speech nor difficultie in sence but that the simplest may know Christs meaning You should haue begunne at the 23. verse and so to the end of the 29. verse and that had been plaine dealing Christs institution penned by Paul delivers vs foure observations First Christ his action Secondlie Christes precept Thirdlie Christs promise Fourthlie Christes caution 1 Christes action He gaue thankes brake bread tooke the cup c. 2. Christes precept 1. Take yee eate yee 2. This do as often as yee drinke it and both in rememberance of me 3. The minister must shewe and preach the Lords death till he come 3. Christes proudâ—e 1. This is my body which is broken for you 2. This is the new Testament in my bloud 4. Christes caution or caveat Whosoever â—hall eate this bread or drinke this cup vnvvorthelie shall bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Thus you see plainlie without anie dismemb ing or curtalling Christs action precept promise caution delivered out of the text Out of which place I obserue for the Catholickâ— better instruction and your confutation two things against you in this your skipping and curtalling of thâ— text First the comforts you conceale from them by this mangling of the text Secondlie the errours you still hold them in in concealing the most part of thâ— text first by following your Latten translation neglecting the holie tongue the Greeke wherein the holie Ghost pend this institution You traâ—slate Whicâ— shall be delivered for you for which is broken for you Ouâ— of which I note first you change the tense that is in the Greeke that is the present tense for so wee haue it and you follow the Latten translation which is the future tense Euallage and therefore not so comfortable Christ vseth a sweet figure of the time present for the time to come to assure our soules and consciences that whatsoever Christ promiseth is as surelie to bee performed in his appointed time as if it were alreadie done And this tense Christ vsed to take all doubts from his disciples who in respect of their vnworthinesse might iustlie haue doubted that Christ would not haue died and shed his precious bloud for them they being such vnprofitable servants and miserable sinners But to take away that doubt from them and the Church now hee assures both that whatsoever is promised by him is as sure to be done as if it were alreadie done And this staieth Christs Church and everie perticular member of the same from distrusts doubts grudgings c. in and vnder their severall crosses because they know there is a ioyfull Iubile and freedome for them purchased and prepared and shall as surelie be accomplished as if now it weere performed Now your altring of this particle is depriveth vs of all this comfort Againe you following still your corrupt Latten translation say delivered for you wheras you should say as the Greeke is and as Christ saith Broken for you for this word broken is more Emphatical and piercing then delivered for it is one thing for a man to be delivered or to be betraied for me another thing to be broken in peeces for me Out of this I obserue first the greatnesse of my sinne secondlie the kindnes and exceeding loue of my Saviour In the first that Christs birth and life though both innocent was not sufficient to cleanse my sinne In the second Christ would vndergoe shamefull buffets on the face pricking of thornes vpon his head piercing nailes into his hands and feete a bloudie speare into his blessed side before mans sinne could bee satisfied Gods wrath appeased Sathan death and hell conquered this our living Christ would haue his bodie broken for vs he would not leaue one sigh in his soule for our sâ—kes nor one drop of bloud in his bodie vnshed for our sinnes These comforts are expressed by this word broken which are not nor can be gathered by this word delivered Another comfort is concealed from the Catholickes in omitting the 25. verse in these words The newe Testament in my bloud Math. 25.40 Heb. 2.12.13.17 Ioh. 10.27 Out of which everie man may gather these comforts to himselfe by particular application First that I am not a straunger to Christ but one of his younger brethren and not onelie well knowne vnto him but also as well beloved of him which appeareth in this that hee did not onelie remember me in his last will but also most freelie and liberallie bequeached vnto my soule and bodie most precious Legacies where wee may finde them registred most safelie kept in Gods booke and daylie pronounced in our Creed as remission of sinnes of both guilt punishment peace of conscience in this life at the latter day rising of my bodie from death and dust afterwards life eternall both to soule and bodie These Legacies be bequeathed and contained in this Testament which he hath not onely sealed outwardlie with Sacraments but also inwardlie with his bloud by faith to assure vs of the performance of his promise and therefore he addeth in me bloud so that all other Testaments Wils Bâ—ls or Pardons which are not sealed with Christs bloud but with lead or wax are but counterfeit labels stâ—â—cht to Christs testament by some false forgeries of pâ—â—ured Nâ—â—â—ies wherin they doe falselie promisâ— remission of sinnes and the kingdome of heaven Acts 5.3 These deceivers must be told as Peter told Ananias Why hath Sathan fild thy heart that thou shouldest lie not onelie vnto men but also vnto the holie Ghost In Ananias heart there was a wicked conceit in his practises a wicked deceit and for his reward a suddaine dâ—ath You Chaplens of the Pope doe tell the poore people many waies to haue remission of their sinnes besides Christes Testament and Christes bloud which I will deliver particularlie if I be vrged but you are deceived and so you deceiue them and because you would keepe them still blinde that they should neither see your deceit nor their owne daunger therefore you kept this comfortable clause from them The new Testament in my bloud without which there is neither remission of sins nor saving of soules Another comfort you conceale from the devout meditation of everie good Christian which is In rememberance of me Suetonius Plutach We read in histories after Iulius Caesar was slaine Marcus Anthonius made an Oration to the people of Rome in which he shewed Caesars loue and pointed out verie Rhetoricallie Caesars bountie to them while he lived but in the heat of his speech he made a pause and shewed theÌ„ Caesars robes sprinkled with his princelie bloud shed by the bloudie hand of his cruell and malicious enemies which when the Cittiezens sawe remembring hâ—s loâ—e presentlie they ranne vpon the murtherers and slew them Did the Cittizens of Rome being Pagans revenge Caesars death vppon his enemies onelie remembring his loue and liberalitie Then with what Christian courage and spirituall manhood ought we that
altereth the Catholickes question and is farre from our first meaning For we hold with Christs trueth Ioh. 20.31 that vnlesse the written word of God first warrant it we are not bound in conscience to beleeue it though all the Doctors and Prelates in the world should sweare it And this was demaunded of you not as the demaunders doubted that the canonicall Scriptures were insufficient to prooue any article of faith but onelie that all men might see and so be resolved whether the Protestants or the now Romane Catholicques ioyne neerest to Christs trueth and the faith of the first primitiue Fathers For that faith which can bee prooved to bee taught in Christs time and so receiued and continued in the primitiue Church for the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention must needs be the true auncient Apostolicall and Catholicque faith And that other faith that cannot be so proved is but base bastardly and counterfeit and I trust in Christ that the Reader easily shall perceiue before the ende of this small Treatise that this your opinion touching Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament and so in the rest of the other Positions was never taught by Christ nor once dreamed on by the auncient Fathers but invented and deviled a thousand yeares after Christ by the late Church of Rome grounding their proofes onelie of an emptie sound of syllables without Apostolicall or Catholicque sence enforcing both Scriptures and Fathers to speake what they and you pleased not what the holie Ghost and the Fathers purposed But first heere you wrong your selfe much your cause more but the simple people most of all in altering the state of the question for our controversie is of the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament whether he be there corporallie or spirituallie The Catholicque Priests subtilly alter the state of the question And you no doubt in your conscience knowing it vnpossible to prooue your carnall presence alter the question verie deceiptfully from the manner to the matter That Christ is really in the blessed Sacrament A thing never denied by vs nor ever in question betwixt Protestant and Papist for both you and we hold Christs reall presence in the Sacrament but you carnallie and locallie we misticallie and spiritually you by Transubstantiation we in the commanded and lawfull administration But here you forget your grounds of divinitie and rules of Logicke in making an opposition betwixt spirituall receiving and reall receiving opposing them as contraries whereas the opposition is not betwixt spirituall and reall but betwixt corporall and spirituall for spirituall receiving by faith is reall receiving and corporall receiving by the mouth is also reall receiving So that the Scriptures and Fathers that here you alleadge bee altogither impertinent to prooue your carnall presence of Christ and his new conception of bread not of the blessed Virgin by a sinfull Priest not by the holy Ghost For Christ willing I will make it plaine vnto you that you haue shewed little divinitie and concealed much learning in this onely hudled vp a number of texts of Scriptures and Testimonies of Fathers out of Eckius Common-places and other like Enchiridions and neuer read the fathers themselues which at first was requested And thus trusting other mens reports and not your owne eyes you haue wrongd your self weakned your cause and abused the simple For if you had diligently read throughly weighed these Scriptures and Fathers you might haue seene and knowne that these confute your erronious opinions and confirme them not But this you should haue here prooved for the Catholicques satisfaction in which you haue altogither failed That after the Priest hath spoken over and to the Bread and Wine Rhem. test 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 9. Hoc est corpus meum and vsed powrefull words over it and theÌ„ which you call your consecration that presentlie the substances of Bread and Wine are gon not one crumme or drop remaining but wholly transubstantiated transnatured and chaunged into the verie reall naturall and substantiall bodie and bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie Rhe. Test â—â—th 26. Sect. 4. and nailed on the crosse is now in heaven and yet in the Sacrament whole aliue and immortall and that this bodie of Christ must bee received with our corporall mouth and locally descend into our corporall stomackes Which bodie so made by the Priest is offered by the Priest to God the father as a propitiatorie mercifull and redeeming sacrifice by which the Priest applieth as hee saith the generall vertues of Christs passion to every particular mans necessitie either quicke or dead for mâ—tters temporall or graces spirituall for whom and when he listeth and for what hee pleaseth Your carnall presence shall bee first handled The second point which is your propitiatorie sacrifice shall bee handled in the title of the Masse This is your Romane â—â—e learning which you should haue prooved but how your owne proofes being duely examined disprooue you let the learned iudge But now to your first proofe out of the sixth of Iohn to prooue your opinion touching the first position Ioh. 6. vers 51. The bread vvhich I vvill giue is my flesh c. Catho Priests Ioh. 6. vers 53. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his bloud you shal haue no life in you Ioh. 6. vers 55. My flesh is meat truly my bloudes c. GEntlemeÌ„ you mistake vtterly Christs meaning Rider wresting Christs wordes from the spirituall sence in which he spake to the litterall sence which he never meant ancient Fathers never taught Primitiue Church of Christ for one thousand yeares at least after Christs ascentioÌ„ never knew or received For the words and phrases be figuratiue and allegorical therefore the sence must be spirituall not carnal For this is a generall rule in Gods booke ancient Fathers yea and in your Popes Canons and glosses that everie figuratiue speech or phrase of Scripture must be expounded spirituallie not carnally or litterallie as anone more plainlie you shall heare But that the simple be no longer seduced by your Romane doctrine expounding this 6. of Iohn grammaticallie and carnally contrarie to Christs meaning constraining these places to prooue your carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament when there was no Sacrament then ordained J will set downe GOD willing Christs meaning truelie and plainlie which you shall nor be able either by Scriptures or auncient Fathers to contradict 1 First I will plainelie deliver the occasion why Christ vsed the Metaphor of Bread calling himselfe Bread 2 Secondlie according to which of Christs nature he is our living bread whether as hee is man onely or God onely or as he is compleate God and man 3 Thirdly how this bread must be taken and eaten whether by the mouth of the bodie or the mouth of the soule 4 Fourthly the fruit that comes to the true eaters thereof 5 Lastly the reasons shall bee alleadged out of
Christs owne words to prooue that your round Wafer-cakes vpon your supposed hallâ— wed Altars are not that true bread Christs flesh which Christ heere speakes of 1. OccasioÌ„ The question vvas mooued by some Bellie-gods that tasted of Christs banquet bountie in feeding fiue thousand men vvith fiue loaues and tvvo fishes vvhether Moses or Christ vvere the more excellent and liberall in feeding men 1 FIrst they commend Moses from the greatnesse of hâ— place and person being Gods Lieutenant to conduct Israel out of Egypt 2 Secondly they commend their Manna from the place whence it came which was the heavens as they supposed 3 Thirdly they commend the bread from the vertue of it which was it fed their Fathers in the drie sandie and barren wildernesse and saved them from famine therfore they thoght that no man was greater theÌ„ Moses no bread to be compared with Manna Now Christ by way of opposition and comparison confutes them opposing God to Moses and himselfe to Manna 1 First denieth that Moses was the given of that Manna but that God was the authour Moses onely the Minister 2 Secondlie that it came not from the eternall kiâ—gdome of God which is properlie called heaven but from the visible clouds improperly called heaven 3 Thirdlie Christ denieth Manna to bee the true bread because it onelie preserved life temporall but could not giue it but this bread Christ doeth not onelie giue life corporall but also l fe spiritual in the kingdome of grace life eternall in the kingdome of glorie 4 Fourthlie this bread Manna ceased when they came into Canaan and 〈◊〉 no more bee found but this bread Christ doth feed vs â—eere in this earthlie wildernesse Iosua 5.12 and raignes for ever with his triumphant Church in our everlasting glorious Canaan the kingdome of heaven 5 This bread Manna so all corporall meates when they haue fed the bodie they haue performed their office they perish without yeelding profit to the sâ—â—e but this bread of life Christ is the true bread Ioh. 6.54 which once beeing received into the soule doth not onelie assure and giue vnto it eternall life but also 〈◊〉 the bodie like assurance of resurection salvation so that the soule must first feed on Christ before the body can haue any benefit by Christ contrarie to your doctrine which is that the bodie must first feed on Christ carnally then the soule shal be thereby fed spiritual ie And because they were so addicted in Moses time to Manna in Christs time to his miraculous loaues respecting the feeding of their bodies not the feeding of their soules Th refore Christ deborted them from food corporall to food spirituall Ioh. 6.27 Labor not saith he for the meat that perisheth but for the meat that endureth to euerlasting life which the sonne of man shall giue vnto you c. And thus much touching the occasion why Christ is saide to bee the true bread of life which as farre excelled Manna as the soule the bodie life death eternitie time and heaven earth 3 Point NOw let vs see according to which of Christ natures hâ— is called out living Bread whether according to his manhood or godhead or bâ—th Christ calls this b ead his flesh and Christ his flâ—sh are al one therefore Christ his flesh are all onâ— the same breâ—â— as our bodies are fed with material brâ—â—d so are our soules fed with the flesh of Christ this flesh hee will giâ—e for the life of the world wâ—â—ch flesh is not Christ bodie separated from his sonâ—e as some of you imagine and vntruelie teach not Christs bodie and soule separated from his divinitie but even his quickning flesh which being personally vnited to his eternall sâ—irit was by the same given for the life of the world not corporaâ—lie and really in the Sacrament as you vntruly teach But in the sacrifice of his bodie and bloud once oâ— the crosse as the Scriptures â—ccord for the flesh of Christ profiteth not but as it is made quickning by the spirit Neither do we participate the life of his spirit but as it is communicated vnto vs by his flesh by which we are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone as hath bâ—n shewed before Which holie misterie is represented vnto vs in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and the trueth thereof assured and sealed in the due administration and receiving of the same So this true bread spoken of in the sixt of Iohn which hath this spirituall quickning and nourishing power iâ— compleate Christ God man with all his soule â—â—ving merits And neither Manna in the wildernesse nor your â—oâ—â—d Wafer-cakes vppon your supposed hallowed Altars Manna it could not be for it ceaâ—â—d manie hundred years before Your imagined and transnatured bread it could not bee because the Sacrament was not then instituted And 〈◊〉 to the third point The manner how this true bread Christ must be eaten THe meat is spirituall 3 Point and therefore the manner of eating must not bee corporall for such as is the meat such most be the mouth but the meat is spirituall therefore the mouth must be spirituall as before you haue heard Fide non dâ—nte In the epâ—stle to tâ— Reader c. which thing being there handled before out of holy Scr p ureâ— Fathers and your Popes Canons I will onelie referre you thither where you may vnlesse you bee maleconteâ—ts tâ— be fully satisfied touching the true manner of eating Christ where you may find proued out of Gods booke that comming to Christ beleeving in Christ abiding in Christ dwelling in Christ and to be clad with Christ and to eate Christ are all one so that out of everie one you might frame this or the like vnaunswerable argument Whosoever dwels in Christ and Christ in them Ioh. 6.5 35. onelie eates Christs flesh and drinkes Christs bloud B t the true bel evers onelie dwell in Christ and Christ in them therefore the true beleevers oneliâ— we Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud The proposit on is Christs owne words Ioh. 6 56. Ephâ— 3.17 of which it were damnable to doubt The assumption is Pauls Let Christ dvvell in your hearts by faith therefore the conclusion cannot be denied And so to the fourth The fruit and profit that redoundes to the true eaters of this bread of life vvhich is Christ MAnie rich benefits we haue by eating Christ in the manner aforesaid that is 4 Point by apprehending applying and appropriating vnto vs whole Christ with his benefits I will onelie name one or two and referre you for the rest to the sixth of Iohn Ioh. 6 41.54.50.51 He that eateth this bread I will raise him vp at the last day to life concerning hiâ— bodiâ— and hee shall neuer die but liue for euer concerning his soule But an opposition being made betwixt this true bread Christ and this Sacramentall bread
as was betwâ—xt Christ and Manna it will bee cleere nay vnpossible that your consecrated bread should bee the bread of life which is spoken of in the sixth of Iohn 1 Your consecrated bread never came from the heaven of heavens therefore it is not the true bread of life spoken of in this place 2 All that eat of this true bread Christ are saved but manie that eate of your Sacramentall bread are damned therefore it is not that bread spoken of in the sixth of Iohn 3 Your bread onelie enters the bodilie mouth and is received into the stomacke of the bodie and so passeth the way of all excrements and therefore is not the true bread 4 Your bread cannot for ever preserue temporall life much lesse giue it but not at all life eternal and therefore it is not the true bread of life spoken of in this sixth of Iohn Ioh. 6.54.50 Now seeing that Christ had not all this time when he made this sermon in the sixth of Iohn ordained his last Supper and therefore not the bread in the Supper And seeing this bread can neither assure the bodie of the receivers of resurrection nor their soules of salvation it cannot be that this bread in the Sacrament was the same that Christ spake of in Iohn And therefore your proofes brought to prooue your carnall presence of Christ by these texts be impertinent savouring by your leaue of smaal reading in the Fathers and lesse vnderstanding in the Scriptures But that all men that read this may see your errours so beware of your new daungerous doctrine J will bring Augustine other Fathers to disprooue you in plaine termes for misalleadging these texts Agustine bringeth forth as it were vpon a staâ—e the three Evangelists mathew Mark Aug. Tomo quarâ— de consensu EvangelistaruÌ„ lib. Câ—p. 1. math 26 mark 14. Luk. 22. Ioh. 6. These three Evang. â—andled as it were the bodie of Christ Iohn the soule and divinitie of Christ Lyra in psal 110. and Luke delivering the doctrine of the Sacrament but wheÌ„ he came to Iohn he saith Iohannes autem de corpore sanguine Domini hoc in loco nihil dixit Iohn in the 6. of his gospel spake nothing of the Lords body and bloud I woÌ„der with what face you can brag to follow the fathers no meÌ„ nor sect more opposit to their faith facts then you There Aug. hath tract your credit salâ—e it how you can And your own Doctour Lyra condemnes your erronious opinion which will applie these as spoken of the Sacrament his words be these Nihil directe pertinet ad Sacramentalem vel corporalem manducationem hoc verbum Nisi manducaueritis c. Nam hoc veâ—bii fuit dictum diu antequam Sacramentum Eucharistia suerit institutum Th s saying of Christ vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud doth nothing directly appertaine to the Sacramentall or corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament For Christ spake this long before he ordained this Sacrament Therefore no sound argument saith he can be grounded vpon that litterall exposition of the Sacramentall communion and â—e giues a reason vnaunswereable Nam primo debet â—â—istere in rerum natura For first the Sacrament must â—e ordained before it can be a Sacrament But you here would haue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament before it bee a Sacrament And then Lyra concludes De Eucharistia Sacramentali quae noâ—dum suit tam alia sententia pâ—oferri non potuit quae dicitur Nisi manducaueritis c. Therefore of this place there can bee made no good sufficient argument touc ing the sacramentall communion vnlesse saith he some curious Heriticquet will take these words spoken by Christ to be spoken propheticallie Quod noÌ„dumed non datur priuilegâ—â— Lyra. eodem loco Now sâ—â—eth your owne Doctour if you take this chapter of the â—â—xt of Iohn litterallie as you d then it is impossible and absurd because you wil haâ—e a carnall presence in the Sacrament before there be a Sacrament if prophetically then your owne champion calls you curious He etiques And to prooue your litterall exposition grosse false and absurd He produceth ag inst you two famous examples the fast of the Theefe on th crosse Luk 13.41 who by his liuely faith performed the tenor of this text yet never communicated Sacramentallie And Iudas who communicated vnder both kinds and yet failed in the meaâ—ing of this precept Lib. 4 dist 9. And then shuts vp the m uths of all Latteralists and Heretiques that bold th s spoken of the Sacrament alleadging Thomas Aquinas his draught out of Augustine Non manducans manducat manducans non manducat Hee that eateth not Sacramentally may yet eate Christ spiritually by faith and so did the Theefe on the crosse and was saved Some eate the Sacramentall bread but not Christ which is the inward grace of the Sacrament as Iudas did and was damned manie moe Fathers shall you haue to second these agai st y u if these satisfie you not Thus you are condemned by two learned Fathers that you ignorantlie or malicio sly or both mistake and misapplie the sixth of Iohn to speake of the Sacrament before the Sacrament was instituted Now you shall heare Augustine tell you that thâ—s sixt of Iohn is to be taken figuratiuelie and allegoricallie and therfore spirituallie meaning that the speeches and phrases which Christ vsed be borrowed and translated from the bodie to the mind you are not onely taxed by Aug. to bee ignorant in the circuÌ„stance of the text but also in the sence of the text which is a grose thing in diuines from eating and drinking to beleeving from chamming with the teeth to the beleeving with the heart So that what eating and drinking is to the bodie that beleeving is to the sâ—ule And as bread and flesh be meat corporall for the bodie so Christ our bread is made spirituall for the soule And as corporall meats are tak n with the corporall mouth so are spirituall meate Christ crucified with all his benefits received with faith the mouth of the soule And therefore to teach all postâ—rities low to expound these words of Christ hee giues a generall rule perpetually to be observed in GODS church Saying (a) Dedoct Christ lib. 3. cap. 16. The second proofe out of the sixt of Iohn Si praeceptiua locutio est c. if the Sciptures seeme to commaund an horrible or vile fact the speech is figuratiue and then alleadgeth your second proofe that you bring out of the sixt of Iâ—hn for example Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you Facâ—â—us flagitiâ—m videtur iubere Christ in this place seemes to commaund a wicked and horrible act Figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commaunding vs to keepe in mind that his flesh was crucified and
flesh of the sonne of man c. Loe heere is another Pope against you For you late Iesuites Semynaries Rhemists and Priests take this as â—poken of Christs flesh in the sacrament and they take it for â—â—at spirituall and divine flesh of Christ whereon all the faithfull fed by faith as well before Christs incarnation as since his ascention I would bring more witnesses against your vnâ—â—ue expositions and allegations The Pope your Father and Rome your mother witnes against you Priestes the rest of their degenerat children but that I thinke it sufficient that the Parentes Testimonie is the strongest Evidence against their degenerat children And after the Pope alleadgeth Augustine and the Canon Quid parat deutem ventrem crede â—â—â—â—acasti and then concludes against your carnall eating of Christes flesh most strongly Qui credit 〈◊〉 Deum comedit ipsum Caro Christi nisi spiritualiter comedatur non ad salutem sed ad iudicium mandutatur Why saieth your Pope preparest thou thy teeth to eate and thy bellie to be filled beleeue thou hast eaten hee that beleeues eates For the flesh of Christ is not eaten to salvation but to destruction vnlesse it be eaten spirituallie And there in the next chapter the Pope giues this marginall note Christus est spiritualis Eucharistia Pag. 180. Christ is our spiritual Euchariste not our carnall food in the Sacrament And in the same page he saith Cibus est non corporis sed animae this is not meat for the bodie but for the soule And if it bee meate for the soule then it must bee received by faith not the mouth spirituallie not carnallie You see now the Scriptures Fathers Popes olde and new the Text and glosse of your deare mother the Church of Rome against you And least you should cavil I haue alleadged the Bookes Chapters Distinctions and Pages And if you will still tel the Catholâ—ques that these places by mee allâ—â—dged be not true then I tell you all your owne Authors and prin s be false for I alleadge Father Pope and Canons of your owne print and if you doubt looke vnto your owne bookes and prints and you shal find them so verbâ—â—â—â— Printed Anno. 1599. Impâ—â—sis Lazari Zetâ—â—terâ— vnlesse your late Index expurgatorius hath blotted out the trueth as in manie things it hath But I will of these your former improper and impertinent testimonies out of the sixth of Iohn conclude and vrge no further but this one argument against you and them and then let the indifferent Reader iudge whether you haue not deceived Gods people by misvnderstanding the holie Scriptures or no Whosoever teacheth that there is a carnall reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament before consecration is a lyer a depraver of the truth and a deceiver of the people But some late Popes the new church of Rome with the colledge of Cardinals new creatâ—d Iesuits Semynaries and all the Romish Priests now in Ireland â—â—â—ch This is vnaunswerable that there is a carnall reall presenâ—â— of Christ in the Sacrament before consecration Therefore some late Popes the new Church of Rome with the colledge of Cardinals new created Iesuits Semynaries and all the Romane Priests now in Ireland be lyers depravers of the trueth and deceivers of the people The maior or first proposition is your owne doctrine for you teach that before Hoc est corpus meum be pronounced there is no consecration The assumption or later proposition is as cleere for your perswade the simple people to beleeue that these texts out of the sixth of Iohn prooue a carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament a yeare before Hoc est corpus meum was by Christ pronounced or the Sacrament by Christ instituted Therefore the conclusion that you be lyers and deceivers of the people is inevitable Thus the Catholiques of this kingdome by the rules of your owne religion you haue deceived in teaching Christes carnall presence in the Sacrament a yeare before either Sacrament or consecration in the Sacrament were instituted And that your leaden divinitie without care or conscience you thrust vppon the simple people aâ— sound doctrine But if there were no other errour or heresie held and taught by you but this one point it were sufficient to make all the Catholicks in this kingdome nay in Christendome to forsake your opinion considering your ignorance or malice presuming to iustifie that which holie scriptures auncient Fathers Gods Church yea and the perticuler Church of Rome with their Bishops Archbishops Popes for a thousand yeares after Christs ascention never spake or heard of and therefore it is no olde faith taught by them but a new heresie invented by you But now to the rest of your proofe Math. 26.26 Christ tooke bread did blesse it Catho brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said Priests take and eate this is my bodie This is my bloud of the new Testament which shal bee shed for â—â—ame for remission of sinnes GEntlemen this is your proofe out of Christs owne words Rider this was delivered by Christ owne mouth at the time of the institution oâ— the Supper and the night before his blessed passion and either this must helpe you or else you are helplesse but Christ willing I will plainlie shew this your proofe to be your reproofe and I pray God for Christ his sake that the eies of your vnderstanding may be opened to see the truth your hearts toucht to receiue and confesse the truth and renounce your errors and so cease to deceiue Gods people and the Queenes subiects least a worse thing come vnto you All the doubt and controversie of this question betwixt vs dependes on this Text which you say must bee taken properlie and litterallie wee say Sacramentallie improperlie figuratiuelie and misticallie And our opinion God willing shall be proved by Scriptures auncient Fathers and Popes and the olde Church of Rome But this is straunge that men of your great learning as the Catholiques take you to be wil deale so child shlie and weaklie in so weightie a matter Bee not offended that I say you handle this childishlie for in Schooles he that alleadgeth for the probation of a proposition the proposition it selfe for the probation of a text the text it selfe is counted childish and it is a childish point of Sophistrie and a fallacie to be vsed among young schollers not to be practised among simple Catholiques The Catholiques demand of you how you prooue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament and you bring in Hoc est corpus meum which is the proposition wherevpon all this disputation and contention dependeth Ioh. 19. â—7 After the same manner a man may prooue the blessed virgin Marie to be Iohn the Evangelists mother and say still notwithstanding any text brought against him as Christ said Ecce mater tua Behold thy mother say what yee will the words be Christs words therefore they must be
Readers good I wil repeat they be these If the scripture seem to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue as Except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Facinus vel flagitium videtur tubere â—â—ther can use S. â—â—â—â—d or confess your erroâ— the â—â—â—st â—â—possâ—le the second were commendable Christ seemeth to commaund a wicked act that is carnallie and grosly to eate Christs flesh c. it is therefore a figuratiue speech So that Augustine thus reasons against you To eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud corporallie is a hainous thing therefore Christs wordes be figuratiue so that if to eate Christes flesh with our mouths and teare his flesh with our teeth as also actually drinking of his bloud bee hainous and wicked why doe you so eagerly presse the litterall sence of theâ—e your two propositions against trueth against faith and the auncient Father â—ead it it coâ—taines but 6. or 7 lineâ— The marginall note there coâ—demes your litterall sence Agustine in that short 19. chap. of the same booke immediatly going before wisheth alwaies the interpretation of these and all other figuratiue speeches to be brought ad regnum charitatie to the kingdome of charitie to haue their true exposition Now if you expounde this litterallie and properlie you forsake Agustines rule charities kingdome and the Apostolicall and Catholike exposition It is but small charitie to devoure the food of a friend but to eate and devoure corporallie and gutâ—urallie the precious bodie and bloud of our Christ and Saviour Augustine would haue you catholicks but you wil bee Capernatis and Canibals it is no charitie Nay saith Augustine it is plaine impietie and a wicked and a most damnable fact And so to prooue the action lawfull the kingdome of charitie hath ever taken these and the like propositions to bee figuratiue and the sence to be spirituall Therefore if you will bee loyall subiects of charities kingdome shewe your subiection to her charitable and Catholicke exposition otherwise you will stand indited of spirituall and vncharitable rebellion Ambr. lib. 4 de Sacramentis cap. 5. Ambrose is of the same opinion with vs against you saying Fac nobit inquit oblationem ascriptam nationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sangaâ—â—is Domine nostri Iesu Christi make vnto vs saith the Priest this oblation that it may bee allowable reasonable and acceptable which is a figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ And Ambrose presentlie after saith the new Testament is confirmed by bloud in a figure of which bloud wee receiue the misticall bloud By these words the Reader may see that Ambrose and the Church in his daies tooke it not for the naturall bodie of Christ but for a figure of his bodie and therefore cease to bragge heereafter to the simple of Ambrose and Augustine set they are not of your opinion (a) â—â—noâ— Papae lib. tartius cap 12. Fol 148 there shal you see the foolish and phantasticall reasons the Pope giues for those said crosses Aug. in enarratione Psal â— pag. 7. col 1. Printed at Paris anno 1586 And in the Canon of the Masse you haue these â—â—â—ds of Ambrose in that part which begins Quam oblationem but you deale deceitfully with Gods people for you leaue out these words quod est figura corporis and there dash in fine red crosses and still teach the people it is Catholicke doctrine and the old religion but these iuglings with the Fathers must be left or else good men that follow those Fathers will doubt that Gods spirit hath left you And Augustine elsewhere saith Christ commended â—â—d delivered to his disciples the figure of his body â—â—d bloud And Origin saith not the matter of bread but the words recited over it doth profit the worthy receiver this I speake saith he of the typicall figuratiue bodie which is in deede the Sacramentall bread Vpon the 15. of mathew Augustine confuting Adimautus the Hereticke that hold that the bloud in man was the onelie soule of man aunswered it was so figuratiuely August tom 6 contra Adâ—â— cap. 12. not otherwise and to prooue it he vseth this proposition of Christ Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie saying Possum etiam interpretari illud praeceptum in signo posiâ—â—â— esse non enim dubitauit Dominus dicere hoc est corpuâ— meum cum singnum daret corporis sui I maye 〈◊〉 Augustine expound the precept of Christ figuratiuelie â—or the Lord doubted not to say this is my â—oâ—â—e when he gaâ—e the figure of his bodie Augustine saith Hoâ—â—â—st corpus meum is a phrase figuratiue you say no but it is litterall Now let the Catholicks take this Friendlie Caueat to heâ—â—â— for they haue no reason to follow you that forsake the Fathers and heâ—re may you see that our expositiâ—n is auncient Catholicke and Apostolicall yours new private and 〈◊〉 all Tertaâ—â— lib 4. contraâ— Mâ—recon pag. â—23 line 26. Tertullâ—â— an ancient Father saith Acceptum panem dâ—stributum discipâ—lis c. The bread which was taken and given to his disciples Christ made his bodie by saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie what could be more spoken of them for vs against you And Hierome calls it a representation of the truth of Christs bodie bloud Hierome super 26. math Ambrose on Cor. 11. not the body and bloud And Ambrose seconds his former sayings in these words In edâ—â—do c. in eating drinking the bread wine we doe signifie the flesh bloud which was offered for vs so that they doe but signifie the flesh and bloud they are not the flesh and bloud And Chrisostome saith Chrisâ— in hâ—â—a vpâ—n Hebr. sâ—per Cor. 11. Offermus quidâ—â— sed ad recerdaâ—â—â—nem and afterwards Hoc autem sacrificium exemplâ—â— est ellius c. We offer in deed but in rememberance of his death this sacrifice is a token or figure of that sacrifice the thing that we do is done in ten emberance of the thing that was done by Christ before c. Here is a manifest â—â—ace against you which you shall never aunswere Chris in hâ—n 11 â—â—rk â—â—â—ent Alâ—â— on paâ—â—go lib. 1. cap. 6 pag 18. line vlt. pag 19. lâ—ne 1. And elsewhere be saith in the soâ—e sanctified vessels there is not the bodie of Christ in deed bâ—â— a masterie of the bodie is contained And Clemens Alexandrinus who lived 1300. yeares agoe saith Comedite cornes meas bibite sanguinem â—eum c. Eâ—t ye my flesh and drinke my bloud meaning hereby vnder an allegorie or figure the meat drinke that is of faith and promise And the same reverend Father in his second booke and second chapter of his Pedagogs and 51. pag and line 21 22 23. hath these words Ipse quoque vine vsus
Christs bodie that is a figure of his bodie being not received though consecrated Secondly that the bodie of Christ wherof the Sacrament must be a figure The Popes glosse against the Popes text must be received by faith into the soule not by the mouth into the stomacke Now the glosse saieth the text is false vnlesse c. But I leaue the â—aâ—re to be reconciled by you who be the Popes friends yet this I say Maledicta gloss qua corrumpit textum Aâ—d Gâ—la siuâ— another Pope more auncient then these againâ—t Euâ— â—â— of this oâ—â—â—ion These three Popes and the Church of Rome in those daies it was before the birth of your Transubstantiation and your carnall presence jumpt with all the old Fathers and the Primitiue Church that livâ—d the first sixe hundred yeares after Christ and say it is called the bodie of Christ the flesh of Christ the passion and death of Christ but not rei veritate not in deed and trueth but mistically significatiuelie improperlie figuratiuelie and by way of representation and that it is impossible otherwise to bee the bodie of Christ Yet when we speake of figures in the Sacrament you mocke vs. When we say the phrase is figuratiue therefore the sence must be spirituall you deride vs as misinterpreters of Scriptures and Fathers But if your leisure and learning would affoord you but faâ—our to read with a holie deuotion the canonicall Scriptures the ancient doctors of Christs Primitiue Church that left vs these lessons for our learning you should see that wee learne what they taught and doe what they said you follow not what they commaunded because you know not what they haue recorded Now briefly I will acquaint the Reader onely with the times when these Doctors liued and the places where they taught this doctrine and then wee shall set whether this your litterall exposition of Hoc est corpus meum be Catholicke or not Clemens Alexandrinus was divinitie Reader in the famous cittie of Alexandria in Egypt In the yeare of our Lord 170 Origen was his scholler If you will read aduisedly these fathers you shal see plainlie your owne errors and succeeded Lecturer in 〈◊〉 same place 204 Tertullian Diuinitie Reader in Carthage in Affrick 206 Ambrose Bishop of Mellaine in Italie 370 Hierome Diuinitie Reader in Stridona in Hungaria and sometime in Slauonia 387 Chrisostome Bishop of Conctantinople in Graecia 406 Augustine Bishop of Hâ—ppo in Affricke 42â— Venerable Beda a famous learned man in Eng 570 And thus you may see that neither Alexandria Carthage Milâ—â—s Stridoâ—a Constantidople Hippo noâ— Rome which are famous Câ—tâ—es Nay which is more neither Egypt â—â—alie Hungaria and Slavoâ—â—â— not England which are â—â—mous kingdomes Nay which is most of all the three parts of the world Asia Affricke Europe neveâ— heard or had such a litteral exposition of Hoc est corpus â—â—um for at least eight hundred years after Christ Vincentius â—â—ner sus Hereticos That 〈◊〉 trulye â—atholicke faith â—e Quod semper vbique abâ—omnâ—bus est eâ—â—ditum Quastio 4 de â—aâ—stentia corpâ—ris Christs en â—ucharilia pag 154. Sâ—â—hâ—â— your â—eligion is none of Châ—ist beâ—aâ—sâ— it 〈◊〉 not war â—â—â—uâ—ed by the â—osoâ—ll of Ch i st and yet your Iesuits and priestes w ll haue their doctrine to be Catholicke which cannot be vnlesse it were at all times and in all places and of all persons received for so your Vincentius defineth Catholicke doctrine And heâ—â—e you see that for the three parts of the world and for many hundred yeares after Christ at was not knowne And therefore it is neither Apostolicall nor Catholicke And a late Frier and friend of yours olde Father Iosephus Angles bâ—ings in Cardinall Caâ—â—tans opinion writing vppon saint Thomas Aquinas in this manner Per Evangelium non possunt catholici hereticâ—â— convincere ad intellegenda verba hac hoc est corpus meum proprie sed tenendum hoc esse salum ex authoritate ecclesâ—â— qua ita verba consicrationis declarat That is the Catholickes cannot convince or Inâ—urce the Heretiâ—kes by the Gospell to vnderstand these wordes hâ—c est corpus meum this is my bodie properlia but this exposition must bee fetched and hold from the authoritie of the Church which so expoundeth the words of consecration See I pray you what one of your learnedst Friers reports out of one of your skarlet Cardinals of Rome that you cannot prooue by Christs Gospell these words this is my bodie to haue a proper litterall signification So that CHRIST Gospell condemnes your liue all and proper exposition and so your carnall presence of Christ must be maintâ—â—â—ed from and by the authoritie of the church Rome though Christ and his Gospell say no. Alasse with what conscience dare you teach the Catholicks this heresie Super quaest 75. Articl primo Fol. 230 Printed at Venice 1593. which by your owne confession hath no warranâ— from Châ—â—sts Gospeâ— And Cardinall Caietane himselfe writing vpon your saint Thomas Aquinas speaketh to the same purpose that the Scriptures speake nothing expresse expresly of Christ his câ—rnall presence in the Sacrament but onely in these words hoc est corpus meum which words saith he are two waies expounded first properlie secondlie metaphoricallie But saith hee the maister of the sentences is to be taxed Lib. 4. dist 10. who held too much with the figuratiue interpretation And there you shall see that he blusheth â—oâ— say that your litterall sence is not froÌ„ the Gospell but from the church of Rome And if your Romane Church may be both partie witnesse and iudge there is no doub t but th verdict must sound on your side And there the Cardinall handles Duas novitates valda mirabiles which being dul e examined parturiuns mâ—â—tes c. with manie other forgeries and fooleries to maintaine your carnal kingdome of your Breaden-god Thus much concerning your two consecratorie propositions which by the testimonie of Scriptures and Fathers be figuratiuelie to be expounded as we say not properlie litterallie as you vntrulie teach But yet you perchaunce will demaund the reason why Christ called it his bodie if it be not his body Let me first aske you another question then I wil resolue you this Gen 17. to 11. Rom. 4.11 Exod 12.11 Why did God cal circumscision the covenant when in deed it was not the covenaÌ„t but as god himself saith a sigâ—â— of the covenaÌ„t Why did God cal the Paschall lambe the Passover wheÌ„ it was but a signe of the Angels passing over the houses where the bloud of the lambe was sprinkled one answere wil resolue both our questions It is the vsuall maner of the holy Ghost in all Sacraments both of the old Testament and new Wheresoever the holie Ghost speakes of Sacraments the phrase is tropicall me to yoâ—â—micall and figuratiue attributing the name of the thing signified to the signe signifying as in these examples the
phrase addeth a dignitie to the sacrament but changeth not the nature of the sacrament to terme the visible signe by the name of the thing signified as circumscision is called the couenaunt the Lambe is called the Pasâ—ouer In Baptisme iâ— called the fountaine of â—egeneration and bread Christs bodie and yet in deed th y are but outward signes and to the faithfull onely seales graâ—â—d by the holie Ghost with the names of the things they represent and confirme the more to 〈◊〉 me and stiâ—â—e vp oâ—r affections and to edge our zeale with a religious preparation to receiue the same and to life vp our hearts and soules by faith to behold consider and feed vpon Christ crucified the thing signified Yet for your further satisfaction I will intreat Augustine to aunswere you doubt who saith (a) Aug. epistol 22. ad bonifatium Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem â—arum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino sacramenta non essent ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christs corpus Christs est sacramentum sanguinis Christs sanguis Chriâ—ti est ita sacramentum fides fides est In English thus If the Sacrament had not some certaine similitude and likenesse of the things whereof they be Sacraments they should be no Sacraments at all And of this similitude manie times they haue the names of those things themselues as the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is after a certaine manner the bodie of Christ and the sacrament of his bloud is after a certaine maner his bloud So the Sacrament of faith or Baptisme is faith Out of which wee may note first they are but Sacraments or similitudes of the thing signified not the things themselues secondlie that bread wine are the bodie bloud of Christ bâ—â— secundum quendam modum after a certaine maner and shewes how by an example as the Sacrament of faith is faith so the Sacrament of Christs body is Christs bodie but the Sacrament of faith is not faith naturallie substantiallie by a chaunge of substance for by chaunge of qualitie or vse therefore the Saâ—â—â—t of Christs bodie is not chaunged into the â—â—â—tance of Christs bodie but onely in qualitie and â—â—se is Theodores saith in his first dialogue Theodoret dialog 2. cap. 24 pag 113. dialog 1. cap. 8. pag. 54. read them I pray you not changing nature but adding grace vnto nature And the â—â—â—e Father in his second dialogue explaines this more plainly saying the misticall signes after sanctifâ—cation Non recedunt a sua natura manere enim in pure substantia figura c. they depart not from theâ— nature but remaine in their former substance 〈◊〉 figure may be seene touched as before Out of which auncient learned Father I obserue these necessarie points for the Catholickes instruction and your confutation First he saith Post sanctificationem Consecration vnknovvn to Theodor. therefo e it is a new terme The change is in the name honour and vse not in the nature Father ansvvere this fâ—str or confesse the truth after sanctification then your new comed terme of consecration was not known in the Church of God but sanctification and benediction Secondly I note cut of this father that though the Sacraments haue gotten a new diuine qualitie yet they haue not lost their nature they had before as you vntrulie teach Thâ—rdlie I obserue that he confuted by the example of bread and wine in the Sacrament certaine Heretickes who held that Christs bodie was changed into his deitie after his ascention for this is the Fathers proofe against those heretickes That as bread and wine are trulie bread and wine after sanctification as they were before sanctification euen so is Christs bodie as trulie a bodie now after his ascention as it was before his ascention So now the Priests of new Rome cannot say that the bread and wine haue lost their true natures and properties in the Lords supper after sanctification vnlesse then will also say with the Heretickes that Christ hath lost the nature of a true bodie now after his ascention And Chrisostomâ— seconds Theodores saying Ante Sanctificationem 〈◊〉 â—sost ad Caesarium Monach Mark this well yet Preists Iesuets c. Before it he sanctified we cal it bread buâ— the deuine gracâ— once sanctifying it by the ministrie of the Priest it â— deliuered from the name of bread and counted worthy to be called the Lords body though the nature oâ— bread continue there still Out of which I note 〈◊〉 the father calles it sanctification not consecration Secondly it is called bred before sanctification is breaâ— in nature after sanctification Aâ—d lâ—rdly after sanctificatioÌ„ it is called the Lords body yet it is not the â—ord body in deede because the nature of bread remaine And therefore in that it is calld the Lords body it muâ—â— be so Sacramentally figuraâ—â—uâ—ly improperly And Gelasius your owne Pope whom you dare not contradict such plainely Noâ— defiant esse substantia panis 〈◊〉 natura vini What can you saie to thâ—se pregnaâ—te proofes to satisfie the doubtfull catholiques There scaceth not to be the substance oâ— bread and the nature of wine But you here will obtrude your oulde slanderous obiection that we accepâ— of the Sacraments no better then bare figures No we acknowledge a change and an alteration but not oâ— the substance but of the vse Is not this a maruelous change wrought by the holy Ghost in the due administration of the Lords supper according to Christ Institution that of commen bread and wine such as daily we feede our bâ—â—ches with is made the dreadefull and reuerend misteries of Christ crucified where by we neither looke vppon the bare naked elements as common creatures but as sanctified food And in such sort that even as the bâ—ead doth nourish our bodies and the wine doth comfort our spirits so trulie reallie and vnfainedlie doth the heavenlie food of his bodie crucified and his bloud shed for our sinnes by faith in the time of the holie Supper feede and nourish our soules into everlasting life and so is made and sealed our reall coniunction with Christ not by his bodilie and locall discention into our stomackes but by 〈◊〉 spirituall ascention to him by faith This is our â—â—nne touching these figuratiue propositions warâ—ed by Scriptures Clem. Alex Theod August with many not neuer heard of consecration but of santification Benedection and witnessed by the auncientest â—thers Hitherto hath beene plainly and directlie â—ooved that your two propositions bee figuratiue 〈◊〉 proper Secondlie that the substances of bread 〈◊〉 â—ime remain after coÌ„secration therfore there can 〈◊〉 no such carnall presence of Christ by Transubstantation vnder the formes of bread and wine as 〈◊〉 deeme Now I am come to your two maine pilâ— that support vnderprop your carnall
confirme them in true religion and revoke them from your grosse superstition Thus much concerning the vncertaintie absurditie and blasphemie of your consecration Now the true Apostolicall consecration is this when the elements of bread and wine are set apart from their common vse and applied to a holie vse according to Gods word And when the lawful minister hath taught the prepared coÌ„municants the grievousnes of their sinnes What true consecration is which the Gospellers teach the â—â—â—nes of Gods wrath the sufficiencie of Christs ments fully to appease the same the nature of the Sacrament which is a commemoration of that passion the office of faith to appprehend and applie Christâ— meâ—â—s promised in the word and tendred in the due administration of the Sacraments then is there I say a right consecration of the Sacrament Now whether this consecration of yours is warranted by Christ his words let the indifferent Reader iudge and with the trueâ—h aâ—â—cionâ— opinion ioyne Transubstansiation Yet we contend with you not for names and words live for 〈…〉 Thus much concerning youâ— imagined new stamped consecration Now to your second piller which iâ— transubstansiation First I must tel you in this as in the former that the term is new lately invented coÌ„pounded by your selues as your consecration was never found in the new Testament so transubstansiation was never found in the â—â—â—â—us old No I do not remember that in al my Grammatical travels studies that ever â—ead it I can sâ—â—w you Dictionaries many Grammers â—â—â—e of divers priâ—â—â— and in diverse ages printed in severall Vniversities of Christendome but none of them makes mention of this word transubstantiure much lesse of the sence which is to chaunge substances of severall kinds one substance into another But brieflie as the word cannot be found in Gods booke nor auncient Doctor so the sence hath neither warrant from holie scriptures noâ— Catholicke writers For this is your opinion that after consecration which yet you know not what it is the substance of bread and wine should be converted into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ the accidents of bread and wine as whitnesse foundnesse breadth weight faâ—or and taste of them onely remaining You may assoone and to as good a purpose prooue a transaccidentation as a transubstantiation But as there is no change of the former so not of the latter but a meere Friers fable and therefore frivolous And whereas the Fathers vse these words change conversion mutation transelementation they alwaies expound themselues in their severall workes that it is a changing of the vse not of the substance neither can you shew anie one father that euer ment such a change of one substance into another for everie change of one thing into another carrieth not with it at all transubstantiation of one substance into another for there may be a change without conversion of substances but conversion of substances cannot bee without a change for there is as much difference betwixt change and transubstantiation as betwixt the generall the speciall for change is the generall and containes vnder 〈◊〉 transubstansiation but not contrariwise And as there is a change of substances so there is a change of accidents to wit of qualities of times of places of habits and such other like things according to their natures and to the predicaments vnder the which they are comprehended These Logicall ruâ—â—nuats I hope you haue not forgotten Our regeneration is a change not substantiall We confes a change of name of vse but onelie during the action not after to be a sacrament no more then water in the fond after that baptisme is finished by the minister but accidentall that is it is not a change of the substance of our bodies and soules into anie other substance but the change iâ— in qualitie which is from vice to vertue from sinne to righteousnesse c. and this our change now in question is sacramentall not substantiall of the vse of the creatures not of the substance But if you will needes haue a change of substances speake like schollers and tell me for my learning in what predicament I shall seeke it and yet I thinke I shall never finde it But I will not bee tedious in transubstansiation seeing the great Rabbynes of Rome can no more agree vpon this then they could about consecration as also because we haue confuted it in such places where we prooue bread to remaine after consecration for so manie fathers as prooue bread to remaine after consecration confute transubstansiation I will oneâ—iâ— giue the best minded Catholickes iuste of the rest of your late School-doctors by alleadging one Grand-captain in stead of the rest whose words be these magister Sent. lib. â— dist 11. pag. 58. Si tandem queritur qualis sic illa conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis di finire van sufficiâ— But if it be asked mee saith this your great Moderator what kinde of change is made in the Sacrament whether it be formall or substantiall or of anie other kinde I am not able to define it vnto you Will you heare your owne friend Cuthb Tâ—nustall Bishop of Dirrhâ—m deliver his opinion de mode de Eucharistia lib. 1 pag. 46. quo id fieret fortasie satius erat curiosum quemquâ— suae nelinquere coniectutae sicut liberum fuâ—t ante concilium Lateranum Of the maner of this change or conversion how it might be done perhaps it had been better to leaue every man that would be curious to his own opinion or coniecture as it was before the Councell of Laterane left at libertie Is this your antiquitie vniversalitie and consent you see it is a jarring noveltie voide of veritie Why then will you take vpon you to teach that which you never learned and perswade the Catholickes to beleeue that which the chiefest on your side maketh a doubt of nay all of your side cannot prooue nay which is in deed but a fable without trueth for one thousand two hundred yeares after Christ never heard of And therefore seeing it is neither Apostolicall not Catholicke Absurdities follow the granting of Transubstatiation no mans conscience is bounde to beleeue it Now J will onelie shewe some grosse absurdities that followe the graunting of it and so proceed to the rest This fable of transubstansiation overthroweth sundrie articles of our faith and therefore it is abhominable It teacheth a new conception of Christ to bee made of bread by a sinfull priest and every day in everie place where it pleaseth the priest contrarie to the Article of our faith which is that Christ was conceaved by the holie Ghost and borne of the blessed viâ—gin and but once for such a Christ as you tender to the poore ignorant Catholickes is not a true Christ neither can be for manie respects which are before in the beginning alleadged Secondlie if Christ be in the Sacrament he is
not then ascended and so there is another article of our faith destroyed by this damnable fable And thirdlie if hee be couchant or dormant in the pixe then the Scriptvres deceiue vs in telling vs hee shall come from heaven to iudge both quicke and dead so another article of our faith is overthrowne And if your doctrine were true Christ should haue eaten himselfe corporally but you confesse he did eat himselfe (a) Iosephus Angles page â—â—0 conclusioness cunda spiritually Jf your doctrine of transubstansiation were true then the Lords supper were no Sacrament the reason is this for every Sacrament consisteth of the outward signe the inward â—ing signified they must both still remaine during â—e outward action of the Sacrament Now if bread which is the visible outward part of the Sacrament be changed into Christs bodie then there is no sacrameÌ„t because there remaines but one part of the Sacrament which is the thing signified then you vtterlie deceiue â—he people which â—oâ—l them it is the Sacrament of the Altar when it is no Sacrament at all Againe another â—surditie followes vppon it for if the substance of â—read be changed then there is no proportion or analogie betwixt the signe and the thing signified because accidents cannot nourish For the likenesse or resemblance betwixt bread and Christ consisteth chieflie in this that as bread nourisheth the bodie so Christs body crucified nourisheth the soule but if the substance of â—read be changed into another substance then the â—roportion and propertie is so changed that it must â—â—ease to be the thing for which it was first ordained and so the best you would make of the Sacrament is â—â—t a shaddow without a substance Another vnreasonable absurditie wilâ— follow that Christ hath two bodies one of bread made by the Priest another of the blessed virgin conceived by the holie Ghost Againe of his owne bodie shall be in manie places at once that is contrarie to a naturall bodie and is as voyde of learning as the other of religion and by this your new thirteenth Article of your 〈◊〉 faith you would maintaine the being of qualities without a subiect and the being of quantities without a substance which both are impossible But because the opinion is false and forged without Scripture or testimonie of auncient Father I will alleadge no more absurditities at this time till I be vrged See now the fruits of your fained transubstansiation not fâ—ll foure hundred yeares olde yet forsoeth you teach it is Apostolicall and Catholiâ—ke whereas it lackes one thousand and two hundred yeares of that age Lib 4. sent fol. 257. Innocentius 3. de sacro Altaris mysteria lib. 4 cap. â—0 per totum Distinct de consecr distinct 2. canon 1. pag. 429. But he that list to see the shifts and wranglings of your Schoolmen to vphold this rotter Romish heresie let him read Guillermus Innocentius the third a Pope parent and patrone of this fable the first Canon of the second distinction where you shall finde in the Glosse there varia sunt opiniones That in the Popes Court and in his Consistorie there bee divers opinions touching transubstansiation yet the deniall of it or the contradicting of the Popes opinion was then (a) Deniall of Transubstantiation in Rome was no death no death though in those mercilesse daies of Spanish Philip and Romish Marie it was made the thirteenth Article of our faith and it had been lesse daunger to haue denied those twelue old articles of our old faith then this one of your new faith for the one was dispensed with for monie but the deniall of the other was punished with death without mercie But you will replie and say notwithstanding the dissentions aforesaid yet Christs words be true he cannot lie he hath said hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie therefore it is his bodie We confesse these words to be Christs words and therefore true but the litterall sence is yours therefore false But that I will not bee tedious vnto you I could shew you as manie severall opinions dissenting about the meaning of hoc est and corpus as I haue done in the premisses but that the Catholickes shall know there is no such vnitie not veritie in your doctrine as you confidentlie but vntrulie haue taught them therefore I will giue them but a taste till some other time onelie pointing you and them to their Authors and places and then read aduisedlie and iudge without partiall affection This Frier you heard latelie recited your severall 〈…〉 touching consecration Iosepus Angles de Essentialibus Euch. pag. 114. 115. 116. now heare him with your patience to deliver his and other severall opinions touching the exposition of these three words severallie hoc est corpus The first opinion is that this demonstratiue proâ—oune hoc must bee referred not to the bread but to the bodie of Christ that this should be the sence 1. Iosepus hoc 〈◊〉 c. id est corpus est corpus meum That is this my bodie is my bodie but how absurd this is let the young Sophisters in the Schooles giue their censures But the second opinion is of Bonaventura 2. Bonauentura who saith this pronoune hoc must be referred to the bread â—â—â—t must be converted into Christs bodie but not to Christs bodie The third opinion is Occhams 3. Occam in lib. 4. and he is of opinion with the first There followeth three other learned mens opinions contrarie to all the former 1. S. Thom. 2. Ricar 3. Scotus Nec paâ—em nec corpus sub ratione corporis sed corpus Christs sub ratione entis vel Indiuidui c. lib. 4 pag. 182 de sacro Altaris mysterio cap. 17 and say flatlie that this demonstratiue hoc must not be referred to note either the bread or the bodie of Christ but that this might be the sence hoc eus vel hac substantia quae continetur sub speciebus c. This thing or this substance which a contained vnder the accidents of bread is my bodie but how well these opinions with their straunge Logicall manner of reasoning will content the learned Priests and Iesuits I would faine know for this I am 〈◊〉 they sound not either of divinitie or learning But this Frier for a farewell concludes pag. 118. pronoâ—â—n hoc nihil This pronoune hoc signifieth nothing till the last sillable vm be pronounced Pope Innocentius the third saith that hoc signifieth â—either bread nor Christs bodie because the whole words of consecration were not spoken vnlesse saith he you will say the Priest consecrates at this word Benedixit Hoc nihil demosstrat In the same pag. marke this you Iesuits priests he blessed But the Pope saith hee signifieâ— nothing and his reason is that the Priest sheweth 〈◊〉 noteth nothing because he vseth hoc est c. not bâ— way of demonstration but by way of cursorie repetition
Or drinke the Challice of the Lord vnvvorthelie Out oâ— which I note first that you keepe this backe hoping thereby to establish your halfe communion vnder onâ— kinde that the Catholickes might thinke that the receiving of bread were sufficient because you saye Christs bodie must needes even by the necessitie of concomitancie haue bloud in it ConcomitaÌ„cie suine vvhat yonger then your Transubstantiation both forged by your selues neuer known in Christs Church for a 1000 yeares at leaste And therfore they are to nevv to be Catholick no straÌ„g to be true and therefore it is no need to receiue the cup which if it be true but I aâ—sure it is most false then Christ was deceived in his wisedome and the Apostles and primitiue Church in their practise which I hope you daâ—e not say for sinne and shame And therefor giue over these irreligious practises of Additions Subtractions Interpositions and vaine expositions with new Inkhorne-termes of â—â—mitancie and confesse Christ his a melent and Aâ—â—olicall trueth truelie Thus much to giue the Catholickes a taste of the 〈◊〉 you offer them in lulling them a sleepe in the â—â—e of ignorance and superstition whereas they â—â—ld be most willing and readie to obey the aunâ—t (a) Reuel 14.6 Rom. 1.16 2. Thess 1.8 powerfull and everlasting Gospell of Iesus â—ist if you d d not mislead them by your wilfull â—â—ors and keepe backe from them the reading of the â—â—ptures which holds them and hardeneth them in â—â—usancie But take heed least you by this ignorance which you keepe them and the disobedience to the â—ospell in which you letter them you with them and 〈◊〉 them hazard not that dolefull taste and torment â—epâ—ted for wilfull ignorant Recusants of Christ his â—ospell where it is said Rendring vengeance in flaâ—ng fire to theâ—â— that knevv not God nor obey not the gosâ—â— of Iesus Christ Now Gentlemen if you be authors â—f their sinnes you must be partakers of their punishâ—â—â—t which both the Lord in mercie prevent The Text is the Lord not Christ the vvriter mistook at the Author I blame not Now floweth another part of your proofe drawen out of part of the 27. verse in these words Shal be guiltie 〈◊〉 the bodie and bloud of Christ Out of these words some late writers since your â—â—ansubstansiation was invented would prooue two â—ine questions that are in controversie betwixt you â—â—d vs. 1. The first is your carnall presence of Christ in â—â—e Sacrament The second that the wicked doe eate the bodie â—â—d drinke the bloud of Christ In handling and aunswering these I shall hardlie â—ver the one from the other but as you inferre that the graunting of the one confirmes the other So must in confuting the one destroy the other and so one aunswere will serue to confute both Rhâ—m Teâ—t 1. Cor 11 Sect 16. Thus you record to the worlds wonder Rome Rhemes shame against God Christ Scriptures and Fathers that ill livers and Infidels eate the bodie and drinke the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and your reason there followeth that they could not bee guiltie of that they received not and that it could not bee so hainous an offence for anie man to receiue a peece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament First old father Origen shall answere you who saith Origen super Math 15 page 2â— â— st verus cibus quem nemo malus potest edere It is true meat which no wicked man can eate Heere Origen condemneth the Rhemists Romanists and all late Priests and Iesuites for holding this opinion iâ—urious to Christs death and all true Catholickes saith But you may obiect against Origen and say the Rhemists laid downe their opinion and gaue reasons to confirme it But where is Origens reason by which he prooues â—â—s former position that no wicked man can eate Christs bodie Super Math. 26. forsooth it is in his Comentarie vpon your text brought forth of mathew in these words Panis quem silius Dei corpus suum esse dicit verbum est nutritoriâ—â— animarum the bread which the son of God said to be his bodie is the nourishing word of our soules Out of which this we gather that seeing this bread or meate is the nourishment of our soules not of our bodies he spake of the heavenlie part of the sacrament For we know in common sence that bread and wine cannâ—t nourish the soule but the bodie I have proved by scriptures and Fathers before that the hand and mouth of the soule is a liuelie iustifying faith which you all your side cannot denie but the wicked want Now if the wickâ—d haue no mouth nor stomacke to recâ—â—â— this spirituall food and digest it as the foresaid Fa◠〈◊〉 haue affirmed why doe you say that the wicked and Infidels can eate the bodie of Christ wanting both hands mouth and stomacke And the scriptures call wicked men dead men Now you know dead men cannot eate meate corporall Chrysost Hom. 60. ad pop Antioch no more can the wicked which are dead spirituallie eate meat caelestiall And Chrysostome saith Let no Iudas stand to no covetous person if anie be a disciple let him be present for this Table receiues no such as Iudas or Magna for Christ saith I keepe my Passover with my disciples And to conclude with Augustine Tract 26. super lib. pag. 175. Qui non manet in Christo in quo non maneâ— Christus procul dubio c. Hee that abides not in Christ and in whom Christ abides not out of doubt eateth not spirituallie his flesh nor drinketh his bloud although carnallie and visiblie he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ but rather eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing to his iudgement the reason followeth Quia iâ—mundus c. because hee is vncleane in heart and presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ which no man can worthilie receiue Math. 5. vnlesse he be pure and cleane in heart as Christ saith Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God Out of Augustine I obserue against both your opinions these things First hee makes a difference of Christes flesh and the Sacrament of Christes flesh for they bee two things and to be distinguished with their severall substances and properties and not to bee confounded or transubstantiated one into the other and so the nature of bread perish as you vntruelie imagine and teach Secondlie that the wicked receiue and grinde with their teeth and swallow with their throat the outward Sacrament that is the outward visâ—ble creatures of bread and wine to their iudgement or condemnation because they presume to come without a cleane heart and conscience purified by faith Acts. 15 9 But the godly eat the heavenlie part of the Sacrament which is Christ with his benefits because they dwel in Christ by faith and Chrih
can you prooue that Christs holie bloud is but an effect of your consecration or benediction of the cup If Christs bloud bee an effect of your cup benediction then your cup benediction is the cause of Christs holie bloud O hellish and damnable divinitie as if a sinfull ignorant Priest could by his magicall consecration make the holie bloud of Christ my Saviour which was shed on the crosse for my sinnes Now Catholicks looke to your selues I mean to your soules You cannot prooue it either by scripture or fathers for this is the doctrine of Rome and Rhemes fitteâ— to be taught in hell by fiendes then maintained in earth by Priests Fifthlie and lastlie by what scripture do you prooue nay by what auncient Father that this blessing or thanksgiving is referred to the cup or challice and not vnto God scriptures you haue none and fathers of the first sixe hundred yeareâ— never heard of it And that the Catholickes may leâ— the antiquitie and veritie of this out doctrine and thâ— noveltie and heresie of yours I will onelie producâ— but two learned Fathers with vs against you forbeare to alleadge the rest till you giue mee furtheâ— occasion Chrys super 1 Cor. 10. Chrysostome vpon this place calleth it the cuppe oâ— blessing because when we haue it in our hands wâ—â—â— admiration and a certaine horror of that vnspeakableâ— gift we praise and blesse him because he hath sh d hâ—â— bloud that we should not remaine in error and hath not onelie shed it but made vs all partakers of it 〈◊〉 like sort did Photius and Oecumenius expounde thiâ— word Photius Occumenâ—us which vvee blesse which having in our handes blesse him which hath graciously given vs his bloud tâ—at is we giue him thanks or which we prepare when we blesse or giue thankes Now the Catholickes may see by the auncient fathers whom your selues doe brag of that they condemne your cup blessed exposition And the Catholickes may see as in a glasse that wee ioine with the scriptures and fathers in the true sence of these words The cup vvhich vve blesse and that your exposition iâ— erronious and superstitious and therefore to be recâ—nted by you and shunned by the Catholickes and my reasons be drawne out of the foresaid fathers not made on my owne fingers 1 Fi st he saith that benediction blessing or thanksgiving is referred to him that shed his bloud for vs I hope you will not say the cup shed anie bloud for vs. 2 Secondlie this father saith that blessing God and praising God is all one and therefore when we say the cup of thanksgiving we follow Christ Paul the Greek text and the olde fathers And when you translate it The challice of benediction it is flat contrarie to Christ Paul veritie and antiquitie And there is as great difference betwixt your opinion and the old fathers faith is betwixt praising with mouth and crossing with fingers nay as much as betwixt your superstitious challice and our soule-saving Christ for so if you marke the fathers words the difference stands The text it selfe offers vs three things in a comfortable distinction and you would confound them with your new imagined transubstansiation 1 The first is Christs bodie crucified and his bloud shed with all his purchased benefits 2 Secondlie our communion fellowship which all beleevers haue in that crucified Christ and those soule saving merits 3 Thirdly the outward seals of those benefits which are called the cup vvhich vve blesse and the bread which â—â—e breake to witnesse to the world and to confirme to our selues the fruition and possession of all those benefits Now if I should say that the bread cup being outward seals were our coÌ„munion with Christ the wicked would laugh at my folly though the godly would pittie my ignorance in the trueth or my malice against the trueth and the reason is this because the seal be things outward and the communion of Christs bodie and bloud be things inward the one sensible the other spirituall and intellectuall as much difference it betwixt them as there is betwixt outward and inward sensible and intellectuall so much difference there is betwixt the outward seals of Christs body and bloud and his bodie and bloud And if the seales cannot be changed into the communion of Christs bodie and bloud but remaine st ll in their severall natures and substances everie one performing his severall distinct office much lesse can they be reallie and substantiallie changed into Christs bodie and bloud which are things more remote but mosâ— impossible And if you had added the next verse thâ— Apostle had made it plaine in shewing you a doubtâ— communion sealed in this Sacrament The first our coÌ„munion with Christ and his benefits The second ouâ— communion amongst our selues 1. Soli. which both are proper onely to gods church 2. Omni. to euery one of gods church and all waies to gods Church 3. Jemper Now let the learned Iudge whether you or we misconster scripture wrest fathers deceaue Christs flocke and the Queenes subiects peruerte the true meaning of this Text. And now to the next Catholick a Priests This councell consils of 318. fathers The second Proofe by Councells and Fathers Concilium Nicen cap 14. Anno 363. No rule or custome doth permittae that they which haue not the authority to offer the sacrifice should giue it to theâ— that offer the bodie of Christe Rider GEntelmeÌ„ you are possessed with a threefold erroâ— which is the cause wheÌ„ you read the scriptures Councells fathers you misunderstand theÌ„ your first error is wheÌ„ you vnderstand that spoken of the outward Elements with these three Sophisticall points you peruert all the fathers you bring for this purpose deceue the Catholickes which is meant of the inward invisible grace Your second error is wheÌ„ you referre that to the visible partes of the bodie which they intended to the inuisible powers of the minde and soule Thirdlie your former two errors beget a third eror which is your mistaking the state of our questioÌ„ And so wheras you should proue the maner of Christs presence in the Sacraments you offer to proue the matter but of that we haue spoken before Thus if you will reade the scripturs fatheres Councells with these .3 cautions or derectioÌ„s you shall easily see how farre thus longe you haue gone from the truth and misled the Queenes subiects Now with Gods permission wee will proceed to the â—e examination of your proofe as it is alledged out of your owne Colen print Ex officina Iohannis Quinâ—d Typographi Anno Domini 1561. which you cannot denie it is in the first Tome and the fourteenth Chapter and the two hundreth fiftie fiue page of the first edition and the Chapter beginnes thus Peruenit ad sanctum Concilium quod in lociâ— quibusdam ciuitaâ—â—us presbyteris Sacramenta Diaconi porrigant Then followes your fraction verie abruptlie
in the midst of a sentence Hoc neque regula neque consuetudo c. The sacred Councell is aduertized that in certaine places and Citties the Deaâ—ons doe reach and giue the sacraments to the Priests al this you leaue out and then followes your weake warrant Noe rule or custome doth permite c. I praie you what one word of this prooues your Carnall presence Let me knowe it for my learning and the Catholickes better Instruction if you would gather out of this word Sacrifice then you are deceued for that Councell in another place calles it Sacrificium Eucharisticum a Sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing not propitiatorie And if out of these wordes The bodie of Christ the councell expounds their meaning in that which you omitte and purposely conceale when they call that Sacrifice and the bodie of Christ by the name of Sacraments giuen by the Deacons to the priests for the Deacons deliuered them after Consecration to the priestes and still were Sacramenta Sacraments not the bodie or bloud of Christ made of bread wine by the Priest for the Sacrament and Christs bodie differ as much as the lambe the Passover circumcisioÌ„ the couenant the washing of new birth regeneratioÌ„ for the one is the outward seal the other the inward grace and here is another error of yours of the second and third kinde in referring that to the mouth which is proper to our faith and still mistaking the matter for the manner Catho Priests Concilium Ephesiuum in Epist. ad Nestorium Wee approach to the misticall benedictions and we are sanctified And this had 200. Fathers being partakers of the holie bodie and precious bloud of Christ THis your proofe is trulie quoted pag. 535. the Epistle beginneth thus Religioso Deo amabilâ— consacerdoti Nostorio Rider Cyrillus c. The Councell calleth it a misticall benediction no miraculous transubstansiation And this neither prooues your opininion nor disprooues ours for you say yee are made partakers of the holie bodie and precious bloud of Christ and so say we but you say with the late church of Rome that you are made partakers of that holie bodie and precious bloud by your mouth teeth throat and stomacke And we sey with Scriptures fathers and the old Church of Rome that we are made partakers of Christs bodie and bloud by the hand mouth and stomack of our soules which is a liuelie faith in Christ crucified as you haue heard before And thus you referre that to the visible parts of the bodie as your mouth teeth and stomacke which the scriptures and fathers meant of the invisible powers of the soule as our Euelâ—e he faith being the spirit all hand mouth and stomacke thereof And heere is your errour of the second k nde And so your two testimonies out of those two Councels are proofes neither proper nor pertinent brought onelie to dazell the eies of the simâ—le and oâ—mâ—â—e the minds of the weake But I referâ—e the the baâ—nesse of youâ— curse and the weaknesse of your proofâ—s nay your disproofes to the censure of the indifferent Reader Onelie giving the Reader this note by the way that these Councels were called by the Emperour not by the Pope nay the Pope was not president in these Councel but other Bishops chosen by the Emperour And in the Councell of Nice the Popes Legat had but the fourth roome no better account was made of him For in deed he then was no Pope but an Archbishop Thus the Reader may see that these Councels be against you And now to your testimonieâ— out of the fathers The flesh is fed by the bodie and bloud of Christ Catholick Priests Tertullian de resurrectione caruis floruit 200. that the soule might be fat in God OVt of this thus you frame an argument as sometimes an old Romane friend of yours did to maintaine your carnall presence The soule â—led by that which the bodie eateth Rider but the soule is sed by the flesh of Christ therefore the bodie eateth the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament I might as fitlie invert this argument vpon you as â—learned man of our side once inverted it saying As the soule feeds vpon Christ so doth the bodie but the soule is fed by faith therefore the bodie is fed by faith which is verie absurd and improper yet as partinent and as proper as yours And heere you should remember the olde distinction of the fathers spoken of before The Sacrament is one thing and the matter of the sacrament is another thing Outwardlie the bodie eateth the sacrament and inwardly the soule by faith feeds on the body of Christ As in Baptisme the flesh is washed by water as that old father saith in that place that the soule may be purged spirituallie so our bodies eate the outward Sacrament that the soule may be fed of God Againe it 〈◊〉 not generall is true that whatsoever the bodie eateth the soule is fed by the same And if you would propound but particularlie this instance of eating oneliâ— in the Sacrament then the argument proven nothinâ— standing vpon meere perticulers Moreouer the bodie and soule are fed by the samâ—â—ear in the sacrament but not after the same manner For the bodie is nourished by the naturall propertie of the Elements which they haue to nourish But thâ— soule by the sacramentall and supernaturall power aâ— they are signes and scales of heavenlie graces Anâ— we graunt that the soule is sed by the precious bodiâ— and bloud of Christ but not after a carnall maner aâ— you say but spiritualitie by saith Againe a mean Scholler in Gods booke may seâ— this phrase is figuratiue and therefore the sence spirituall For how can a soule be sat in God will yeâ— say it is a corporall fatnesse such as is proper to bodies I thinke yee will not I know you should not then this place is in pertine pille brought neither savoring of sence â—orâ—nâ—reable to that you alleadge it Foâ— if you would haue read the same Father in the samâ— booke following be would haue told you so for saitâ— he the word which was made flesh which is Christ Devorandus est 〈◊〉 page 47 printed 〈◊〉 paâ—â—â— 1580. â—uminandus intellellâ— f de aspereâ—â—â— This Lord Christ must be swallowed whole by heauing must be meditated vpon of remembred by vnderstanding digested by faith Now you see Tertullian of your owne Parts print aunsweres you expâ—nnâ—s himselfe And seeing no man can better expound Tertullian his meaning then Tertullian himselfe therefore haue brought him from your owne Catholicke Presse of Paris to condemne all Iesuits and Priest that sh ll set a litterall sâ—nce vppon an allegorâ—â—ll phrase onelie to deceiue the simple plaine Catholicks and to abuse the godlie learned Fathers by an ignoraâ—â— and foâ—tish construction And now to the rest of youâ— proofes that follow And in bless vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke Catholicke
to be done some twentie yeares or thereabouts Actione quarta synodi 2. Niâ—eâ—ae tom 3. before the second Councell of Niceuâ— as a preparatiue for the planting of images in Churches in which Councell it was accordinglie performed and this fable registred in the same as a suiâ— foundation for such a building and a fit proofe foâ— such a proposition Now let the indifferent Reader peruse at his leisure but the seven chapters of this Treatise and hee shall scarce read one line without a lie Yet superstition blusht not to in sert this fable into this fathers worke But if we should render such proofes and preach such fabulous stuffe for sound divinitie to the people you would call vs sots and soule slaiers But for Christes sake and the peoples salvation confesse your errourâ— and forsake them with these lying fables it is no shame to forsake sinne but it is daungerous when sinne forsakes you And so to your next proofe Catho Priests Damascen lib. 4 de fide orthod cap. 14. floruit 391. Let vs approach in ardent faith laying our hands in manner of a crosse and let vs receiue the bodie of him that vvas crucified YOu leaue out ei for it is in the father Accedâ—mus ei let vs come and approach to him which is in heaven Rider not on your Altar or in your miraculous accidents Damascen flatlie shevveth the impossibilitie of your carnall presence and then sheweth the maner how in ardent faith not with mouth teath and stomacke So this father is against your selfe for the manner of receiving of Christ which is spirituall not corporall And in the same chapter the same father saith Carpuâ— Christi c. that Christs bodie being vnited to the godhead descended not from heaven to the earth and therefore cannot be in your sacrament corporally and carnallie And as fire and heat be in a burning coale so and more neerelie are Christs humanitie and divinitie ioyned together so that he which shall touch the coale should taste of heat and hee that should eate Christs humanitie must also eate Christs divinitie which is damnable to thinke for a man to eate and devoure his God But because this your impâ—rtinent proofe is your apparant disproofe I will proceed to the next Cath. Priests This bread is bread before the consecration but when it is consecrated of bread it is made the flesh of Christ Ambr. de sacramentâ—s lib 4 cap. 4. flâ—ruit 40â— ALl this we graunt to be true but you come not to the point whether Christs flesh be made of bread by way of transubstansiation that is by the changing of one nature or substance into another by hec est corpus meum this is our question Rider but you dare not touch it because you cannot prooue it But seeing you recite fathers by peeces and patches taking that you thinke will fit your purpose and leaving that which would crosse your course or weaken your cause I will for the trueth sake and the Catholickes good adde that out of Ambrose which I am sure some of you would wish out of Ambrose If you had read a few lines moe you should haue heard him tell you another â—ale In the same chapter and haue expounded himselfe in this place his words be these Si ergo tanta vis est in sermonâ— Domini Iesu vt inciperent esse qua non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in liud commutentus If there be such a force in the word of the Lord Iesus that the things which were not began to bee how much more can it worke this that they shall be the same they were and yet bee changed into another thing And then bringeth in an example how a thing may be that that it was and yet be chaunged Tu ipse eras sed eras vetus creatura c. Thou tâ— selfe waste but thou wast an olde creature afteâ— when thou wast baptised thou begannest to be a neâ— creature wilt thou know how a new creature eveâ— one saith the Apostle that is in Christ is a new creâ—ture Learne then how the word of God is accustâ—med to change everie creature and when he will 〈◊〉 altereth the course of nature If you had read 〈◊〉 knowne this you would never haue alleadged the â—ther for his example is this as he that is baptised suâ—fereth no materiall substancial or corporall changâ— though he be borne a new spirituallie Vide dist 2 de consecr cap. quia corpus page 432. and put oâ— Christ But he his changed not loosing or altrinâ— thâ— bodie or soule which hee had but in attaining thâ— grace which hee had not And so the change is accâ—dentall not substantiall as from vice to vertue So 〈◊〉 substance the bread and wine are the same they weâ— before but in accident or qualitie they are turned lâ— to another thing of common bread made a Sacrâ—ment Chrisost â—n Math. hom 83. So Chrisostome amplifying the change of bread 〈◊〉 the Euchariste he addeth immediatlie withall Sic â—tium in baptisme even so there is the like change 〈◊〉 water in baptisme as of bread in the Lords Suppeâ— but that is not of substance but in qualitie respecâ— or vse and so in this Dialog 1. cap. 8. And this change is not in casting away the substancâ— of bread or wine but in casting grace vnto them 〈◊〉 Theodoret saith Non naturam ipsam transmutans sâ— naturae adijciens gratiam not changing nature but â—â—ding grace to nature Ambrose de sys qui Initiantrâ— cap. 9. But who can better expoud Aâ—brose his meaning then Ambrose himselfe who saitâ— Ante benedictionem c. before the blessing of the heâ—venlie words it is called another kind after the worâ— of consecration the bodie of Christ is signified doâ— not say is the bodie of Christ but signifieth the bodâ— of Christ And else where In comedendo potando c. 〈◊〉 eating and drinking we signifie the bodie bloud â—â—at were offered for vs. And againe he saith Ambr. 1. cor 11. Quod 〈◊〉 figura Ambr. de Sacramentis lib. 4 cap. 4. c. which is a figure of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. But of this we haue sufficientlie spoken before And thus now the Reader may be sufficientlie satisfied that the change is not naturall but misticall not of substance but of accidents and qualities And so bread remaineth in substance but is changed in misterie And so is bread made the flesh of Christ not by your miraculous transubstansiation but by mistical and Apostolicall benediction or sanctification not in changing the nature of it but adding grace to it as beforesaid And thus Ambrose hath aunswered Ambrose And if you would read him without partiall affection hee would withdraw you from this your imagined opinion But now to that which followeth Catholicke Priests Not onelie the Sacrament but the bodie of Christ is propounded vnto vs
Protestants be of your opinion touching your reall presence or else that there is aâ—iarie amongst our selues touching the same And because few of you haue read Luther as appeareth by your omissions transpositions and your imperfect translation and therefore in this point know not exactlie the difference betwixts your selues Luther and vs I will plainlie and trulie set downe the three severall opinions touching this question that the Reader may see wherin the differnce one from another on agreement one with another consisteth The manner Christ willing shall bee by question and aunswere as followeth Questi 1 1. Question WHat is given in the Lords Supper beside bread and wine Aunsw 1 1 Aunsvvere First you say the bodie and bloud of Christ Secondlie Luther saith the bodie and bloud of Christ Thirdlie we say the bodie and bloud of Christ Questi 2 2 Quest How is Christs bodie and bloud given in the sacrament Aunsw 2 2 Auns You say corporallie Luther saith corporallie We say with scriptures and fathers spirituallie Questi 3 3 Quest In what thing is Christs bodie and bloud given Aunsw 3 3 Auns You say vnder the formes or accidents oâ— bread the substance being quite chaunged the accidents onelie remaining Luther saith in with or vnder the bread neither substance nor accidents changed but both remaining We with scriptures and fathers say Christs bodie and bloud are given in his mercifull promise which tendereth whole Christ with all his benefites vnto the soule of man sealed and assured vnto vs in the worthie receiving of the sacraments Questi 4 4. Quest Hâ—w must Christs bodie and bloud bee received Aunsw 4 4 Aun You say with the mouth Luther saith with the mouth and faith Wee say according to the holie scriptures that Christ must be received by faith and there loâ—ge dâ—ell in our hearts for whatsoever Christ giues by promise must of man be received by faith Questi 5 5 Quest To what part of man is Christes bodie and bloud given Aunsw 5 5 Auns You say to your bodies which is absurd Luther saith both to bodie soule which is impossible We say to our souleâ— for the promise is spirituall the things promised spirituall the meanes to receiue them spirituall so the place into which it must bee received must needs be spirituall not corporall not that the substance of Christs bodie is vnited to our spirits but that those precious benefits purchased for vs in the crucified bodie of Christ must be vnited to our spirits by faith This doctrine is Apostolicall sound and Catholicke vppon which wee boldlie may venture our soules and salvations â— Quest To whom is Christs bodie and bloud given Questi 6 â— Auns You say to the godlie or godlesse beleevers Aunsvv 6 and infidels as hath been aboue said Luther saith both to the godlie and godlesse 〈◊〉 say onelie to the godlie beleevers as heeretofore hath been prooved â— Quest What doe the wicked eate in the Lords supper Questi 7 â— Auns You say accidents of bread and Christs bodie Aunsw 7 Luther saith the wicked eat bread both substance and accidents and the bodie of Christ also We say the wicked eaâ—e nothing in the Lords supper but bare bread and drinke nothing but meere wine being the outward elements of the sacrament As for the inward grace of the Sacrament which is Christ crucified with all his merits they eate not they receiue not because they haue neither a liuelie faith to receiue him nor a purified heart by faith to intertaine him And therefore they onelie eate as â—udas did and as Augustine said Tract 59. super Iohn page 205. Illi manducaâ—ant paâ—em Dominum illi paâ—em Domini contra Dominum The godlie eate bread the Lord the wicked onelie the bread of the Lord against the Lord. â— Quest What is it to eate Christs bodie Questi 8 â— Auns You say carnallie to eate Christs flesh with Aunsw 8 your bodilie mouth c. Luther saith carnallie to eate Christs flesh and spirituallie to beleeue in him Wee say with the Scriptures that to beleeue that all Christs merits are ours and purchased for vs in his passion This is to eat Christs bodie as hath been alreadie prooved Questi 9 9 Quest What is it to drinke Christs bloud Aunsw 9 9 Auns You say carnallie to drinke his bloud Luther saith carnallie and spirituallie We say with the scriptures it is to beleeue that Christs bloud was shed on the crosse for our sinnes Questi 10 10 Quest How is bread made Christs bodie Aunsw 10 10 You say by Transubstansiation Luther saith by Consubstansiation We say by appellation signification or representation as aforesaid Questi 11 11 Quest. Where is Christs bodie Aunsw 11 11 Auns You say everie where Both of you erre for then Christ should not haue a true bodie Luther saith every where We say according to Scripture and Creed onelie in heaven Quest 12 12. Quest How is Christ every where Aunsw 12 12. Auns You say according to both natures But both of you speak Monkerie P perie Luther saith according to both natures But both of you speak Monkerie P perie We say with Scriptures and Fathers as hath been proved onely according to his Godhead Now gentle Reader you see the agreement difference that is betwixt the Papists Lutherans and Protestants And how impertinentlie I will not say vnscholler like this is brought against vs which neither helpeth their carnall presence nor hurteth our faith touching Christs spirituall presence And now to the â—â—st that followeth Amongst factions of opinions Catho Priests Magdeburg in Epist ad Eliz. Anglia Reg. Rider some latelie take avvay the bodie and bloud of Christ touching his reall presence contrarie to the most plaine most evident and puissant vvords of Christ GEntlemen this concerneth not vs it may fitter be inverted vpon your selues for we denie not Christs spirituall presence taught in the Scriptures and received in Christs Primitiue Church but we denie your imagined carnall presence never recorded in Gods booke nor beleeved of auncient father nor ever knowne to Christs spouse the Primitiue Church as you haue heard trulie prooved But this is your great fault vsuallie practised that whether in Scriptures or Fathers you heare of Christs bodie and bloud and his presence or reall presence you imagine presently without further examination that it is your carnall presence which thing is growne vp with you from a private errour to a publike heresie Tyndall Frith Barnes Cranmer left it as a thing indifferent to beleeue the reall presence Catho Priests So that the adoration saith Frith be taken avvay because there then remaineth no poison Fox in Marâ—yrel Kemnitius in Exam. Conc. â—rid contra â—â—n de Fâ— châ—ristia vvhereof anie ought to be afraid of Yet Kemnitius vpon the assurance of the reall presence approoveth the custome of the Church in adoring Christ in the Sacrament by the authoritie of Saint Augustine and S. Ambrose in Psal 98.