculous change which we denie and you will never be able to make good proofe of For first bare words as they are words have no operative power much lesse a vertue to worke miracles which cannot be effected without the imployment of the divine Omnipotencie Secondly words that are practicall that is used by God or men as instruments to produce any effect of this nature are imperative or uttered in the imperative mood as Be thou cleane receive thy sight Lazarus come forth young man arise sile obmutesce and the like not in the indicative as This is my Body This is my Blood Thirdly the words of themselves can no more proove the bread to bee turned into Christs Body then the accidents For certaine it is and conâ—…sed on all sides that when hee uttered these words This is my Body he pointed to that which he held in his hands which was a substance clothed with the accidents colour quantity tast and the like But your selves confesse that by vertue of these words This is my Body the accidents are not turned into Christs Body therefore neither can it be prooved that by vertue of these words Thâ—… is my Body the substance of bread is turned into Christs Body In particular to your first instance in a Crosse which at the same instant you make and say this is a Crosse. I answer first that if you could proove Christ had a purpose to make his Body in your sense as you have to make a Crosse when you say this is a Crosse and make it withall this instance of yours were considerable but till you proove the former 't is nothing to the purpose Secondly either you have made the Crosse with your fingers before or at the instant when you say this or els your speech this is a Crosse if it be true is figurative the present tense est being taken pro proximè futuro that is for the time immediatly ensuing upon the uttering of your words To your second instance in the word taceo I hold my peace I answer that if you will make a proposition of it you must resolve it into ego sum tacens I am silent and then the subject I is in being when this word I is uttered and likewise the praedicatum silent is in being as soone as the word is uttered Howbeit in ordinary and vulgar speech taceo is taken for jam nunc tacebo I hold my peace thaâ—… is I will utter not a word more To your third instance in Lazarus and the young man I answer that either Christ by a Metonymie partis pro toto called Lazarus his soule or his body by the name of the whole Lazarus or if Christs speech be proper that both Lazarus and the young man at that very instant when Christ called them were persons existent their soules being returned to their bodies For though the one came not forth out of his grave nor the other arose till after our Saviours speech was compleat and ended yet I say and you shall never be able to disproove it that at the same moment when Christ called Lazarus Lazarus was in being and so likewise the young man and the damsell In a proposition every part or word is vox significativa as soone as it is uttered as you may learne out of Aristotles booke de interpretatione and S. Austin his Dialogue with Adeodatus therefore as soore as this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must then signifie something then being A proposition is a complexum like to a heape or a number
be to little purpose to reason with you by arguments drawne from reason for you will make good any absurdity in reason by your faith What answer you to the words of your owne Masse which you say every day M. F. After the Priest hath consecrated and elevated the Host he saith Wee offer unto thee O Lord of thy guifts a pure and holy Host upon which vouchsafe to looke with a benigne and propitious countenance and to accept them as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the guifts of thy child Abel the righteous command that these things be carried by the hands of the holy Angel into thy high Altar into the sight of thy divine Majâ—…sty by Iesus Christ our Lord by whom thou dost alwaies create sanctifie blesse these good things unto us D. B. What do you urge me with the Canon of the Masse M. F. You a Masse-Priest and not able to defend your owne Masse are you not affraid of that thundering Canon if any man say that the Canon of the Masse containes any errors in it let him be acoursed I should think my selfe much disparaged if I should refuse to maintaine our owne Church Liturgie Let this be noted that M. D. will not answer to the words he readeth every day in the Masse doe you make as little reckoning of the customes of the ancient Church as you did of the Canons and Constitutions of the present Church of Rome set downe in the Masse D. B. What an idle thing is this in you to urge the customes of the Church a morall argument in a theologicall controversie M. F. Your exception were plausible if I purposed to urge a morall or civill custome I make an inference upon religious customes of the ancient Church whereby a man may as certainely gather what their opinion and judgement was touching this point as by their words Evagrius saith that at Constantinople they called children from the schoole and distributed the remainder of the Sacrament among them Hesychius l. 2. in Levit c. 8. speaketh yet of a more strange custome of casting it into the fire D. B. What collect you from these customes M. F. That they thought not the Sacrament to be Christs very body but only a mysterie of it D. B. I see not any force in this consequence conclude Syllogistically M. F. That which the ancients distributed to children cast into the fire they beleeved not to be the body of Christ farther then in a mysterie But the remainder of the Sacrament after the Communion they disposed of as above Ergo they beleeved it not to bee the very body of their Lord and Saviour farther then in a mysterie D. B. I make doubt of your Major M. F. I marvaile how you can make any doubt of it for if they had beleeved as you do the Sacrament to be the very body of Christ by way of Transubstantiation they had grievously sinned against their conscience in thus using or rather abusing the Lords body D. B. How proove you that M. F. It is a sin to give Christs body to children that cannot discerne it a greater sin by farre to cast it into the fire I say to cast the remainder of the Sacrament into the fire holding it to be the very body of Christ in your sense otherwise holding it to bee but the figure or Sacrament of Christs body they might burne it without sin in imitation of the Israelites who by the commandement of God burnt the remainder of the Paschall Lamb which was a figure of Christ. D. B. You answer your selfe as you say the Iewes burnt the remainder of the Paschall Lambe to prevent worse inconveniencies so the ancient Church might cast Christs body in the Sacrament into the fire in a reverence to it M. F. A strange kinde of reverence to throw a man especially alive into the fire D. B. If the figure of Christ might bee burnt in reverence his body might with greater reverence M. F. I scarce beleeve M. D. that you thinke a man should doe you a greater reverence to cast you into the fire then to burne your picture I see by my watch that the two houres allotted for me to dispute are neare past and therefore I knit up the foure arguments which I purposed to prosecute at large in three breefe questions 1. What doth the mouse eate that lighteth upon a piece of bread or drop of wine consecrated D. B. The forme of bread returneth againe by a miracle M. F. Peter Lombard propounding this doubt quid ergo mus comedit answereth Deus novit God knoweth Aquinas resolveth it against you And so doth your church saying si mus corpus Domini comederit if a mouse eate the body of Christ. D. B. What tell you me of Aquinas M. F. I must be briefe that I may not defraud the Auditorio of your arguments My second question is what is that you call the consecrated Host the bread is not the Host because it is not offered the body of Christ is not the Host and I trust you will not say the accidents are the Host. D. B. Christs body is the Host. M. F. Christs body is not offered therefore it is not the Host. D. B. It is offered M. F. That is offered which is consecrated Christs body is not consecrated therefore it is not offered D. B. I denie your Major M. F. I had thought you had held that you offer a thing consecrated What is consecrated sith Christs body is not D. B. The bread M. F. The bread remaineth not after consecration and Christs body you confesse is not consecrated by the Priest therefore you have no consecrated Host. D. B. The bread is consecrated to be offered because it is consecrated to bee made Christs body which is offered M. F. Your answer in a word to my third demand What becommeth of Christs body in the stomack doth it remaine there still then you have Christs body at this time within you And what need you often receive his body if you have it still within you doth it goe out of the stomack when and which way Is it turned into the substance of our body or evaporeth into ayre or is it altogether annihilated D. B. None of all these But it ceaseth to be as the soule in a part of the body that is cut off from the rest M. F. Chius ad Choum I speake of a body you answer of a soule The soule of a man because it is a spirituall substance may in an instant invisibly disfuse it selfe through the whole body and contract it selfe in like manner when a part is cut off or rather stay her influxe into that part but a bodie that hath parts of quantity and soliditie of substance cannot penetrate another body nor quit the former place but by a true locall motion visible and divisible and that in time D. B. Christs body is more spirituall then our soule M. F. What according to the substance
generatio vita verae est sanguis uvae illius quae missi in torcular passionis protuâ—…t potum â—…nc Paedag l. 2. c. 2. p 116. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epâ—…t 6â—… Qua in parâ—… inâ—…us cal â—…em 〈◊〉 suisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…inus â—…lit 〈◊〉 viâ—…â—…sse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…guinem suum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Com Her l 〈◊〉 hâ—…s 〈◊〉 Iâ—… hoc a recto salvatorio sermone vedarguâ—…ur quia dicuâ—… non bibam da fructâ—… vitis hâ—… In Mat. Hoâ—…il 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucas non narrat historiam suo ordine sed per anticipationeÌ„ narrat id quod suo loco Maâ—…theus Marcus narrarunt quest Evang. l. 1. c. 42. a Bellar. l. 1. de Eucha c 11. Augustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter Gardiner aâ—… obiectâ—… noâ—… bibam amodò de fructâ—… vitis dâ—…e novum hibero in reguo Dei regnum Dei licclesiâ—… est in qua quotidie bibie sanguiâ—… suum Christus per sanctos suos tanquam caput in membris ex Eucheriâ—… In Mat. c. 2â—… v. 29 Vitis Iudea vinum Patriarchaâ—… Prophetâ—… 〈◊〉 c. sive simpliâ—…iter ab illa hora caenae non bâ—… bis vinum queâ—…sque immortalis factus est incorruptibiâ—… lis post resur rectionem Aut. de eccâ—… dog c. â—…5 Concil Worâ—… c. 2. Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterio cum dixit non bibam de hoc geniâ—…ine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. dr myâ—…t missae c. 27. quod autem vinum in calice consecraverat paâ—… ex eo â—…od ipse subiunxit non bibaâ—… amodò de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Nat hist. 2. c. 44. In Olympia porâ—…icus fuiâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita â—…nstructa ut â—…icam ad 〈◊〉 mulâ—…s 〈◊〉 â—…icta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…u sepiupla 1. Tergiversaâ—…ion â—…iadorus Siâ—…lus l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. 3. Eras. Adag 2. P. 67. Ibid. de dec Chris l. 3. c. 16. Si hoc iam propriâ—… sonat nulla putetur figurata locutio 3. P. 300. 2. Adulation Numero 179. Cato obieciâ—… Fulvio Nobiliori quod milites per ambitionâ—…m donaret coronis levissimis de cansis nempe quia vallum curavissent 〈◊〉 â—…um strenue fodissem quis inquit Cato vâ—…dit quenquam donari coroâ—…d cum oppidum noâ—… esset captum auâ—… incensa hostium castra Gellius â—…tic l. 5â—… P 19â—… Eras. Adag Sa mâ—…cida spolia sine sanguine sudâ—… * Demost. â—…rat de coâ—…ena P. 3. P. 4. P. 189. P. 3 4. 3. CalumniatioÌ„ P. 191. A kinde of Foxes in Barbarie a Lib. praesid Benedictinorum quem â—…es habent prâ—… doctissimo prudentissiâ—…oqÌ„ magisâ—…o l pâ—…sid Benedict p. 94 â—…n Anglia ad Episcopâ—…m eâ—…s Vicâ—…vios difficillimus est accessus â—…m ipsi se caâ—…ssimè occâ—…enr p 124. nec potest adâ—…i ChalcedoneÌ„sis sine probabilâ—… perâ—…lo carceris morâ—…is exilij aâ—… gravis molestiae taâ—…s ipsâ—… quam Vicarij eiuâ—… mâ—… persecutiâ—… latenâ—… P. 187. P. 188. â—…rat P. Ma. â—…oel In quo â—…on modâ—…â—…imen non â—…rebat sed â—…ix diserti â—…olescentis â—…haerebat â—…atio â—…e tâ—…e CoÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tâ—…e Appâ—… dix 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 sher cauâ—… in his owâ—… net P 10 190. In tauroâ—… lybici ruaâ—… lâ—…nes ne sint papiliouibus â—…olesti l. de mendaâ—… P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…as in emblerâ—… P. 190. P. 141. 142. Advers D. mâ—… T is sa ipso licâ—… exitis vit temporalis e cessis pro a lictis rogâ—…s Deum ad immortaliâ—… tem sub ip morte traâ—… tur Luke 16. 2. Reddâ—… ratione vilâ—… tionis tâ—… poc 3. 18. a There were present the L. Clifford Sir Edward Summerset and divers other persons of greaâ—… quality botâ—… English and French * Divine honour or the highest degree of worship proper to God alone 1 Cor. 11. 23 24 25 26. 24. 25. 26. b Gratian de coÌ„secrat dist 2 cap. caperimus aut integra Sacramunta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius aiusdeÌ„â—… mâ—…sterij sine grands sacrilegio non potest provâ—…ire Gelasius papa Ver. 20. 1 Argu. c l 3. contra Marcionem c. 19. sic Deus quoque in Evangelio vestro revelavit panem corpus suum appellans 〈◊〉 hinc iam euÌ„ intelligas corporis sui si guram pani dedisse d Theod. dial mutabilis p. 30. versione Geâ—…ani Pontificij edit Basil. In mysteriorum traditione panem corpus suum appellavit Et Servator nomina mutavit corpori quidem id quod erat symboli ac signi nomen imposuit symbolo auteÌ„ quod erat corporis e Tertul. l. 〈◊〉 c. 40 ex-Pounding the same words Conijciaâ—… lignum in panem eius id est crâ—… in corpus eius f Dominus 〈◊〉 Evangelio panem corpus appellam g Tertul. l. 4â—… c. 20. accepâ—… panem distributum corpus suum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicenâ—… id est sigura corporis mei seq our paneÌ„ corpus suum appellas h Dominus in Evangelio i Gra. de consect dist 2 cap. Immolatio carnis Christi quae sacerdotis manibus sit vocatur Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio 2 Argu. b Pliâ—… nâ—…t Hist. l. 8. Leo vulnerâ—…us observatione mirâ—… percussorem â—…ovit in quantalâ—…bet â—…ultitudine â—…ppetit â—…um a 〈◊〉 Argu. 〈◊〉 Austin l. 3 〈◊〉 doct â—…hrist c. â—…6 〈◊〉 praecepâ—…iva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est â—…t sâ—…agittum â—…t facinus â—…ans aut â—…litatem 〈◊〉 benefiâ—…iam 〈◊〉 non est â—…urata si â—…tem slagiâ—…m aut facinus videtur iubere aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare figuâ—…a est Nisi manducaveritis inquiâ—… carnem filij hominâ—… saâ—…guinem bibeâ—… non habebitis vitam in vobis Faciâ—… vel slagitium vidâ—… iâ—…re siguâ—… est ergo praecipiens passionâ—… Dominicae esse communicandum suaviter 〈◊〉 utâ—…liter recondendum iâ—… memoriâ quod pro nobis carâ—… 〈◊〉 crucifixa â—…nerata siâ—… b Theod. diaâ—… 2. Non recâ—… dunt Syâ—… bâ—… la mysâ—… propriâ 〈◊〉 râ remaneâ—… enim in priâ—… re substantiâ—… forâ—… sigurâ—… d Bellar. answer to the words of Theod. that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or substance is meant the accidents to the hisse of all his adversaries blush of his owne side seeing Theod. in this very sentence distinguisheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as substance from accidents and he disputeth in this place against the â—…utychian hereticks who affirmed that Christs body after the Resurrection was turned into divinam naturam according to the substance his words are ita corpus Domini post assumptionem in divinam mutatur substantiam as saith the hereticke the elements of bread and wine are after consecration Theodoret retortâ—… this simile upon him thus quae ipse texâ—…isti retibus captus es neque enim Symbola mystica post sanctificationeÌ„ recedunt a suâ naturâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e Si ergo hâ—…c vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic pâ—…riculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium ejus contineâ—… quanto magâ—… vasa corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit â—…on debâ—…mus locum dare D. abâ—…lo agendi in ijs quod vuls a Vid. 6. Senens l. 4. â—…b Sanct. b It appeareâ—…h that 〈◊〉 flourisheâ—… about Chrysostomeâ—… time or shortly afâ—…er a Arist. Elench 4 Argu. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de tuis doniâ—… ac daâ—…is hostiam param sacram quâ—… propiâ—… ac sereno vulâ—… aspicere digneris accepa haberâ—… sicut accepta habere dignatus es munâ—…ra pueritui â—…usti Abâ—…l iube haec proferriper maâ—…us sancti Angelâ—… tui iâ—… sublime altare tuum in conspectu divinae Maiestatiâ—… tuae c per Christum Dominum nostrum per quem haec omnia semper bonacrâ—…as sanctificas beâ—…edicis a Concil Trid. â—…es 6 Can. 6. Si quis dixeriâ—… Caâ—…one Missae errores contiâ—…eri 〈◊〉 sit l. 4. Hist. 〈◊〉 Ecclesiast cap. 5 a â—…e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6 Argu. 7 Argu. If Christs body bee more spirituall then our soule it must needs be a Spirit a Aquinas 3. p Summ. q. 57. art 6. noâ—… derogat dignitati Christi si ex aliquâ—… dispensatione quandoque cor poraliter ad terram descend 〈◊〉 vel ut se ostendaâ—… omnibus sicut in iudicio vel alicui specialiter sicut Paula Lorinuâ—… con in Act. c. 3. nihil absurdi est affirmarâ—… Christum ad exiguum 〈◊〉 pâ—… de coelo descendisle solum enim ex hoc loco sequitur fiâ—… 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 Chrisâ—… immortaâ—… sâ—… esse neque 〈◊〉 venâ—…um e coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minibus 〈◊〉 versetur inter illos faâ—…liarner b Loriâ—…us iâ—… c 23. Act. v. 11. Probabilis est sententia Carthusiani fuisse apparitioneÌ„ imaginariuÌ„ dorâ—…ienti factaÌ„ ab Angels â—…ec qui ex hac apparitione colligunt ChristuÌ„â—…sse in câ—…lo SacrameÌ„to firmiter argumentantur c Tob. 12. 10. All these daies I did appeare unto you but I did neither â—…ate nor drink d Ambrose in Epist. ad Cor. 1 c. 15. Paulus Christum videt in coelo vocantem apparuit Christus illi primum in coelo postea oranti in teÌ„plo Greg mor. in Iob l. 19. c. 5. O Paule in coelo iam Iesum conspicis in terra adhâ—…c homineÌ„ fugis Aug. in ep 1. Ioh. tract 10. Iâ—…m noÌ„ invenis loqui ChristuÌ„ in terra invenis ipse illum loqui de coelo Saule Saule Isidorus Pel. l. 1. ep 409 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉