by the word of God the promise of that grace and blessing that is yéelded vnto vs by and in the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ Or else let him shew what commission he and his fellowes haue to tell vs that the word Made must import transubstantiation in the place of Tertullian and in S. Austen must import none If they haue no such then let them giue vs leaue to say that as we are made the bodie of Christ not by chaunging our substance but by being vnited and ioyned vnto him so the bread of the sacrament is made the bodie of Christ not by the chaunging of the nature of it as Theodoret saith but g Theodor. diâ—l 1. by adding grace vnto nature not by changing the substance but by altering the condition and vse thereof not by loosing his former being but by hauing the bodie of Christ vnited vnto it in such sort as I haue before declared through the almightie power of the word of God and the vnspeakable working of the holy Ghost So that as S. Ambrose saith h Ambrâ—â— sacra lib. 4 cap. 4. The bread and wine are the same that they were yet are chaunged to other also They are the same in substance that they were before but as touching the vse the vertue power and effect thereof they are chaunged into other As for the meditation that is offered vnto vs by the words of S. Austen it is too diuine heauenly for the Answerers grosse and fleshly conceit who can imagine no other receiuing of Christ but by the mouth nor eating of his flesh but into the belly We become the mysticall bodie of Christ by Baptisme as S. Paul teacheth Eph. 5. 26. There we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone There also as S. Austen noteth i August ser ad infan â—â—da 1. Cor. 10. We are made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ so that though one die before he come to the Sacrament of the bread and the cup yet is he not depriued of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament seeing hee hath founde that alreadie which this Sacrament signifieth Into this holie communion and fellowship with Christ we grow more and more through faith in the exercise of the word and of the other sacrament he abiding in vs and we in him he ministring vnto vs and we receiuing of him through the holy Ghost the suck and iuice of his heauenly grace euen as branches from the Vine wherby as his members we are quickened to euerlasting life Hereof Cyril and Hilary haue written indéed very diuinely but they must haue readers that are as diuinely and spiritually minded not such as the Answ is who turneth all to his owne carnall and Capernaitish imagination He should gather from these that such as is our vniting and ioyning vnto Christ such is our eating of his flesh and drinking his blood Our vniting vnto Christ is mysticall and spirituall not carnall and bodily Therfore such also must our eating and drinking be As for that grosse and bodily eating Cyrill maketh a straunge absurd matter of it when k Cyril aduer Theodoret. anathe â—â— he saith to Theodoret Doest thou pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man and prophanely vrge the mindes of them that beleeue to grosse imaginations and assaie to handle by humane conceits those things which are to be receiued by only pure and sincere faith By which wordes he plainly sheweth that the opinion of the Papists of the eating and drinking with the mouth the verie humane flesh and blood of Christ is a grosse and prophane imagination and therfore litle helpe may the Answ hope for to his purpose by any thing that Cyrill saith P. Spence Sect. 23. BVt S. Augustine saith Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see and drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me that is a S. Austen speakâ—â—h simplâ— of eating and dâ—inking â—ith the mouth and denieth the same of câ—tting in gobbets he saith nothing not to cut it in gobbets as the Capharnits imagined and as flesh to be bought in the shambles nor in this visible shape as it were Anthropophagi You must M. Abbot not snatch peeces of S. Augustine to make vp a patched testimony to serue your owne turne For so you may make your Doctor say what you will haue him But you must consider the circumstances of the place and thereafter iudge of the meaning as heere he talketh of the Capharnites butcherly Anthropophagicall imagination and therefore he telleth how we must eate Christs bodie I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament being spiritually vnderstood it shall giue you life c. As who should say b As who should say ye sâ—all not eate him in peeces but ye shall eâ—te him â—hole A miâ—â—rable anâ—were you shall not eate him cut in peeces but entire in a Sacrament in a most diuine sacramentall maner and in a spirituall high mysterie but yet most verily For you imagine c Spiritually importeth that it is a thing done by the spirit not by the bodie and therefore that we eate Christ by the faith of the heart not by the chewing of the teeth spiritually to be applied to the substance wheras it is to be referred to the maner We receiue his verie flesh not fleshly but spiritually We eate his verie bodie but not corporally or after a bodily maner as we eate common meates R. Abbot 23. FOr disproofe of that carnall eating and drinking and consequentlie of Transsubstantiation I alleaged Saint Austens exposition of Christes wordes in the sixth Chapter of saint Iohn concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood Saint Austen writing in Psal 98. falleth into treatie of the offence that many tooke at Christes words and sheweth the reason therof that they a August in Psal 98. tooke them foolishly they vnderstood them carnally and thought that he would cut them peeces of his flesh But if they had not bene hard hearted they would haue thought It is not without some cause that he saith this Surely there is some secret mysterie in it His disciples he instructed saith he and said vnto them It is the spirit that quickeneth c which he expoundeth thus Vnderstand spiritually that which I haue said Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being spiritually vnderstoode it shall giue you life This place doth plainly denie that eating and drinking of the very flesh and bloud of Christ which the Capernaits dreamed of and telleth vs that we do not eat Christes verie flesh nor drinke his very bloud namely with the mouth and body but that for our eating and drinking wee haue a sacrament commended vnto vs which being though visibly celebrated yet spiritually vnderstood doth make vs partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christ to euerlasting life
iustly and well perswade a Christian to beléeue the contrary in my opinion S. Mathew Mark Luke and Paul all writing This is my bodie whereas writing otherwise of one thing one saith If I in the finger of God cast out diuels c. Another If I in the spirit of God c. So that in d Vntrue as appeareth by the coÌ„ference of these places Mat. 5. 29. with Mar. 9. 3. Mar. 5. 39. with Luc. 6. 29. Mat. 20. 23. Mar. 10. 39. Mat. 21. 21. Mar. 11. 23. which are not taken literally and yet difler not in phrase of speech any matter where moe then one speak of the same thing euerie one hath more of the same thing to giue more light then another But in the matter of the Sacrament no whit so but in the verie substantiall point e Vntrue for they varie as touching the cup there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament as of the other See the reply Concil constanti 6. can 32 all deliuer the selfe same effectuall words Sir once againe thankes for your good Chrysostome and so I beséech to recall them that erre into the way of truth and euerlasting saluation A reply against the former answere to the places of Chrysostome and Gelasius THe willingnesse I haue to doe you good M. Spence I wish might take such effect with you as that God might be glorified by reuealing vnto you the knowledge of his truth I doubt not but it shall be so if you séeke it as you ought and where you ought Concerning the place of Chrysostome of vsing water in the Sacrament I finde it expounded as you answere me in Concil Constantinopol 6. ca. 32. of them that vsed water onely and no wine Albeit the wordes séeme to me plainly to enforce vpon the Reader another vnderstanding neither find I any reason why the Bishops of Armenia being a thousand vnder one Metropolitane may not be thought as méete iudges of Chrysostomes meaning as the Bishops of this Councell especially séeing it is not certaine either what time or by whom those Canons were made and appeare to be falsly fathered vpon the sixth generall Councell as Surius in his admonition Surius in admoniâ— ad Lector de can 6. synodi concil to 2. concerning those Canons giueth to vnderstand Yea and they are in diuers points reiected by your selues as is plaine also by Surius both in the same Preface and by some notes added to some of the Canons But I contend not of that point and as I condemne not in that respect the Churches which either haue vsed or doe vse that mixture only without opinion of superstition and necessitie so neither do I find reason why those Churches are to be condemned that rather follow as most assured the simplicitie of the institution of Iesus Christ where we finde mention of the fruite of the vine but nothing as touching water If you say as the Canon saith that this is to innouate those things which haue bene deliuered by tradition Cypri epist ad Pompeium I must answer you with Cyprians words Whence is this tradition Whether descending from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell or comming from the Commandements and Epistles of the Apostles for that those things which are written must be done God testifieth c. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospell or conteined in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles let this tradition be kept as holie Now séeing there is no testimony of the holie scripture to approue the necessitie of water I take your wordes directly contrary to the scriptures to be vnderstood rather of those which vse water only contrarie to the text then wine only according to the expresse mention of the text Your glose of the Canon De consecra dist 2. cap. sicut in glossa law doth tell that Doctors haue said that water is to be mingled in the cup only for honestie or decencie and therefore not of necessitie to the Sacrament And that amoÌ„gst others Thomas Aquinas granteth Polydore Virgil referreth the fist institution thereof to Alexander Plati in Alexander 1. Durand Rati diuin lib. 4. rubri de officio sacerdotis c. Thom. Aquin. pa 3. q. 7â— art 3 the first Bishop of Rome Pâ—atina séemeth to agrée with him So Durand saith Water is mingled in the cup with the wine by the institution of Pope Alexander the first And as touching Christes vsing of water Thomas Aquinas maketh it but a probabilitie and no certaine truth It is probably beleeued that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in wine mingled with water according to the manner of that country Your Councell of Trent saith no more It is supposed that our Lord did so And in a conference betwixt Anselmus a Bishop of Saxome and Nechâ—tes Patriarch of Nicomedia Anno domini Centur. Magdebur cap. 12. 1138. Neâ—hites obiecting that Christ our Sauiour did not vse water in the consecration Anselmus answereth by likelihood that he did so because in Palestina the maner is to mingle water with their wine Now if it were done according to the maner of that country then it was done to abate the strength of the wine and not for any such mysterie as some haue imagined In manie Countries where their wines are verie strong temperate sober men vse to qualifie and delaie the heate thereof by mingling water least it should cause any distemperature to the bodie And this the Gréeke Churches may séeme to haue respected who consecrated with méere wine as appeareth by Nâ—chites his spéech in the conference aboue-named as also by some editions of Chrysostomes Liturgie and afterwardes put in water when it was to be administred to the receiuers The reason which they vsed for not adding water before was this because Christ is not read to haue added water which accordeth with the words of Chrysostome alleaged by me But as I said before I stand not vpon this point Only I pray you to consider an argument of Bertram in his booke de corpo sangui domini ad Carol imperat taking Bertram de corpo sang domini his ground from this mixture Water saith he in the Sacrament beareth the image of the people Therefore if the wine sanctified by the seruice of the Ministers be bodily turned into the blood of Christ then the water also which is mingled withall must needs be bodily or substantially turned into the blood of the beleeuing people For where there is one sanctification there is consequently one working or effect and where there is the like reason there followeth also the like mysterie But we see in the water there is nothing turned bodily Consequently therefore in the wine there is nothing bodily shewed It is taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the water as touching the bodie of the people It must needes therefore be taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the wine concerning the blood of Christ
and reprooued the argument framed against him by that similitude But confessing that the Sacraments of bread wine do passe ouer and be turned into a diuine substance thereby granting a reall presence of Christ God and man and in effect transubstantiation only he denieth the bread to be anihilated or become nothing or as he termeth it desinere esse to cease from hauing any being at all Before Berengarius neuer any man held that h Vntruth for all the Fathers held the same as shall appear by many of them in that which followeth Christs bodie was not really in the Sacrament nor that the whole substance of bread and wine vnchaunged were in the Sacrament either without anie other substance as Zwinglius and Caluin holde or ioyned togither with Christs bodie by impanacion as Luther held but that the bread and wine by a conuersion were made Christs bodie blood which conuersion in the church of God in the greatest Councell that euer was held called the Laterane Councell where occasion was offered of the full search of the matter by Berengarius heresie by the instinct i Not of the holie Ghost but of the spirit of Sathan to bring in idolâ—try into the Temple of God of the holie Ghost most agreeable to the greatest number and the best learned of the Fathers defined to be by transubstantiation that is the whole substances of bread wine being turned into the whole substance of Christs body and blood his Godhead being ioyned thereto per concomitantiam Yet did Innocentius vnder whom that Councell was holden thus write that though the substance of the bread and wine were changed into Christ yet there remained not only the accidents or accidentall properties but also the naturall properties namely as he there speaketh panietas breadinesse to driue away hunger and vineitas wininesse to driue away thirst and the force or nature of nourishing So that this turning of the bread and wine into Christs bodie was not anihilation or vtter vanishing of the bread as Gelasius denieth not a naturall change as is wrought in naturall conuersions where the same matter remaining vnder both formes only the first forme is changed into an other forme I meane not forma accidentalis but forma essentialis by which things they haue their being and substance neither change of the matter that is vnder the essentiall forme the said essentiall forme remaining but in this wonderfull sacrifice is a most diuine and miraculous change of both the matter and essentiall forme of bread into the whole substance of Christs bodie And that was so established least by ioyning either the matter or the essentiall forme of bread with Christs bodie they should graunt k A waightie consideration verily and fit for the learning of such graue Fathers impersonation that is any substance sauing Christ to be personally vnited with Christ It was not a matter clearly l Christ and his Apostles neuer cleerly defined that there was any transubstantiation defined before the said Councell what kind of conuersion it was neither heresie not to iumpe in iust termes with transubstantiation before that time so that the reall presence were not denied as after Berengarius did nor the substance of bread wholy were affirmed to remaine as neuer any Father said Onely Gelasius to make a resemblance betweene the Sacrament which he calleth an image of Christs being in heauen and Christs two natures in one person in heauen which he termeth in this comparing of them togither the principall mysterie he saith two things first that the Sacrament is a diuine thing by which we are made partners of the diuine nature And that it is so because the Sacrament by the working of the holie Ghost doth passe ouer into a diuine substance What m He must say more or else it will not serue for transubstantiation See the answere more could he haue said for the reall presence or transubstantiation The second thing which to answere and stop the quarrelling hereticke he addeth is that the substance of bread and wine do not cease to be that is to say doth not vtterly perish into nothing but remaineth vnder the chaunge which word Substance he mollifieth and interpreteth by adding or nature of bread and by and by after he calleth it the propertie of the nature of bread where the heretickes for or which is a word interpreting the former haue foysted in substance and nature of bread So that Gelasius meant not that the whole substance of bread remaineth in the Sacrament but that not only the accidentall properties but also the verie essentiall properties as Innocentius before named also set downe of bread and wine do remaine and that was inough against the hereticke And n It may be that Gelasius did deny tâ—ansubstantiation because the church as then knew it not it may be that he being before the generall definition of the church did not much trouble himselfe with the exact search thereof thinking that the same matter or else the same essentiall forme remained in that blessed conuersion but not the whole substance that is the whole essentiall forme and the whole matter And so many in these daies held without heresie as S. Thomas contragentes declareth which now after the churches generall definitioÌ„ were damnable Otherwise if we would vrge the word Substantia in Gelasius and not admit Gelasius his qualification thereof and exposition of his vel natura proprietas naturâ— which euerie Catholicke admitteth this absurditie were too beastly and blasphemous for Gelasius so holy a Father and old fellow that Christs bodie were vnited personally or become one person with the bread so that Christ were one person of three natures the Godhead the manhood the breadhood which is most peeuish blasphemie And for Gelasius to admit o To admit the same to remaine without the substaâ—ce serued fitly and fully for the heresie of Eutyches See the answere the nature or substantiall properties to remaine as himselfe termeth them was inough to stop the Eutychian heretickes mouth who denied any naturall propertie to remaine at all in the Sacrament And therfore thus much is to be noted that the force of the coÌ„parison between Christs being in heauen in the blessed Sacrament is not in this point that in heauen he is in both substance of manhood and Godhead euen as in the Sacrament are two whole substances Christs body the whole substance of bread and wine But the similitude is herein that as in the diuine Sacrament with the verie true bodie of Christ which Gelasius calleth a diuine substance there are conioyned essentiall substantiall and naturall properties of bread and wine Euen so in heauen Christ in one person hath vnited all the naturall and essentiall properties of his two natures the Godhead and the manhood vnconfounded inuiolable whole and distinct which is as much as out of the heretickes obiection of the Sacrament he needed to reply or vrge against him
the allegation of his passion and resurrection because they were once done and passed the memories of them cannot be the things themselues but a memorie only But his bodie euer remaining the memory of it may be also the very thing it selfe that S. Augustine in so many places affirmeth that you must not so rack this place to ouerthrow the other and to set him at bate with himselfe Ioyne therefore with this testimonie of S. Augustine another place of the same August in Sententijs Prosperi and by that learne to vnderstand his own meaning of his secundum quendam modum The place is thus It is his flesh which in the Sacrament we receiue couered in the forme of bread and it is his bloud which we drink vnder the figure and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud a Sacrament of bloud By flesh and bloud both inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ Heere you see by answere not by vs patched and clouted but b Vntrue for it cannot be shewed that these are his wordes and yet they serue not the Answ turne as shall appeare by himselfe set down he explicateth thus much that in both sides is true flesh and true bloud But now to his secundum quendam modum he telleth you that on the one side is flesh couered in the forme of bread in the Sacrament and bloud vnder the forme and sauour of wine inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode this for the maner of the one but on the earth and now in heauen a a visible and palpable body Yet remember that flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud of bloud More I might say but infinite haue said it to them I send you R. Abbot 13. FOr the exposition of Christes wordes This is my body I shewed the testimonies of the ancient fathers that Christ called the bread and wine his body bloud taking for the ground of my speech that which S. Austen saith a Aug. Epis◠23. that Sacraments haue a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments and that because of this resemblance they commonly take vnto them the names of the thinges themselues whereof they are sacramentes Now to this rule the Answerer saith nothing at all as neither he did before when I mentioned it concerning sacrifice whereas hée should haue taken it for his greatest enemie and therefore fought most strongly against it because héereby is discharged the greatest part of that which either he or his fellowes can obiect for their sacrifice reall presence and Transubstantiation But I gather hereby his wilfull and malicious resolution against plaine and euident trueth The wordes which he answereth next follow immediatly after the words alreadie mentioned As therefore saith S. b Ibid. Austen the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ and the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is after a sort his bloud so the sacrament of faith namely baptisme is faith Whereby S. Austen exemplifieth that which he had said before that sacramēts because of their resemblance take the names of the things whereof they are sacramentes For euen so the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ is after a sorte that is by resemblance the body and bloud of Christ not verily and indeed then but after a sorte and by resemblance and so by resemblance called the bodie and the bloud of Christ for as the sacrament of the body is the bodie so the sacrament of faith is faith The sacrament of faith is not faith indeed but by questions and answeres of faith it betokeneth the faith of Christian men So therefore the sacrament of the body is not indéed the body but betokeneth the body of Christ that was giuen for vs and so because of this resemblance is called the body And this is the maner or sorte of which S. Austen speaketh not a maner of reall being but a maner of speaking and sacramentall betokening As for that which the Answ saith to note that maner that the sacrament is inuisibly but yet truely the body and so a memorie that it is the thing it selfe S. Austen acknowledgeth no such matter nay it is contrary to the whole drift and purpose of S. Austens spéech And beside it is vnreasonable and absurde that the same thing should be the sacrament and the thing it selfe the signe and the thing signified the memoriall and the thing remembred neither hangeth it togither by any better reason then as if a man should be said to be his owne father or a husband to be a husband in respect of himselfe or a Prince to be a Prince vnto himselfe and so to be both Prince and subiect Euery child knoweth that the sacrament of Christes bodie is the visible signe of Christes bodie as all sacraments are visible signes and the visible signe of Christes body is not the body it selfe Therefore the sacrament of Christes body is not the body it selfe Yea S. Austens saying as is before alleaged that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of c De conse dist 2. cap. Ho◠est two things the sacrament which is the visible element and the matter of the sacrament which is the body of Christ maketh it plain enough y◠he took the sacrament of Christes body and the body it selfe to be two things and not one as the Answ absurdly conceiueth But yet he taketh vpon him to proue this absurditie by S. Austen himselfe and alleageth certaine wordes by which hée would haue me to vnderstand this place which hath béen alreadie spoken of The words are thus d De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered in the forme of bread and his bloud which we drinke vnder the forme and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a sacrament of flesh and bloud is a sacrament of bloud By the flesh and bloud both visible spirituall and intelligible is signified the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues c. Now of these wordes the Answ as some other of his fellowes doe maketh a monstrous conclusion as if Christ had two kindes of flesh at one and the same time one visible another inuisible one in heauen another in earth e Tho. Aqui. Par. 3. qu. 76. art 3. one hauing the due proportion of a body the other without all proportion and hauing no difference of head or féete or any other parts one the same as it was borne of the virgin Mary the other like to the phantasie of Marcion and the Manichees of the nature of a spirit f Ibid art 4. whole in the whole cake and whole in euerie part of the cake so that though it be broken into a thousand péeces yet euerie one of them hath the whole body of Christ But we beléeue not any such
matter but reason and trueth see the answere at large to steale scrappes out of the fathers and not to care for their drift and purposes but onely to patch vp matter for a shew and to the sale The figures be of the old testament in the newe testament Christ fulfilleth them It followeth But it had been no figure except there were a true bodie Surelie an emptie thing as is a phantasie can take no figure The Marcionites said Christ had a phantastical body that saith Tertullian could not haue a figure No can Doe not the phantasticall bodies of spirites exhibite to the eies a certaine figure or shape it is too well knowen to the verie Negromancers and the Apostles feared the like of Christ But he meaneth if Christ had no body at all but a phantasticall body Melchisedech in the old testament had vsed no figure of that in bread wine For of c Vntrueth for he talketh not of it and though hee had yet doth it not stand the Answ in any steed as shall appeare it he talketh so that that is a figure of my bodie must needs be interpreted thus This that is this figure of the old testament of bread and wine vsed by Melchisedech which I now fulfill est corpus meum is nowe become my bodie by my fulfilling in this my new testament in veritie a figure of the olde testament in a mysterie It followeth Or if therefore he made the bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. This illation of Tertullian can haue no wit nor sense if he meant not Christ to be really in his verie true bodie in the Sacrament It made for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should be crucified If Christ had giuen his Apostles bread onely and not his verie flesh then by Tertullians minde he must haue giuen a bready body or a body of bread to be also crucified so sure he was that the thing he gaue his Disciples was the same that was also afterward crucified What say you to this maister Abbot Marcion said that Christ had in steed of a heart a kind of fruit called a Pepon Why saith Tertullian did he not call a Pepon his bodie as well as the bread or rather after Marcions opinion his reason is because Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an olde figure of the bodie of Christ Lo your id est figura is by Tertullian as much as id est vetus figura an old figure Then by your minde Christ fulfilled not the old figure in veritie although Tertullian saith neuer so plainly he made the bread his bodie But gaue them the old figure therefore to end this testimonie of Tertullian I answere you that the premisses considered you must needes graunt that the same id est is not referred to corpus meum but to hoc That which in the old testament was a figure of my bodie is now being made so by my speaking dicendo omnipotentia verbi by the almightie power of the word as S. Cyprian de caena domini vttereth my bodie Note these points whereby it so appeareth by Tertullian to be meant First the scope of his fourth booke to prooue the figures of the old lawe and the fulfilling of the new Secondly Tertullian hath figura non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus If hee had meant a figure then in the new testament he had not said fuisset sed esset figura Thirdly when hee saith Christ called bread his bodie and not a Pepon as Marcions follie would haue him to haue spoken hee telleth that Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an ancient figure of his bodie so that Tertullian meaneth not the bread to be a new figure of his bodie instituted by Christ in his Supper of the new testament but an auncient figure of the olde testament vsed by Melchisedech Fourthly a little after this place he saith that Christ the reuealer of aniquities did sufficiently dâ—clare what hee would haue the bread to haue signified calling bread his bodie Wherby d Tertullians minde iâ— that the name of bread had bin vsed to import the body of Ch 〈…〉 â—â— prefigurâ—â—â—at bread indeede should be appointed to signifie the â—â—me body This he sayâ—h Ch 〈…〉 ful 〈…〉 〈◊〉 he took bread ind 〈…〉 and called it hiâ— body his mind is that Christ would haue the bread in the old testameÌ„t to haue signified his body to come not now instituting a new figure in bread Fifthly he saith a litle after thou maiest acknowledge the olde figure of bloud in the wine Lo the wine in the old testament was an ancient figure of his bloud What can plainlier vtter or expresse his meaning Lastly it followeth Now saith he it is at his maundy he consecrated his bloud in wine who then that is speaking certain words of Iacob the Patriarche euen by the said Iacob figured wine by bloud he attributeth e A Figure to the name of wine consecration to wine it selfe a figure to wine consecration to his bloud in wine a figure to the old law consecration to the new a figure to the olde lawe fulfilling thereof to the newe what meane you then maister Abbot to charge vs with guilefull concealing clipping and paring of Tertullian who deliuer him vnto you so roundly and so wholly wee play not with you as maister Iewell did who brought out of Opus imperfectum sermo 11. in Chrisostomes name in almost an hundreth places of his booke as putting great trust in the same these wordes against the Sacrament and against Chrisostome for that verie point in a notable Sermon of his made for that purpose In the vessels of the church is not contained the true body and bloud of Christ but a figure of his body and bloud Whereas the f An answere altogether vain and senslesse as the very wordes shew authour meaneth it of the vessels taken out of the temple of Ierusalem by Nabuchodonosor which point he guilefully suppressed For the authours wordes are these For if it be a sinne and dangerous to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses as Balthazar teacheth vs who drinking in the holy cups was therfore deposed from his kingdome and bereaued of his life if then it be thus dangerous to transferre these holie vessels to priuate vses in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his bodie is conteined c. You may see howe Balthazar was stolne out of the text to make those olde Churches vessels to be the vessels of our Christian temples Vpon those words of Tertullian how crossely you inferre your conclusion vppon your owne supposed sense of id est figura it may I hope appeare vnto you vpon the consideration of that which I haue discoursed concerning his testimonie except you could wage Tertullian to say that he made no comparison betweene a figure of the old testament and the veritie of the new answering the same and that he
Tertullian speaketh not of Melchisedech he doth not so much as intimate any thing of him and the Answ for that he read the place could not but know that there was nothing meant as touching Melchisedech and therefore in vpbraiding vs with stealing of scrappes out of the Fathers because we vse this place he giueth me occasion to charge him with voluntary and wilfull falsifying of their words But I leaue that to his owne conscience whether he did purposely séeke by this bad meanes to adde the more likelihood vnto a false tale Tertullian saith nothing here to intimate that the very creatures of bread and wine were vsed in the old Testament as figures of the body and blood of Christ but only expoundeth some places where the names of bread and wine are so vsed as that thereby should be signified the same bodie blood of Christ To this purpose he alleageth the words of Ieremy as the vulgar Latine text readeth them e Ier. 11. 19. Let vs cast the wood vpon his bread that is saith he the crosse vpon his bodie as noting that by the name of bread the Prophet signified the bodie of Christ Therefore he addeth Christ the reuealer of antiquities calling bread his bodie did sufficiently declare what his will was that bread should then signifie Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that as the Prophet did vse the name of bread to signifie the body of Christ so Christ himselfe to iustifie that spéech of the Prophet did institute bread it selfe to be the signe and Sacrament of his bodie and accordingly called it his bodie Another like spéech he reciteth concerning wine out of the words of Iacob the Patriarch f Gen. 49. 11. He shall wash his garment in wine and his cloathing in the blood of the grape Where by the garment and cloathing he vnderstandeth the bodie and flesh of Christ by wine the blood of Christ as if Iacob should foretell in those words that the bodie of Christ should be embrued with the shedding of his blood Hereupon he inferreth He that then figured wine in blood hath now consecrated his blood in wine noting hereby not that blood indéed was vsed for a figure of wine but that the name of the blood of the grape serued to signifie wine as prefiguring that wine it selâ—â— should be appointed to be the signe of the blood of Christ Now this was fulfilled by Christ when he consecrated his blood in wine that is to say made the Sacrament of his blood in wine or appointed wine in truth to be the Sacrament of his blood for signification whereof the name of wine had bene before vsed The old figure the refore of which Tertullian speaketh saying that we may acknowledge an olde figure in wine was in the vse of the names of bread and wine not of bread and wine indéed and that which by this olde figure and maner of speaking was intimated in the olde Testament Christ performed and fulfilled in the new when he consecrated and sanctified his creatures of bread and wine to be Sacraments and figures of his bodie and blood and by name accordingly called them his bodie and blood Which maner of speaking he had not approued but frustrated if in making the Sacrament he had destroyed the substance of bread and wine for then he could not haue called bread his bodie and wine his blood as Tertullian saith he did Now therefore that which the Answ saith that Figures are of the old Testament Christ fulfilleth them in the new maketh nothing against vs nay setting aside the error of the Answ it maketh wholly for vs. For he vainly fancieth Tertullian to say that the very elements of bread wine were vsed in the old Testament for figures of the bodie and blood of Christ and therefore that the same should not be againe appointed to that vse in the new Testament whereas Tertullian saith no more but only that the names or words of bread and wine were sometimes taken to signifie the same Now then let him remember that Turtullian auoucheth the fulfilling of this figure in this that Christ called bread his bodie and wine his blood and let him say with vs according to Tertullians minde that in the Sacrament it is bread and wine which is called the bodie and blood of Christ and that the meaning of Christs words is This bread is my bodie that is to say A Figure of my bodie Now hereby Tertullian proueth that Christ hath a true substantiall bodie For saith he It had bene no Figure except there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie might not haue bene capable of a Figure But here the Answ wold make vs beléeue that vnlesse Tertullian mean this of a Figure in the old Testament his saying is not true And this he proueth by Nigromancy for saith he the phantasticall bodies of spirits do exhibit to the eyes a certaine Figure or shape as the very Nigromancers do know But what motion I maruel came into the mans minde to diuert his spéech from mysticall and sacramentall figures instituted by Iesus Christ wherof Tertullian speaketh to figures and facions and shapes of diuels and spirits He was a blind man if he saw not his owne errour and folly but leaud and wretched if he sawe it and yet against his owne conscience would thus dally with Gods truth And why could he not conceiue that Tertullians wordes if they had concerned any such figures should haue bin false in respect of the old Testament as well as of the new because diuels and spirits had their figures and shapes as wel then as now Was it straunge vnto him that there are sacramentall figures in the new Testament to which the words of Tertullian might be fitly applied Surely S. Austen saith that g August in Psal 3. Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet wherein he commended to his Disciples the Figure of his body and blood So saith the old Father Ephrem that h Ephrem de natura dei noÌ„ scrutanda cap. 4. Christ blessed and brake the bread in figure of his bodie and blessed gaue the cup in Figure of his pretious blood Nay the Answ himselfe hath confessed i Sect. 10. before that the Fathers call the sacrifice which they speak of a figure of the death and passion of Christ Of such a figure Tertullian speaketh and reasoneth thus that there should neuer haue bin appointed in the Gospel a figure to represent the body of Christ except there had bene a true bodie to be represented thereby As for that cauill of his which he hath borrowed from Bellarmine that if Tertullian had not spoken of a figure in the old Testament he shuld not haue said fuisset but esset it is too too foolish and absurd and if he were in the Grammer schoole he should deserue to be laide ouer the forme to make him know that the verbe fuisset is rightly vsed by Tertullian with relation to Christs first
means of the receiuing of Gods grace in the sacrament Marry yet hée excepteth that it must be ioyned with the entrance of Christes body into our bodies and so by that diuine touching thereof wee are so vnited vnto him as man and woman by the coniunction of their bodies become one body and one flesh What a grosse and swinish imagination is this that by corporall entrance of Christes bodie into ours we must be made one with Christ as man and woman by corporall coniunction become one fleshe Saint Paul teacheth vs to loth this fancie when hee sayth f 1. cor 6. 16. 17. Knowe ye not that hee which coupleth himselfe with an harlot is one bodie For two sayth hee shall be one flesh But he that is ioyned vnto the Lord is one spirite Where by an opposition of the bodie and the spirite of the corporall ioyning of man and woman and the spirituall vniting of Christ and vs hée giueth plainly to vnderstand that the coniunction betwixt Christ and vs is not wrought by any bodily commixtion of substances as is the coniunction of man and woman but by the spirituall apprehension of the beléeuing soule receiuing through the holie Ghost the fruite and effect of the bodie of Christ being in heauen And this S. Cyprian notably declareth when he saith g The coniunction betwixt Christ vs neither mingleth our Cypri de caena domini persons nor vniteth our substances but coupleth our affections and conioyneth our willes and so the Church being made Christes bodie doth obey the head and the higher light being shed vpon the lower reaching with the fulnesse of his brightnesse from end to end doth abide whole with it selfe and yeeldeth it selfe whole to all the onenesse of that warmth doth so assist the bodie that it departeth not from the head By which words he sheweth that our coniunction with Christ is altogither spirituall and that we are made the bodie of Christ not by any corporall or bodily touching or bringing our substances togither but by the spirituall working of his effectuall power set foorth by a comparison of the sunne working in these inferiour bodies and yet abiding in heauen as before also I declared And as concerning the touching of Christ S. Ambrose saith h Ambros in Luc. 24 lib. 10. We touch not Christ by bodily handling but by faith c. Therefore saith he Neither on the earth neither in the earth nor after the flesh ought we to seeke thee O Christ if we will finde thee To the same effect also S. Austen speaketh by occasion of Christs words to Mary Magdalin i Ioh. 20 17. Touch me not for I am not yet ascended to my father k August in Ioh. tract 26. epist 59. Shee might not touch him standing on the earth saith he and how should she touch him being ascended to the father Yet thus euen thus he will be touched Thus is he touched of them of whom he is well touched being ascended to the father abiding with the father equall to the father And this touching he there expoundeth beleeuing as Ambrose doth Our touching of Christ then is our beléeuing in him not being here in the earth or on the earth but being ascended to the father and abiding with the father And as the sicke woman in the Gospell though with her hand touching but l Mat. 9. 20. 22. only the hemme of Christs garment yet whilest m Aug. ibid. vt supra by faith she touched Christ himselfe receiued vertue from him to make her whole So we although with our bodily hands we touch but onely the Sacrament which is but as it were the hemme of his garment yet whilst by faith we touch himselfe sitting at the right hand of God in heauen we receiue of him vertue and grace to euerlasting life Which vertues and effects séeing we receiue in Baptisme also as hath bene before shewed it is manifest that it is not by any such corporal touching as the Answ most absurdly hath expressed Here he cauilleth further concerning saint Paules words We are all partakers of one bread and one cup. By bread he saith must néedes be vnderstood the bodie of Christ for if we vnderstand it of bread indéed all are not partakers of one bread but many breads But his vnderstanding deceiueth him The Sacrament as he confesseth is a Sacrament of vnitie Christ would commend vnto vs this vnitie n Aust in Ioh. tra 26. Cypr. li. 1. epist 6. by being partakers of those things which of many are made one as bread of many graines wine of many grapes To this the name of one bread hath relation admonishing vs being many to become one But I hope the bodie of Christ shall not be said to be made of many cornes or grapes This bread therefore is not the very body of Christ But we are all partakers of one bread because the bread of the Sacrament though in substance of loaues it be many breads yet in vse and mysterie or signification is all one And so though the cup be diuerse according to the diuersitie of places yet in the same maner we are also said to be partakers of one cup. Pet. Spence Sect. 28. AS for Gratian I am sorie to see how fowly you abuse him did he doubt of the veritie of transubstantiation or of Christs presence All the whole part de consecratione doth proclaime the contrarie But the thing which some not vnproblably do expound in this place the truth of the flesh and blood to be the efficiency thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes was not any words of Christ touching the Sacrament but the words of a praier which he a litle before mentioned which he meaneth by saying in this place which was quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus which had two senses as Gratiā telleth you the one was that we may once receiue in a manifest vision as it is indeed the bodie of Christ the which vnder the formes of bread and wine is celebrated The other sense of that praier was with some men thus that we may receiue the effect of those mysteries that is to say remission of sinnes in veritie whereof now in a Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine we celebrate the mysterie For you know this is a Sacrament of remission of sinnes which some saith Gratian vnderstood by the truth of the things in the said praier Is this to deny the reall presence but your mind is so wholly set vpon that point that like your merrie I dare not say mad Athenian all things sound against Christs presence and all the belles ring against Transubstantiation in your eares R. Abbot 28. THe praier of the auncient Church which I mentioned before Sect. 25. beside the exposition of Lanfrancus there set downe is reported by Gratian to haue bene otherwise expounded by some other The Church praied at the receiuing of the Sacrament y◠they might
horrible and blasphemous â—onceits which the Answ could not conâ—eiue out of my former words These are yâ— fruits of their Transubstantiation and reall presence that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued into the bellies of dâ—gs and swine and mice that it may be in the dirt in the bellies of vngodly men vntil the forms â—e consumed and digested beside other filthy matters i Antonin summ p. 3. tit 13. cap. 6. q. 3. de defectib Missae of vomiting vp the bodie of Christ and eating it again being vomited and drawing it out of the entrals of the mouse or other beast that hath eaten it c. which are most leathsome to any Christian eares to heare of 〈◊〉 yet very venturously disputed of and resolued vpon by Antoninâ—s no meaner a man then Archbishop of Florence and as I thinke Saincted by the Pope for his great paines Neuer any Capernaite more grosse neuer Manichée more blasphemous then these villainous imaginations which these caiâ—ifes haue published to the world and their reall presence standing they cannot resolue how to shift of these things but stagger as Harding did with it may be this and it may be that and it may be they know not what Therefore let the Ansvv now thinke with himselfe with what reason he bid me beware of bearing false witnesse against my neighbour Let him remember that théeues and malefactours do vsually call true euidence false witnesse but yet their honestie and truth is no whit the more S. Hierom saith that k Hierony in Esa 66. li. 18. they vvhich are louers of pleasures more then louers of God and are not holy both in bodie and spirite do neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood whereof he himself speaketh in the sixth of Iohn He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life Where out of the words of Christ himselfe he secludeth not only bruit beasts but also vngodly and vnholy men from eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ Yet it may so be that not only vnholy prophane men but also bruite beasts may eate of the Romish host or Sacrament Therefore the Romish Sacrament is not the very flesh and blood of Christ as the Romish faction would beare vs in hand that it is P. Spence Sect. 30. THe conformitie of the words of the Euangelists and of S. Paul is so great a matter as that of it selfe it offereth good and great cause of noting it without the warning of any Allen Parsons or any other neuer so learned And your similitude of the sacrifices of the old lawe so agreeably vttered and yet by your leaue but by one Moses alone and not by three sundry Euangelistes and one Apostle as it is in this case fitteth not to this For Moses endewed with the spirite of God could not in any wordes imagine to attribute a A meere fansie Their Sacramentes yeelded the same fruite to them that ours do to vs. See sect 20. such a working force ex opere operato to the legall expiations which wrought ex adiuncto fidei and not of themselues as is to be giuen to the Sacramentes of Christ howsoeuer your side abase them as low as the verie Iewish Sacramentes I am glad that the plain consent of the Euangelistes and Saint Paul doth so little like you in this point R. Abbot 30. THere is vrged for the proofe of Transubstantiation the consent of the Euangelistes and S. Paul saying all alike This is my bodie whereas if they meant not to be vnderstood literally the one would haue expounded the other But the conformitie of these thrée Euangelistes and S. Paul is no stronger an argument as I haue tolde him to prooue Transubstantiation then the continuall calling of the old sacrifices of Moses law by the name of expiations and attonementes was to prooue that they were verily and indéed expiations and attonementes for sinne which yet were but types and figures thereof as the Sacrament is a figure and signe of the bodie and bloud of Christ The exception of the Answ that that was spoken but by one Moses this by thrée Euangelistes and one Apostle is vaine The holie Ghost spake in both places by whomsoeuer and if the Answ argument be good must néedes haue altered that spéech in Moses lawe But that the goodnesse of it is distrusted by his owne fellowes also it followeth after to be shewed That which he addeth in this place of the working force in both sacraments the old and the new is impertinent I spake not of the working force of either but of the like phrase of spéech concerning both But yet whereas he saith that the Sacraments of the new testament haue force by the very work wrought I must tel him that he speaketh without scripture without father a thing absurd in itselfe and contrary also to that which he hath said before If wee obtaine the effects of the Sacrament by receiuing Christ in fayth hope and charity togither with the entrance of his body into ours as he sayd before then the sacrament giueth not that grace by the very worke wrought as he sayth héere If it giue grace by the very worke wrought as he saith héere then it is not to be ascribed to fayth hope and charity as he sayth there The councell of Trent hath tolde vs that a man a Concil TrideÌ„t sess 6. ca. 9 may not assure himselfe that hée hath receiued the grace of God But if the sacraments yéeld graâ—â— by the very worke wrought a man may assure himselfe that he hath receiued grace because he may assure himselfe that he is baptised And what reason is there why infants naturals and franticke persons should be excluded from receiuing the Lords supper if the Sacrament haue his force of the verie worke done But S. Austen plainly refuteth this conceit as touching our sacraments b August in Ioh. tra 80. Whence hath the water such force saith he to touch the bodie and clense the heart but that the word worketh it and that not because it is spoken but because it is beleeued Therefore hee calleth it according to the Apostle c Rom. 10. 8. 9 The word of faith because if thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue in thine heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued To this purpose he alleageth that God is said d Act. 15. 9. to clense the heart by faith and that of S. Peter that e 1. Pet. 3. 21. baptisme saueth vs not the washing away the filth of the flesh that is not for the very worke wrought but the answere of a good conscience towardes God To this effect Tertullian saith f Tertul de resurrect carnis The soule is sanctified not by the washing of water but by the answere of faith And S. Austen againe g August quae vet noui test q. 59. He cannot attaine the heauenly gift which thinketh