sensibly to be handled by the Priests not onely in a sacrament but in trueth but to be broken and torne with teeth truely indeed but onely in a sacrament Your glosse sets the text vpon the racke violenlty drawes the members of it a sunder which are copulatiuely chained together in the text tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri distinguenda sunt quoth he alas euery child may see it cannot beare such a distinction and therefore either suffer your Popes text to stand still in force or else set downe plainely like honest meaning men that your Pope and his Councell haue grossely erred Howbeit the former part of the Popes words haue most need of a glosse for when he saith that bread and wine after consecration is not onely a sacrament but also the true body and blood of Christ if he meane the accidents they can be neither body nor blood if he meane the substance that 's vanished Lib. 4. dist 1◠if he meane substantia mutata in id quod facta est the substance changed into that which it is made that is in carnem sanguinem Christi Lib. 4 dist 11. Into the bodie and blood of Christ as Lumbard some where seemeth to tell vs then is it not both a sacrament and the true bodie and blood of Christ too but only one of them namely id quod facta est that whereinto it is changed and here you may smell Transubstantiation though it were not yet deuised but it stunke so that Lumbard himselfe could hardly abide it Ibid. for thus hee writes Si quaeritur qualis sit illa conuersio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio If a man aske what manner of conuersion it is whether formall or substantiall or of some other kind I am not able to determine it Which is as much to say as I cannot tell whether the substance of bread be changed into the bodie of Christ or no for graunt me this antecedent substantia panis mutatur the substance of bread is changed the conclusion wil follow of necessitie ergo est substantialis mutatio a substantiall change so he that tels me that he cannot define whether the change of bread into flesh and wine into blood be substantiall tels me withall that he cannot define whether the substance of bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of Christ These be the colours and shewes and accidents that haue bewitched a great part of the world and these be the glosses and interpretations that haue caused men to runne mad and at length to sleepe in their owne excrements but if you looke into the ages before Berengarius you shall find such as did write openly against these Popish accidents and formes without subiect and against all vntoward glosses in defence of the sacramentarie heresie as heretickes now call it without all controlement or contradiction which is a maine euidence to perswade that these reall conuersions and transmutations which be defended so stoutly and peremptorily in Poperie are not Catholicke but hereticall Iohn Scotus a learned man venerable Beds scholler taught the same doctrine wee hold at this day Iohan. Scotus almost two hundred yeeres before Berengarius so did Bertram Bertram a famous man in his time as appeareth by his booke De corpore sanguine Dei written at the request of Charles the Great and Doctor Tonstall witnesseth Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar. that before Transubstantiation was concluded in the Counsell of Lateran it was lawfull for euerie man freely to thinke of it as he thought good and if this euidence be not stronge inough to carrie away the matter then would I faine learne how they dare stand against Pope Gelasius that tels them plainely that the substance and nature of bread and wine remaineth still Gelas contr Eutych Non desinit esse substantia panis natura vini There ceaseth not to bee the substance of bread and nature of wine They tell vs verie demurely that by vertue of Christs prayer Luk. 22 32. the Popes faith cannot faile and that hee is to confirme his brethren yet herein they make Gelasius faith to faile and vtterly refuse to bee confirmed by him yet was it not Gelasius owne priuate opinion De Sacram. li. 4. cap. 4. Dialog 1 2 Ambrose saith of the consecrated bread and wine Sunt quae erant in aliud commutantur They are the same they were and are changed into another thing Theodoret Signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt à natura sua manent enim in priori substantia figura forma The mysticall signes after sanctification do not depart from their owne nature for they remaine in their former substance figure and forme Chrysostome Ad Caesarium in Math. hom 15. Panis sanctificatus dignus est dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in illo remanserit The sanctified bread is worthy the name of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it Origen Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei per obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum encitur That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer according to that which is materiall in it goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the draught And if all these authorities be reiected yee shall they neuer bee able to auoide the words of our Sauiour Christ who after the ministration of the Sacrament in both kindes concludeth after this maner I say vnto you Math. 26 29. Mark 14 25. I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine till I drinke it new in the Kingdome of God vnlesse they can make men beleeue that blood may be the fruit of a Vine Let vs now returne to the examination of the ancient Father which our Papist imagineth to bee raysed from the dead What if hee should say saith he that the verie bodie of Christ is present in the Sacrament in forme of bread Many then say I hee should lye for Chrysostome saith In oper imper in Math. hom 11. In vasis sanctificatis non est ipsum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis eius continetur In the sanctified vessels is contained not the verie bodie of Christ but the mysterie of his bodie But forasmuch as it is heere confessed that if this Doctor raised from the dead should answere that the bread is called the bodie of Christ in a figuratiue sense and that in Sacraments the signe is many times called by the name of the thing signified he doth cleerely in so answering determine the controuersie on the Protestants side what should wee labour further it being too too manifest that the Fathers doe answere so in their Bookes extant at this day and that in as plaine manner as can be wished Qui seipsum vitem appellauit Dialog
with Iohn Caluine as the obseruation of the Sabbath hath done I doubt not but that although he would not haue allowed of traditions yet hée would haue found you as sufficient proofe for any of them out of the word as hée hath done for the Sabbath for so great a mote in your eyes is the tradition of the Church that if your appetite serue to take liking of any point of doctrine grounded thereon you will make any homely shift rather than you wil acknowledge the true i Tradition a fountaine in Poperie fountaine from whence it springeth and no maruell for acknowledge the authoritie of those traditions which k If you may doe what you lift we cannot stand by the testimonie of all antiquitie were first deliuered by the Apostles and haue euer since béen obserued and deliuered ouer as it were from hand to hand by succession of Bishops and your heresie wil fall to the ground The next point of doctrine which you doe hold without warrant of scripture is that it is lawfull for Christians to eat bloud which was forbidden by the decrée of the first generall Councell where the Apostles were present l I will finde you scripture for this in Saint Pauls Epistles what scriptures haue you to doe contrarie to a Canon of so great a councell Pro. It is manifest that in the infancy of the church the Apostles hauing to do with the Iewes a people wonderfully addicted to the strict obseruation of their law did not thinke good to take from them all the ceremonies thereof at once but rather by little and little to seeke to winne them by tolerating many things for a time which in the Gospell were abolished and to that intent Paul did circumcise Timothy Acts 16. Pap. What warrant of scripture haue you to prooue that the commandement was giuen to be obserued but for a time in regard of the weaknesse of the Iewes Pro. Wee haue the word to prooue that the ceremoniall lawes were abolished by the death of Christ whereof abstayning from bloud is one and it is euident by the 15. of the Acts that the assembly of the Apostles in the first generall Councell at Ierusalem was vpon this occasion they of the circumcision which beleeued were greatly scandalized because the Gentiles who were ioyned with them in the vnitie of the same faith had vtterly reiected their law whervpon much controuersie did arise between them the Iewes contending that the beleeuing Gentiles ought to be circumcised and to obserue the lawe of Moses and the Gentiles to the contrarie For appeasing whereof the sayd Councell assembled and decreed that the Christians should abstaine from blood by eating whereof as it seemeth the weake Iewes were greatly offended intending thereby somewhat to satisfie the Iewes and yet not to lay too heauie a yoke vpon the Gentiles Thus you see how by the word the eating of bloud was prohibited vnto the Christians of those times and how by the word it is permitted vnto vs. Pa. By what word can you prooue that the m This fellow loues to beare himself speak else would he not make such an idle repetion eating of bloud which was both prohibited vnto the Iewes before the Gospell and to christians in the Gospell is now lawfull for vs to doe that the law prescribed to the Iewes concerning marriage within degrées of affinitie is still to be retained and that the like law which commandeth the brother to raise vp séede vnto his brother deceased without issue is to be abolished that it is lawfull for a Christian Magistrate to take away a mans life for 12. d. which was not lawfull by the law of God to doe but in such cases onely as in the same law are specified with many other such like instances too long to repeat when you haue tired your selfe in searching and wresting of scriptures you shall finde n Else are you deceiued no other warrant for them than the continuall practise and tradition of the Church Pro. It appeareth in the 5. Chapter of the 1. to the Corinths that Paul did disallow of marriage within degree of affinitie which is warrant sufficient for the retaining of the lawes prescribed to the Iewes on that behalfe Pap. You haue no such warrant out of that place for the text saith onely There is a o The fornication had not been so haynous if the Sonne in law might marry his Mother in law fornication among you not once named among the heathen that a man should haue his fathers wife it will be hard for you to prooue out of this place that the Fornication here specified was committed by a marriage betwéen the Sonne and the Mother in law p All this is but vaine talke that helpes him not awhit for the lawes of the Corinthians would permit no such marriage to be celebrated as it may be gathered out of the text for if such a fornication be not named among the heathen much lesse is it permitted by the lawes of the Corinths and therefore this Fornication was committed by hauing his fathers wife as a Concubine or a Whore and not as a wife as you imagine The Answere YOur Papist heere talkes in his sleepe of two mortall wounds which wee by our description of the Church haue giuen to our owne cause and therefore your description must bee had in memorie which as it bindeth the true Church to the voice of Christ sounding in the canonicall Scriptures so it giueth vs to vnderstand that the false Church heareth the voice of stangers and will not bee ruled by the written word of the Almightie yet notwithstanding the true Church may mistake the voice of Christ and so erre whereby the first wound is fully healed and if it should be graunted that the Church in generall cannot erre yet it followeth not that euerie one in particular that buildeth hay or stubble vpon the foundation is therefore no member of the Church And so the second wound which speakes of the exclusion of the Fathers Doctors is neither mortall nor sensible Now touching the first wound which cencerneth the Protestant and Puritane it is here brought to certaine particular points which I will speake of in order The first is the obseruation of the Sunday which you proue syllogistically out of the Scripture after this manner 1. The day whereon the Apostles did ordaine that Christians should weekely meet together to exercise themselues in hearing the word preached receiuing the Sacraments and giuing of Almes that same day did the Apostles ordaine to be the Sabbath of Christians 2. But the Apostles did ordaine that Christians should weekely assemble themselues vpon the first day of the weeke for the purpose before mentioned Ergo The Apostles did ordaine the first day of the weeke to be the Christians Sabbath Now where your Papist saith That if the Maior were true then the Apostles appointing moe dayes than one for such exercises should appoint moe Sabbaths in a wéeke
it be presently bestowed on the poore so shall men not seeme to forsake the memories of their friends which might be occasion of no small griefe of heart and that which is celebrated in the Church shall be godlily and honestly celebrated It is not very easie to gesse what these oblations were for the sacrament cannot be sumptuous vnlesse we met some precious stone of great value in the Communion Cup as Cleopatra did in a cup of Ippocras other oblations cannot be sold nor yet giuen to euery one that asketh them if it be said that the sacrament might be called sumptuous not in it selfe but in regard of the pompe and costly braueries of funerals it is easily seene that Austine heere speakes not of funerals but memorials which as they were sumptuous so were they celebrated with feasting and ioy not with mournefull calling vpon God for a gaole deliuerie and therefore we may better vnderstand this same aliquid adiunare somewhat to helpe of helping the liuing who otherwise might conceiue sorrow of heart or of the inflaming of mens deuotion to zeale and feruencie of prayer when they behold the representation of the death of Christ in the reuerend mysteries then of offering Christ in sacrifice to God his father for the reliefe of the dead Vero aliquid adiuuare credendum est We might belieue that they doe indeed helpe somewhat saith Augustine but that euery one that celebrated the memory of his friend should beleeue that his friends soule was in purgatorie crauing yeerely reliefe at his hands that saith not Austine it may be his friends soule was in heauen it may be it was in hell it may be it was deliuered out of purgatorie the last yeere or the yeere before and therefore it may be that oblations could not helpe him and so consequently that Austines credendum in this case is no whit better then an ignorandum howbeit you may tell your papist that this place is not for his profite for if his massing soule Priest may not sell his oblations and prayers but giue them freely and cheerefully to all that aske tht poore man will hardly be able to keepe a Concubine Austine saw that veniale peccatum veniall sinne was like to prooue venale venall or set to sale and therefore he saith prebeantur neque vendantur let them be giuen not sold But now no money no masse no penny no pater noster Wherefore to conclude all in a word if this had bene Austines faith he would not haue taught it so loosely and vntowardlie yet howsoeuer he teacheth it as faith or opinion or custome or what else soeuer the faith of one moderne sacrifice Sacrificatorians is of another Edition The Dialogue Sectio VIII SAint Ambrose who a This Ambrose neuer saw S. Austine nor S. Austine him conuerted Saint Austine to the faith die likewise hold and practise the same doctrine for thus he prayeth before the celebration of the diuine mysteries Let the inuisible forme of the Holy Ghost descend to teach me thine vnworthie Priest reuerently to handle so high a mysterie that thou mayest mercifully receiue at my hands this sacrifice to the helpe both of quicke and dead Precatio prima praeparans ad b The word Missa is not to be found in all Ambrose missam The Answere BElike Ambrose and Austine must agree in all points because the one conuerted the other otherwise this tale of Austines conuersion is told out of season but by your leaue if this counterfect prayer be construed after the Popish fashion I doubt whether Austine will giue it allowance Howbeit supposing this Iacke Strawe to be the right Ambrose I answere that he speakes not here of this mysterie as it is a sacrament putting vs in mind of God for then the vertue of it could not depend vpon the worthinesse the reuerent or irreuerent handling of the Priest but as it is a sacrifice putting God in mind of vs now if Ambrose purposed to offer vp the very body and blood of the sonne of God in sacrifice to his father the absurdity of receiuing it mercifully in regard of his reuerent handling remaineth still for the reall body and blood of Christ had bene acceptable to God of it selfe without helpe of Ambroses holinesse Contr. epist Par. lib. 2. cap. 8. Austine could not abide that Parmenian should say that the Bishop is mediatour betweene God and the people and auoucheth that if Saint Iohn had taken so much vpon him euery good faithfull Christian would haue taken him for Antichrist rather then the Apostle of Christ and therefore if Ambrose had prayed that God would mercifully receiue the body and blood of his sonne at his hands making himselfe mediatour betweene the sonne of God and his father as Popish Priests venter to doe at this day in the Church of Rome I may well thinke Austine notwithstanding his conuersion would haue detested it Lib. 4. part 2. Cum sacerdos orauerit prohostia transubstātianda eamque transubstantiatā patri obtulerit orat pro ipsius acceptatione Whē the Priest praieth for transubstantiating of the hoste and doth offer it being transubstantiated to the father he prayeth for the acceptation of it Thus saith Durand and the Priest in the Masse desireth God to looke Propitio ac sereno vultu propitiously and cheerefully vpon the body and blood of Christ his sonne and to receiue the same as once he receiued the sacrifice of Abel c. This is a presumptuous and a desperate blasphemy yet must we either make Ambrose guilty of it in this praier or else see him discharged of transubstantiation There is a full discourse in Irenaeus where it is prooued out of the Scriptures Lib. 4. cap. 34. that God euer accepted him that offered better than the offering and that no oblation is pleasing vnto God when hee that offereth it doth not please him better and therefore it is sayd in Genesis Cap. 4.4.5 that the Lord had respect vnto Abel and his offering but vnto Cain and his offering he had no regard and if the offering of a wicked man were acceptable to God it had bene out of season to charge that man to goe away from the Altar to be reconciled with his brother Matth. 5.23 before he presume to offer his oblation so long as a man choseth his owne wayes and inwardly delighteth in abhominations Esa 66.23 c. his killing of a bullocke is as if he slew a man his sacrificing a sheepe as if he cut off a dogs necke his offering an oblation as if he offered swines flesh and such a mans offering incense to God is as if he blessed an idoll It commeth to passe often among men that the wicked is accepted for his gift and so absolued because the iudge is either needy or couetous but God hath no neede of our sacrifices he neither eats the flesh of Buls nor drinkes the blood of Goats Psal 50.30 he neither eats bread nor drinkes wine
world of any thing whether it be prayer sacrifice Almes or whatsoeuer else that is done vnder the sunne which cleerely confoundeth Iohn a Stile and all other Iackes that plead for him Lastly the doctors may aduise and giue counsell and plead at the barre but if they presume to sit vpon the bench as iudges 1. Pet. 5.3 2. cor 24. and Lords ouer Gods heritage or hauing dominion ouer their faith then are they traitors against the Conquerour The Dialogue Sectio XV. Transubstantiation NOw followeth Transubstantiation wherein because I haue a You take much vpon you but you performe little taken vpon me to alleage no proofe which may by any glosse or interpretatiō be wrested into another sense there is greater difficultie for what can be deuised to be spoken thereof so perspicuously which by some such shift may not be auoided if the fathers say that the body of Christ after words of consecration is really present that is a figuratiue spéech if they make mention of the vnbloody sacrifice or of the sacrifice of the Altar that is b who makes such an interpretation interpreted the sacrifice of thankesgiuing they could not vse the word Transubstantiation because it was not c The fathers had not the wit to deuise such a trimme word deuised before the Councell of Laterane let vs admit that d One will hardly serue for the vniuersall Church one of the ancient fathers were risen from the dead for to vnfold what his beliefe was and what the vniuersal Church did hold in his time concerning Transubstantiation what should we e Transubstantiation must stand by deuises or els it wil soone fall deuise to demaund of him or what might he deuise to say vnto vs for final determination therof if we should aske whether the very body of Christ be present in the sacrament in forme of bread and he should answere f No father answereth so yea this would not serue but if we should replie thus How can it bée the bodie of Christ Shall I not beléeue mine owne eies which tell me that it is bread if this doctor should g Theodoret Chrysostome Austine Tertul and Ambrose himselfe answere so answere that the bread is called the bodie of Christ in a figuratiue sense that in Sacraments the signe is many times called by the name of the thing signified were not this controuersie cléerely determined on the protestants side Contrariwise If this doctor should answere that God is omnipotent and therefore able to doe what hée will seeme it neuer so contrary to our senses and vnderstanding that he was able to make heauen and earth of nothing and to doe all the great wonders and miracles of the land of Egypt were h No verilie were it not see the answere not the matter as cléerely determined on the Papists side what cauill could you in this case imagine or deuise eftsoones to cal in question what this doctors opinion should be concerning i Transubstantiation wil not come without a better pull transubstantiation will you imagine that he hath spokē al this of Gods omnipotency to proue that he is able to make you k As though there were nothing held by vs but calling naming signifying and figuring cal the signe of the Sacrament by the name of the thing signified or to make bread to be a figure of Christs naturall bodie Pro. When such a doctor shal arise from the dead and so determine of the matter as you haue imagined I will make you answere in the meane time you must giue me leaue with reuerence to thinke that none of the auncient fathers weare so grosse and absurd as to be of your opinion in this point but to admit that such a castle were built in the aire as you haue imagined I must then l Then do you confesse more thē other Protestants will confesse that such a supposed doctor did hold Transubstantiation Pap. This very question was thus asked vrged answered and determined for the Papists by Saint Ambrose when he was liuing and m Non sequitur therefore you must néeds graunt that he did hold Transubstantiation read his booke De ijs quae initiantur mysterijs the Chapter beginneth thus Quomodo tu dicis mihi hoc est corpus Christi aliud video panem video c. How sayest thou that this is the bodie of Christ I doe sée it to be another thing I doe sée that it is bread for answere hereof Saint Ambrose doth alleage that God was able to make heauen and earth of nothing and for the proofe of Gods omnipotent power he repeateth all the wonders and miracles of the land of Egypt as in that Chapter at large appeareth this was n But no doubt it was not but if it were his faith then was it not his opinion no doubt Saint Ambrose his faith in this point and the beliefe and practise of the vniuersall Church in his time for it is not like that so great a doctor did dissent frō the Catholike Church in so materiall a point neither is it o No for they were both Protestants probable that S. Ambrose was a Papist in this opinion S. Austine whom he conuerted to the Christian faith a Protestant The Answere IF your Papist were acquainted with such another as the witch of Endor 1. Sam. 28.7 it seemes he would cause one ancient father or other to be raised vp from the dead to auouch Transubstantiatiō his companions depend vpon the apparitions of soules the speeches of dead corpes dead skuls such like strong illusions as the heathen did vpon their oracles otherwise it would not be so open cleare a matter that Poperie is a doctrine of deuils he hath taken vpon him to alleage such proofe as cannot be wrested by any glosse or interpretation into another sense and therefore being intangled with such a difficultie he thinkes himselfe hardly able to mainetaine his credite without helpe from the dead yet me thinkes a wise man should not measure other mens wits by his owne nor imagine all glosses and interpretations to be in his owne head neuerthelesse I see heere that hee can make glosses of words that were neuer either spoken or written if the fathers say that the bodie of Christ is really present that is a figuratiue speech a figuratiue speech quoth he that must needs be a strange figuratiue speech that was neuer spoken and they be strange fathers that driue vs to shift them of by figures when they say nothing Againe if the fathers mention the vnbloody sacrifice or the sacrifice of the Altar that is interpreted the sacrifice of thankesgiuing heere is a glosse more then needs for if the fathers should so say they hurt not our cause and therefore no reason we should seeke for glosses or interpretations to shift them of Euseb de demonstr euang lib. 1. cap. 10 Sacrificium Altaris Sacrifice of the Altar doth
string and carrying the vniuersall Church vpon his backe as though his words had neuer been nor could be answered and this facing may become a Papist reasonably well but when he brings in Ephanius with a wrong translation to second the matter whose testimonie hath ben often answered and the edge point of it turned long agoe to the very throte and bowels of transubstantiation I may truely say of him as the wise man doth of vnaduised pratlers Prou. 29.20 Cap. 26.12 namely that there is more hope of a foole than of him Epiphanius saith Et accepit haec And hee tooke these speaking plurally of many round cakes or peeces of bread which after hee cals hoc hoc this and this more distinctlyt his our translator cleane omitteth and englisheth hoc est meum hoc hoc this is mine and this and this this is my bodie and so forth Againe hoc est rotundae figurae insensibile quantum ad potentiam this is of a round figure insensible he translateth that is of a round figure and impossible to be discerned of vs. And againe qui non credit esse ipsum verum hee that beleeueth not that it is true Hee translateth thus who so beleeueth not that it is hee whereas ipsum verum agreeth grammatically with sermonem immediately before These forgeries bee verie materiall for when Epiphanius saith hoc meum est hoc hoc as of three round cakes wherof euerie one seuerally and separately is sayd to bee the bodie of Christ verily we must either admit a new trinitie in vnitie whereof euerie one seuerally is the bodie of Christ and yet all three but one bodie or else we cannot hold transubstantiation it will not be so hard a matter to exemplifie the mysterie of the Trinitie which is beyond all example if hoc hoc hoc be a trinitie in vnitie Secondly when Epiphanius saith that the round cake is without sense and powerlesse for so wee are taught to translate it by opposition following in these words Dominum verò nostrum nouimus totum sensum totum sensitiuum c. Wee know that our Lord is all sense and all sensitiue We see plainely that it cannot be sayd of the bodie of Christ simply and absolutely vnlesse we imagine the bodie of Christ to be senselesse and powerlesse Lastly when Epiphanius saith that wee must beleeue the words of Christ to be true as hee spake them we may not thinke that he vnderstood by ipsum verum verie Christ himselfe bodie blood and all as this man translateth in fauor of the popish single sacrilegious communion for that 's not sicut dixit as any man may easily perceiue The Counsell of Trent decreeth thus Sess 13. cap. 3. Si quis negauerit totum integrum Christum omnium gratiarum fontem authorem sub vna panis specie sumi anathema sit If any man shall denie that whole Christ and the author and fountaine of all graces is contained vnder the onely forme of bread let him be accursed But I beseech you tell vs by what wordes this strange consecration is made hoc est corpus meum makes but the bodie that is broken and bloud is not broken but shed Againe hic est sanguis meus makes but the blood that is shed and the bodie is not shed but broken Verily our Sauiour himselfe when he gaue bread gaue his bodie and not blood for that he gaue after supper when he took the cup Luk. 22 20. and if he gaue integrum Christum whole Christ when he gaue bread then he gaue nothing when he gaue the cup and therefore these good fellowes had need take heede they inuolue not the Sonne of God himselfe within their 1. Cor. 12 3. Anathema sit for no man speaking by the spirite of God calleth Iesus execrable In decret pontiff dist 2. cap. Comper No no they that diuide this holy mysterie bee Sacrilegi saith Pope Gelasius and so by good consequent this Anathema sit must returne home and fall vpon their owne bald pates that made it But to leaue these fashoods and to giue you the true meaning of this ancient Father in a summary Compendium wee must beleeue that bread in the Lords supper is the bodie of Christ not simply but in such a figure as taketh not away the truth of the Scripture as we also beleeue man to be after a true vnderstanding Gent. 1.26 27 the Image of God for as man is after a sort the Image of God as the word of God testifieth though hee be not throughly so neither in regard of bodie nor soule nor minde nor baptisme nor vertuous liuing not any other euident and liuely similitude wee see him to haue with God so doe wee beleeue that the bread which is of a round figure and without sense and feeling is after a true manner and meaning the bodie of Christ as the wordes of Christ teach vs though it be not so by substance or apparant proportion and portraiture of bodily members Wherefore though bread by nature be but a prophane common element appointed of God to feede our bodies yet by grace it pleaseth the Lord to make it and to call it his bodie that is a Sacrament of his bodie whereby as by an effectuall instrument the faithfull receiuers are spiritually fed and nourished to eternall life This I take to be Epiphanius meaning whereunto I will adde a few lessons for more perspicuitie and for the ouerthwarting of those two lessons which our Papist heere giueth vs. Frst Epiphanius being learned and industrious knew well inough wherein the Image of God consisted Ephes 4 24. Coloss 3 10. for Paul teacheth it plainely in his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians Secondly this Image is so defaced and ouershadowed in the posteritie of Adam that nothing in man or about man seemeth answerable or agreeable vnto it Thirdly notwithstanding this obscuritie wee must beleeue the truth of Gods word that man is created after the Image of God and not ouerthrow that truth by allegoricall subtilties Fourthly wee haue the like example in the wordes of Christ at his last supper namely this bread is my bodie which Epiphanius knew to be spoken per gratiam by grace whereby that common element was aduanced supernaturally and mystically yet truely to haue the name of the bodie of Christ whereof it was a Sacrament Fiftly there is no apparant equalitie or likelyhood or outward sensible similitude or proportion of members why bread should be so called Lastly notwithstanding this difficultie we must beleeue that by bread is meant true bread and by bodie the true bodie of Christ and that the one is sayd of the other figuratiuely indeed because they be dispanita yet truly as our Sauiour spake and not flye to origenicall allegories which ouerthrowe the hystoricall truth of Gods holy word and turne it into fables These lessons I trow be plaine inough yet I doubt our Papist will
not think his knot is yet loosed there is nothing saith hee in the Sacrament that is incomprehensible but Epiphanius saith not so though he say it neither can it bee inferred out of quot sunt similia sunt for the Image of God was comprehensible in Adam though it be defaced in vs and things may be Similia secundum magis minus but not to multiply quarrels let vs graunt that he saith to bee true what then Marrie then I would learne saith hee if it bee not Christs true bodie really present but a figure therof what wonder or incomprehensible matrer is there here is a little prety It three times repeated in the knitting of this knot It is his bodie It is not like to a naturall bodie and if it be not Christs bodie c. I beseech you what meanes this man by his It is It something or is It nothing or what is It Epiphanius saith It is of a round forme therefore It is not accidens for rotundum is not accidens but rotunditas if It be a substance then It must bee either the bodie of Christ and so the bodie of Christ is of a round forme or else it must bee bread and so indeed all the three Euangelists are bold to call It Math. 26 26. Mark 14 22. Luk. 22 19. 1. Cor. 10 16.17 1. Cor. 11 23 26 27 28. and so is the Apostle Paul twise in one Chapter and foure times in another and hee himselfe for all this mincing of the mattter comes downe in the end out of the clouds and confesseth the Sacrament to be of a round forme whereof it followeth that it is neither an accident nor the reall substance of Christs bodie but bread as the Scripture cals it Now for the vnloosing of his knot I say that it is incomprehensible howe a round peece of bread should bee such a figure as is worthy to bee called the bodie of Christ and so to exhibite and conuey the graces and merites of Christs passion into vs that our sinnes are remitted our faith encreased and wee incorporate and made members of his bodie of his flesh and of his bones Let him shew me that this is not farre beyond the comprehension of mans reason and I will giue him his asking But for a full cleering of Epiphanius it is to bee remembred that Manes and his disciples liuing vpon the sweat of other mens browes and supposing all things to haue life soule as man had were wont to consecrate the bread and wine that was giuen them to fill their slowe bellies withall after this sort Ego non seminauite non messui te non molui in clibanum non misi alius obtulit comedi innoxius sum c. I sowed thee not I reape thee not I ground thee not I baked thee not another offered it and I did eate I am innocent c. Wherunto Epiphanius answereth ipsi non recidunt botrū sed edunt botrū Haeres 66. circa medium vtrum grauius est etenim vindemians semel recidit botrū qui vero comedit per dētes sectores ac manducatores singula grana edomat per hoc magis multipliciter torquet ac secat non amplius similis erit ei qui semel secuit is qui manducauit consumpsit They cut not the bunch of grapes but they eat it which is greater the Grape-gatherer did once cut the vine but he that eateth it doth cut and grinde with his teeth all the graces and in the respect he doth torment it much more and hee that hath eaten and consumed it is no longer like to him that onely once cut it You heare what Epiphanius saith for confutation of the Manichies Now cōsider how that he saith can possibly be good if the liuing sensitiue bodie of Christ blood and all be eaten of the Catholickes might not the Manichies then reply that they were more to be borne withall that were compelled by hunger and thirst to eat and drinke liuing things of meane regard crying for griefe Ego non seminaui te non messui non molui c Than Epiphanius and his Catholickes that presumed to eat the liuing flesh of Christ and to drinke his blood verily Epiphanius being learned wise would not haue left his reason in this case wide open without either fence or shelter against the aduersarie if the reall presence and manducation of the bodie and blood of Christ had been catholickely beleeued in his time Peter in the Acts when a voice from heauen commanded him to kil and eat though he were hungry and in a traunce yet he forgat not the law of God but answered God forbid Lord for nothing polluted or vncleane hath euer entred into my mouth and shall wee thinke that the same Peter when our Sauiour saith take Act. 10 10. c. Et cap. 11 5 c. eat this is my bodie and take drinke this is my blood would neuer make any question neither he nor any of his fellow Apostles against the eating of mans flesh and drinking mans blood if they had vnderstood the wordes of Christ after the popish fashion Euen so hee that thinketh that Epiphanius holding the reall eating and drinking of the bodie and blood of Christ would dispute so loosely as he doth against the Manichies must needs thinke withall that his wits were in a deeper traunce than Saint Peters and so fitter to gather wooll than to confute heretickes The Dialogue Sectio XVII I Will leaue this knot for you to vnloose at better leasure and assay you with another argument to prooue the a This will you neuer prooue while you liue nor your child after you consent of all ancient Fathers and the vniforme practise of the vniuersall Church in this doctrine of transubstantiation but first I will set downe certaine places out of the Fathers whereon to ground mine argument although I haue alreadie vsed the same places for the proofe of prayer for the dead This Custome saith b These places are answered all of them Saint Austine the vniuersall Church doth obserue being deliuered by tradition from the Elders that whereas at the time of the Sacrifices commemoration is made of all soules departed in the communion of the bodie and blood of Christ they should be prayed for and that the sacrifice also should be offered for them De verb. Apost Sermone 32. You shall also finde that there was a Sacrifice offered for the quicke and dead in Saint Ambrose his first prayer Praeparans ad missam and in Tertullians Booke de Monogamia about the middest of the Booke the place beginneth dic mihi soror in pace c. Hereby it is manifest that c How many ages were they I pray you in all these ages the Church did d That is to say Signum repraesentationem sacrificij Aug. de ciuit dei lib. 10. cap. 15 offer a sacrifice for the quicke and the dead which being agréed vpon
doctrine by the infalliblenesse of the outward senses 1. Iohn 1.1 saying that which we haue heard which wee haue seene with these our eies which wee haue looked vpon these hands haue handled of that word of life that I say which we haue seene and heard declare we vnto you not that you may be Heretickes and Atheists but that you may haue felloship with vs and that our fellowship may be with the father and with his sonne Iesus Christ Now touching humane reason I would gladly know whether our Papist haue framed his arguments with it or without it if with it let him take heede he be not an Hereticke or an Atheist if without it I doubt he shall hardly mooue either Hereticke or Catholicke to be of his opinion much lesse conuert Infidels It were strange doctrine to teach men neuer to vse the helpe of humane reason because Saint Paul saith Rom. 1 19. the wisedome of this world if foolishnesse for though the mysterie of our redemption in Christ Iesu be farre beyond the reach of mans wisedome yet the same Paul saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you may be knowen concerning God is ingraffed in the heart of man whereby Gods eternall power and Godhead shining in his works is knowen vnto him and Peter Lumbard Lib. 3 dist 24. his owne Prophet saith Quaedā fide creduntur quae intelliguntur naturali ratione Something 's are beleeued by faith which are vnderstood by naturall reason But to make short worke Paul saith indeed that the naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God and God forbid we should denie it but yet the same Apostle presently after saith 1. Cor. 2.14 c. againe the spirituall man discerneth all things now let him shew vs that papists are spirituall men and Protestants naturall men and then we will vayle the bonnet of his insensible and vnreasonable assertions otherwise we may not become fooles and run mad at his pleasure Againe where he disputeth that an infidell may reiect the resurrection of the dead the mystery of the Trinitie the eternitie of the sonne of God the comming in of Christ in his naturall bodie to his disciples the doores being shut and such like Articles of our Christian faith as well as we may reiect the reall presence in the Sacrament you may see the pure simplicitie of this man who makes Christs entrance through a shut doore to be an Article of faith Howbeit his master of sentences findeth documents of the Trinitie in things created and Saint Austine saith Lib. 1. dist 3. De Trinitate lib. 6. cap. 20. Oportet vt creatorem per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspicientes Trinitatem intelligamus It behooueth vs that we beholding in vnderstanding the creator by the things which were created should vnderstand the Trinitie Againe Tertullian hath written a booke De resurrectione carnis and Athenagoras a Christian Philosopher hath written another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the resurrection of the dead Tertullian Athenagoras wherein this article of faith is soundly prooued by humane reason and it being a sure ground that God cannot be without his power and wisedome and that the father is Fons origo Deitatis as sol is fons origo lucis The fountaine and originall of the Godhead as the sunne is the fountaine and originall of light It will not be so hard to conceiue by reason that the son of God may be begotten yet coeternal with God his father but I shal not need to labor further in this point there is a Treatise written purposely of this argument by Philip Morney a noble man of Fraunce Phil. Morney wherin you may see how far reason may wade in these such like articles of Christianity therfore if an infidel flie to humane reason he shal haue some stay to leane vpō in matters of faith wheras neither he nor we nor any man els liuing can find any possibility of reason or sense to induce vs to beleue the real presence Howbeit he may do well to teach vs from what an infidell should appeale to the arbiterment of humane reason is it like that any man will presse an infidell with Scriptures Fathers Councels so to driue him to appeale to reason Paul saith that prophecying serueth not for infidels but for them which beleeue 1. Cor. 14.22 where the Apostle meaneth such infidels as be altogether strangers from Christian doctrine and must be won by signes not by prophecying as for Fathers Councels we may not prefer them to Paul and Peter in the conuersion of an infidell and besides that infidels will make more account of their own Prophets Epimenides Menander and Aratus Tit. 1.12 Plato Hesiode and Homer such like than of our Fathers and Councels yet notwithstanding if we should confesse that other matters of faith cannot be measured by humane reason without danger of heresie yet if you cleaue to his faith not to your owne reason in the reall presence you cannot choose but be an hereticke Dial 2. in con The Symboles or signes of the Lords bodie after the priest hath inuocated are charged made other shings and this doth Theodoret euidētly declare in one of his Dialogues where the hereticke saith Symbola dominici corporis sanguinis post inuocationē sacerdotis mutantur et alia fiunt And this he speakes of a substantial change as our Papists do at this day but the Catholicke answereth Signa mysticapost sanctificationem non recedunt à natura sua manent enim in priori substantia figura forma Thus hath Theodoret a learned and auncient father of the Greeke Church written almost 1200. yeeres agoe giuing cleerely to vnderstand that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not Catholicke in his time but hereticall what the Greeke Church thinketh of it at this day may better be learned by the last Session of the Councell of Florence than by the bold face of this Papist whose head is so full of vniforme consents and arguments of credibilitie Council Florent sess vltima that he forgets how many of the Euangelists speake of the Lords supper See then what ill lucke this poore man hath that both his vniforme consents faile him the one confuted by Theodoret and the Councell of Florence the other by Saint Iohns Gospel where you shall not finde one word spoken of the Sacrament all the foure Euangelists quoth he how I pray you in thought word or deed marry saith he in direct and plaine words Indeed the words of three Euangelists are direct and plaine against him but the fourth saith nothing Matthew Marke say that the Sacrament of Christs blood after consecration is the fruit of the vine Math. 26.29 Mar. 14.25 cap. 22 20. and Luke saith that the cup is the new Testament in his blood now if you vnderstand by the cup not wine but reall blood it will follow
but lookes fauourably vpon him and his sacrifice that hath an humble and contrite heart and trembleth at his word and therefore well concludeth that ancient Father Igitur non sacrificia sanctificant hominem non enim indiget sacrificio Deus sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium pura existens praestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico Sacrifices therefore doe not sanctifie a man for God hath no need of sacrifice but the conscience of him that offereth being pure doth sanctifie the sacrifice and causeth that God receiueth it as of his friend I trow your Papist will looke about him before hee presume to say that the purity of a Popish Priests conscience sanctifieth the sonne of God and makes him to be accepted of his father and so learne that this sacrifice which could not acceptably be receiued of God vnlesse the holy Ghost did inuisibly teach Ambrose to handle it with due reuerence was not the sacrifice of the Masse but the Eucharisticall sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing Yea but may it bee said how can praise and thankesgiuing helpe both the quicke and dead how say you and how can the Masse do it I am sure I can shew the one with more ease then any man liuing can shew the other for it is easily vnderstood that prayer is more deuout and feruent and forcible when our soules are possessed of the graces of God offered in the Sacrament as beeing then more inflamed with the loue of God that hath not spared his owne Sonne but gaue him ouer to death for our redemption and we may well be said to helpe the dead Apoc. 7.10 6.10 1. Cor. 54. c Luke 21.28 Rom. 8.23 Act. 3.19 when we ioyne with them in praysing God and in prayer to represse the rage of Tyrants and speedy comming of the Lord Iesus to vanquish death and to accomplish our redemption and theirs in that day which Peter calleth the day of refreshing And that this or some such thing as this is the helpe of quicke and dead In orat de obit Theod. In orat de obit Valent which Ambrose meaneth his owne practise wil euince it for he reioyceth that Theodosius reigned with Christ yet he prayeth God to graunt him optatam requiem desired rest So likewise of Valentinians soule he saith that it was beautifull as the Moone chosen as the Sunne a blessed soule that looked downe from aboue vpon vs that bee here beneath and that both Valentinian and Gratian his brother did inioy the pleasures of eternall life yet thus he addeth immediatly in the same place beati ambo si quid meae orationes valebunt nulla dies vos silentio praeteribit nulla nox non donatos aliqua praecum mearum contextione transcurret omnibus vos oblationibus frequentabo Both are blessed ones if my prayers can doe any thing no day shall passe you ouer with silence no night shall runne ouer in which I wil not giue you some labor of my prayers I will frequent you in or with all offeringes heere is a Masse of requiem for Theodosius and store of prayers and sacrifices for Gratian and Valentinian yet because Ambrose conuerted Austine and both held the same doctrine thus must wee resolue Sacrificia pro valdè bonis gratiarum actiones sunt Sacrifices for those that be very good are thankesgiuings saith Augustine but Theodosius Gratian and Valentinian were valdè boni for their soules did shine as the morning starre and had the fruition of eternall blisse in heauen So Ambroses prayers and Sacrifices were not propitiatory but eucharisticall and if this resolution please not your Papist then let him consider that Austine in his Confessions prayeth thus for his mother Promisisti misericordiam misericordibus credo iam feceris quod te rogo sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine Thou hast promised mercie to the mercifull and I beleeue thou hast done that already which I desire yet approue o Lord the free-will offerings of my mouth and let him conclude thereof that Ambrose to shew his loue and affection prayd voluntary for Theodosius Gratian and Valentinian as Austine did for his mother Monica The Dialogue Sectio IX SAint Chrysostome it was not without cause ordained of the Apostles that in the dreadfull Mysteries commemoration should be made of the dead as a thing wherby much profite and aduantage doth redound vnto them for when the whole congregation the priests do stand together with their hands stretched forth toward heauen how can we choose but entreat a To do what to giue them rest then neuer pray more but once if the Lord must needs be entreated by your prayer our Lord for them by our prayers but this is to be vnderstood of those only which are departed in the faith And againe in the same Homily Why doest thou after the death of thy friends call together the poore Why doest thou beséech the priests to pray for them I know thou wilt answere that they may attaine vnto rest that they may finde the iudge fauourable Tom. 4. ad populum homilia 69. The Answere CHrysostome though he might say Voluntaeria oris mei approba domine Approoue the free-will offerings of my mouth as well as either Ambrose or Austine yet hee thought himselfe bound to remember the dead at the ministration of the dreadfull mysteries euen by the Apostles ordinance Austine neuer durst say any more of that order but that it was traditum à patribus deliuered by the Fathers no more durst Epiphanius neither is it credible that either of them would hinder the credite of it so much as to father it vpon the Fathers if they had thought the Apostles had ordained it Lib. 1. Epist 9. we heard before that Cyprians Predecessors decreed that if a Christian brother dying should appoint a Clarke ouerseer of his goods the sacrifice should not bee celebrated for him which neither they would haue ventured to enact nor Cyprian and the godly Bishops of his time to approoue and practise if they had surmised the Apostles had decreed the contrarie Againe when Chrysostome demaundeth how we can choose but intreat the Lord for the dead It may be demaunded of him againe what he would obtaine for such as are departed in the faith for hee dares pray for no other if answere bee made he desires they may attaine vnto rest he would be told that in fide abscedere to depart in faith and in fide requiescere to rest in faith are all one yet thus hee prayeth in his Liturgie Offerimus tibi rationalem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus Wee offer thee this reasonable seruice for those that rest in the faith And so desires rest for them that be in rest alreadie and indeed so it must be not because Chrysostome prayeth so but because the spirite of God saith so Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord Apoc. 14.13 for they rest from their