for if he should call that which were before aire water or earth by the name of fire stones and bread aire earth and water would sooner cease to be and fire bread and stones would come in their place then God would call any creature by a wrong name He called bread his bodie therfore bread is vnderstanded to be made the body of Christ You saie the vnderstanding of man taketh his beginning of senses which i S. Austen saith that which you sâ—â— iâ— bread as your eyes also tell you He saith it is that which our eies tell vs it is tell me it is bread I saie in the matter belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth mee it is k In signification and mysterie after the maner of Sacraments but not in substance the bodie of Christ and Theodoret saith it is beleeued to be and it is worshipped for it is so And he giueth the same very word of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worshipping to the holie mysteries the which in the same sentence he giueth to the immortall bodie of Christ sitting at the right hand of his father And no wonder for seeing it is one bodie whether it be worshipped in heauen or l Vigâ—lius saith that the flesh of Christ now that it is in heauen is not vpoÌ„ the earth Therfore seeing it is in heaueÌ„ it cannot be worshipped vpon the 〈◊〉 vpon the Altar one worship is alwaies due to it Thus it is witnessed by Theodoret that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his bodie and blood but as being indeed his bodie and his blood Therefore worship is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really contain the truth represented by them Looke Bellarmine lib. 2. de Sacrament cap. 27. pro horum testimonijs R. Abbot 12. NOw come to be handled the words of Theodoret whom the Answerer vseth in the same honest maner as he hath done Gelasius yet cannot stoppe his mouth but that he still standeth at defiance with Transubstantiation Theodoret in his Dialogues debateth the whole matter of Eutyches his heresie not only as Eutyches himselfe held it as before hath bene shewed but also as some would seeme afterwards to correct it by saying that though Christ reteined the substance of his manhood while he continued on the earth yet after his ascension it was turned into the Godhead as of which there was thenceforth no longer vse Now hauing disputed the matter at large and brought the heretick to this latter shift he taketh an argument from the Sacrament to proue the remaining and being of Christs bodie and blood For signes or samptars are not admitted but of such things as haue being Séeing therefore we receiue the mysticall signes in token of the bodie and blood of Christ it is certaine that the bodie and blood of Christ haue their owne nature and being Now the hereticke taketh occasion of this mention of the sacrament to reason thus a Euen as the signes of the Lords bodie and o Theodor. dial 2. blood before the priests inuocation are other things but after the inuocation are chaunged and made other then before so the Lords bodie after his assumption or taking vp into heauen is changed into the diuine substance Whereby being changed and made other he meaneth not any reall chaunging into the very body and blood of Christ for he denied that Christ had now any substantiall bodie neither doth he vnderstand the loosing of their owne former substance for he expresly yéeldeth the contrary as was shewed before in handling the place of Gelasius but only intendeth that they are other in vse and name being now made signs of the body blood of Christ which he once truly tooke but afterwards did foâ—go This is plaine inough by the circumstance of the place and by that which he had confessed before in the former Dialogue that the bread and wine were signes not of the diuine nature of Christ but of those things whose names they did beare namely the bodie blood But to the obiection Theodoret answereth thus Thou art taken in the net which thy selfe hast made For the mysticall signes do not depart from their owne nature after consecration For they coÌ„tinue in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be the same which they are made and are beleeued so and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now therfore conferre the image with the principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be like vnto the truth Verily that bodie of Christ hath also the same forme as before the same figure and circumscription and to speake all at once the same substance of a bodie But it is made immortal after his resurrectioÌ„ c. Here it is plainly auouched that the mysticall signes continue not only in figure and shape but also in substance the same that they were before and so as that in them we must take notice how Christ continueth the same in substance of his bodie after his ascension For the mysticall signes are the figure image of Christs bodie and the figure must be correspondent to the truth And therefore if we finde not the true and proper substance remaining in the mysticall signes neither can it be auouched in the truth that is in Christs bodie What construction now then shall we haue of these words Mary this The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is to say the formes haue a new subsistence by themselues and the accidents remaine without the substance Bread and wine after consecration remaine in their former substance that is to say there is the colour of bread and wine the taste of bread wine the force and strength of bread and wine the quantitie and qualitie of bread and wine but there is no substance of bread and wine I wonder whether these men be perswaded of the truth of these vnreasonable and senselesse expositions If they be it is fulfilled in them which is written b 2. Thes 2. 11 God shall send vpon them strong delusioÌ„ that they may beleeue lies which beleeued not the truth c. If not then c Esa 5. 20. Wo saith the Prophet to them that call good euill and euill good which put light for darkenesse and darknesse for light The thing is plaine inough The mysticall signes saith Theodoret remaine in their former substance What was their former substance The verie true and proper being or substance of bread wine They continue therfore in the true and proper being and substance of bread and wine But the Answerer goeth from substance which Theodoret nameth to subsistence of his owne forging and yet euen there confoundeth himselfe without recouery For what was their former subsistence Mary they subsisted before in the natures of
bread and wine saith the Answerer And how now They subsist now by the power of God saith he and haue their being by themselues But that cannot be for they must abide in their former subsistence and that was in the natures of bread and wine Therefore there must still be bread and wine wherin these formes and mysticall signes must subsist And yet further if these words of Theodoret do not import the remaining of the very substance of bread wine the hereticke is not at al caught as Theodoret telleth him that he is For he hath to reply would haue replied if Transubstantiation had bene then beléeued As it is in the mysticall signes which are the image so must it be in the truth which is the body of Christ The mysticall signes loose their substance after consecration Therfore the body of Christ looseth his substance after his ascension But indéede the argument standeth firme against the hereticke with Theodoret as it did with Gelasius As it is in the mysticall signes so it must be in yâ— body of Christ The mysticall signes kéepe their substance after consecratioÌ„ Therfore Christs body remaineth the same substance after his ascension And thus the wordes goe currant both against Eutyches his confusion and popish transsubstantiation Now I cannot but maruel how the Answerer making Theodoret to speake so nicely and precisely of those Laterane subtilties of formes subsisting by themselues of naturall properties and figures and shapes remaining without any substance doth imagine that Theodoret being so long before the Laterane definition should be so throughly acquainted with these matters and so perfectly set them downe which yet as it is plainly confessed in the d Index Expurgat in censu Bertra quae subtilissimè verissimè posterior aetas addidit Index Expurgatorius haue bene since added in latter times and indéed were neuer knowne to the auncient Fathers Without doubt Theodoret was some Prophet and had some speciall reuelation to this purpose to know what should be agreed vpon in the Laterane Councell and maruell it is that for this cause he was not sainted in the Roman Calender But a liar they say should beare a braine and the Answ and his fellowes should remember that if these things were added since in later times as they themselues confesse then Theodoret had neuer any intelligence of them as indéed he had not To leaue this and to go forward he now entereth further into the words of Theodoret and openeth that which I concealed weigheth euery word at large and when all is done Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus Theodoret as he saith hauing set down one part of the Sacrament which he calleth yâ— formes of bread and wine commeth to set downe the other to be the reall bodie and blood of Christ and that in these wordes The mysticall signes are vnderstood to be the same that they are made are so beleeued and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now hereof he gathereth that they are vnderstood to be the bodie blood of Christ and it may not be a false vnderstanding therfore they are so indéede and so they are beléeued to be and adored not as being signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but as being the same indéed How pretily this man plaieth with a shadow and solaceth himselfe with a large description of his idle fancie Who told him I maruell that this was Theodorets meaning Surely he tooke it out of some of his learned Treatises and beléeued it as an Oracle Ex tripode But let me demaund of him are the formes of bread and wine vnderstood to be to be I say yâ— bodie blood of Christ are they beléeued to be so are they adored as being not signes but verily indeed the bodie and blood of Christ What new stuffe is this that formes of bread and wine be indéed Christs bodie and blood and must be adored with godly honor as the Answ meaneth adoratioÌ„ Is Christs bodie now become formes of bread and must we adore and worship formes of bread That is idolatry euen by the confession of his own side But he will except and tell me that not the formes but the bodie conteined vnder them is adored Yea but he hath told me alreadie and Theodorets words as he expoundeth them import no other that the formes are the bodie of Christ are adored as being so indéed Cleare it is that Theodoret referreth that adoration which he speaketh of to the mysticall signes So that the Answ must either make himselfe an idolater and must turne the bodie and blood of Christ into formes of bread and wine or else he must séeke a new construction of Theodorets words The meaning is plain The mystical signes before consecration are not mystical signes but méerly bread and wine By consecration they are made symbola mystica corporis sanguinis domini mysticall signes of the bodie and blood of Christ And notwithstanding that after consecration they continue in their former substance yet are they vnderstood and beléeued to be not only that which they are in substance but the same that they are made that is signes of the bodie and blood of Christ and are honoured and reuerenced as being translated from common vse to be as they are made mystical signes of Christs body and blood And this to be the plaine meaning of Theodoret it appeareth by that which he addeth immediatly for hauing thus set downe the mysticall signes though in substance bread and wine as they were before yet vnderstood to be the signes of Christs bodie and blood he addeth Confer then the image with the paterne or principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be agreeable or answerable to the truth Where we sée that he calleth the mysticall signes which he hath spoken of the image and figure not for that which they are in substance but for that which they are vnderstood to be made and on the other side the bodie of Christ wherof they are the image and figure he calleth the patterne the principal the truth and inferreth hereof that as these signes though they be thus highly honoured to be the images the signes the figures of the bodie blood of Christ yet are in substance and nature the same still so the bodie of Christ thoughâ—t be now become immortall and not subiect to any corruption or weaknesse and be set at the right hand of God and worshipped of all creatures yet is stil a true bodie retaining the same forme figure circumscriptioÌ„ and substance that it had before Thus Theodoret will in no wise yéeld to be made a Patrone either of real presence or of Transubstantiation His iudgement is so cleare in these points that he sheweth but a naughtie and leaud minde whosoeuer shall go about to father any of these matters vpon him In the former Dialogue he saith plainly that Christ in the deliuerie of the mysteries called bread his
would for your sake to helpe you to an argument pull backe his owne confession affirming himselfe to haue spoken de veteri Figura of the olde Figure or except you say his meaning was that Christ made his Supper to be an auncient figure of the old testament R. Abbot 18. HEre the Answerer beginneth with his iest Tertullian saith he killeth the Cowe I aunswere him if Transubstantiation be a Cowe Tertullian killeth the Cowe Hée stronglye gainsaieth it and will not abide it Thus hée speaketh a Tertul. cont Marcion li. 4. The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie But it had not bene a figure vnlesse there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie could receiue no figure Marcion the hereticke against whom he wrote held that Christ had not a true and reall bodie but only a fantasie and appearance and shew of a bodie Tertullian proueth by the Sacrament that Christ had a verie true bodie For the scripture is not wont to set down tokens and figures of things which haue not the truth of the things answerable vnto them Therefore séeing Christ in the Gospell gaue bread as a token and figure of his bodie saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie it is certaine that Christ hath a true bodie correspondent to this figure Thus do b chrysost in Mat. hom 83. Theod. dâ—al 2. Iren adu haeres lib. 5. Chrysostome and other of the Fathers reason from the Sacrament to proue the veritie and truth of the passion and of the bodie of Iesus Christ To this place of Tertullian M. Harding confessing that Tertullian made these wordes This is a figure of my bodie the exposition of those words This is my bodie saith that his interpretatioÌ„ is not according to the right sense of Christs words and that in his contention he did not so much regard the exact vse of his words as how he might winne his purpose of his aduersary so maketh Tertullian to write he cared not what Campian being vrged with the same words in the Tower shifted the matter off that those words That is to say a figure of my bodie werâ— the exception of the hereticke and not Tertullians own words The Ans hath found in some other of his learned Treatises namely c Bellar. to 2. de sacram Euchar. lâ—b 2. cap 7. in Bellarmine another deuise for the saluing of this matter Wherby we may sée how these men are carried vp and downe with giddinesse and phrensie and being pressed with euidence of truth cannot finde any answere whereupon to rest themselues and therefore as ashamed each of others doings bestow their wits from day to day to deuise new collusions and shifts to saue themselues The Answ resting vpoÌ„ the credit of father Robert thinketh that there is great wit and reason in that which he hath written so that Tertullian must be an Asse if he meant otherwise then he expoundeth him but indéed getteth himselfe hereby a priuiledge to weare the eares to whomsoeuer it befall to be the Asse For his exposition beside that it is foolish and absurd maketh also expresly against himselfe and admitteth that which I desire and which he himselfe must néeds confesse to be the vndooing of Transubstantiation He maketh two expositions of Tertullians words the one ours and that thus This is my bodie that is to say this is a figure of my bodie and this being indéed the currant and direct passage of Tertullians words he disliketh and condemneth The other is theirs and as he would make vs beléeue the verie intended meaning of the words namely thus This is my bodie This that is to say the figure of my bodie is my bodie Whereby he briefly resolueth out of Tertullian a maruellous doubt wherof his Fathers were neuer able to determine any thing namely whereto the word This is to be applied For if it be sayd This bread which is the very truth then they sawe that Transubstantiation cannot stand Therefore haue they prophaned the sacred words of Christ with their cursed sophistications and haue most wretchedly tossed them too and fro to make a meaning of them that might serue for their purpose yet haue found none But the Answ setteth downe the meaning thus This figure of my bodie is my bodie So that the word This must be referred to the figure of the bodie And what figure The olde figure euen the same saith he that Melchisedech vsed And what was that olde figure Marry it was bread Then we haue the exposition of Christes words as we would haue it This is my bodie that is to say This bread is my bodie And this is manifest to be Tertullians mind by that he saith twise in this place that Christ called bread his bodie and in his booke against the Iewes saith in like sort that he called bread his bodie and in his first booke against Marcion saith againe that Christ represented his bodie by bread Now if Christ in the Sacrament call bread his bodie and by bread do represent his bodie then it followeth that in the Sacrament it is bread which is called the bodie of Christ and is so called because the bodie of Christ is represented thereby Therefore the meaning of Christs words must néeds be thus This bread is the figure of my bodie This were sufficient for the opening of Tertullians minde in this point but yet I will follow the Answ to sift the matter somewhat further I acknowledge first with him that Tertullians purpose in that place is to shewe that Christ fulfilled in the new Testament those things that were foretold and foreshewed in the old But as it was neuer prefigured in the old Testament that there should be a transubstantiation of the bread wine so no more doth Tertullian go about by any old figure to approue the same And if he had named Melchisedech or alluded vnto him any way as we are by this man borne in hand yet could it not haue bene to any other purpose but this that Melchisedech by bringing foorth bread and wine in figure of the Sacrament did signifie that Christ should appoint and institute bread and wine to be the tokens and signes of his bodie and blood and that Christ in the Gospell did fulfil the same So saith S. Hierom d Hieron in Mat. 26. Christ taketh bread goeth to the true SacrameÌ„t of the passeouer that as Melchisedech the priest of the high God in prefiguring of him offering bread and wine had done so he himselfe also might represent the truth of his bodie and blood Therfore though it be graunted that Tertullian speaketh of Melchisedech yet serueth it my purpose and not his that Christ instituted bread and wine to represent thereby the truth of his bodie and blood as Melchisedech had prefigured he should do But the truth is
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
again in this mysterie his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people and Cyprian We sticke to the crosse we sucke the blood and fasten our tongues within the wounds of our redeemer and Chrysostome againe Good Lord the iudge himselfe is led to the iudgement seat the creator is set before the creature he which cannot be seene of the angels is spitted at by a seruant he tasteth gall and vâ—neger he is thrust in with a speare he is put into a graue c. In which maner of speaking S. Hierome saith Happie is he in whose heart Christ is euerie day borne and againe Christ is crucified for vs euerie day and S. Austen Then is Christ slaine vnto Aug. ouaesâ— Euan. li 2. q. 33. euery man when he beleeueth him to haue bene slaine Doe you thinke that these thinges are really done in the Sacrament as the words sound that Christ indeed suffereth dieth is burted that we cleaue to his crosse c S. Austen telleth you The offering of the De cons dist 2. cap. Hoc est flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Séeing then the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and the passion of Christ is to be vnderstood in the Sacrament not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie it followeth that that sacrifice is likewise â—o to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysserie and therefore that the sacrifice which you pretend is indéed sacriledge as I haue termed it and a manifest derogation from the sufficiency of Christs sacrifice vpon his crosse As touching the matter of Transubstantiation I alleaged vnto Gâ—las cont â—u yâ—h Nâ—st you the sentence of Geâ—asâ—â—â— Bishop of Rome There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine You answere me first that you suspect it to be corrupted by some of ours There is no cause M. Spence of that suspitioÌ„ but the shamelesse dealing of some leaud varlets of your side is notorious that way and infamous through all the Church of God Your owne clerkes cannot deny the truth of this allegation as they do not of many other sayings of the auncient Fathers as plainly contrary to your positions as this is Albeit Index Expurg in censura Bertrami they practise therein that which they professe in the Index Expurgatorius where they say In the old Catholicke Doctors we beare with many errours and we extenuate them excuse them by some deuised shift do oftentimes deny them and faine a conuenient meaning of them when they are opposed vnto vs in disputations or in contention with our aduersaries Indéed without these pretie shifts your men could finde no matter whereof to compile their answers But being taken for truly alleaged you say yet the whole faith of Christs Church in that point may not by his testimony be reproued against so many witnesses of scriptures and Fathers to the contrarie Whereas you should remember that Gelasius was Bishop of Rome that what he wrote he wrote it by way of iudgement and determination against an hereticke and therfore by your owne defence could not erre And if it had bene against the receiued faith of the Catholicke Church in those daies the heretickes against whom he wrote would haue returned it vpon him to his great reproach But he spake as other auncient Fathers had done before him as Theodor. dial 1. Theodoret He which called himselfe a vine did honour the visible elements and signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature And againe The Dial. 2. mysticall signes after consecration do not go from their own nature for they continue in their former substance figure and forme c. chrysost ad caesarium Monach August apud â—edam in 1. cor 10. Chrysostome thus Before the bread be consecrated we call it bread but the grace of God sanctifying it by the ministerie of the priest it is freed froÌ„ the name of bread is vouchsafed the name of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it Austen thus That which you see is bread and the cup which your eyes also do tell you De consect dist 2 cap. â—oc est But as touching that which your faith requireth for in â—ructioÌ„ bread is the bodie of Christ and the cup is his blood And againe This is it which we say which by all meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament that is the bodie of Christ And that you may not take that visible forme of the elements for your emptie formes and accidentes without substance which and many other things your Censours aboue-named say The latter age of the Church subtilly and truly added by the holie Index Expurgat in censura Bertrami Ghost confessing thereby that these Popish subâ—ilties were not knowne at all to the auncient Fathers take withall that which he addeth Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is true God true man because euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those things whereof it is made By which rule you may vnderstand also the saying of Irenee The Eucharist Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. consisteth of two things an earthly and a heauenly namely so as that it conteineth the nature and truth of them both By these places and many other like it is euident that albeit in this Sacrament there is yéelded vnto the faith of the receiuer the bodie and blood of Christ and the whole power and vertue thereof to euerlasting life yet there ceaseth not to be the substance nature and truth of bread and wine Which is the purport of Gelasiuâ— his words By the Sacraments which we receiue of the bodie and blood of Christ we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the subsance or nature of bread and wine The force of which words and of the wordes of Theodoret you shall perceiue the better if you know how they are directed against Eutyches the hereticke The hereticke in Theodorets Dialogues by a comparison drawen from Dial. â— the sacrament wold shew how the bodie of Christ after his assumption into heauen was swallowed vp as it were of his diuinitie and so Christ ceased to be truly man As said he the bread and wine before the blessing are one thing but after the blessing become another and are changed so the bodie or humanitie of Christ whereby he was truly man before is after-his ascension glorification changed into the substance of God But Theodoret answereth him Thou art
taken in the nettes which thou thy selfe hast wouen For as the bread and wine albeit in vertue and power they implie the bodie and blood of Christ yet retaine still the substance truth of nature which they had before so the bodie of Christ albeit it be glorified and aduanced to high and excellent dignitie yet remaineth still the same in substance and propertie of nature as it was before Which saint Austen expresseth thus speaking of the bodie of Christ To August ep 57. which indeed he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken away the nature thereof If Euâ—yches were now aliue he would surely be a Papist Your new and grosse heresie of Transubstantiation had bene a good neast for him to shroude himselfe in For he might and would haue said that as the bread and wine in the sacrament after consecration do leaue their former substance and are changed into another so the bodie of Christ although it were first a true and naturall bodie yet after his ascension and glorification was chaunged into another nature and substance of the Godhead A meete couer cyp de caena domini for such a cup. You may remember that I shewed you how Cyprian doth exemplifie the matter of the sacrament by the diuinitie humanitie of Christ that as Iesus Christ though truly God yet was not letted thereby to be truly man so the sacrament though it implie sacramentally not only the vertue power but also the truth of the bodie and blood of Christ yet is not therby hindered from hauing in it the substance and nature of bread wine And as Christ was changed in nature not by leauing his former nature of Godhead but by taking to him the nature of man so bread and wine were chaunged in nature not by leauing their former nature substance but by hauing vnited vnto them by the working of the holie Ghost in such maner as I haue said the substance and effect of the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ But you cannot sée how the words of Christ This is my bodie c. can be vnderstood otherwise but of your Transubstantiation There is M. Spence a veile of preiudice lying before your heart which blindeth your eyes that you cannot sée it Otherwise you might know by the very spéeches of the auncient Fathers to whom you referre your selfe that Christ called bread and wine his bodie and blood and that after the same maner of sacramentall speaking which I noted vnto you before out of saint Austen Sacraments because August ep 23. of the resemblance do most commonly take the names of the things themselues which they do resemble Whereof he saith for example in the same place The Sacrament of Christes bodie is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ But Cyprian telleth you Our Cypr. ll 1. ep 6. Lord called the bread made by the vniting of many cornes his bodie and the wine pressed out of many clusters and grapes hee called his blood And Chrysostome saith of bread in the sacrament The bread chrysost ad caesar Theod. dia. 1. is vouchsafed the name of our Lords bodie And Theodoret as before Christ honored the visible signes with the name of his body blood And S. Austen The bread is the bodie of Christ And Theodoret againe Aug. apâ—d Bâ—dam in 1. cor 10. Our Sauiour chaunged the names and gaue vnto his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his bodie And Cyprian againe Our Lorde gaue at the table with his owne handes bread Theod dial 1. Cypr. de vnct Chrismatis and wine and bread and wine are his flesh and blood The signes and the things signified are counted by one name And if you wold know the cause why Christ did vse this exchaunge of names Theodoret telleth you straightwaies after He would haue those that are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things which are seene but because of the changing of the names to beleeue the chaunge which is wrought by grace namely that our mindes may be fixed not vpon the signs but vpon the things signified therby as he that hath any thing assured vnto him by hand and seale respecteth not the paper or the writing or the seale but the things that are confirmed and assured vnto him hereby By these you may vnderstand that it was bread which Christ called his bodie and as Cypr. lib. 2. epâ—st 3. Aug. cont Adâ—m c2 12. Tertul cont Marcionem lib. 4. Cyprian saith That it was wine which he called his blood And let S. Austen tell you the same Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the sign of his body So Tertullian The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie saying this is my body that is to say a figure of my bodie Wherby you may conceiue that bread and wine are not really chaunged into the bodie and blood as you teach but remaining in substance the same they were are in vse and propertie the signes and figures of the bodie and blood of Christ And as Gelasius addeth to the words before alleaged The image and resemblance of the Lords body and blood is celebrated in the exercise of the Sacraments Yet they are not naked and bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill but substantiall and effectuall signes or seales rather assuring our faith of the things signified thereby and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruite and benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ But you will vrge perhaps that Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his bodie which words your men are wont to alleage out of the former part of the sentence guilefully concealing the end of the same Tertullian declareth his owne meaning that he vnderstandeth a figure of the bodie But you may further Ioh. 1. 1â— remember that the Gospell saith The word was made flesh and yet it ceased not to be the word so the bread is made the bodie of Christ and yet it ceaseth not to be the bread S. Austen saith August apud Bedam in 1. cor 10. Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his body blood which also he made vs to be and by his mercy we are that which we do receiue yet we are not transubstantiated into the bodie blood of Christ Vnderstand therefore that the bread is made the bodie of Christ after a certain maner and not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie As touching the bodily and Popish eating drinking of Christs flesh and blood grounded on this point of transubstantiation Christ our Sauiour said to the Iewes as S. Austen expoundeth his words August in Psal 98. Ye shall not eate this bodie which you see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead that shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being
office of Priesthood doth he execute who offered himselfe once and doth not offer sacrifice any more And how can it be that he should both sitte and yet execute the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice As it séemed strange to them that Christ should offer himselfe still in sacrifice yet withall sit at the right hand of God so no lesse strange séemeth it vnto vs and therefore we cannot beléeue the one because the Apostle hath taught vs against that to beléeue the other I wil adde onely one place more of Sainct Ambrose as touching this point of the offering of Christ whereby we may sufficiently vnderstand the meaning of the auncient Writers in the vse of the same wordes e Amb. Officlib 1. cap. 48. Now Christ is offered saith he but as man as receiuing or suffering his passion and he offereth himselfe as a Priest that he may forgiue our sinnes Here in an image or resemblance there in trueth where as an Aduocate he pleadeth for vs with the Father Where he sayeth indéede that Christ is offered and offereth himselfe but yet as suffering his passion which he doth not suffer really and therefore is not really offered in sacrifice but onely in a mystery Therefore he saith he is here offered not verily and in trueth as if his very body were here to be offered but in an image or reseÌ„blance by these signes which betoken his body and bloud For as Oecumenius saith out of Gregory f Oecumen in Heb. 10. The image containeth not the trueth though it be a manifest imitation of the trueth And therefore if the offering of Christ here on the earth be in an image then it is not in the very trueth As for the trueth of his body and bloud he telleth vs that it is not in earth but in Heauen where he offereth himselfe not by reall sacrifice but by presenting coÌ„tinually vnto his father in our behalfe that body wherein he was once sacrificed and thereby as by a continuall sacrifice making intercession to God for vs which he opposeth by pleading for vs as an Aduocate with the Father And therefore doeth Oecumenius expound g Oecumen in Heb. 8. that sacrificing of himselfe in Heauen to be nothing else but his making intercession for vs. For h Heb. 9. 24. his appearing in the sight of God for vs and sitting with the Father clothed with our flesh is as Theophylact noteth i Theophy in Heb. 7. a kinde of intercession to God in our behalfe as if the flesh it selfe did intreate God Therefore our offering of Christ standeth onely in this that by those mysteries of his body and bloud which he hath ordained for commemoration of his death and by our faith and prayers we doe as it were present vnto God the Father his sonne Iesus Christ sitting at the right hand of God in that body wherein hée was crucified for vs crauing for his sake as thus crucified for vs yâ— forgiuenesse of all our sinne So Christes offering of himselfe is nothing else but his continuall presence in the sight of God for vs in that body which he gaue to death for our sinnes by which euen as effectually as by vocall wordes he is saide k Heb. 12. 24. to speak good things for vs and to intreate God that he will be mercifull vnto vs. And this vndoubtedly is the vtermost that the fathers meant in al those spéeches of offering and sacrifice wherewith the Papistes would abuse vs. To be short the euidence of Scripture is against all sacrifice for sinne They bring no euidence of Scripture for it Some places indéede they alleadge but in no other manner then the olde Heretickes were wont to alledge the scriptures for defence of their heresies There is nothing to be séene in the places themselues to that purpose for which they are alleaged but we must rest onely vppon those constructions and collections which it pleaseth them to make thereof Against the euidence of scripture they except with a blinde distinction that hath no grounde from the holie Scripture and that which is there generally denyed they restraine without anye warrant to a particular manner Christ is not to be offered after his once offering as the scripture teacheth True say they not in that maner as he was once offered but in another maner he may We require it out of the scripture Otherwise we may haue all assertions of faith and religion impiously deluded For with as great reason when we say there is but one God it may be answered that in that maner as he is God there is but one but in another maner there are many when we saie there is but one redéemer it may be answered that in that maner as he is redéemer there is but one but in another maner there be many nay when it is sayd that Christ died but once as it is sayd he was offered but once why may it not as wel be said that in that maner as he died once he dieth no more but in another maner he dieth often as that he is offered no more indéed in that maner as he was offered before but in another maner he is offered often Therfore this licentious and presumed distinction is ioyned with impietie against God and serueth to giue a mocke to all the wordes of God and for this cause is to be detested of vs beside that it is as hath bene before shewed manifestly contradicted by the word of God Much more might here be added to shew the villany and abhomination of the sacrifice of the Masse But it shall suffice for my purpose to haue added this to that that I had sayd before where notwithstanding this matter was manifestly inough declared to satisfie the Answ had he bene as carefull to know the truth as he is wilfull to continue in his errour For do not the places which I alleaged before out of the Fathers exclude all reall offering sacrificing of Christ I will once againe set them downe particularly as thornes in the Answ eyes who being in his owne conscience ouercome with them answereth nothing distinctly but séeketh to go away in a mist of general words and because he can say nothing to the purpose thinketh it inough to say that none of these testimonies maketh against their sacrificing of Christ A pretie kind of answering and very agréeable to that that I alleaged before out of the Index But first l Chrysost â— Ambros in Heb. â—0 Chrysostome and Ambrose purposely speaking of the sacrifice of the church say thus We offer not another sacrifice but alwaies the same or rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice It is absurd to vse correction of spéech where the truth of yâ— thing is fully answerable already to the proper signification of the words For correction of spéech is a reuersing of that which is alreadie set downe as being hardly or not so fully or fitly spoken and therefore putteth in stéed thereof
b clem Apost consti li. 6. ca. 23. Euseb de vita constant lib. 4. cap. 45. Concil Constanti 6. ca. 32. calling the one blouddy as being properly a sacrifice the other vnblouddy as being so but vnproperly and onely in a mystery as the place of Clemens whosoeuer he was doth plainely shew affirming it to bée celebrated by signes of the body and bloud of Christ not by the body it selfe and that of c Oecumen in Heb. 5. Oecumenius out of Photius that Christ first offered an vnblouddy sacrifice and then afterward hee offered his owne body also manifestly declaring that the vnblouddy sucrifice was not indéede the offering of y◠body of Christ yet to offer the blouddy sacrifice of Christes death in an vnblouddy sacrifice of his body to apply vnto vs the vertue of his bloudy sacrifice is a mishapen monster lately begotten in the time of Antichristian desolation and such as the ancient fathers neuer dreamed of And wisely did he deale to tel me that he could shew much and yet to shew nothing at all Now he telleth me againe here that which for enlarging his answere he hath so often idlely and vainely repeated that they are not of opinion that Christ suffereth or is slaine in their sacrifice which he saieth is an imagination fit for my merry gentleman the Athenian But surely it will fall to Doctor Allen to be that merry gentleman For he in great sadnesse telleth vs concerning Christ in their sacrifice That hee is d Allen. de Eucharist sacrif cap 1◠Verè mactatur verely slaine and offered in sacrifice and I hope the Answ wil take Doct. Allen for a Catholicke though he say that neuer any Catholicke did so write But let that passe as an vnsauery dreame of a drousie Cardinall the Answ will not say so Yet he may as well proue by the sayings of the Fathers ◠that Christ dieth and is crucified again in this mysterie as that he is verily sacrificed séeing that as I shewed him they no lesse plainly affirme the one then they do the other But the letter is not to be forced in the one What reason then so much to force it in the other Nay because they teach vs that the passion death of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and the passion of Christ is here to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie as S. Austen speaketh it foloweth that the sacrifice which we offer as touching y◠present act must be vnderstood a sacrifice not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie But here the Answ would saine lift me vp before I am downe telling me first that mine argument is against art because the forme is negatiue in the third figure But the man without doubt hath forgotten his Logicke For what proposition of all these is negatiue I maruell Mary this forsooth The passion of Christ is here to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so the conclusion But if I should say to him that Campian and his fellows were executed not for religion but for treason would he not take it that I spake verie affirmatiuely that they were executed only for treason And why then could he not cōceiue that when I said The passion of Christ is to be vnderstood as touching the Sacrament not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie I affirmed this that the passion of Christ is to be vnderstood only in a signifying mysterie and the conclusion answerable thereto His Logicke rule of the negatiue particle Post copulam would haue taught him to vnderstand both the propositions affirmatiuely as I set them downe and then the forme shal not be negatiue in the third figure But this being made good the Maior or first proposition he saith is false if I meane it as I must that the passion of Christ is the whole sacrifice For there is as he saith beside the memory of the passion of Christ a reall offering also of the body of Christ The Maior is the saying of Cyprian as I alleaged e Cypri lib. 2. Epist 3. The passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer Yea but he saith not that it is the whole sacrifice saith the Answerer He saith not so indéed but yet his words import no lesse to any mans vnderstanding that is not froward But if that be not hence assured yet was it otherwise manifestly inough proued by the words of Prosper though the Answ would not see it because it should haue preuented him of his answere f Prosper in Psal 12◠What propitiation is there saith Prosper but sacrifice and what sacrifice but the killing or death of that lambe which hath taken away the sinnes of the world Now if there be no sacrifice of propitiation but only the death of the lamb◠that is the passiō of Christ as Prosper teacheth then the passion of Christ is the whole sacrifice that we offer Let him adde hereunto the words of S. Austen who telleth vs thus g August con aduer leg proph l. 1. c. 18 For the singular and only true sacrifice the blood of Christ was shed for vs. The bloodshedding of Christ then is the only true sacrifice therefore there is no other true sacrifice of Christ himselfe The bloodshedding of Christ is only represented in the Sacrament by a signifying mysterie and not performed in the truth of the thing Therefore the whole sacrifice that we offer is a representation only of a sacrifice by a signifying mysterie not any reall sacrificing in the truth of the thing Let Iustinus Martyr further iustifie this matter who auoucheth plainly h Iushin Martyr dial cum Tryph. That praiers thanksgiuing are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make that by their drie and moist nourishment that is the Sacrament or elements of bread and wine they may be admonished of those things which God the sonne of God hath suffered for them The Sacrament then of drie and moyst nourishment that is the Lordes supper contemeth no other sacrifices but praiers and thanksgiuings neither haue Christians receiued to vse therein any other sacrifice as Iustinus Martyr expresly defineth Then it followeth that Christians haue not receiued that which Papists teach to make any reall offering of the body of Christ but only an Eucharistical offering of the passiō of Christ in calling to minde by the vse of this holy Sacrament what God the sonne of God hath suffered for them Basil also witnesseth the same writing vpon these words of the prophesie of Esay i Basil in Esay cap. 1. What haue I to do with the multitude of your offerings c. God saith he reiecting multitude of offerings requireth of vs one namely that euery man reconcile and offer himselfe to God yeelding himselfe by reasonable seruice a liuing sacrifice offering to God the sacrifice of praise For the
nature of bread wine The words are plaine that in the Sacrament there remaineth the substance of bread and wine What should a man go about to cast a mist before the Sunne or by shifting and paltering to obscure that which is as cléere as the shining light Why do not the Answ and his fellowes say that Gelasius aboue a thousand yeares ago was a Caluinist and erreâ— in that point But he addeth further And surely in the exercise of the Sacraments there is celebrated an image resemblance of the bodie and blood of Christ Whereupon he inferreth thus against Eutyches It is therefore euidently inough shewed vnto vs that we must thinke the same in our Lord Iesus Christ which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image And what do we professe in his image that is in the Sacrament Forsooth saith the Papist we must professe that the substance of bread and wine is abolished and only certaine properties and shewes of bread and wine remaine Why then so must we thinke also of Christ himselfe that the substance of his manhood is extinguished and that there remain only certaine accidents and shewes thereof in which he liued here as a man was crucified as a man but was not man indéed which is the very thing that Eutyches desired But Gelasius telleth vs far otherwise that as these namely the bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer into a diuine substance yet continue in the proprietie of their own nature so they shew that that principall mysterie the force and vertue whereof these do 〈◊〉 represent vnto vs doth continue one Christ whole and true those natures properly remaining whereof he doth consist Let the Answ marke well that we must think the same iâ— Christ as we do in the Sacrament his image If consecration then take away the substance of bread and wine as Papists teach then personall vniting of the manhood vnto God taketh away the substance of the manhood as Eutyches affirmed He knoweth I say he knoweth that the comparison vsed by Gelasius enforceth so much if it be applied to the disproofe of Eutyches his heresie rightly truly reported Now as Gelasius draweth his comparison from the Sacrament to Christ so doth S. Austen as Gratian alleageth him from Christ to yâ— Sacrament a De consecra dist 2. cap. Hoc est This is it which we say saith he which by all meanes we labor to approue that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament thâ—â— is the bodie of Christ euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is truly God and truly mâ—â— For euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those thinges whereof it is made By which words it is most plaine and euâ—dent that as the person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and manhood veriâ—â— and â—â—â—ly so the Sacrament consisting of the visible element and the â—odiâ— of Christ of an earthly thing a heauenly thing as b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Ireneus speaketh conteineth the nature and truth of them both and therefore the nature truth of bread and wine And if the truth then the substance as Gelasius reasoneth concerning Christ c Gelas con Eurych If he be truly man then there is in him the true substance of the nature of man because otherwise he cannot be truly man but abiding substantially trâ—e in the proprietie of his nature So if there be the truth of the outward elements in the Sacrament then there is in them their true substance For otherwise there cannot be the truth of them but as they abide substantially true in the proprietie of their nature This collection togither with the places of Austen and Ireneus I set downe before sufficiently prouing the falshood of Transubstantiation But the Answ thought good to passe it ouer without any mention because he could not finde any answere at all to it which serueth not for the maintenance of Eutyches his heresie as do all those shifts and collusions whereby he goeth about to darken the euidence and clearenesse of Gelasius his words Let vs sée now what good stuffe there is conteined in them In his first and fourth circumstances he bewraieth either his ignorance or else his partialitie and falshood For taking in hand by way of circumstance to set downe the heresie of Eutyches where he should haue done it wholly faithfully he doth it but in part and deceitfully that it may not séem to make so directly against his breadlesse bread For he restraineth it only to yâ— time after Christs ascension as if Eutyches had thought that the humanitie of Christ was not consumed till after the time that he was ascended Whereas Gelasius in the very next words to the place before alleaged giueth plainly to vnderstand that Eutyches meant the abolishing of the substance of the manhood euen while Christ was on the earth though he reteined the shew and aprearance of man yea and continued passible also by reason whereof he sayd his Godhead suffered and was crucified which suffering was the very substantiall propertie of the humane nature For Eutyches held not the annihilating of the properties of the manhood as the Answ imagineth but the conâ—ounding of them with the properties of the Godhead so yâ— the Godhead by those properties did suffered those things which belonged to the manhood And this appeareth plainly in the definition of the Chalcedon Councell where it is thus sayd d Concil chalced Act. 5. in definit They fondly imagine that there is but one nature of the Godhead and the flesh and so by a monstrous confusion of Christ they signifie that the diuine nature or Godhead is passible and subiect to suffering So that Eutyches held the same of Christ on the earth as the Papists do of the bread in the Sacrament that there was the shewe and appearance of man and the properties of the manhood remaining but the substance was consumed euen as these do hold that there is in the Sacrament a shew of bread and the properties of bread remaining but the substance of the bread is vanished How then shuld Gelasius go about to refute the heresie of Eutyches by the Sacrament if his opinion as touching the Sacrament had bene the same that the Papists now is Againe whereas he saith that Eutyches held that the bread was vtterly annihilated nothing remaining therin of the substantiall properties or natures thereof he deserueth the iust reproach of a false vnshame fast person For what a peruerse and wilfull man is he to deuise such a matter of his owne braines for proofe or likelihood wherof there is not so much as any shew to be found in any auncient writer Eutyches forsooth held that panietas viâ—eitas the breaddinesse of
in their former nature because they nourish no lesse then the substance of bread it selfe would haue done if it had remained They remain in the former shape and kind as being things that may be seene touched as they might before Theodoretus then hauing saide thus much for the one part of the Sacrament commeth also to shew the other part thereof For his minde is to declare that as there be two kinds of things in one Eucharist so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christ Therefore the other nature besides the formes of bread and wine is the reall substance of Christs bodie and blood of which part thus he speaketh Intellâ—guntur autem esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vâ—pote quae illa sunt quae creduntur the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be those things which they were made and they are beleeued they are adored as being those things which they are beleeued to be Note that these mystica symbola are vnderstanded to be that they were made but what are they vnderstaÌ„ded to be that b They are truly vnderstood to be that in mystetie and siâ—nificatioÌ„ which in substance and nature they are not which they are not Nay syr that were false vnderstanding which falshood cannot be in the mysteries of Christ they are theÌ„ that indeed which they are vnderstanded to be What is it Theodoretus sheweth a little before that they were after consecration the body blood of Christ Therefore the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood not because they be not so but because they are so for that they were made his bodie and blood and so they are beleeued to be and are adored or kneeled and bowed vnto But how percase as bearing the image and signes of the bodie and blood of Christ No syr but as being c Strange diuinitie that mysticall 〈◊〉 should be indeed the bodie and bloud of Christ 〈…〉 mysticall sigâ—â— had bene of the virgine Mary Ioh. 1. Theophy in Ioh. 1. indeed the bodie and blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being those things which they are vnderstanded and beleeued to be They are Adored because they are the bodie and blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being and the word as meaneth in that place a truth of being as if it were vere existentia quae creâ—untur being indeed the things which they are beleeued to be So speaketh S. Iohn Viâ—imus gloriam eius gloriam quasi vnigeniti a patre we saw his glorie a glorie as of the only begotten of the father to wit we saw the glorie of him being indeed the only begotten of his father VpoÌ„ which place Theophylact saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English as is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likenesse but that confirmeth and betokeneth an vndoubted determination as when we see a King comming forth with great glory we say that he came forth as a King that is to say he came forth as being indeed a King So that by the iudgement of Theophylact that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Theodoret vseth doth betoken an vndoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speake The holie mysteries are adored as being those things indeed which they are beleeued to be This place is such as cannot be reasonably answered vnto For the reason of adoring or giuing d Theodoret intendeth not to giue godly honour to the mystical signs for that were idolatry but only such reuerent vsage as is fit for holy things See the answere godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is because it is indeed the bodie of Christ as it is beleeued to be But it is beleeued to be the bodie of Christ after consecration therefore it is adored as being the true bodie of Christ For Theodoret before hauing confessed the mysteries after consecration to be called the bodie and blood of Christ when it was demanded farther Doest thou beleeue that thou receiuest the bodie and blood of Christ he answereth to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo I do beleeue so Now therefore he affirmeth those mysticall signes to be indeed after consecration the bodie and blood of Christ which they are beleeued to be and so beleeued that they are receiued of vs. Euerie word must be weighed because we haue to do with our aduersaries who must finde shifts or els their deceit will appeare to all the world First therefore let it be marked that after consecration the mysteries are called the bodie and blood Secondly that the mysteries are e They are vnderstood to be at made and beleeued to be mystical signes of the body blood and so are reuerently vsed though in substance they be but bread and wine This is all that Theodoret meaneth as shall appeare vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood of Christ Thirdly that they are made so Fourthly they are beleeued to be so Fiftly they are adored for that they are indeed those things which they are beleeued to be And last of all they are receiued The first saying second and the last ye can beare withall to wit that they are called the bodie and blood and are vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood and that the bodie blood are receiued For you wold haue them called so and not be so thereby making the namer of them a miscaller as one that calleth them by a wrong name Secondly you would haue them vnderstanded to be the bodie blood and yet not be so thereby shewing that you take pleasure in vntrue vnderstanding for no f S. Paul would haue the rock vnderstood to be Christ which indeed was not christ yet he was a good man good man wold haue a thing vnderstanded to be that which indeed it is not Againe you would the bodie and blood to be receiued How trow you In the faith of the man but g VVe receiue the truth of the bodie of Christ not by the mouth of our bodies but by the faith of our soules You haue turned faith into the mouth and the truth of the bodie into the fantasie of a bodie not in the truth of the bodie therby declaring that you diuide faith from truth as men that haue a perswasion of things that indeed be not so But to calling vnderstanding and receiuing Theodoret ioyneth also beleeuing adoring and being And the beliefe which he speaketh of is not referred to heauen but vnto the holie mysteries They are beleeued they are adored as being those things which they are beleeued to be h A peeuish and blind fansie Nothing is more vsual then to call the signe by the name of the thing signified though indeed it be not the same The thing that is called or named Christes bodie and blood is indeed that thing which it is called Christ can h misname nothing at all
of bread is called by the name of flesh and the visible forme of wine by the name of blood Now it is called the inuisible and intelligible flesh of Christ because according to that forme flesh is not seene but vnderstoode and so the bloud Therefore the inuisible flesh is said to be a sacrament of the visible flesh because the forme of bread according to which that flesh is not seen is a sacrament of the visible flesh because by the inuisible flesh that that is by the forme according to which the flesh of Christ appeapeareth not flesh is signified the body of Christ which is visible and may be felt where it appeareth in his forme To this he addeth out of the other wordes of Austen that the bread is called the body being indeed the sacrament of the body of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so maketh S. Austen to expound that which before he sayth he had obscurely spoken Thus the Answ owne doctors though otherwise friendes to transubstantiation yet doe iustifie my exposition of this place and make it manifest that though the place be obscure at first sight yet by the common groundes of diuinitie it connot be construed so as that transubstantiation may necessarily be proued thereby Therefore I say still with Austen that the sacrament of the body of Christ is onely after a certaine maner the body of Christ namely not properly not in the trueth of the thing as the Answerer auoucheth but onely in a signifying mysterie betokening the same P. Spence Sect. 14. FOr your place of Chrysostome The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body c. For as for the place of S. Cypr. lib. 2. Epis 6. is such as deserueth no answer a CypriaÌ„ saith that Christ called the bread made of manie grains his body c. It is very bread therfore which is called the bodie only telling you that the bread wherof the sacrament was made was compact of many graines and the wine pressed foorth of many grapes which no baker nor vintner will denie which is smally to this purpose the place I say of Chrysost only flattereth you with these wordes b The wordes which I alleaged are thus The bread is vouchâ—afed the name 〈◊〉 the â—ody oâ— christ The nature of bread remaineth Why sir who denieth that the naturall properties of colour shape tast and feeding remaine no Catholique I am sure so that you see your testimonie out of him maketh not against vs nor auayleth you anie more then the painted fire warmed the old woman But the places of Chrysostome prouing the reall presence are so infinite that infinite madnesse it were M. Abbot and farre surmounting your Athenians madnesse to hazard my soule vpon such a testimonie as saith nothing against me R. Abbot 14. IN the places which I alleaged of Cyprian Chrysostome and Theodoret the Answ heart without doubt failed him For hée sawe it plainly euicted and proued by them and that so as that hee knew there was nothing for him to answere directly to the wordes that it is bread which in the sacrament is called the bodie of Christ and wine which is called his bloud Yet being vowed and sworne to his owne errour he will rather do or say any thing then yéeld vnto the trueth The places of Theodoret hée leaueth out quite who affirmeth that Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud that hée made exchange of names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body To the places of Cyprian and Chrysostome he writeth somewhat but answereth nothing He taketh that which was not vrged and that which was to the point in question he slippeth by Let him remember what S. Austen saith a Aug. quaest ex yet â—â—st q. 14. He which concealeth the wordes of the matter in question is either an ignorant person or a wrangler studying rather for cauillinges then for doctrine The words of Cyprian are thus b Cypri lib. 1. Epist 6. Our Lord calleth bread made by the vniting of many cornes his body and wine pressed out of manie clusters and grapes he calleth his bloud To this hée saith childishly and vainly that it onely proueth that bread is made of many cornes and wine of many grapes shewing plainly that he made no conscience of his answere but was desirous to credite himselfe by writing somewhat howsoeuer But let Cyprian be further asked what is it that Christ calleth his bodie He saith it is bread What is it that Christ calleth his bloud It is wine Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud Now if there be neither bread nor wine in the sacrament as the Answ and his fellowes teach then Christ cannot call the bread his body nor the wine his bloud But because Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud therefore the meaning of these wordes This is my body This is my bloud is thus This bread is my body This wine is my bloud And because in proper spéech that cannot be true for so it c De consecr dist 2 ca. panis est is vnpossible as the glose of yâ— canon law saith that bread should be the body of Christ therefore it must be figuratiuely vnderstood This bread is the signe and sacrament of my body c. To this the words alleaged out of Chrysostome are verie pregnant d Chrysost ad Caesat Monachum The breadis vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ Why doth the Answ smoother vp these wordes and talke impertinently of that which in this place was not mentioned at all I talked not here of the nature remaining I tell him out of Chrysostome that after consecration it is bread which beareth the name of the body of Christ and let his owne conscience tell him whether that be any thing against him or not when as he and his companie say there is no bread remaining after consecration Chrysostome saith The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ The Papist saith There is no bread but the verie body of Christ it selfe As for his construction of the nature of bread remaining that is the colour shape taste and féeding without any substance of bread it maketh Chrysostome to speake fondly as himselfe vseth to doe namely thus The bread is vouchsafed the name of Christes body although there be no bread His infinite testimonies out of Chrysostome to prooue the reall presence are iust neuer a one He deceiâ—â—eth himselfe for want of the knowledge of that rule which Chrysostome himselfe giueth him vpon these wordes of Christ e chrys in Ioh. hom 46. The flesh profiteth nothing Hee meaneth it not saith he of the flesh it selfe God forbid But of those which carnally and fleshly vnderstand those thinges which are spoken And what is it to vnderstand carnally Marry simply as things are spoken
he hath set vs frée who were otherwise prisoners of hell and bondslaues to the diuell and so according to the wordes of Cyprian he hath turned our captiuitie wherewith we were taken of old by the transgression of our father Adam and hath dispatched from vs the tormentes of hell whereunto wee were enthralled Nowe to what purpose did the Answe alleage these words of Cyprian or what aduantage doth hée dreame he hath in them He would finde his Limbus patrum here but it will not be For Cyprian speaketh expressely of deliuerance from hell torments whereof there are none in Limbo patrum as his maisters e Rhem. An not Luc. 16. 26 of Rhemes doe instruct him Now hauing vsed this péeuish and impertinent talk of thinges making nothing at all for his purpose yet as a man in a dreame he breaketh out into this fond presumption that the fathers are all theirs and that I should heare but that he is not disposed to oppose I haue not to do with maister Spence I perceiue but with a man wel séene in all the fathers But the fathers are his as they were his that said Ego f Dioscorus the hereticke Concil Chalcedo Act. 1. cum patribus eijcior The fathers and I are cast out both togither And that appeareth in the words of Cyprian now to be handled g Cyprian de vnct chris Our Lord saith hée at the table where he kept his last supper with his Apostles gaue with his owne handes bread and wine but vpon the crosse hee yeelded his body to the Souldiours hands to be wounded that syncere trueth and true synceritie being secretly imprinted in his Apostles might declare to the nations how bread and wine are his flesh and bloud and how causes agree to the effects and diuers names or kindes are reduced to one essence or substance and the thinges signifying and the things signified are counted by the same names Where it is plainly auouched that Christ at his last supper gaue bread wine What néedeth any more Yea but did Christ giue bare bread and wine saith the Answ absurdly and frowardly No say I for this bread and wine is the flesh and bloud of Christ as I before alleaged out of Cyprian according to the which S. Paule saith h 1. cor 10. 16. The bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ The cup of blessing is the communion of the bloud of Christ Therefore S. Austen calleth this bread i August de consecr dist 2. cap. Hoc est heauenly bread and Theodoret k Theodoret. dial 2. the bread of life and the same Cyprian saith that l Cypria de resurrect chri that which is seene namely the visible element of bread is accounted both in name and vertue the body of Christ namely because it conteineth sacramentally the whole vertue and benefite of the passion and death of our Lord Iesus Christ as before I shewed But let him remember that Cyprian saith it is bread and wine which is the flesh bloud of Christ whereas by his defence there is in the Sacrament neyther bread nor wine But Cyprian saith that diuerse names and kindes are reduced to one substance Doe you heare substance saith the Answ Help that sore if you can with all your cunning surely small cunning will serue to heale a sore where neither flesh nor skinne is broken or brused This is in trueth a verie ignorant and blind opposition The visible elements that are in substance bread and wine are in mysterie and signification the bodie and bloud of Christ and are so called as Cyprian before setteth downâ— When therefore bread being one substance is called not onely according to his substance bread but also by waie of Sacrament and mysterie the body of Christ when the wine being one substance is called not onely as it is Wine but also as it signifieth the bloud of Christ diuerse names or kindes are reduced to one substance And this Cyprian declareth when he addeth The signes and the things signified are called by the same names The bodie of Christ it selfe and the signe héereof which is bread are both called the body The bloud of Christ and the signe hereof which is wine are both called his bloud The body and bloud it selfe are so called indéed and trueth but the signes in their maner not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie yet so one substance is called by diuers names as the wordes before do specifie Nowe the place of Cyprian being as cléere as the sunne-light against transubstantiation as euerie eye may perceiue yet the Answ sendeth me to their learned treatises to sée what is there said of this and other places And what shall I finde there but such wretched and miserable cauils and shiftes as he himselfe hath borrowed from them And héere maister Spence as in your name he excuseth himselfe of his simplenesse and that he is no doctour which accordeth not with his vaunt before that hée could shew me this and that out of the fathers And I maruell that he should make excuse thus of his learning to a minister of our church so meane as I am séeing it is so péeuishly bragged amongst you commonly that there is litle learning to be found amongst the best of vs. Wheresoeuer he be I wish that his conscience and truth towardes God were but euen as much as his learning is P. Spence Sect. 16. THe same Cyprian you say lib. 2. Epistola 3. which is the famous Epistle ad Caecilium so much condemning you in so manie points about the sacrifice of the Church and of mixing of water which he said assuredly Christ did but I maruell you would for shame euer auouch it or point me to it for a A Popish bâ—agge See the aunswer to sect 2. euerie line of it is a knife to cut your throate You say that heere S. Cyprian saith that it was wine which Christ called his bloud Much to your purpose maister Abbot Who doubteth yet but that he tooke wine and not ale beere sydar metheglin or such like matter S. Cyprians meaning is most plaine against the Aquarios that it was b Did Christ call wine his bloud and yet dâ—d he meane that it was not wine wine mingled with water as in this Epistle he prooueth notably and not bare water as those Aquarij would haue it that he called his bloud that is to say he tooke wine and not bare water to make the Sacrament of and what is this to your purpose such testimonies are the fathers scrappes parings and crummes and not their sound testimonies R. Abbot 16. THe famous Epistle of Cyprian to Cecilius saith plainly Wee a Cypr. lib. 2. Epist 3. find that it was wine which Christ called his bloud as he saith twise beside in the same Epistle that by wine is represented the bloud of Christ Yea saith the Answ he meaneth that it was wine at the
life as the rocke was Christ as the Apostle saith They dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christ It is not said The rocke was Christ because the rocke did really conteine Christ No more then was it said The bloud is the life because it did really conteine the life but because it was ordained to be a signe of life though it selfe were altogether dead and cold And this doth S. Austen againe expresly note in another place saying It k August cont aduersa leg proph lib. 2. cap. 6. is said The bloud of al flesh is the life or soule thereof in like maner as it is said The rocke was Christ not because it was so indeed but because Christ was signified heereby The lawe would by the bloud signifie the life or soule a thing inuisible by a thing visible c. because the bloud is visibly as the soule is inuisibly the chiefest and most principall of all things whereof wee consist Héere is then a matter of signification onely not of any reall conteining vnlesse the Answ will be so fond as to say that the rocke did really conteine Christ But now of this maner of speaking The bloud is the life or soule when it is indéede but a signe thereof S. Austen giueth a like example in the words of our Sauiour Christ who saith he doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body directly to this meaning that as Christ said This is my body when he gaue it into his Disciples handes not his bodie indéede but onely the signe and sacrament of his body and as the Apostle saith the rock was Christ when it was not Christ indéede but onely a signe of Christ so Moses said The bloud is the life not because it selfe was the life indéede but was onely appointed to be a signe of life And if the sacrament were indéed really the body of Christ what occasion should there be why Christ should doubt to say this is my body But either S. Austen speaketh vainly or els his words import that there might be occasion of doubting to say so And why but because it was not so indéede Yet saith he because it was the mysterie and signe of his body though not his body in substance and indéed therfore hee doubted not according to the maner of the scriptures in like case to say This is my body and so did Moses speake of the bloud Thus most manifestly and plainly I haue shewed that the Answ irrefragable exposition is nothing else but vnhonest and vnconscionable shifting P. Spence Sect. 18. BVt Tertullian killeth the Cow for he saith a figure of the body What if I prooue to you that you be as fowly deceaued or would deceiue in Tertullian as in the last place of S. Augustine This hath Tertullian in lib. 4. contra Marcionem The bread which hee tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his body Lo Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his body so say we and not you how made it he his body by speaking ouer it the wordes of consecration in saying this is my body that is a figure of my body Did Christ say to them This is the figure of my body But if he had yet by speaking those wordes hee had made it his body after Tertullians minde But the very trueth and all the point of the case heerein is in this that Tertullians words may haue two expositions one which you like of This is my body Two expositions of Tertullian that is the figure of my body the other which is our sense and the verie intended meaning of Tertullian is this This is my body This that is to say the figure of my body is my bodie To prooue this vnto you remember it is out of his fourth booke against Marcion which Marcion held the ill God of the old testament to be a deadly enimie to the good God of the new testament Marcion wrote a book called Antithesis or Antilogiae of contradictions and repugnances betweene the two testamentes Against that booke spendeth Tertullian the greatest part of his fourth booke shewing howe Christ the God of the new testament fulfilled and consecrated the old figures of the old testament as a friend and not as an enemie thereof and to that end thus he saith conferring places togither Christ in the daie time taught in the temple of Hierusalem he had foretold by O see In my temple they sâ—ught me and there I will dispute with them Againe he went apart into the mount Elaeon that is to the mount of Oliues Because Zacharie wrote and his feete shall stand in the mount Elaeon Againe they came togither early in the morning agreeable to Esay who saith Hee hath giuen me an eare to heare betimes in the morning If this be saith Tertullian to dissolue the prophesies what is to fulfill them Againe hee chose the passouer for his passion For Moses said before It shall be the passouer of the Lord. Yea saith Tertullian He shewed his affection or desire I haue earnestly desired to eat this passeouer with you c. O destroier of the law which desired also to keepe the passeouer Againe he might haue been betraied of a stranger sauing that the Psalme had before prophesied He which eateth bread with me will lifâ— vp his foote against me Yet further he might haue been betraied without reward saue that that should haue been for another Christ not for him which fulfilled the prophesies For it was written They haue sold the iust Yea the verie price that he was sold for Hieremie foretold They tooke the thirtie siluer peeces the price of him that was valued and gaue them for a potters field Thus farre in this one place among infinite other in the whole booke Tertullian sheweth Christ the God of the new testament to haue fulfilled the figures of the olde as being the one onely God of both Testaments And then by and by he inferreth as another example these wordes Therefore professing that he did greatlie desire to eate the passeouer as his owne for it was vnfit that God should desire anie thing of anothers whereby hee sheweth Christ to be the onely God of both testaments He made the bread which he tooke and distributed to his Disciples his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie What figure I beseech you meant he not the figure vsed a He did not meane any figure vsed by Melchisedech neither doth any way allude to it by Melchisedech of bread and wine meant he not a figure of the old Testament taken vsed and fulfilled by Christ in the newe is not that his drift Must Tertullian become an asse to serue your turne and forget his owne drift and purpose here and contrary what he hath so plainly spoken of the Sacrament in other his books This is b It is not foolish vaunting and bragging that must waigh this
As for that which he asketh whether Christ doe not giue himselfe verily vnto vs wee say he doth and that wholly with all that is his yet not to be eaten with the mouth as being héere on earth but to be receiued by faith sitting in heauen as I said before out of S. Austen And this is enough for vs to prooue and in proouing wherof we confound that c Supr sect 22. grosse imagination as Cyrill calleth it of eating the fleshe of Christ with the mouth into the belly For that Christ at his supper giueth onely a figure and nothing else we néede not prooue it because it is not our assertion but the Answ cauill and a Popish slaunder As for the meaning of Christes wordes This is my body it is shewed before Christ did not lie to his Disciples nor beguile theÌ„ in so saying His Disciples were no Capernaites they were no Papistes They knew that Christ instituted deliuered a sacrament They knew that sacrameÌ„ts are called by the names of those things which they signifie whereof they had example in the name of the passeouer which they celebrated at the same time calling it the Passeouer which was indéede but a remembronce and signe thereof Therefore they vnderstood the meaning of Christ to be as the ancient Fathers expound it This is a Figure a signe a Sacrament of my bodie They saw the true bodie of Christ before theyr eyes They knewe that Christ had not a bodie at one and the same instant visible and inuisible with forme and without forme sitting at the table and yet inclosed in a little fragment or crust of bread These leaud and vntowardly fancies were not yet bredde They deliuered no such vnto vs and therefore we beléeue no such Let me thus conclude out of these two places this of Austen and that before of Origen He that vnderstandeth a figuratiue spéech according to the letter doth misunderstand it But he that vnderstandeth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh blood concerning the very eating of his flesh and drinking his blood with the mouth vnderstandeth a figuratiue spéech according to the letter Therefore he that so vnderstandeth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood doth misunderstand it But the church of Rome doth so vnderstand it Therefore the Church of Rome doth vnderstand it amisse P. Spence Sect. 25. TO conclude we eate drinke in the blessed Sacrament Christs flesh and blood really truly and indeed but not bodily for so much I will graunt you taking bodily for after a grosse bodily maner but sacramentally figuratiuely and in a diuine mysterie in a figure not a figure of Rhetoricke or of Grammer but in a diuine figure but yet verie truly R. Abbot 25. HEre is now the Answ conclusion set downe without any premisses vpon his bare word namely that in the Sacrament they verily and truly eate and drinke the flesh and blood of Christ But against this presumed conclusion of his I oppose the auncient praier of the Church mentioned by a De corp san do Bertram b De sacr Euch. Lanfrancus and c De conse dist 2. ca. â—pecies Gratian Let thy Sacraments ô Lord worke in vs that which they containe that what we now celebrate in signe or resemblance we may in the truth of the things receiue the same They praied to receiue the truth of the things Of what things Namely of those the signe or resemblance whereof they celebrated in the Sacrament that is of the bodie and blood of Christ Then the Sacrament it selfe is not the truth of the bodie and blood but only the signe the image and resemblance therof For with what reason should they pray to receiue the truth of that which verily and truly they did receiue alreadie But their praier was that whereas they did now receiue but the image and signe of the bodie and blood of Christ they might in the kingdome of heauen enioy the thing it selfe the very bodie and very blood of Christ And hereof d Bertr de corp san dom Bertram in his booke very soundly concludeth that the bodie of Christ is not verily really in the Sacrament whose whole collection to that purpose being very strong the e Index Expuâ—â—n coâ—r Bertr Spanish censurers in their Index aboue named haue treacherously appointed to be left vnprinted as before I shewed of another place Lanfrancus to auoyd the euidence of this auncient praier so plainly contradicting the reall presence betaketh himselfe to an absurd shift whose words to that purpose being Gratian hath taken and put into the decrées in the chapter last before cited That Truth he saith is to be vnderstood of the manifestation and open reuealing of the bodie of Christ and affirmeth that the name of truth is diuerse times vsed in scripture to that meaning but yet alleageth not any one place to prooue it so Further he addeth that the word species doth sometime import the very Truth it selfe and so in that maier he will haue it vnderstood Then the meaning of the praier must be thus that they might receiue in truth that which they did now receiue in truth or that they might receiue in truth that is visibly and manifestly that which they now receiued in truth but inuisibly and vnder another shape But the Church as it is alwaies conuenient vsed their praier plainly and without these sophistications If they had meant so they had words inough to expresse their meaning neither néeded they to vse such doubtfull words to séeme to say one thing and yet to meane another They plainly oppose species and veritas the signe and the truth one against the other They would not put veritas in an vnproper signification as opposit to species and vnderstand it in proper signification included in the word species This were a very straunge and vnwonted kinde of speaking And therfore referring the signe or resemblance to the time present and the truth to the time to come they plainly shewe that there is not now in the Sacrament the very truth but only the resemblance of the bodie of Christ and therfore that we do not in the sacrament really and verily with our mouthes eate the bodie of Christ And this is most plainely affirmed by Hierome as Gratian citeth him in the decrées f â—e conse di 2 cap. de hac Surely saith he Of this sacrifice which is wonderfully made in remembrance of Christ a man may eate but of that which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse as touching it selfe no man may eate The hoste or sacrifice which Christ offered vppon the Crosse was his verie body and bloud The sacrament thereof he saith we doe receiue and eate but as touching it selfe no man may eat thereof Therefore no man may eate the very body and drinke the very bloud of Christ but these spéeches must be figuratiuely vnderstood as hath béen noted out of Austen And whereas the Answ saith for
not that we should daily purge with daily sacrifices as they did in the old law Did they sée none of these expositions yes without doubt they saw them and shut their eyes against them The Lord will require it in his due time But hereby we vnderstand the meaning of their words in their Preface to the Epistles that if in the scriptures there sound any thing to vs coÌ„trary to their doctrine we must assure our selues that we faile of the right sense So that be the words neuer so plain yet if they sound either to the auncient Fathers or to vs contrarie to the Romish doctrine we must thinke that neither the auncient Fathers nor we attaine to the right vnderstanding of the wordes But we are not so madde vpon the warrant of any Philosopher to say that snow is blacke so long as our eyes assure vs that snow is white I know here what you are readie to obiect namely that the Fathers in speaking of the Eucharist vse verie commonly a mention of sacrifice and cal the same by the name of sacrifice and all this you referre to the sacriledge of the Masse But you should not conceiue so of the Fathers as to thinke that they meant any thing contrarie to so expresse and manifest scripture so long as they do so plainly tel you what they meant in vsing the name of sacrifice You should remember the corrections which Chrysostome Ambrose do vse when Chrysost Ambros in Hebr. 10. naming their offering of sacrifice they adde Or rather wee worke the remembrance of a sacrifice You should take notice of the exposition of Theophylact Wee offer him the same alwaies or rather wee Theophy ibid. make a remembrance of the offering of him as if he were offered or sacrificed at this time and of the words of Eusebius After all hauing Euseb de demonstrat Euang lib. 1. cap. 10. Theodor. in Hebr. 8. wrought a wonderfull and excellent sacrifice vnto his father he offered for the saluation of vs all and ordained that wee should offer the remembrance therof vnto God in steed of a sacrifice and of Theodoret Why do the priests of the new Testament vse a mysticall Liturgie or sacrifice It is cleare to them that are instructed in diuine matters that we do not offer another sacrifice but do performe a remembrance of that one and sauing sacrifice For this commandement the Lord himselfe gaue Do this saith hee in the remembrance of me that by beholding the figures we might call to minde the sufferings which he vndertooke in our behalfe And of S. Austen The flesh August con faust Manich. lib. 20. ca. 2â— blood of this sacrifice was promised before the comming of Christ by sacrifices of resemblance in the passion of Christ it was giuen in verie truth after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance Learne by this place to put difference betwixt in verie truth and by a Sacrament of remembrance and learne by all these places that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice properly so called wherein Christ is really and properly and in verie truth sacrificed but a Sacrament a commomoration and remembrance of a sacrifice Adde hereunto if you will the words of saint Austen Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a mysterie or Sacrament August ep 23. he is euerie day offered for the people For if Sacraments had not a kinde of resemblance of those thinges whereof they are Sacraments they should not be Sacraments at all Now by reason of this resemblance they doe most commonly take the names of the things themselues Note in these words the difference betwixt being offered in himselfe and being offered in a Sacrament or mysterie learn that this spéech of being offered or sacrificed when it respecteth the Sacrament hath his vse and meaning not of the things themselues but of the resemblance of the things and therefore is not indéed to be offered in himselfe And therfore your owne glose of the Canon law expoundeth it Christ is sacrificed that is the sacrificing of him is represented De consec dist 2. cap. semel and there is a remembrance made of his passion The sacrifice of the death and passion of Jesus Christ is the whole matter and substance of this mysterie it is there proposed the remembrance thereof renued as if it were now done the thing resembled by outward signes of breaking the bread and powring the wine the hearts of men stirred vp as if they saw Christ nailed to yâ— crosse the sacrifice of this passion is presented by the faith praiers of the church vnto God thereby to haue forgiuenesse of sinnes nothing here remembred but Christes sacrificing himselfe vpon the crosse What maruell then though the Fathers called this mysterie a sacrifice though neuer imagining your sacrifice of the Masse What maruell though they will vs to behold in this Sacrament the sacrifice of our price the sacrifice of sacrifices the vnbloudie seruice of the sacrifice the sacrifice of our mediator and such like which spéeches your men foolishly and vnlearnedly or rather impudently and vnconscionably alleage for their supposed sacrifice of the Masse They haue expounded their owne meaning as you haue heard and pitifully do your Rhemists labour and striue to winde themselues out of those expositions and cannot preuaile And as for the same spéeches of the Fathers as touching sacrifice we would not doubt â—â— speake in this case as they did but that your hereticall doctrine hath caused Gods people to conceiue of sacrifice otherwise then the Fathers intended Albeit vpon like occasions we are not far from that vehemencie of wordes which we finde to haue bene vsed by them nay we are no whit behinde them But thinke with your selfe M. Spence is not the death and passion of Christ the onely sacrifice for the foâ—giuenesse of sins Shame be on his face that will deny it What sacrifice then is there in the Eucharist Verily Cyprian saith The passion of Christ is the sacrifice Cypr. lib 2. epist 3. Pâ—oâ—p in psal 129. which we offer And Prosper What propitiation is there but sacrifice and what sacrifice but the killing of that lambe which hath taken away the sinne of the world and your owne counterfeit decretall of Alexander the first The passion of Christ is to be remembred Alexan. epist 1. to 1. concil in these sacrifices and the same to be offered to the Lord. But doth Christ really suffer die in the Sacrament Is he there sweating water and blood is he buffeted with fists spit in the face crowned with thornes derided accused condemned nailed to the crosse Indéed the auncient fathers say as touching the Sacrament Chrysostome thus While that death is performed and dreadfull sacrifice Chrysost in Acta hâ—m 21. De conâ—e diâ—t 2. cap. Quidâ—â—t sanâ—uâ— Cyp de caena domini Chrâ—â—ost in Encaenâ—jâ— Hâ—â—ron â—â— psa 95. and Gregorie Christ dâ—eth
spiritually vnderstood it shall giue you life Otherwise as Origen saith There is in the new Testament a letter Orig. in Leuit. hom 7. which killeth him that doth not spiritually vnderstand it For if thou follow according to the letter that that is written Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man drinke his blood that letter killeth For saith S. Austen it seemeth to commaund a horrible fact and hainous Aug. de doctr christ lib. 3. c. 16. matter Therfore it is a figure willing vs to communicate of the passiō of Christ and profitably to laie vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Be hold and consider well what these men teach you that the spéeches which are vsed as touching eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ are figuratiue speeches that they are not literally to be vnderstood that we doe not bodily eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood And this is the plaine truth and simplicitie of the Fathers teaching the euidence whereof cannot be auoided but by those shifts which I mentioned before We extenuate them we excuse them by some deuised lie we oft denie them or faine of them some conuenient meaning But you vrge the circumstance of the text Which shal be giuen which shal be shead c. Marke well the speeches say you An argument péeuishly alleaged by Friar Campian and nothing at all to the Camp Rat. ◠purpose For when we say that bread and wine are the Sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ do we not meane of the bodie which was giuen and the blood that was shead for vs Do we teach the receiuing of the bodie blood of Christ by faith any otherwise then being broken and shead for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes When S. Aushen saith The signe of the bodie Tertullian a figure of the bodie expounding the words This is my bodie do they not vnderstand Which is giuen c. This reason you may verie well spare hereafter The speeches you say are wonderfull as most true Yet the spéeches M. Spence are not so wonderfull as the things themselues that our wretched and sinfull bodies should by these Sacraments through the working of the holie Ghost be really and indéed vnited ioyned vnto the bodie of Iesus Christ being in heauen so as to be his members flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and receiue thereof such vertue and power as that though they be buried in the earth and consumed to dust and ashes yet they should be raised vp againe and made partakers of immortalitie and glorie that God should hereby effectually communicate and impart vnto vs the inestimable riches of his grace and the whole fruite and benefite of whatsoeuer Christ hath done or suffered in his bodie for mankinde forgiuenesse of sinnes iustification sanctification the blessing fauou◠of God and euerlasting life You may know M. Spence what your owne Oration saith Some not without probabilitie expound the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ to be the efficiencie thereof De consecr dist 2. cap. species that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes We adde somewhat to this probabilitie when we teach in the Sacrament a true and effectuall vniting of vs to the bodie of Christ whereby he dwelleth in vs and we in him he is one with vs and we with him whereby as he hath taken vpon him what is ours sinne and death so he yéeldeth vnto vs what is his righteousnesse and euerlasting life Which vnion with Christ is wrought in all those and in those only which do with true and liuely faith receiue these holie mysteries where as that Capernaitish eating and drinking of Christs bodie and blood which your doctrine yéeldeth is common to all gracelesse and prophane persons that I say nothing of those monstrous blasphemous and horrible conceits which some of your captaines haue fallen into by defence thereof But yet further you alleage the vniformenesse of the wordes of Christ in the Euangelists Mat. Mar. Luc. And in S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. all saying This is my bodie wheras the scripture where it meaneth not a thing literally doth vary in the vttering of it Which you speake vppon the warrant of some Allen or Parsons or Seminarie reader telling you so and you haue beléeued it But they haue deceiued you both in the on and in the other For in the like matter you shall find in Moses law by an vniforme and constant spéech that the sacrifices of the law are called expiations propitiations and attonements for sinne which were not so indéed but they were so called sacramentally because they were types and figures seales and assurances of the true attonement which should be wrought by the bloodsheading of our Lord Iesus Again if you had looked in S. Luke and Luc 22. 20. 1. cor 11. 25. S. Paul you should haue found the words This is my blood expressed by such maner of spéech as tendeth directly to the ouerthrow of your transubstantiation For there it is said This cup is the new Testament in my blood c where I hope you will not say that the cup is transubstantiated into the Testament but that the wordes must be figuratiuely vnderstood Then you must say that the cup that is the outward and visible element of wine deliuered in the cup is the seale of the new Testament couenant of grace which is dedicated and established by the bloodsheading of Iesus Christ by which seale we haue assurance offered vnto vs to be partakers through Christ of those benefits which God hath promised vnto the faithfull in the same Testament the summe whereof is set downe by the Prophet Ier 31. 32 c. Now if any man should take it thus Ier. 31. 32. This cup that is this my blood in the cup is the new Testament in my blood your selfe would say he spake foolishly and absurdly Thus therefore your collections from the text are no collections Some of your owne side no meane men haue confessed indéed that transubstantiation cannot be enforced by the words of the text In truth it cannot God open your eyes that you may sée his truth and subdue the affections of your heart that you may yéeld vnto it By that litle spéech which I haue had with you I perceiue you are too too far in loue with that whoore of Rome She flattereth you and maketh shew of goodly names and pretendeth great deuotion as the harlot in the Prouerbes I haue peace offeringes to day haue I paide my Prou. 7. 14. vowes and you beléeue whatsoeuer she saith vnto you I shewed you the expresse testimonies of the Fathers gainsaying her as touching the bookes of Canonicall scriptures but you thinke she may approue them for Canonicall which were not so with the Fathers I declared the impudencie of the Rhemish glosers in auouching the storie of the assumption of the virgin Mary controlled by their owne computation of
that which is more fit and conuenient to be spoken And if these men had thought that in proper spéech it is true that Christ is indéed offered or sacrificed to what purpose should they hauing mentioned the offering of him adioyne thus Or rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice as to mollifie that which was before hardly and vnproperly spoken Surely it had behoued the Answ for his honesties sake to shewe some reason why these men not talking of the death of Christ but expresly of the sacrifice which it is sayd the church did offer and hauing mentioned the offering of sacrifice and the offering of Christ should so recall their words and in effect say Nay we offer not a sacrifice indéed but rather performe the remembrance of a sacrifice But what can be more plaine then that of Theophylact m Theophyl in Heb. 10. We offer him the same alwaies or rather we make a remembrance of the offering of him as if he were now offerd or sacrificed Which words as if he were now offred make it as cleer as the sun-light that Christ is not now really and indéed offered in sacrifice For what reasonable man wold euer say as if he were now offered if he were perswaded that Christ is now indéed and verily offered To this purpose the words of Eusebius also are very pregnant n Euseb de demonstr Euan. lib. 1. cap. 10. Christ saith he offered a sacrifice to his father and ordeined that we should offer a remembrance thereof vnto God in steed of a sacrifice Then Christ ordeined not another sacrifice to be offered as Eusebius should haue saide if he had bene a Papist but in steed of a sacrifice in steed I say of a sacrifice he ordeined vnto vs to make a remembrance of his sacrifice Certainly these men if they had beléeued any such sacrifice as the Papists now take vpon them to practise could not haue omitted some plaine declaration thereof being in the places whence I alleaged these words so directly and fully occasioned thereto The same I say much more of Theodoret who so expresly proposeth the question of offering sacrifice o Theodor. in Heb. â— For if saith he the priesthood which is by the law be ended and the priest after the order of Melchisedec haue offered a sacrifice haue made that other sacrifices be not necessary why do the priests of the new Testament worke a mystical Liturgy or sacrifice Where if he would haue answered as a Papist he must haue sayd that they did indéed offer a very true sacrifice properly so called of the verie body and blood of Christ and that this derogateth not from the sacrifice of Christ vpon his Crosse but serueth to apply the same vnto vs and that all the spéeches of the Apostle against sacrificing doe touch onely the sacrifices of the Iewes But he as vnacquainted with these Popish deuises answereth simply plainly It is cleare to them that are instructed in diuine matters that we do not offer another sacrifice but do performe a remembrance of that one and healthfull sacrifice For this commandement the Lord himselfe gaue vs saying Do this in remembrance of me that by beholding the figures we might call to minde the sufferings that he vndertooke for vs c. By which words he plainly sheweth vs that after that one and healthfull sacrifice which Christ offered for vs which he expresseth by the sufferings of Christ the priests of the new Testament doe not now offer another sacrifice but performe onely a remembrance of that former sacrifice by those mysteries which Christ hath left to be celebrated in remembrance thereof Let S. Austen yet make this more plain saying that p August cont faustâ—m Manich. li. 2â— cap. 21. the flesh blood of Christs sacrifice was in his passion giuen in verie truth after his ascension is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance He maketh these diuers each from other to be giuen in verie truth and to be celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance applying the one to his passion the other to the Sacrament Now if to be giuen in verie truth belong to the Sacrament also then S. Austen speaketh vainly and idlely maketh a distinction without any difference But now opposing one to the other in verie truth and by a Sacrament of remembrance he sheweth that in the Sacrament of remembrance Christ is not really and truly sacrificed The Answ thought good to say nothing to that which I vrged concerning this opposition The other place of q August ep 23. Austen to Bonifacius I opened also somewhat vnto him and fully beforehand preuented him of his refuge in putting difference betwixt Christs death and Christ himselfe and yet forsooth all this maketh nothing against him The best kinde of bad answering when there is no good answere to serue the turne But S. Austen in that place noteth the offering of Christ r Semel in seipso singulis diebu in sacramento in himselfe to haue bene once that the offering which is sayd to be euery day is in a Sacrament or mysterie not in himself And to shew the cause why he is said in a Sacrament or mysterie to be offered euery day wheras in himselfe he was but once offered he saith that because Sacraments haue the resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments therefore they commonly take vnto them the names of the same things Euen as good Friday is said to be the day of Christs passion Sunday to be the day of Christes resurrection not because Christ suffereth euery good Friday or riseth againe euery Sunday but because these daies resemble and in course of time are answerable to those daies wherein Christ suffered and rose againe So therefore Christ is said to be offered euery day not because there is any reall sacrificing of him euery day but because his once offering of himselfe is daily in the Sacrament figured and remembred And this I shewed before out of the glose of the Canon law Å¿ De consâ—â—ra dist 2. cap. se mel in glosla Christ is offered that is the offering or sacrificing of Christ is represented and a memorie made of his passion Which words the Answ falsly and deceitfully extenuateth as if they serued no further but only to note a representation of Christs death and passion which he yéeldeth vnto Wheras the wordes serue to expounde what Austen and Prosper meant when they said that Christ is offered or sacrificed in a Sacrament and by the same exposition diminish the credit of the Roomish sacrifice For if these words The offering or sacrificing of Christ is represented and there is a memorie made of his passion be the true meaning of these words Christ is offered or sacrificed as the glose setteth downe what can be more euident to him that hath eyes to sée then that Austen and Prosper the other Fathers when they mention sacrifice as touching the
Lords Supper do not thereby meane that Christ is indéed and verily offered but only that his sacrifice is represented The collection that I made before and euen now noted again out of that place of S. Austen standeth firme sure to this purpose Namely that there is difference with Austen betwixt being offered in himself and being offered in a Sacrament or mysterie and that the name of offering or sacrificing when it is referred to the Sacrament is vsed not ex rebus ipsis for the truth of the thing it selfe but for the resemblance of the thing and therfore importeth not the offering of Christ in himselfe But this the Answ would not sée or take notice of because he should haue had nothing to write of this matter being therby excluded alreadie from all that he hath now said For his shift is â—o put difference betwixt Christes death and Christ himself and to say that Christ although he die no more yet is verily sacrificed in himselfe and my collection was before direct to the contrary that Christ is not now sacrificed in himselfe So that he sheweth himself a stout disputer to let the premisses go and deny the conclusion Now the necke of his sacrifice being thus broken in that it is proued that after the death of Christ there is no more offering for sinne that Christ is not now offered in himselfe but only the sacrificing of his body on the crosse celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance which yet is called by the name of sacrifice because sacraments are vsually called by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments and we therein call to mind and shew Christs death and offering of himselfe as if he were then presently offered yet he setting a good face vpoÌ„ the matter when nothing else wil help him telleth me that these things touch him no more then the man in the Moone biddeth me to learne the state of the question better not to roue at random but to aime at the marke to put vp in my purse all those testimonies that I did alleage c. An easie and soone-made answere or rather an vnshamefast wretched shift But the yoong Crab must go as the olde Crab doth teach him and he must giue such answeres as other his forefathers haue bin wont to doe P. Spence Sect. 10. VVHerefore all the premisses considered whersoeuer all or any of your alleaged places do sound a remembrance memoriall and representation of a sacrifice and such like words take this for a full answere that they are memories and remembrances representations and if you wil figures too of the sacrifice of Christ But what sacrifice the sacrifice of his death the sacrifice of the Crosse which we do but represent for die any more he now cannot And because we doe not say that in our Masse Christ is crucified and dieth you do vs wrong so to burthen vs which in no Catholickes writing you can shew and therefore in pressing these authories against vs you touch vs no more then the man in the Moone but you wrankle two waies both in interpreting Sacrificium here in these places to be Eucharistia where it is meant of the offering the same in a sacrifice and not of it as it is absolutely a Sacrament only â—s though the Sacrament were but a remembrance figure or representation And also secondly herein you wrangle for that you would beare vs in hand the said authorities to mean the thing represented figured or recorded to be Christs bodie where they only call our sacrifice a remembrance figure and representation of Christes passion and death vpon the Crosse onely once done and now neuer more to be done or reiâ—erated but only to be recorded fygured and represented Learne better hereafter the state of your question and roue not at randome but aime at the marke and remember you fight not herein with vs but you skirmish with your aduersaries in theâ—ire with arguments fained forged and imagined of your selues Put a A patterne how to answer any thing easily and without any study vp therfore in your purse all your places of Chrysostom Ambrose Theâ—phylact Augustine Cyprian Aug. ad Bonaâ—acium the Glose de consecratiâ—â—e Cypriaâ— againe and Prosper Alexander the Pope and againe Chrysostome and Hâ—erome and Gregorie c. For they say nothing for you but what we confesse except you thinke vs so mad to thinke that we vse to crucifie and sley Christ in our Churches sacrifice an imagination fit for your merry gentleman the Athenian We must also tell you that you ouerreach in writing that the death and passion of Christ is the whole as much to say as the only matter substance so you terme it of this mysterie Christs reall bodie is the matter substance and thing offered in our sacrifice really but his passion is with all offered but as in a Commemoration So that our sacrifice hath b Nay it hath many things more then ouer Christ or any of his Apostles taught â—wo things two things Christs bodie really and his passion in a mysterie onely and a memorie Dolosus versaâ—ur in generalibus I wish you to speake more distinctly We graunt with you his passion but that only represented we haue also his bodie and blood and that verily present verily offered Else all that you can infer of the aforesaid authorities we also confesse so far as gladly as you do Sauing that wheras you saâ—e that it is no maâ—â—ell though the Fathers called this mysterie a sacrifice For they meant it was so called but was not so indeede that we yeelde not vnto For we saie the Fathers called it a sacrifice because they meant as they spake and no where denie it and we could shewe if there were any waight in your reasons to presse vs so farre where the Fathers giue reasons why it is a sacrifice because c A Roomish deuise which ther 's neuer knew the bloodie sacrifice of the Crosse and death are offered and sacrificed man vnbloodie sacrifice Châ—â—st himselfe being verily offered his death only recorded with thankesgiuing and by this vnbloodie sacrifice of Christs verie bodie the vertue of that bloodie sacrifice is daily applied to the faithfull And therefore where you aske whether Christ indeed doth d Either he really suffereâ—h and dâ—eth in the Masse or else he is not really offered The Fathers speake of both alike as I shewed really suffer in the Churches sacrifice or sweat water and blood or be condemned or nailed to the Crosse they are idle phantasticall questions But to answere you we do not thinke so Be of good cheare man we do not thinke so we neuer thought said or e Doct. Allen hath written that Christ iâ— verily slaine in the Masse wrote so Yet we thinke and till you come neerer the marke we will still so thinke that vnbloodily but really wee sacrifice and offer the same Christs verie true bodie and blood to the whole Trinitie for
all people that once did suffer and neuer but once all the aforenamed torments But that which you infer for a conclusion is most vaine and false which is this The passioÌ„ is that we offer the passioÌ„ is offered not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Ergo the Churches sacrifice is not verily a sacrifice but in a mysterie for besides the forme being negatiue in the third figure is against art the Maior as I said before is false if you meane the passion only For I told you we haue in our sacrifice his passion in a memorie his bodie really If you meane not passion only then the conclusion the premisses hang togither by verie loose points Briefly Christs passion is offered in a mysterie only his bodie in sacrifice verily The first your authorities prooue and we confesse the latter part no Father euer denied no not the most eldest and auncient primatiue Church and it is so true that Caluin sticked not to condemne all the Fathers sith the Apostles of Iudaisme in that verie point for f An impudent and vnshamefast vntruth See the answere establishing a verie sacrifice of the Church so impudent a thing he tooke it to be to cast a myst vppon the Fathers wordes in that point prooue the latter point the first we confesse R. Abbot 10. HEre we may sée how the poore man maketh hard shift to credit himselfe by séeming to say somewhat when indéed he saith nothing at all For first he telleth me that wheresoeuer I reade of a remembrance memoriall and representation of sacrifice I must takâ— it for a full answere that thereby is meant a remembrance and representation of Christs death Not for a full but for a foolish answer say I. For to what other purpose can he imagine those words alleageâ— by vs but to auouch the remembrance of that one and only true sacrifice of Christs death against their defence of a continuall and oftentimes repeated sacrifice And séeing the Fathers speaking of their offering of Christ do recall and correct those termes as vnproperly spoken and put in place thereof that they rather celebrate the remembrance of his sacrifice as if he were now sacrificed indeed we conclude hereof neither can the Answ aâ—oyd it that they simply deny the true and reall offering of the bodie of Christ as before is the wed Secondly he saith that I wrangle in interpreting Sacrifice here in thâ—se places to be the Eucharist whereas it is meant of the offring of the same in a sacrifice But indéed he saith he knoweth not what For immediately before he expoundeth Sacrifice in these places to be meant of the death of Christ and how commeth it to passe now that it must be vnderstood of offering the Eucharist in a sacrifice But if his pen slipped and he put in these places meaning it of others where I say the Fathers call the Eucharist a sacrifice that which he saith is but Petitio principij and a begging of that to be yéelded for truth which I haue auowed and proued to be false The Eucharist I vnderstande to bee the celebration of the Sacrament with thankeful remembrance of the death of Christ This I say the Fathers doe often call sacrifice because the matter thereof is the sacrifice of Christes death not because Christ is therein verily sacrificed Thirdly I wrangle forsooth againe in bearing him in hand that the authorities alleaged do meane the thing represented to be Christes body whereas they vnderstand it to be Christes passion and death vpon the Crosse Where without doubt eyther the Answ wits or his honesty failed him very much For he would haue it seem that we intend not by the places of the fathers a representing of Christes passion and death but méerely of his body and yet he himselfe iustifieth the contrary straight waies after For within some fewe lines he alleageth my wordes directed to those places of the fathers that the death and passion of Christ is the whole matter and substance of this mystery To which I added also diuers more wordes to that purpose concluding that nothing is here remembred but Christes sacrificing himselfe vppon the Crosse For although we say that we represent the body and bloud of Christ whereof yet there was nothing spoken in this place yet as afterwards I tolde him we represent the body no otherwise but as broken and the bloud no otherwise but as shed for vs. Notwithstanding here though hauing not so much as a sillable whereto he may referre this spéech he telleth me that I wrangle in pretending the thing represented to be the body of Christ wheras it is his death and passion as if I excluded the representation of Christes death and passion which by his own confession I make the whole matter and purport of the Sacrament But this draffe he thought good enough wherewith to féede his corner companions and to perswade them that he had dealt very acutely and wittely in answering that that had béene saide vnto him He telleth me again that I ouer-reach in saying that the death and passion of Christ is the whole substance of this mystery Hée shoulde haue saide that I come short because I say not so much as he would haue me to say For saith he there are two thinges in our sacrifice a mysticall offering of the passion of Christ and a real offering of the body of Christ But neither scripture nor father â—uer commended to our practise any other sacrifice of Christ but only the mysticall offering of his passion Neither doe any of the authorities of the fathers so much tossed and tumbled by the Papists enforce any other as I alleaged the last time and the Answ saieth nothing to disprooue it Surely wonder it is if the matter were so cleare as these men would perswade vs that neuer any one of the fathers speaking so often of the sacrifice would once note this point expressely and distinctly that they had both a mysticall offering of the passion of Christ and a reall offering of his body besides no not when the maine drifte of their spéech pressed them so to doe if they had beléeued any such thing But they knew it not at all and therfore no maruaile that they saied nothing of it For where as the Answ telleth me that the Fathers giue reasons why it is a sacrifice indéede namely because the bloudy sacrifice of the crosse death of Christ is offered and sacrificed in aâ— vnbloudy sacrifice of his body he doth lewdly belie the fathers in fathering vppon them this new and Popish phrase of spéech wherewith the fathers were vtterly vnacquainted For although they sometimes call the Lordes Supper an vnblouddy sacrifice as they doe also the other a Oecumen in Heb. 13. seruice praiers of the Church to put a difference betwixt the Iewish carnal and the christian spirituall sacrifices as also betwixt the sacrifice of Christ vpon his crosse and the sacrifice of the church
inswadling clouts that God was laid in the manger that God suffered and was buried and purchased himselfe a church with his precious bloud According to this truth Gelasius saith k Gelas cont Eutichen The whole man christ is God and Cirill saith that the name of the godhead is giuen vnto christ as man l ciril in â—oh lib. 11 cap. 22. Vigil contra Eutich lib. 4. To which purpose some of the m Concil coÌ„stant 6. act 4. in epla Agathoâ—is act 10. 17. Thom. 〈◊〉 par â— q. 16. art 3. ex Damascen auncient writers say that the flesh or manhood of Christ is deified not by chaunging of the manhood into godhead but by personal vniting of the one to the other wherby the thinges that are proper to the godhead are also dispensed vnto the manhood Now Eutiches whilest he contended against the heresie of Nestorius and would iustifie the spéeches aforesaid went as farre another way into another heresy and as Nestorius by distracting the natures made two persons and n Vigil lib. 2. cont Eutychen two Christes as Vigilius speaketh so he to make one person of Christ taught a confusion of the natures affirming that although Christ were truly incarnate and tooke flesh indéede yet that by the vniting of the fleshe vnto the godhead the flesh was swallowed vp of the godhead and ceased to be any longer flesh euen as a droppe of wine cast into the sea looseth his owne nature and becommeth water o Leo. epis 10. 11. Leo and p Euagr. eccl hist lib 2. ca. 18 Euagrius report the words of Eutiches in the ChalcedoÌ„ councel thus that he confessed that Christ before the vniting of the manhood with the godhead was of two natures but after that vniting there is said he but one nature in Christ And thus is his heresy set downe in q Definitio Cha cedo 1. concil Act. 5. the definition of the Chalcedon Councel Therfore though Christ was in the shape likenesse of man vpon the earth yet he held that he was not indéed man but onely God that it was not the manhood but the Godhead that was crucified So Vigilius testifieth r Vâ—gil cont â—at lib. 2. He affirmed saith he that the Godhead suffered which he wold proue as the same Å¿ Vigil â—bid Vigilius t Gelas cont â—uty Nestor Gelasius also declare out of 1. Cor. 2. If they had knowne they would not haue crucified the Lord of glorie Behold said he not the man Christ but the Lord of glory was crucified Vigilius againe saith that this heresie did u Vigil lib. 1. con Eutych refer to the contumely of the Godhead all things that Christ either spake or did according to the dispensation of the flesh whilest they contended that there was in him but the one only nature of the Godhead and w Idem lib. 4. elsewhere he setteth down by their own words that it was the Godhead that was seene and felt and handled with hands which they wold proue by the words of S. Iohn in the beginning of his first Epistle And in this respect both Vigilius and Gelasius say that this opinion implied the heresies of Apollinaris of the Manichees and Marcionites others which held that Christ had only x Putatiuum corpus an imaginary and no true bodie So Leo also vrgeth them that by their opinioÌ„ y Leo epist 81 Christ did all things counterfeitly and that not an humane bodie indeed but a fantasticall shew of a bodie appeared vnto the eyes of them that beheld therfore he calleth them Phantasmaticos Christianos Thus those things which concerne Christ properly as man Eutyches could not coÌ„ceiue to be rightly attributed vnto Christ by the name of God but by abolishing the nature of man Now there were also of Eutiches his faction who being conuicted of the absurdity of this opinion restrained the vanishing and consuming of the nature of his manhood to the time of his ascension of whom I shall speake afterward But in the meane time let the Answ here thinke whether I said rightly the last time that Eutyches if he were now aliue would surely be a Papist The absurd conceit of TransubstantiatioÌ„ serueth fit for his purpose and if it had bene in his time beléeued he would haue said Do ye not sée that after consecration there remaineth the colour and shewe and appearance of bread wine but yet there is not the substance of them for the substance is quite abolished by consecration Right so after the vniting of the two natures of Christ the substance of the humane nature is quite consumed though there appeare the facion and shape and likenesse yea and the doings and sufferings of a man This he would haue alleaged for colour of that shadow and phantasie of Christs humanitie which he defended here vpon the earth But this stood not with the doctrine of that time Nay whereas Eutyches could not vnderstand that those thinges which were done performed properly in the manhood are rightly said to haue bene done and performed by God by reason of the personall vniting of the manhood vnto the Godhead but would for the iustifying of this speech abolish the manhood and bring in the Godhead into the emptie facion and shape of a man euen as the Papists to make good the spéeches that are vsed oftentimes of the Sacrament to expresse the singular effect thereof do thrust out the substance of bread and wine and bring the very substance of Christs bodie and blood into the emptie formes and shewes of the same Gelasius by a comparison taken from the Sacrament according to the doctrine of his time sheweth him the vanitie of his opinion He setteth downe to that purpose these two grounds first that the Sacrament is an image or resemblance of the body and blood of Christ and therefore secondly that we must beléeue and professe the same of Christ himselfe that we do of his image Which both tend to this conclusion that as the Sacrament is a diuine and heauenly thing of excellent grace and vertue so that by it we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the substance of bread wine so Christ as touching his manhood is aduanced to most high excellency and maiestie by the vniting thereof vnto the Godhead into one person so that as man he is honoured adored of all creatures and all knées must bow vnto him and whatsoeuer was done or suffered by Christ as man is sayd to haue bene done and suffered by God and yet there ceaseth not to be in him the very true substance and nature of man z Gelas cont Euty chen Nestor Surely saith he the Sacraments which we receiue of the hodie and blood of Christ are a diuine thing by reason whereof we are by them made partakers of the diuine nature yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or
fantasticall body of Christ we read onely of a true and substantiall body wherein he is like vnto vs wherein hée sitteth at the right hand of God g August Ep ad Darda 57. in Ioh. tr 30. in some one place of heauen as S. Austen noteth and is there conteined by reason of the maner of a true body vntill hée come to iudge the quicke and the dead at which time he shal come in the same forme and substance of his body in which he went from hence to which we beleeue he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken from it the nature of a body yâ— it should be any where in that maner as yâ— Answ and his fellowes Marcion-like do teach We say as Vigilius also saith h 〈…〉 con 〈◊〉 the flesh of Christ when it was vpoÌ„ the earth was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen surely it is not on the earth As for the words which he alleageth I maruell how he can make them good to be S. Austens In all S. Austens works extant they are not found They are cited out of the sentences of Prosper and there they are not Beda hath many fragmentes of Austen but not a word of this i L 〈…〉 de sacra Eucha Lanfrancus vseth them as his owne wordes without any quotation of Austen and that writing against Berengarius where he would surely haue countenanced them with the name of Austen if they had béen his The trueth is for ought that I can perceiue Lanfrancus is the authour of them and they are his ilfauoured answere to Berengarius his allegation of S. Austens words which we haue now in hand Yet because Gratian by errour hath made S. Austen the reputed father of them mistaking be like Austen for Lanfrancus as very oftentimes he is found to put the names of Austen and others to those things which they neuer spake I wil doe the Answe that curtesie to take them for S. Austens words onely so that he wil not make S. Austen in this point to be at bate with himselfe First therefore according to the doctrine of S. Austen and all others who haue defined what sacraments be they are alwaies k Aug decate chiâ—rud ca. 26. visible signes and therefore to be discerned with the sense For l De dâ—ct C 〈…〉 l. 2. cap 1. a signe saith the same S. Austen is a thing which beside the shew that it offereth to the senses causeth by it somewhat else to come into the minde and vnderstanding In sacramentes therefore being signes m â—x ser ad infan Beda 1. Cor. 10. CoÌ„â— Maximi Aria lib. 3. cap. 22. one thing is seene another thing is vnderstoode by that which is séene therefore againe doth he call the sacrament n In Iohan. tra 80. a visible word because the visible creature being consecrated to the sacramentall vse doth in the vse thereof after a sorte set before our eyes that which the word of God deliuereth to our eares yea and doth as it were speake vnto vs also to admonish and put vs in minde of the things thereby so signified Now S. Austen doth verie precisely put difference o De consecr di 2. cap. Hoc est betwixt the sacrament which is the visible signe and the thing or matter of the sacrament p In Ioh. tr 26 so that in diuersitie of sacramentes yet the matter of the sacrament that is the thing signified may be the same and q Ibid. a man may be partaker of the sacrament or signe and yet haue no benefite at all of the thing signified Notwithstanding by reason of that relation which by the word of God is wrought betwixt the sacramental signe and the thing thereby signified r Epist 23. in quaest super Leuit. q. 75. the signe or sacrament as hath béen before said doth vsually take vnto it the name of the thing signified as Å¿ De consecr dist 2. cap. vtrum sub Gratian noteth againe vnder S. Austens name that the name of the bodie of Christ is giuen not onely to the verie bodie but also to the figure thereof which is outwardly perceiued But what shall we take this figure of the body to be by S. Austens iudgement Marry saith hée t Ex ser ad infan Beda 2. Cor. 10. that which you see is bread as your eyes also tell you which words the Answe hath left vnanswered as also the other v De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est that the sacrament conteineth the nature and trueth of the visible element But by those wordes S. Austen referreth vs to our eyes and willeth vs to beléeue our eyes that it is verily bread Now then séeing that by his iudgment a sacrament is a visible signe and the visible signe in the Lordes supper is bread how may it stand with his doctrine that the flesh couered in the forme of bread is a sacrament of the flesh the bloud vnder the forme of wine is a sacrament of the bloud and that by the inuisible flesh is signified the visible body of Christ Surely if we take flesh to signifie truely and properly flesh this standeth not with S. Austens grounds For séeing flesh is not visible in the sacrament neither is there any appearance thereof to the sense nay it is called héere inuisible flesh it cannot be said to be a sacrament that is a visible thing Therefore we must séeke another meaning of the wordes flesh and bloud according to the other rule whereby the outward elementes take vnto them the names of the thinges represented by them By flesh and bloud then we vnderstand the visible elements which are called by these names and that not onely for that they doe signifie the true flesh and bloud of Christ but also as w August ser ad inâ—an aâ—ud Bed 1. cor 10. touching the spirituall fruite as S. Austen speaketh in x Ambros de sacram lib. 6. cap. 1. grace and vertue as saith saint Ambros y Cypria de caena d 〈…〉 de resuâ— chri concerning the inuisible efficiencie and vertue as Cyprian speaketh are the same to the faith of the receiuer according to that which Gratian saith concerning a prayer of the Church crauing to receiue the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ that some not z De consâ—cr dist 2 cap. species without probable reason did expound that trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ to be the verie efficiencie or working thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes Now because the visible element which is thus called flesh is no such thing in outward appearance neither hath anie shew of this vertue therefore it is said to be flesh couered in the forme of bread inuisible spirituall a matter of vnderstanding For sacramentes conteine those thinges which they conteine not openly but couertly not in appearance of the thinges themselues but vnder the signes of the visible
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
a De consâ—â— dist 2. cap. species receiue the truth of the flesh blood of Christ Some saith Gratian not without probabilitie expound the truth of the flesh blood of Christ in this place to be the effect thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sins Whereby it is euident that those some did vnderstand the receiuing of the truth of Christs flesh and blood to be not that corporal eating and drinking which the church of Rome mainteineth but the participation of the effects of his passion that is forgiuenesse of sinnes according to that which was before declared out of S. Austen Now to note that in receiuing the effect and fruite of the flesh and blood of Christ we are said to be partakers of the same flesh and blood I alleaged this exposition in my former Treatise which doth plainly testifie the same But the Ans as a melancholy man imagining himselfe to be made of glasse and fearing euerie wall least he should be crackt in péeces thinketh his reall presence to be here disputed against and telleth me that I do fowly abuse Gratian in making him an aduersary of Transubstantiation reall presence and moreouer that those words do not serue for exposition of the words of Christ What Gratian thought I stand not vpon it may be he was as absurd in his conceits as the Answe is I speake of them whose expositioÌ„ he alleageth who as touching their church praier tell vs that a man in receiuing the effects of Christs flesh and blood is said to receiue the truth of his flesh and blood and this is all for which I alleaged it Albeit it séemeth to me indéed now a strong proofe against reall presence For if they had thought that they had receiued the very truth of the flesh and blood of Christ according to the substance in the sacrament they would haue vsed other words to eâ—presse the effects thereof and not pray againe to receiue the truth that is the effects But it skilleth not whether it be a proofe to this purpose or not There be belleâ— inough to ring against Transubstantiation and reall presence though the clapper of this should be pulled out It is fit inough to shew that for which I brought it and therefore all this answere of his is but a fond cauill P. Spence Sect. 29. YOu charge our doctrine with Caphemitish eating drinking of Christs bodie and of those monstrous blasphemous horrible conceits which some of our captaines haue fallen into As for those conceites I cannot conceiue what they might be on gods name and therefore will conceiue no answere to them till I vnderstand your conceits but referre thâ—se conceits to your owne conceit But you a Vntruth for the Capernaits thought they should eat with their mouthes the flesh of Christ and so do the Papists roaue wide from the marke in calling vs Capharnites for wee are farre inough from thinking to eate Christes bodie peece-meale as flesh in the shaâ—bles We eat him in a Sacrament whole inuiolable like the paschal Lambe without breaking a bone of him yeâ— not hurting of him nor brusing of him nor tearing of him with our teeth as the â—apâ—erâ—its dreamed of Remember what S. Thomas Aquinas a Papist in the office of the Sacrament saith and all the church singeth A sumente non concisus non confractus nec diuisus integer accipitur Which sequences Luther was very farre in loue withall a late Papist of Oxonfâ—rd sing not long sâ—thence in a most sweete tune of that same matter Sumeris sumptus rursuâ—â— sine fine resumi Neâ— tamen absumi diminuiuâ— potes Beware beare not false witnesse against your neighbours R. Abbot 29. I Charge them with the grosse errour of the Capernaits in their doctrine of eating Christs bodie and blood But he answereth me that I roaue wide from the marke in calling them Capernaits And why I pray Marry sir the Capernaits thought they should eate Christes bodie by péeces but they say they eate him whole Surely but that the iudgement of God is great vpon them it were wonder that such vnhaâ—soâ— imaginations should prenaile with reasonable men I haue spoken hereof a Sect. 23. before As for his sequences verses they may haue their coÌ„uenient vnderstanding without that absurd coÌ„struction of eating drinking which he maketh I told him of monstrous blasphemous horrible conceits that some captaines of his part haue râ—nne into by defence of that eating He answereth me very pleasantly that he vnderstandeth not those conceits but referreth those conceites to mine owne conceit But M. Spence you could haue tolde him what they were because you had bene before vrged therewith but could not stumble out any answere to them Let me tell him what they are I referre him first to the glose of the Canon law where he shall finde this conceit that b De conse dist 2. cap. Qui benè It is no great inconuenience to say that a Mouse receiueth the bodie of Christ seeing that most wicked men do also receiue it The maister of the sentences knoweth not what to conceiue hereof c Lib. 4. dist 13 What doth the mouse take or what doth he eate God knoweth saith he As for him he cannot tell Yet he holdeth that d Ibid. It may be foundly said that the bodie of Christ is not eaten of bruite beasts But he is noted for that in the margine Here the Maister is not holden and the e In erroribus condemn Paris Parisians set it downe for one of his errours not commonly receiued that he saith that the bruit croature doth not receiue the very body of Christ Let him looke the conceit of f Pat. 4. qu. 45. Alexander de Hales If a dog or a swine should swallow the whole consecrated host I see no reason why the bodie of Christ should not withall passe into the belly of the dog or swine He commendeth Thomas Aquinas by the name of a Papist and his catholicke church hath set him in his place next the Canonicall scriptures Let him looke the conceits of this Papist g Thom. Aqui. sum par 3. qu. 79. art 3. in res ad 3. Albeit saith he A mouse or a dog do eate the consecrated host yet the substance of the bodie of Christ ceaseth not to be vnder the forme of the breaâ— so long as the same form doth remain c. Aâ— also if it shuld be cast into the mire And again some haue said that straitwaies assoone as the SacrameÌ„t is touched of the mouse or dog there ceaseth to be the bodie of Christ but this saith he derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament And againe h Ibi. in corp arti The bodie of Christ doth so long contiâ—â—e vnder the sacrament all formes receiued by sinfull men as the substance of bread would remaine if it were there which ceaseth not to be by and by but remaineth vntill it be digested by naturall heate These are those