is that the sacrifice of the holy masse is a signe and commemoration of the sacrifice of the crosse but withall wee tel you that as it is the signe so is it the thing signified also Neither is that with vs anie absurditie as ye grossely fondly imagine For Christ is the figure of his fathers substance as the apostle witnesseth and yet if ye deny him to be the same substance with his father yee prooue your selfe an Arrian so a loafe of bread in the bakers window is both a signe of bread to be sold and also the bread it selfe But your dull heades cannot conceiue these scholasticall distinctions The answer I say first that how dull soeuer our wits bee yet doe wee well perceiue your opinatiue diuinitie I say secondly which is a receiued maxime in the schooles that nullum simile est idem no similitude is the selfe same thing whereof it is a similitude For to be a relatiue and the correlatiue of the same at the same time and in the same respect is flat contradiction I say thirdly that though Christ be the same substance with his father as he is God yet is he termed the figure of his substance as he is man because the diuinitie is hid in the humanitie as vnder a figure or vaile So saieth the apostle in another place For in him dwelleth the fulnesse of the godhead corporally And the same answere serueth to your loafe For it is neither idem numero with the other loaues as you imagine and affirme of your putatiue sacrifice neither doeth the loafe of it selfe so signifie but the people by the modification of the loafe are brought into the notice of the sale of bread I say fourthly and this confoundeth you all your sottish imagination that y e veritie is more excellent then y e figure the bodie then the shadow the thing signified then the signe For your owne selues labour by this means to prooue the sacrifice of your idolatrous masse These are the wordes of your Iesuite Bellarmine Figurae necessariò inferiores esse debent rebus figuratis Figures of necessitie must be of lesse value then the thinges that are figured by the same The 4. conclusion The Eucharist or holy communion which the papists terme the sacrament of the altar is a commemoration representation signe or sacrament of Christes body bloud offered and shed vpon the crosse for mans redemption but not the reall substantiall and naturall bodie of Christ Iesus which was crucified for our sinnes This conclusion that it may be exactly vnderstood of the vulgar sort and euerie popishe conceite therein plainly discouered and effectually confuted shalbe prooued by way of certaine briefe paragraffes The first paragraffe of the forme of consecration The papistes defending the bread to be made Christes naturall body by vertue of consecration are at variance among themselues and cannot tell in the world which are the precise words of that their putatiue consecratien For the common opion among the papists to which their practise agreeth holdeth the consecration to consist in these words This is my body But their learned pope Innocentius telleth them another tale to wit that Christ consecrated by the power of excellencie which is not tied to the Sacramentes and consequently that hee first consecrated it and afterward pronounced the words which the other papistes will haue to be essentiall to the consecration Iosephus Angles telleth vs very grauely that this opinion of Innocentius is not hereticall although it cannot be defended without great temeritie But by our friers good fauour if the wordes of the consecration be as they defend then must the bread perforce be broken before it be Christes body then did Christ breake bread and not his body then did Christ deliuer bread and not his bodie For Christ first blessed the bread then brake it then gaue it to his apostles and after said This is my body So that against their willes they graunt vnwittingly that that which Christ gaue to his disciples was substantially bread and not his body This point is handled more at large in the 12. preamble in the booke of my Motiues The 2. Paragraffe Of the validitie of consecration The papistes teache that these wordes this is my body doe change and transelementate the substance of bread into the substance of Christes reall substantial and naturall body and that the bare formes of bread and wine doe after consecration existe without any subiect But this doctrine doth confute it selfe For first if the wordes of supposed consecration doe worke transubstantiation then must euery worde haue his due operation in that kinde of worke For otherwise some of the wordes should be frustrate and needlesse as which could haue no proper effect And yet dareth no papist assigne any effect to euery worde because it would follow thereupon that Christes body should be made by diuisible partes Secondly if the fourth word meum concurre essentially to the consecration then is Christes body either made by successiue operation which Aquinas and all learned papistes denie or the whole effect proceedeth totally of the fourth word without the actiuitie of the other three The sequele is euident because the prolation of the words is with succession and not in an instant Thirdly if the wordes of consecration be of such force as the papistes teach then must both Christes body and bread be vnder the forme of bread at once or els the forme of bread must for a certaine time be aswell without the substance of bread as without the body of Christ. I prooue it because as Christes body is made present vnder the forme of bread in an instant so doth the substance of bread cease to be in instant and consequently since two instantes cannot be immediate they must both either be togither in the same instant or both absent for the time mediate Fourthly the popish supposed transubstantiation is very ridiculous and absurd I prooue it because when the priest saith this my bo hee then either holdeth in his handes substantially bread or corporally Christes body if substantially bread then are their wordes of consecration not of force if corporally Christes bodie these three absurdities doe insue First Christes body is made by succession Secondly the sillable bo which by it selfe signifieth nothing is made significant Thirdly the last sillable die which is commonly deemed to accomplish their consecration is become officiperda redundant and superfluous Fiftly if the wordes of consecration be operatiue as the papistes holde then if the priest chaunce to die in the midst of the prolation Christes body shalbe left mangled and vnperfect for otherwise halfe of the consecratory wordes shall stand for cyphers and haue no effect at all The 3. Paragraph Of the impossibilitie of transubstantiation When two vnequall dimensiue quantities are placed togither it is vnpossible for the conteined to bee bigger then the conteiner but Christes body in the eucharist reteineth
vnited if we receiued Christ corpoâ—â—lly into our bellies But as the same Cyprian saith a 〈…〉 Recipitur non includitur He is receiued but not shut vp in the sacrament I note thirdly that this bread is spirituall not corporall the bread of the soule not of the bodie I note fourthly that we eate Angell-foode here on earth in the sacrament and that we shall eate the verie same in heauen without the sacrament Which assertion vttered by holy Cyprian sheweth his catholique christian meaning so plainly as all Papistes may be ashamed hencefoorth to alleadge him for their late inuented carnall presence In heauen there is neither accident without subiect nor sacrament administred nor yet any corporall eating and drinking there vsed Angels foode is spirituall not carnall celestiall not terrestriall eternall not corporall Angels neither eate by dint of tooth nor by morsels in the mouth Their nature is not capable of anie such actions Since therefore our sacramentall meate is the same that Angels now eate and the same that our selues shall eate in heauen where all corporall carnall and fleshy eating ceaseth it foloweth of necessitie that it is meere spirituall not corporall fleshy or carnall The reply He saith that the bread is made flesh by the omnipotencie of Gods word to shew the vnspeakeable transmutation Therefore so soone as Gods worde is spoken by the priest it is no more bread but flesh indeede The answere I say first as I said not long before that it passeth the force of any power vpon earth to make common bread a sacrament I say secondly that the alteration is vnspeakeable when the diuine power of Christ doth infuse it selfe into the hearts of the faithful by the visible sacrament as by his ordinarie organ and instrument and then and there worketh the diuine effectes signified by the sacrament I say thirdly that whosoeuer wil peruse the whole treatise of Saint Cyprian De coena Domini and doe it seriously with iudgement and christian zeale that man shal doubtlesse finde his meaning to bee as I haue saide For in an other place thereof he hath these words Ideò ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae aternae effectum non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione Christo nos vniri Therefore the infirmitie of our faith being holpen by the accustomed effect of things is caught by a sensible argument that the effect of eternal life is in the visible sacraments and that we are vnited to Christ not so by corporal as by spiritual transmutation And in the very ende of the tract he concludeth in this manner Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide sincerâ panem sanctum frangimus partimur dum quod diuinum quod humanum est distinguimus separamus itémque simul separata iungentes vnum deum hominem fatemur Sed nos ipsi corpus eius effecti sacramento re sacramenti capiti nostro connectimur vnimur singuli alter alterius membra ministerium dilectionis pro inuicem exhibentes communicamus charitate participamus sollicitudine eundem cibum manducantes eundem potum bibentes qui depetra spiritali profluit emanat qui cibus potus est dominus noster Iesus Christus So often as we doe these things we doe not whet our teeth to eate but we breake and diuide the sanctified bread with a sincere faith while wee distinguish and separate what is diuine and what humane and also ioyning the same things separated together confesse one God and man Our selues also being made his body are knit to our head by the sacrament and vertue thereof and are vnited particularly one an others members exhibiting the ministerie of loue one for another we communicate in charitie we participate in solicitude we eate the same meate and drinke the same drinke which floweth and runneth out of the spiritual rocke which meate and drinke is our Lord Iesus Christ. Out of these wordes I note first that Christ is truely present in the eucharist but yet after a spiritual sort and not corporall I note secondly that we are vnited to Christ spiritually by meanes of the sacrament but not corporally For as wee receiue Christ in the sacrament so are wee vnited to Christ iâ— the same as by an ordinary instrument vnder him I note thirdly that after sanctification it is bread still as before and is broken and deuided none of which can agree indeede with Christs corporall presence I note fourthly that we eate not Christ with mouth and tooth but with a true christian faith I note fiftly that the true and sincere faith by which we must eate the Eucharist is to distinguish in Christ the humanitie from the diuinitie and to ioyne the same againe confessing one Christ to be true God and true man I note sixtly that as we eate Christ in the Sacrament so are we made one anothers members which can not be otherwise vnderstoode then in a mysticall maner I note seuenthly that our sacramentall meate and drinke is spirituall which floweth out from the spirituall rocke Christ Iesus For if the rocke be spirituall whereof we drinke then doubtles the drinke it selfe can not be corporall because as all Philosophers graunt and as right reason prescribeth qualis causa talis effectus the effect is of like condition with the cause neither can a corporall cause bring foorth a spirituall effect nor a spirituall cause a corporall effect whereupon ariseth a great question among the Schoolemen how hell fire can be materiall since a body can haue no action into a spirit The 3. obiection Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes Quod est in calice id est quod à latere fluxit illius sumus participes That which is in the cuppe is the same that flowed out of his side and wee are partakers thereof But doubtlesse no christian can or will denie that to be Christs true bloud indeede which issued out of his side vppon the crosse therefore the same must be granted to be vnder the forme of wine in the masse The answer I say first that I graunt Christes true body and his true bloud to be in the eucharist but not vnder accidents without subiects nor corporally and carnally but in a diuine spirituall and mysticall sort Neither doth saint Chrysostome S. Cyprian saint Austen or anie other ancient father speake one word of your carnall reall presence or once name your accidents without subiects No they teach no other doctrine then that which I willingly imbrace Now that Saint Chrysostome speaketh of a mysticall presence his owne wordes following within a few lines shall witnesse the same with me Thus he saith Et propter te frangi sustinet vt omnes satiet And he suffereth to be broken for thee that he may satiate all Thus saith this holy father By whose words it is
that by writing which he doth approue at least so farre forth as mans iudgement can haue place The fyft Paragraph That the holy Eucharist is a figure and signe of Christes body and bloud not the thing it selfe that is thereby signified corporally but in a diuine and spirituall sort FOr the perspicuous explication of this Paragraph I will vse certaine effectuall and distinct proofes and that done I will succinctly aunswere to such obiections as may be made against the same My first proofe is grounded in the analogie of our christian faith for first Christ tooke our nature vpon him and that so really and truly as it was like vnto ours in euery thing sinne only excepted The former part saint Paul prooueth in these wordes who being in the forme of God thought it no robberie to be equall with God but he made himselfe of no reputation and tooke on him the forme of a seruant and was made like vnto men and was found in shape as a man The latter part S. Peter proueth in these words for Christ suffered for you leauing you an ensample that ye should follow his steps who did no sinne neither was there guile found in his mouth And S. Paule sayth for he hath made him to be sinne for vs who knew no sinne that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him Now our bodies are such as they can not with one act be made to be in two places at one time ergo the priests words can not make Christs body in a thousand places at once for if he could so do Christs body should be of an other nature then ours contrary to the holy scripture Secondly Christ sayth Ye worship that which ye know not God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth Thus doth our faith tel vs but the Papists say that we must worship God in a round cake that we must worship for God that which neither we nor they know to be God for if the priest either want intention to consecrate which often chaunceth by reason of wandring imaginations or of purpose meaneth not to consecrate or of negligence omitteth any one word of consecration then by popish religion the thing adored is but pure bread and yet do they worship it for the euerliuing God It is therefore truely said to them that they worship they know not what Thirdly Christ must so be eaten of vs as he abideth in vs for to that end do we eate him that he may dwell in vs and yet is it certaine that he dwelleth not in vs corporally but spiritualy by faith The former part is not only euident in it selfe but verified by Christ himselfe in these words he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him the latter part S. Paule proueth in these words that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith Fourthly Christ ascended vp visibly into heauen and there must remaine til the day of generall doome as our faith telleth vs therefore we must feede on him in heauen by faith and not on earth with our teeth For which cause the auncient Church exhorted y e people before the communion to lift vp their hearts vnto the Lord as if it had beene said ye must not affixe your mindes to these visible creatures but meditate on heauenly things which are promised by y e reuereÌ„t faithfull vse thereof Fiftly S. Paul saith plainly that the faithfull in the old testament did all eate drinke Christs body bloud which they could not do but by faith because Christ was not then incarnate and euen so do we eate Christ spiritually by faith not corporally with our teeth To which effect grauely said S. Austen vt quid paras ventrem dentem crede manducasti Credere enim in eum hoc est panem vinum manducare qui credit in eum manducat eum Wherefore preparest thou a belly and a tooth beleeue thou hast eaten for to beleeue in him is to eate bread wine he that beleeueth in him eateth him Thus saith S Austen euen as their owne Gratian hath alledged him Sixtly S. Paule saith that so often as we eate and drinke of Christs cup so often do we shew his death till he come but doubtles if he be corporally present vnder the accidents of bread and wine then is he already come nay more truely is it said that he was neuer gone For as S. Austen saith donec seculum finiatur sursum est dominus sed tamen etiam hic nobiscuÌ„ est veritas domini corpus enim in quo resurrexit in vno loco esse oportet veritas autem eius vbique diffâ—sa est Our Lord is aboue vntill the worlds end but yet his truth is with vs heere for the body of our Lord wherein he rose againe must needes be in one place but his truth is diffused euery where Againe the same S. Austen writing against Faustus the Manichee hath these expresse words Secundum praesentiam quippe spiritualem nullo modo illa pati posset secundum praesentiam vero corporalem simul in sole in luna in cruce esse non posset For his flesh could no way suffer according to his spirituall presence and according to his corporall presence it was not possible for him to be both in the sunne and in the moone and on the crosse at one and the same time Againe he saith in another place after this manner Videte ascendentem credite in absentem sperate venientem sed tamen per misericordiam occultam etiam sentite praesentem Ille enim qui ascendit in coelum vt tolleretur ab oculis vestris promisit vobis dicens ecce ego vovestris promisit vobis dicens ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque in consummationem seculi Beholde Christ ascending beleeue in him absent trust in him that is comming and for all that feele him also present by his secret mercie Thus ye see the flat opinion of this graue writer of this ancient father of this holy learned doctour his resolution is so euident and so free from all obscuritie as none can pretend ignorance that once read his words For first he telleth vs that Christs naturall body must needes be in one onely place at one time Secondly hee telleth vs that Christs naturall body can not bee at one and the same time both in the Sunne and in the Moone and on the crosse Thirdly he maketh the same assertion plain by comparing his corporall presence with his spirituall For he saith that the one may be in many places but the other cannot as if he had saide Christs body may be spiritually in the sacrament but corporally it cannot be there Fourthly he proueth Christs corporal absence by the veritie of his ascension exhorting vs to beleeue in him that is corporally absent and withal to feele
his vertue as he is spiritually present How can he tel vs more plainely that Christs body is spiritually in the Eucharist but not corporally It is not possible for any man to yeelde a more sensible declaration which if the gentle reader wil obserue attentiuely it will minister to him a great light for the perfect vnderstanding of the whole mysterie My second proofe is grounded in the figures of the old testament for first circumcision was called Gods couenant and yet was it not the couenant indeede but a signe and signification thereof For it is common to all sacraments to haue the name of the thing that they signifie That it was called the couenant it is cleere in these wordes This is my couenant which yee shall keepe betweene me and you and thy seede after thee Let euerie man child among you bee circumcised And neuerthelesse that it was not the couenant but the signe of the couenant it is euident by these words Ye shal circumcise the foreskinne of your flesh and it shal be a signe of the couenant betweene mee and you The couenant indeede was this To be Abrahams God and the God of his seede after him so saith the text Secondly the Lambe was called the Lords passeouer and yet was it not the passeouer indeede but the signe and representation thereof That it was called the passeouer it is cleare by these words of Moses For it is the Lords passeouer And also by these words of the Euangelist Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eate the passeouer that is the Lambe which was the signe of the passeouer Againe in these wordes I wil keep y e passeouer at thine house Again in these words And they made readie the passeouer In all which places the scripture speaketh onely of the signe that is of the lambe and giueth it the name of the thing that is of the passing ouer Now that it was not the passeouer indeede but the signe or figure thereof it is euident by these words of holy Writ And the bloud shal bee a token for you vpon the houses where yee are so when I see the blood I will passe ouer you and the plague shal not be vppon you to destruction when I smite the land of Egypt Lo the lambe was but a token and signe of y e angels passing ouer them And this lambe was a figure of our passeouer Iesus Christ as he was really sacrificed vpon the crosse so saith the holy apostle For Christ our passeouer is sacrificed for vs. This S. Iohn confirmed when hee willed the Pharisees to behold the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world And in the Reuelation this lambe is saide to be slaine from the beginning of the world Since therefore the scripture telleth vs so plainly that the paschall Lamb was the type and figure of the true Messias who was sacrificed to his father for the sins of the world it shall not bee vnprofitable to the Reader to consider the allegorie of the rites which God appointed to be obserued therein The Type Exod. 12 Â The thing signified 1 The lambe was a memoriall of the deliuerance out of Egypt That is to say 1 Christ deliuered vs from hell sin death and satan Gal. 3.13 2 The lambe was a sacrifice distinguishing the Israelites from other nations 2 Christ is the eternall sacrifice who being eaten spiritually by faith distinguâ—sheth gods faith full people from infidels Ioh. 6.56 3 The lambe was a true lambe of the flocke 3 Christ was a true man borne of the blessed virgin Ioh. 1.14 4 The lambe was truely slaine 4 Christ was truely crucified 1. Corinth 5.7 Iohn 19.30 5 The lambe was not boyled in water but rosted drie 5 Christs body was inclosed in a new tombe that had no water in it Matth. 27.60 6 The lambe was killed at euen 6 Christ was killed in the ende of the world Hebr. 1.2 7 The Angell beholding the doores sprinckled with the lambes bloud passed ouer the Israelites 7 God beholding our soules sprinckeled with the bloud of Christ doeth not impute our sinnes to vs Rom. 3.34 8 The lambs bloud saued the Israelites from common death 8 The bloud of Christ deliuered vs from eternal death He. 2.9 9 All the Israelites did eate of the lambe 9 All the faithfull shall eate of Christ spiritually Iohn 6. 10 Euery part of the lambe was eaten 10 Euery mysterie of Christes incarnation must be beleeued 2. Timoth. 3. 11 The lambe was eaten without leauen 11 Christ is eaten by faith with out hypocrisie 1. Corint 5.8 12 The lambe was eaten wyth sowre hearbes 12 We must eate Christ in bearing his crosse Matth. 10.38 13 The lambe was appointed to be eaten with speede 13 Wee must embrace Christes Gospell with all expedition Matth. 6.33 14 The lambe was eaten of the circumcised onely 14 Christ is onely eaten by faith of the regenerat 1. Cor. 11.29 15 The lambe was without blemish 15 Christ was free from sinne 1. Pet. 2.22 THis passeouer of the olde law with other sacrifices and figures which were but shadows of y e Messias to come are al wholy abolished by Christs sacred aduent For Christ now readie to die and to offer vp himselfe as the true passeouer and veritie of all figures made an end of the olde passeouer with a solemne banket and instituting the Eucharist in stead therof commanded the faithfull to obserue the same for a memorie of his death and passion vntil his second aduent which shall be in maiestie and glorie My third proofe is grounded in the phrases of the new testament For Christ himselfe saide that he would not henceforth drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill he rose againe S. Paul in like manner calleth it bread verie often euen after the consecration But if it had beene Christs natural bloud and his naturall body neither would he haue called it the fruit of the vine nor Saint Paul haue tearmed it bread Which Saint Paule maketh plaine in another place where hee hath these words The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ for we that are many are one bread and one body because we all are partakers of one bread Out of which words I note first that Saint Paule tearmeth it bread after the consecration or Christs blessing or after the wordes of Christes institution which is all one in a right and godly sense I note secondly that he calleth it not Christs body but the participation of his body I note thirdly that the bread he speaketh of is broken I note fourthly that wee are all one bread and one body which annotations beeing ioyned together I inferre first that the bread is Christs body spiritually and by faith but not corporally as the papists say For Christs naturall body cannot be broken as their own learned Canus granteth and as verie