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
reason teacheth I inferre secondly that we are no otherwise partakers of Christs bodie then we are all one bodie and one bread And yet is it certaine yea no Papist can denie it that we are but one bodye and one bread mystically and sacramentally Ergo wee are no otherwise partakers of Christes bodie then mystically and sacramentally that is to say while we eate the sacrament of Christes body wee are vnited spiritually to Christ by faith and mystically one to another My fourth proofe is grounded in the vniforme consent of the ancient doctours of the church For first S. Clemens Alexandrinus hath these words Nam ipse quoque homo vinum benedixit cum dixit accipite bibite hoc est sanguis meus sanguis vitis verbum quod pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum sanctum laetitiae fluentum allegorice significat Sequitur quod autem vinum esset quod benedictum est ostendit rursus dicens discipulis non bibam ex fructu vitis huius donec bibero ipsum vobiscum in regno patris mei For our Lord being also man blessed wine when he saide Take drinke this is my blood the blood of the vine the word which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes doth signifie allegorically the holie riuer of gladnesse And that it was wine which is blessed he sheweth againe when he saith thus to his disciples I wil not drinke of the fruit of this vine vntil I drinke it with you in the kingdome of my father Out of these words of this holy and ancient father who liued aboue one thousand three hundred and eightie yeeres ago I note first that that which Christ called his bloud at his supper was naturally wine though his bloud sacramentally for it was sanguis vitis such bloud as the vine doth affoord I note secondly that these words which is shed for many are allegoricall that is they sound one thing in bare wordes and signifie another thing indeede as if hee had saide The wine or liquor in the cup is not shed indeede for many but is a sacrament or figure of Christs naturall bloud which is indeede shed for our sinnes I note thirdly that these words of Christ I wil not drinke of the fruite of the vine were spoken after the consecration of the wine and are to be vnderstoode litterally and consequently that that which the Apostles dranke was naturall wine not naturall bloud Although I admit willingly that it was bloud in a sacrament and mysterie or to vse S. Clements phrase allegorically which I wish the reader euer to obserue as a generall rule Secondly S. Hilarie writeth thus Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnuÌ„ erimus quia pater in eo est ille in nobis We truely receiue the flesh of Christs body in a mysterie and by it we shall be one because the Father is in him and he in vs. Out of these words I note first that to receiue Christs body in a sacrament or mysterie is to receiue it truely which I wish the reader to obserue carefully for we do not terme the holy Eucharist or Lords Supper bare bakers bread as the Papists slaunder vs but we affirme it to be sanctified bread to be sacramentall bread to be diuine bread yea to be Christs true body in deede but sacramentally but spiritually but mystically as S. Hilarie truely sayth And this answere will solue a thousand captious cauilles which the Papists vse to make I note secondly that such as is our vnion by eating this bread such is the eating thereof And consequently since euery child knoweth that we are but mystically vnited as we are the mysticall members of one body it followeth that we do but mystically eate Christs bodie And S. Hilaries reason maketh it plaine when hee addeth because the father is in him and he in vs for neither doth the father dwell in him corporally who is corpslesse neither corporally in vs. Thirdly S. Irenaeus hath these words Qui est è terra panis percipiâ—ns vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti The bread which is of the earth after it hath receiued gods blessing is no longer common bread but the eucharist And it consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heauenly Out of which words I note first that our communion bread is still bread after consecration though it be not common bread but sacramentall and heauenly bread for otherwise he would haue saide it is not bread but the eucharist He would I say haue reiected the name of bread and not haue kept it still I note secondly that Christ is not present corporally in the Eucharist because his naturall bodie is but one thing which yet should be the whole eucharist if it were present as the Papists grossely dreame Besides this his bodie hencefoorth is not terrestriall but celestiall glorious immortall spirituall yet withall it still reteineth all essentiall properties of a true body euen as our bodies shall do after the resurrection It is still circumscriptible sensible visible tangible quantitatiue dimensiue locall none of which can possibly be found in popish carnall reall presence Fourthly Saint Chrysostome hath these words Nam quando dicunt vnde patet immolatum Christum fuisse alia multa mysteria haec afferentes ora ipsorum consuimus Si enim mortuus Iesus non est cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Infra ita per sacratissimam istam mensam saluat docet hoc enim caput bonorum omnium est quare hoc Paulus voluit ac repetit sed tradito iam mysterio non bibam ait de hoc genimine vitis vsque in illam diem cum illud bibam nouum vobiscum in regno patris mei Sequitur ex genimine autem ait vitis quae certe vinum non aquam producit For when they say how do we know that Christ suffered and many other mysteries wee bringing these things â—owe vp their mouthes For if Iesus were not dead of whome is this sacrifice a marke and signe So hee both saueth and teacheth by this most sacred table for this is the head of al good things wherefore Saint Paul meant this and hee repeateth it But after hee had deliuered the mysterie I will not drinke saith hee of this fruite of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it newe with you in the kingdome of my father And hee saith of the fruit of the vine which doubtlesse bringeth forth wine and not water Out of these words I note first that the Eucharist is but a symbole signe or figure of Christs body I note secondly that that which Christ gaue to his disciples and which he called his bloud was true wine the naturall fruit of the vine I note thirdly that Christ first had deliuered the mysterie
and then vttered the wordes of drinking the fruit of the vine For the papists would gladly haue Saint Luke to tell the storie out of order and that Christ spoke these wordes before the deliuerie of the sacrament that is before the consecration of the cuppe which Saint Crysostome and other fathers doe denie Saint Cyprian hath these words Dico vobis non bibam amodò ex ista creatura vitis vsque in diem illum quo vobiscum bibam nouum vinum in regno patris mei Qua in parte inuenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit I say to you I will not drinke henceforth of this creature of the vine vntill that day in which I wil drinke new wine with you in the kingdome of my father Wherein we find that the cup was mingled with our Lord offered and that it was wine which he called his body Out of these words I note first that Saint Luke spoke of the consecrate cup when hee tearmed it the fruit of the vine as is proued already out of Saint Clement and S. Chrysostome I note secondly that the consecrate cup contained naturall wine and not Christs corporall bloud indeed This testimonie doth conuince and so effectually confuteth transubstantiation and the popish reall presence as if S. Cyprian were this day liuing and knew the blasphemous doctrine of the papists yet coulde hee not decide more plainely the controuersie betweene them and vs. Yea this testimonie of saint Cyprian may bee a generall rule for vs as well to expounde himselfe in other places as also the rest of the holy fathers For when they tearme the holy communion or Eucharist Christs bodie and blood the bloud that issued out of his side the body that was nayled on the crosse the flesh that was borne of the virgin the price of our redemption all this is truely saide in their godly meaning that is to say all this is truely verified sacramentally mystically spiritually but not corporally as the Papistes teach For all the Fathers admitte this doctrine of Saint Cyprian that euen after consecration remayneth still the true nature of bread and wine Sixtly Tertullian being consonant to the other fathers hath these wordes Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non potest Hee made that bread which hee tooke and gaue to his disciples to bee his bodie saying this is my body that is to say the figure of my bodie and there shoulde not haue beene a figure vnlesse there had been a true body indeed for a vain thing which is but a falâ—â— imagination cannot receiue a figure Out of these wordes I note first that y â— which Christ gaue to his disciples was bread I note secondly that it was the figure of his body I note thirdly that to be Christes body as Christ himselfe and the fathers speake is nothing els but to be the figure or signe of his body For so doth this learned father declare the very phrase I note fourthly that the thing figured is much different from the figure and consequently that Christes body cannot be the figure of it selfe Seuenthly S. Theodoret hath these words Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationeÌ„ recedunt à sua natura Manent enim in priore substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius The mysticall signes after the sanctification depart not froÌ„ their nature but they abide in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seen and touched euen as before Out of these most golden wordes of this auncient and learned father I note first that hee writeth against certaine heretickes who held that Christes body was chaunged into his deitie after his ascension And they prooued it because as the bread and wine after consecration were changed into the body and bloud of Christ euen so was his body changed into his deitie after his ascension This note is plainly set downe in the wordes aforegoing I note secondly that S. Theodoret confuteth the heretickes euen by their own reason For the mysticall signes saith hee remaine still in their former substance and nature euen after the sanctification therof As if he had said ye lay not a good foundation your supposall is false ye take that as graunted which is flatly denied For although the creatures of bread and wine be sanctified by Gods word and accidentally changed into the mysticall signes of his body and bloud yet doe they still retaine their former nature and substance yet doe they still remaine truely bread and truely wine I note thirdly that though the bread and wine haue gotten by sanctification a new diuine qualitie yet haue they lost nothing that they had before for they haue the same nature the same substance the same figure the same forme they may be seene tasted and touched euen as they might before All the papistes in Europe cannot answere this reason For Theodoret prooueth against the heretickes that as bread and wine are as truly bread and truely wine after consecration as they were before consecration euen so is Christes body as truely a body now after his ascension as it was afore heere on earth So as the papistes cannot now say that the bread and wine haue lost their true natures in y e eucharist vnlesse they wil also say y t Christ hath lost y e nature of a true body now in heaueÌ„ Eightly S. Austen a worthy pillar of Christes Church as the papistes themselues doe graunt hath these wordes Nisi manducaueritis inquit carnem filij hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni domini esse communicandum suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa vulnerata sit Vnlesse saith Christ ye shall eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you Hee seemeth by these wordes to commaund to doe an heinous offence It is therefore a figure commanding vs to be partakers of Christes passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our mindes that his flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes In another place hee hath these words Cum videritis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certe vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus When yee shall see the sonne of man ascending thither where hee was before then doubtlesse shall ye see that hee giueth not his body in such sorte as ye imagine then
like worthie for that communion not as it was in the olde lawe where the priest ate one part and the people another neither coulde the people be permitted to take part of that that the priest ate For nowe it is not so but to all is proposed one bodie and one cuppe Out of these golden words I note first that the difference in communion is a Iudaicall ceremonie from which Christs death deliuered vs. I note secondly that in the christian communion the common people ought to be as free as the minister I note thirdly that it was so in Saint Chrysostomes time when the people receiued vnder both kinds I note fourthly that the pope hath brought vs into greater bondage then euer were the Iewes S. Ignatius hath these wordes Vna est caro domini Iesu vnus eius sanguis qui pro nobis effusus est vnus etiam panis pro omnibus confractus vnus calix totius ecclesiae There is one flesh of our Lord Iesus one blood which was shed for vs one bread also broken for all and one cuppe of the whole church Saint Iustine hath these wordes Praesidens vero postquam gratiarum actionem perfecit populus vniuersus apprecatione laeta eum comprobauit qui apud nos vocantur diaconi atquo ministri distribuunt vnicuique praesentium vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt panem vinum aquam After the chiefe pastour hath finished the giuing of thankes and all the people haue with ioyfull prayer approoued the same they that we cal Deacons and Ministers do distribute to euery one that is present the sanctified bread wine and water to be partaker thereof Yea the said Iustinus a little after addeth these important wordes Nam apostoli in commentarijs à se scriptis quae euangelia vocantur ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Iesum For the apostles in their commentaries that is in the gospelles haue taught vs that Iesus so commaunded them to minister the holie communion Where note by the way that Christ did not onelie ordaine both kindes but he also gaue commaundement to retaine the same in the church For which cause saint Paul teaching the Corinthians to communicate vnder both kinds said that he receiued that form maner from the Lord. S. Austen hath these words Cum Dom. dicat nisi manducaueritis carnem meam biberitis meum sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis quid sibi vult quod à sanguine sacrificiorum quae pro peccatis offerebantur tantopere populus prohibetur si illis sacrificijs vnum hoc sacrificium significabatur in quo vera sit remissio peccatorum à cuius tamen sacrificij sanguine in alimentum sumendo noÌ„ solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum potius omnes exhortaÌ„tur qui volunt habere vitam When our Lord saith vnles ye shal eate my flesh and drinke my blood ye shal haue no life in you what meaneth it that the people is so greatly forbidden the blood of sacrifices which was offered for sins if in those sacrifices this onely sacrifice was signified in which there is true remission of sins From y e blood of which sacrifice for al that to be takeÌ„ for nourishment not only none is prohibited but al rather are exhorted to drinke it that desire to haue life S. Ambrose at such time as the emperour Theodosius after his great slaughter of men at Thessalonica desired to enter into the church at Millan and there to be partaker of the holie eucharist spoke these words vnto him Quî quaeso manus iniusta caede sanguine respersas extendere audes eisdem sacrosanctum corpus domini accipere aut quomodo venerandum eius sanguinem ori admouebis qui furore irae iubente tantum sanguinis tam iniquè effudisti How I pray thee darest thou stretch out thy hands sprinckled with vniust slaughter and blood and to take the holie bodie of our Lord in the same Or how wilt thou touch thy mouth with his venerable blood who to satisfy thy fury hast shed so much bloud so vnworthily Gregorius magnus their owne bishop of Rome confirmeth this veritie in these words Eius quippe ibi corpus sumitur eius caro in populi salutem partitur eius sanguis non iam in manus infidelium sed in ora fidelium funditur For his bodie is there receiued his flesh is diuided for the saluation of the people his bloud is now powred not into the handes of infidels but into the mouthes of the faithfull What need many words Their owne Gelasius in their owne canon law condemneth their fact as flat sacrilege These be his words Aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceaÌ„tur quia diuisio vnius eiusdeÌ„que mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire Either let them participate the whole sacraments or els let them abstain from the whole bicause the diuision of one and the same sacrament cannot be done without great sacrilege The first obiection The commaundement to receiue in both kinds was onelie giuen to the twelue apostles and in them to all priestes for they onely were present when Christ spâ—ke these wordes Drinke ye all of this The answer I say first that if the commaundement pertained onelie to the apostles then are priests aswell as clarkes free from the same I say secondly that the commandement was giuen of both kindes in one and the selfe same maner and therefore the lay people are as free from the one as the from the other I say thirdly that by the common opinion of the papists they were lay people that receiued the communion at Christs handes in his supper For the apostles were vnpriested vntil after his resurrection when hee saide Receiue ye the holy ghost I say fourthly with S. Bernard that the participation of both kinds was commaunded by Christ in the first institution thereof for thus doth he write Nam de sacramento quidem corporis sanguinis sui nemo est qui nesciat hanc quoque tantam tam singularem alimoniam eâ primùm die exhibitam eâ die commendatam mandatam deinceps frequentari For concerning the sacrament of his body and bloud euery one knoweth that this such and so singular nourishment was exhibited that day the first that day commended and commaunded afterward to be frequented This commandement S. Cyprian and saint Iustine vrge for both kindes their words already are set downe I say fiftly that S. Paul who knew Christs minde aswell as any papist did communicate the vnpriested Corinthians vnder both kinds and told them that Christ had so appointed The replie S. Paul only recited Christs institution saith our Iesuite Bellarmine but gaue no commaundement for both kindes but left it as he found it indifferent and in the free choise of the Corinthians to communicate in both or in one only kind The answere I say
hath offered a most perfect sacrifice on the crosse And indeede as all priests were types of Christ the eternall priest in whom they were accomplished so al sacrifices were figures of the sacrifice of the crosse and exactly accomplished in the same consequently wherein soeuer the sacrifice of Melchisedech did coÌ„sist it was accoÌ„plished in the sacrifice on the crosse The first replie Moses after hee had saide that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine added forthwith these words Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi for hee was the priest of God most high In which words he yeeldeth the reason of his sacrifice because as Saint Paul saith euerie Priest must offer sacrifice Wherfore he that denieth Melchisedech to haue offered bread wine must tell vs of some other oblation that hee made for in the scriptures we find none else The answere I say first that your latin vulgata editio doth afford you some pleasure now then as by meanes wherof ye make some shew of truth but the fountain the original Hebrew text is otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he was the priest And the reason aleaged in your latin translation is void of al reason for if Melchisedech must therefore offer bread and wine because he is a priest then must it folow perforce that euery priest shal do the same which yet no scripture doth auouch Neither can any papist proue the same of Abraham Cain Esau and others who al were priests as themselues confesse I say secondly that wee grant him to haue offered sacrifice because Moses saith he was a priest But hereupon doth it not folow that we can disclose his sacrifice in precise maner For though the scripture containe euery thing necessary to our saluation yet concealeth it many truthes as nothing needeful for vs. I say thirdly that if it be granted that Melchisedech offered bread wine yet wil it not follow that Christ must do the same For if Christ should offer bread and wine indeed we should stil continue in figures remain without the verity But because the thing figured is more excellent then the figure as the papists in this present controuersy truly do obiect Christ who was to accomplish al tipes al figures al prophesies concerning his most sacred aduent presented to God his father omnipotent a most pure holy sufficient independent absolute sacrifice vpon the crosse and then truly said consummatum est I haue fulfilled euery thing that was written of me in the law the prophets and this hee did after the order of Melchisedech while he did y e night before sacramentally signifie the same at his last supper in bread wine This my solutioÌ„ if it be well marked is doubtles firmely grounded in these words of S. Cyprian Nam quis magis sacerdos dei summi quà m Dâ—noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificium deo patri obtulit obtulit hoc ideÌ„ quod Melchisedech obtulerat i panem vinuÌ„ suum scilicet corpus sanguinem For who is more the priest of god most high then our Lord Iesus Christ who offered sacrifice to God the father offered the self same thing that Melchisedech had offered that is bread and wine to wit his body and bloud Thus saith the ancient holy learned father S. CypriaÌ„ whose words the papists euer alleage for their purpose and yet do I thinke to confound the papists euen by the selfe same words I therfore beseech thee gentle reader to marke attentiuely what I say I note first out of S. Cyprians words y â— as Melchisedech was the priest of god most hie so was Christ also I note secoÌ„dly that Christ offered sacrifice to god the father I note thirdly that Christ offered the selfsame thing that Melchisedech offred I note fourthly that that which Christ offered was both bread wine and also his own body bloud Now out of these obseruations I infer first that the accidents and external forms of bread and wine which onely the papists wil haue to remaine in their eucharist are not the selfe same thing that Melchisedech offred For that which he offred as al papists grant euident reason enforceth them was really substantially bread and wine I inferre secondly that that which Christ offered was his reall body bloud sacrificed really on the crosse and in the eucharist sacramentally the selfesame that Melchisedech offered For the naturall bread and wine in the eucharist is a mystery sacrament of Christs body bloud offered on the crosse Thus is euery thing consonant that S. Cyprian writeth and no otherwise can all that he sayth be verified And in this sense do other Fathers speake of this theame who affirme bread and wine in the eucharist to be the mysterie of Christs body and bloud offered on the crosse but not to be the reall and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead Arnobius hath these words hic qui per mysterium panis ac vini sacerdos factus est in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech qui panem vinum solus obtulit in sacerdotibus dum Abraham victor reuerteretur de pâ—aelio He that by the mystery of bread and wine was made a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech who only among priests offered bread wine while Abraham returned from the battaile with vâ—ctorie Theodoretus hath these words offert verò ecclesia corporis eius sanguinis symbola omne fermeÌ„tum per primitias sanctificans But the Church offereth the signes of his body bloud sanctifying all leauen by the first fruits Marke this testimonie O Papist and yeeld vnto the truth Eusebius Caesaâ—iensis hath these words quemadmodum ille qui sacerdos gentium erat nusquam videtur sacrificijs corporalibus functus sed vino solo pane dum ipsi Abraham benedicit ita sanè primus ipse saluator ac dominus noster deinde qui ab ipso profecti sunt sacerdotes in omnibus gentibus spirituale secuÌ„dum ecclesiasticas sanctiones sacerdotij munus obeuntes vino ac pane corporis illius salutaris sanguinis mysteria repraesentant Quae sanè mysteria Melchisedech tanto antè spiritu diuino cognouerat rerum futurarum imaginibus vsus fuerat As he y t was the priest of the Gentiles seemeth no where to haue vsed corporall sacrifices but only wine bread while he blessed Abraham euen so our Lord and Sauior Christ then the priests that came from him executing the spirituall function of priesthood among all nations according to the decrees of the Church do represent the mysteries of his body and bloud in bread wine which mysteries truely Melchisedech knew long before by Gods inspiratioÌ„ vsed y e figures of things to come Thus we see by the testimonies of these auncient Fathers that the oblation of Melchisedech was accomplished in the sacrifice of the crosse which Christ
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
and that it is truely receiued by faith and spirite according to this doctrine of our maister Christ. The wordes that I spake vnto you are spirite and life Seuenthly he telleth vs that as Christ is on earth still according to his deitie so is he in heauen til the daie of doome according to his humanitie And that as he is present in his god-head till that time so is hee absent in his manhood For saith S. Austen touching the presence of his fleshe hee was but a fewe daies on earth Yea say the papistes S. Austen lieth and when he thus wrote he was a sleepe and so were the rest of the fathers that hold as he doth We affirme without scriptures fathers rime and reason that hee is carnally present at the priestes appointment in ten thousand pixes at once More absurdly then this we say that a mouse can catch Christes carnall body carry it away into an hole and there deuoure it with her teeth Of which blasphemous doctrine the great papist Petrus Lombard surnamed their master of sentences knoweth not what to say or thinke but being at his wits end what answere to make thus answereth the question without answere for his answere is answerelesse in these wordes Quid ergo sumit mus vel quid manducat Deus nouit hoc What therefore doth a mouse take when shee catcheth the reserued hoast or what doth she eate God knoweth this Lo is not this a graue answere of the grauest father amongst our popish doctors He is tearmed the master of sentences and his bookes are publikely read in their schooles of diuinitie and so of the next authoritie to the holy scriptures And for al this so doubtfull and vncertaine is their faith that when a mouse catcheth their accidents without subiects he knoweth not in the world what is become of their carnall reall presence Eeightly he telleth vs that the sacrament of Christs body is not his body properly but after a sort and that sort he affirmeth to be this to wit as the sacrament of faith is faith Now euerie childe knoweth that baptisme or the sacrament of faith is not faith properly but improperly figuratiuely and by way of signification onely Ninthly Saint Ambrose whom â—he papists thinke to make wholy for their side hath these expresse words Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu vt inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur If there be so great power in the word of our Lord Iesus that things beganne to be which were not how much more is it workefull that things bee which were and bee changed into another thing In these words Saint Ambrose declareth the creatures of bread and wine to remaine still in their proper nature and substaunce and withall to bee changed into another thing that is to say into the sacraments of Christs true body and bloud To this our Iesuite Bellarmine answereth in these words Non dixit vt sint id quod erant tunc enim panis manere deberet sed vt sint quae erant id est nâ—n annihilentur sed maneant quamuis mutata Hee saide not that they may bee that which they were for then the bread ought to remaine indeede but that they may stil be which were before that is that they bee not annihilated but abide still though changed To this answere of our Iesuite I say first that Saint Ambrose meaneth no other thing then did Saint Austâ—n when he called baptisme the sacrament of faith For the omnipotencie of Christs word is required of them both in both sacraments And as the water is changed into another thing that is to be a sacrament and â—eaâ—e of Gods fauor which before was but common water euen so bread is chaunged into another thing that is to be the sacrament of Christs body which was before but common bread I say secondly that as a married man is by matrimonie chaâ—ged into another thing and yet keepeth still the nature of a man and as a Bishop by orders is altered into another thing and yet keepeth still his former substance euen so the bread in the Eucharist is changed mystically and still remaineth true bread This is a good argument against the papists who defend matrimonie and orders to be two holy sacraments I say thirdly that if aliud must needes signifie an essentiall change as master Harding our Iesuite and the rest will haue it to doe then either married men haue gotten nothing by their matrimoniall contractes nor Bishoppes by their consecrations or at least all married men and Bishops haue lost the natures of men and are changed into another substance But as the Logicians tel vs these three transcendents ens res aliquid may bee affirmed of whatsoeuer is and for the order of Bishops the papists tell vs that it imprinteth an indeleble character touching matrimonie Christ himselfe telleth vs that it is an indissoluble band Touching the persons themselues experience telleth vs that they are still as truâ—ly men as they were before and consequently the word aliud may as well signifie an accidentall alteration as an essentiall transmutation I say fourthly that euerie thing is truely denominate of it essentiall forme and therefore if the substance and essentiall partes of bread and wine bee cleane gone and the externall accidents thereof onely remaine as Bellarmine woulde gladly glosse Saint Ambrose then doubtlesse may wee truely say that they are gone which were before not that they still remaine vnlesse perhappes the papists will say that the horse remaineth when nothing is left but his skin and that a man liueth after he be dead For in both more remaineth then of their wine and bread I say fiftly that by Bellarmines answere if himselfe were changed into the essentiall nature of an asse and kept still the externall figure of a man yet shoulde hee still be as truely Bellarmine as he was before and so Iesuits may be both Asses and men at once a priuiledge granted to all others of their crew The first obiection S. Austen alluding to the facts and wordes of Dauid by which Christ was prefigured writeth in this maner Manibus aliorum potest portarâ— homo manibus suis nemo portatur quomodo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundum literam non inuenimus in Christo autem inuenimus Ferebatur enim Christus in manibâ—suâ—s quando coÌ„mendans ipsum corpus suum ait Hoc est corpus meum Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis ipsa est humilitas Dom. nostri Iesu Christi A man may bee carried in the hands of others but no man is carried in his own hands How this may be vnderstoode in Dauid literally we doe not finde but in Christ wee doe it finde For Christ was borne in his owne hands when he commended his owne bodie and saide This is my body For he helde
that body in his handes such is the humilitie of our Lord Iesus Christ. Thus saith Saint Austen By whose words it is euident that that which Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples was his true reall naturall body euen that which was borne of the virgin Mary For first he telleth vs that Christ did that which Dauid could not do to wit that he did beare himselfe in his own hands Secondly he saith that this was done literally euen as the words do sound Thirdly he coÌ„mendeth Christs great humility in that fact Now it is cleare y t if this could be vnderstood figuratiuely it might be well verified in Dauid for Dauid might haue born the picture figure or image of his owne body in his hands yea this he might haue done literally haue shewed no humilitie therin But Christ did so beare himselfe in his owne hands saith saint Austen as no man can do the like This reason is inuincible all protestants in the world cannot answere the same The answere I say first that this reason seemeth indeede to be inuincible and so my selfe haue sometime thought I say secondly that if S. Austen should so meane as you gather of these words he should contradict himself in many other places as is already proued and consequently his authoritie should be of no force in this behalfe I say thirdly that Saint Austen doth a little after expound his owne meaning in these expresse words Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum sanguinem suum accepit in manus suas quod 〈◊〉 fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est corpus meuÌ„ And he was borne in his hands How was he borne in his hands because when he commended his owne body and his blood hee tooke into his hands that the faithful know and he bare himselfe after a sort when he saide This is my body Where I wish the Reader to marke well the worde quadammodo after a sorte for Christ had his true reall and natural bodie in his handes after a sort that is sacramentally when he said This is my body He had his 〈◊〉 body in his hands but it was after a sort not simplie but sacramentally not naturally but mystically not carnally I say fourthly that neither Dauid nor any other creature coulde haue borne himselfe after this sort in his owne hands For as Aquinas Victoria Antoninus Couarruuias Bellarminus and all learned papists grant no mortall man can institute any sacrament and so no mortal man being pure man could sacramentally beare himselfe in his owne hands I say fiftly that greater humilitie coulde not be then that the Lord of glorie should offer himselfe on the crosse so to appease Gods wrath and to make attonement for our sins and withall shoulde giue vs the sacrament of his body bloud as a seale of our reconciliation and of his beneuolence towards vs. All this discourse S. Austen confirmeth in another place where he hath these words Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me â—rucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuificat vos Yee shall not eate this body that ye see and drinke that blood which they shal shed that will crucifie me I haue commended a sacrament to you which being vnderstood spiritually doth quicken you The second obiectâ—on S. Cyprian doth prooue this veritie in most plaine and manifest tearmes Thus doeth he write Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro The bread which our Lord did reach to his disciples being chaÌ„ged not in shape but in nature became flesh by the omnipotencie of the word Lo bread was changed not in shape or figure which our sense telleth vs to be so but in nature or substance as the catholike church teacheth vs. And how is it changed euen into flesh and yet wil not you haue Christ to be present in flesh bloud and bone But if it were otherwise the omnipotent power of Gods word shoulde be needelesse which yet Saint Cyprian saieth is it that worketh this mightie change If yee yeeld not to this testimonie ye shew your selfe to be obstinate The answere I say first that the grosse and carnal sense of these words did wonderfully seduce my selfe when the time was I say secondly that if Saint Cyprian meant as you woulde haue him hee should bee contrarie to himselfe For hee affirmeth it to be true wine which Christ gaue to his Apostles I haue already alleaged his expresse words peruse them and marke them well I say thirdly that S. Cyprian can neuer bee more truely expounded then when his owne meaning in one place is gathered out of his owne words in another place That therefore all his words may be consonant one to another we must ioine antecedent to consequent former to latter and one place to another This done wee shal finde with facilitie that hee speaketh onely of sacramentall alteration and that by the word nature hee meaneth natural properties Yea euen so do the papists interprete the same word in their Gelasius concerning this question nowe in hand Thus doeth Saint Cyprian say immediately after the other wordes Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit essentia Infrà Nostra vero ipsius coniunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates Iterum sicut panis communis quem quotidie edimus vita est corporis ita panis iste supersubstantialis vita est animae sanitas mentis Panem Angelorum sub sacramento manducamus in tâ—rris eundem sine sacramento manifestiùs edemus in coelis non ministerio corporali And as the humanitie was seene in the person of Christ and the diuinitie hidden euen so hath the diuine essence powred out it selfe vnspeakeably in the visible sacrament For both ours and his coniunction neither mingleth persons nor yet vniteth substances but procureth fellowship in affection and agreement in willes And as the common bread which wee eate daily is the life of the body so is this supersubstantiall bread the life of the soule and the health of the minde We eate here on earth Angel-foode vnder the sacrament but wee shall eate the same more clearely without the sacrament in heauen and that without help of the body Out of these wordes I note first that Christs diuinitie is after an vnspeakeable manner in the sacrament but so is noâ— his bodie or humanitie and consequently that Christ is not there in inuisible carnall presence I note secondly that this sacramentall vnion doth not vnite substances but affections and willes and yet should our bodies be
For first the cup doth figuratiuely signifie the liquour in the cup. Again the cup is called the testament and yet it is but the figure or signe of the testament I say secondly that y e figure Metonymie is very frequent in the holy scripture aswell in the old as in the new testament In the old testament we haue these examples this is the passeouer That is this doth signifie the passeouer Againe this is my couenant that is to say this doth signifie my couenant or this is a signe of my couenant Againe the 7. good kine are 7. yeares and the seuen good eares are seuen yeares Againe the the seuen thinne and euill fauoured kine are seuen yeares Againe the seuen emptie eares blasted with the East-wind are seuen yeares of famine In all which places the figure Metonymia is vsed For neither the kine nor the eares were the seeuen yeares as euery childe knoweth but they did signifie the yeares to come they were a signe and figure thereof In the newe testament we haue these examples I am the vine Againe I am a doore Againe My father is an husbandman Againe The seed is the word of God Againe We that are manie are one bread Againe The rocke was Christ. Againe The lyon which is of the tribe of Iuda the root of Dauid hath obteined to open the booke In which places Christ neither was the vine nor the rocke nor the lyon neither was the seed the word of God neither was God the father an husbandman neither are the fathfull one bread but al these things are figuratiuely spoken by the vsuall custome of the holy Scripture I say thirdly that not only the ancient fathers but euen the papistes also haue acknowledged this figure their words and testimonies are alreadie cited I say fourthly that the verie wordes of institution are figuratiue which thing is so plaine as euerie child may perceiue the same For thus saith S. Luke This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Where I am well assured euerie papist small and great will confesse with me that the cup by the figure metonymia is taken for the liquour in the cup. And so against their will they are enforced to acknowledge a figure euen there where they so obstinately denie a figure The fift obiection The Prophet Malachie hath such a plaine testimonie for the reall presence and sacrifice of the altar as it can neuer be aunswered till the worldes end These are the wordes In euery place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure offering These wordes of the Prophet being effectually applied will confound the respondent whatsoeuer hee shall answere For first the prophet speaketh of the oblatiō of the new testament as your selues cannot deny Secondly the prophet saith that this oblation must be in euery place and so it cannot be vnderstoode of Christs bodie offered vpon the crosse for that oblation was but in one place euen without the walles of Ierusalem Thirdly it cannot be vnderstood of the sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing bicause whatsoeuer proceedeth from vs is impure polluted Yea as an other prophet saith Al our righteousnes is as filthie clouts and so no oblation that is ours can be pure Therefore he speaketh of Christs body offered in the masse which is a pure oblation indeede The answere I answere to this insoluble so supposed argument that the prophet speaketh of the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing And I prooue it by the flat testimonies of the holy Fathers Saint Irenaeus hath these wordes In omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo sacrificium purum Incensa autem Ioannes in Apocalypsi orationes esse ait sanctorum Incense is offered to my name in euery place and a pure sacrifice and Saint Iohn in the Reuelation saith that this incense is the prayers of the Saints Saint Theodoretus doeth expound this place after the same maner in his Commentaries vpon the same text Saint Hierome hath these wordes Sed thymiama hoc est sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaeâ nec in vna Iudaeae vrbe Hierusalem sed in omni loco offerri oblationem But incense that is the prayers of saints must be offered to the Lord and that not in Iudea one onely prouince of the world neither in Ierusalem one onlie citie thereof but in euery place must an oblation be made Now where it is said that al our actions be impure and polluted I answere that that is true indeed when our actions be examined in rigour of iustice But not so when we are clad with the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus and haue washed our sins in his bloud for whose sake God doth not impute our pollutitions and filth vnto vs. Not so when God dealeth with vs according to mercie Not so when God accepteth our sinfull and imperfect acts as pure iust and innocent For our owne vnworthienesse the Prophet desired God not to enter into iudgement with his seruants but for Christs righteousnesse the Apostle pronounceth vs free from condemnation For though our sinnes be red as scarlet yet so soone as they be washed in the bloud of the immaculate Lambe they become by acceptation as white as snow This whole discourse Saint Augustine handleth finely in these golden wordes Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam Woe euen to the laudable life of men if thou examine it thy mercie set a part And in this sense the obiection taketh place Neuertheles god of his great mercie doth accept our works as iust and pure through faith in Christ Iesus our sweet redeemer for whose sake he doth not impute our sins to vs. So saith the Apostle not by the workes of righteousnesse which wee haue done but according to his mercie hath he saued vs by the washing of the new birth the renewing of the holy Ghost So saith S. Iohn These are they which came out of great tribulation and haue washed their long robes haue made them white in the bloud of the lamb through the merits of which lambe our prayers and works are reputed pure Therefore saith Saint Paul I will therefore that the men pray euery where lifting vp pure hands without wrath or doubting The 6. obiection If the words of consecration be trophicall and figuratiue so as there is but a bare signe of Christs body and bloud then shall our sacraments of the newe Testament bee no better then the sacraments of the old The reason is euident because they did signifie Christs death and passion euen as ours do and yet is it cleare by the scriptures that we haue the verity wherof they had but the figure onely The answere I say first that our sacraments excell the olde sundry waies first because they are immutable and shall not bee altered till the worlds
briefly by these two reasons first because S. Paul so teacheth vs when he saith that the sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory to come Which saying I haue answered at large in my Motiues there answering all replies that can be made against the same Secondly because it is the popes owne doctrine if papistes were constant to their owne writing For thus writeth their owne deere frier M. Iohn de Combis Hoc patet qui◠deus semper remunerat supra meritum sicut punit citra condignum This is euident saith our holy frier Iohn because God euermore rewardeth vs aboue our desertes and punisheth vs lesse then we be worthie So then the popes holinesse may apply to himselfe all the superaboundant merites of his holy nunnes moonkes and Iesuites and flee to heauen as a bird without fethers I say thirdly that the want whereof the apostle speaketh is not in the proper passion of Christ which was of infinite vertue of infinite worthinesse of infinite dignitie yea of such force and efficacie as the least drop of his most pretious bloud being the bloud both of God and man by reason of hypostaticall vnion was sufficient for the sinnes of the whole world and of ten thousand thousand worldes mo if so many had been I say fourthly that God in his eternall decree appointed a certaine measure of afflictions which not onely Christ shoulde suffer in his owne naturall bodie but also which his mystical body should suffer the congregation of the faithfull before the full accomplishment of their glory Which thing is very euident by the answere made to the holy martyrs concerning their complaintes presented before the maiestie of God For thus is it written in Gods booke How long Lord which art holy and true doest not thou iudge and auenge our bloud on them that dwell on the earth and it was said vnto them that they should rest for a little season vntill their fellowe seruauntes and their brethren who should be killed as they were were fulfilled Thus saith holy writ Out of these wordes of the holy scripture I note first that God in his secret counsell hath decreed aswell the number as the persons that shall suffer in his church I note secondly that the afflictions of Gods children shall not wholly cease vntill the generall day of doome I note thirdly that God will auenge at that dreadfull day all iniuries done vnto his saintes These annotations well obserued this illation will manifestly result out of the same to wit that the afflictions wherof S. Paule speaketh to the Colossians were not satisfactions for the sinnes of the church for so to suffer was the peculiar office of Christ our only sauiour but they were testimonies of y e zeale and patience which ought to be in the church and of that conformitie which is required betweene the members of the mysticall body and the head Which sense may easily be gathered out of Anselmus his golden glosse vpon the apostles wordes in this place Thus doth he write Adimpleo inquit ea quae desunt Cui desunt in carne mea Nam in carne Christi quam virgo peperit nihil passionum deest sed omnes in illa passiones sunt impletae sed adhuc restat pars passionum eius in mea carne quas quotidie tolero pro vniuersali corpore eius quod est ecclesia Si enim ab eruditione fidelium cessarem has passiones ab infidelibus non sustinerem Sed quia semper ecclesiae studeo prodesse semper aduersa cogor tolerare I fulfill saith he those thinges that want To whom doe they want in my flesh For in Christes flesh which the virgine bore no passion at all wanted but all passions were fulfilled in it neuerthelesse some part of his passions yet remaineth in my flesh which I dayly suffer for his vniuersall body which is the church For if I should leaue off from instructing the faithful I might be free frō these persecutions of Infidels But because I euer desire to profite the church I am alway enforced to abide persecution Out of this graue vertuous and learned commentarie I note first that Christes passion was most absolute and perfect in it selfe I note secondly that some passions of Christ yet remained which S. Paule ought to suffer in his flesh Where obserue by the way that the afflictions of the faithful are reputed Christes own passions for when Paul persecuted his disciples he cried aloud Saule Saule why persecutest thou me I am Iesus whom thou persecutest it is hard for thee to kicke against the pricke I note thirdly that the afflictions which S. Paul susteined were for the good of the whole church yet not by the way of satisfaction but by the ordinary meanes of christian instruction For as Anselmus truely saith afflictions came to the apostle because he preached the gospel From preaching whereof if he would haue ceased he might haue been free from his passions here mentioned Where we must diligently obserue that God appointed when where and how long S. Paul should preach the gospel for the good of the whole church In regard wherof S. Paule pronounced woe vnto himselfe if hee shoulde not preach the gospel To which preaching of the gospel these passions were annexed as the complement of Christes passions not of his passions in himselfe but in the church his mysticall body For as hee suffered once for all in himselfe for the redemption of the world so doth he still suffer daily in his members For he hath appointed his elect to suffer much tribulation before they shall possesse eternall rest Notwithstanding that the glory which we expect doth a thousand fold surmount the miserie of our afflictions First therefore since the afflictions of Gods saints be reputed Christes owne passions Secondly since S. Paule was appointed when where and how long he should preach the Gospel Thirdly since S. Paule when he wrote to the Colossians had not preached the gospel so simply and so largely as he was appointed Fourthly since he coulde not possibly preach the gospel but perforce hee must suffer persecution for the same Fiftly since the taske of preaching was inioyned him for the benefite of the church which is Christes mysticall body I conclude that when S. Paule said he in his flesh supplied y e wants of Christes passions for his body the church he meant nothing els thereby but that he suffered affliction while hee preached the gospel as God had appointed for the good of his church And so there is no place in S. Paule for popish pardons though the papistes glorie aboue measure in this text The first replie Our blessed ladie the virgin Mary was not onely borne and conceiued without sinne but liued all her life without sin as Saint Austen and the church beleeueth Therefore she at least had good store of merites and satisfactions for others for though she suffered intollerable anguish and griefe yet had she
damned in hell blaspheme Christ ergo there be some vnder the earth that is in purgatorie which worship and adore Christ. The answer I answere that the bowing of the knee whereof the apostle speaketh doth not signify worship or adoration but that subiection which shalbe shewed openlie in the last iudgement when and where the deuilles as well as men and the good angels shall yeeld homage and dominion vnto Christ. For so S. Paul expoundeth S. Paul in his epistle to the Romaines and S. Luke recordeth that the deuill falleth prostrate before Christ and acknowledgeth his power ouer him which is that bowing of the knee whereof S. Paul speaketh Other expositions whatsoeuer are repugnant to the text The replie S. Iohn saith that hee heard all the creatures which are in heauen and on earth and vnder the earth and in the sea and al that are in them saying in this maner praise and honor and glorie and power be vnto him that sitteth vpon the throne and vnto the Lambe for euermore Therefore they be vnder the earth which truely worship Christ and consequently since the deuils as yee grant do rather blaspheme then worship Christ they that worship Christ vnder the earth must needes bee the soules in purgatory The answere I answere that S. Iohn meaneth nothing els then that which S. Paul hath vttered he vseth the figure Prosopopeia after the vsuall course of the scriptures causeth things senselesse and voide of reason to sounde out the praise of God so saith the Psalmograph Dauid All thy workes praise thee O Lord and thy saints blesse thee and in another place thus The heauens declare the glorie of God and the firmament sheweth the worke of his hands yea as the prophet saith and as the three holy Hebrewes sang fire heate winter summer frost snow light darkenesse the starres the sunne the moone and creatures blesse the Lord. The tenth obiection S. Iohn saith that no vncleane thing shall enter into heauen but many depart out of this life which are not pure ergo such must be purged in purgatorie before they come in heauen The answere I say first that faith in Christ Iesus can as well purge a man in this life as the Popes pardons and yet as your selues teach vs a plenarie indulgence will salue this impuritie I say secondly that it is a needelesse thing to establish popish purgatorie because popish pardons supplie the want thereof This is proued copiously in my booke of Motiues I say thirdly that the faithfull and elect children of God haue their cleanenesse before him in Christ his sonne with which they may enter into heauen For as S. Iohn saith they haue washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lambe who as S. Paul saith when hee knew no sinne was yet made the sacrifice for sin that we might be the righteousnes of God in him And as S. Peter saith their hearts are purified by faith yea as Christ himself saith his sacred word hath made them cleane In fine holy Writ pronounceth them blessed that die in the Lord that they rest from their labors Which being so they neither haue any impurity nor suffer any purgatorie paine The replie You all confesse that your inherent iustice is vnperfect and impure and so your vncleanenes must be taken away after this life be fore yee come into heauen ergo there is a purgatorie The answere I answere that original concupiscence is an inseperable accidēt during this life aswel in you as in vs but as it is proper to this state so is it taken away in that very instant in which our state is altered The 11. obiection S. Peter saith that God raised vp Christ after he had loosed the sorrows of hel This place saith our Iesuite must needs be vnderstood of purgatory for first it cānot be meant of the damned because their paines shal neuer end Secondly it cannot be meant of the sorrowes of Christ because they were finished on the crosse Thirdly it cannot be meant of the fathers in Limbo because they had no paine at all it therefore remaineth that it be meant of the sorrowes which soules abide in purgatorie The answere I say first that if their Latin text were sound this obiection would solue it selfe for the originall and Greeke text is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing loosed the sorrowes of death Out of which words nothing can be gathered that fauoreth purgatory any thing at al. I say secondly that if it were as y e papists do reade the sorrowes of hel being loosed their soules should alwayes feele paine but neuer haue an end Which cannot be truely verified of their purgatorie fire I say thirdly that the fathers whō the papists hold to haue bin in Limbo at that time did according to their owne doctrine suffer poenam damni because they were not as yet partakers of the cleare vision beatificall which Bellarmine granteth in another place and so is repugnant to himselfe But let that be deemed a small fault in a Iesuite which is thought a great crime in another man Adde hereunto that poena damni is a greater pain then poena sensus by their best popish diuinitie I say fourthly that by the sorrows of death is meant nothing els but the bitter paines which Christ suffered vpon the crosse to accomplish mans redemption For then did he properly perfectly triumph ouer death when he rose againe from death who was deliuered to death for our sins saith Saint Paul and is risen againe for our iustification And the verie words of the text next following in the Actes doe confirme this exposition for there it is thus written whome God raised vp and loosed the sorrowes of death because it was vnpossible that he should be holden of it as if S. Peter had said although the passion of Christ was so bitter exceeding great as implying the curse and malediction due for our sinnes insomuch that the remembrance therof caused him to sweate out drops of blood yet could not death possiblie preuaile against him but that he should rise againe and conquer both hel and it The replie Although the greek word in the 24. verse signifieth death yet in the 27 verse it signifieth hel and so the sense is against you The answere I answer that the hebrew word in the psalme from whence this sentence is taken is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifieth a sepulchre or graue and so doth your owne great linguiste Arias Montanus interpret it as if the Prophet hadde saide thou wilt not leaue my soule or life in the graue For the course of holy scripture doth comprehende our life vnder the name of the Soule so saith the Prophet Ionas therefore now O Lord take I beseech thee my soule from me for it is better for me to die then to liue So is it in the Hebrew and original and yet by
Surplesse and the stole about his necke sang a collect of martyrs so after his maner canonising a rebellious subiect for a saint Such is the seditious impudencie of newly hatched Romish Iesuites And least any other Iesuite or papist shall denie that they ascribe their saluation to saintes for they vse to say that they make them but mediatours of intercession and not of saluation and redemption I will prooue it flatly out of their owne bookes and church seruice which I wish the reader to marke attentiuely In the praier which the church of Rome readeth publickly vpon Thomas Beckets day sometime the Bishop of Canturburie I finde these wordes Deus pro cuius ecclesia gloriosus poÌ„tifex Thomas gladiis impiorum occubuit praesia quaesumus vt omnes qui eius implorant auxilium petitionis suae salutarem consequantur effectum O God for whose church the glorious bishop Thomas was put to death by the swordes of the wicked graunt wee beseech thee that all which desire his helpe may attaine the effect of their petition to saluation Out of these wordes I note first that Thomas Becket is pronounced a glorious martyr albeit the disobedience of his lawfull prince was the cause of his death I note secondly that the Romish church seeketh for saluation euen through his merites I note thirdly that the papistes make him a Sauiour yea such a Sauiour as is equall with Christ and consequently that they make him another Christ. For as S. Paule truely recordeth Christ redeemed the church with his owne bloud And yet doth the Romish church teache as yee see that Thomas Becket shed his bloud for the church of God Since therefore the proper and onely badge of Christes mediatorship is giuen to Thomas Becket what remaineth for him to be if not another Christ And least we should not fully vnderstand how our redemption is wrought in the bloud of Thomas they deliuer this mysterie more cleerely in another place in these wordes Tuper Tho. sanguineÌ„ queÌ„ pro te impendit fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit Thou O Christ cause vs to come thither where Thomas is euen by the bloud which hee shedde for thy sake Loe Thomas Becket died for vs and shed his bloud to bring vs to heaueÌ„ as the papists teach vs therfore by their doctrine hee is our redeemer and mediatour not only of intercession but also of redemption In their praier bookes deliuered to the vulgar people which God wote they vnderstoode not they teache the people thus to inuocate their proper Aungels Angele Dei quicustos es mei pietate superna me tibi commissum salua defende guberna O Aungell of God who art my keeper by supernall pietie defend mee gouerne mee and saue my soule To S. Paule they teache vs to pray in this maner O beate Paule apostole te deprecor vt ab angelo Sathanae me eripias à ventura ira liberes in coelum introducas O blessed Apostle Paul I pray thee that thou wilt take me from the angel of Satan and deliuer me from wrathe to come and bring me into heauen To Saint Iames in this maner O foelix Apostole magne martyr Iacobe te colentes adiuua peregrinos vndique tuos clemens protege ducens ad coelestia O happy Apostle and mightie martyr Iames helpe thy worshippers defend courteously thy pilgrimes on euery side and bring them to heauenly ioyes To Saint Martin thus Caecis das viam mutisque loquelam tu nos adiuua mundans immunda qui fugas daemâ—nia nos hic libera O Martin thou causest the blinde to see and the dumbe to speake Helpe vs and purge the vncleane thou that castest out diuels deliuer vs here But for breuitis sake I wil wittingly and willingly superseade many particular praiers made to meaner saintes and come to the blessed Virgine The Papistes teache vs to inuocate the holy virgine Mary thus O Maria gloriosa in delitiis delitiosa praepara nobis gloriam O Mary glorious in dainties delicious prepare thou glory for vs. Againe in another place thus Maria mater Domini aeterni patris filij fer opem nobis omnibus ad teconfugientibus O Mary the mother of our Lord the sonne of the eternall God helpe vs all that flie for helpe vnto thee Againe in another place thus Maria mater gratiae mater misericordiae tu nos ab hoste protege hora mortis suscipe O Mary the mother of grace the mother of mercie defend thou vs from our ghostly enemie and receiue vs at the houre of death Againe in another place thus Solue vincla reis profer lumen caecis mala nostra pelle bona cunctae posce Monstra te esse matrem sumat per te preces qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus Loose the bandes of the guiltie bring light to the blinde driue away our euils require all good thinges for vs shew thy selfe to be a mother let him receiue thy praiers that was borne for vs and suffered to be thine Againe in another place thus Veni regina gentium dele flammas reatuum dele quod cunque deuium da vitam innocentium Come O Queene of the Gentiles extinguishe the firie heate of our sinnes blot out whatsoeuer is amisse and cause vs to leade an innocent life Againe in their olde Latine primers the people are thus taught to pray In extremis diebus meis esto mihi auxiliatrix saluatrix animam meam animam patris mei matris meae fratrum sororum parentum amicorum benefactorum meorum omnium fidelium defunctorum ac viuorum ab aeterna mortis caligine libera ipso auxiliante quem portasti Domino nostro Iesu Christo filio tuo O glorious Virgine Mary bee thou my helper and Sauiour in my last dayes and deliuer from the mist of eternall death both mine owne soule and my fathers soule and the soules of my mother brethren sisters parents friends benefactors and of all the faithfull liuing and dead by his help whom thou didst beare our Lord Iesus Christ thy sonne Againe after two or three leaues in this maner Vt in tuo sancto tremendo ac terribili iudicio in conspectu vnigeniti filii tui cui pater dedit omne iudicium me liberes protegas a paenis inferni participem me facias coelestium gaudiorum I beseech thee most mercifull and chaste virgine Mary that in thine holy fearefull and terrible iudgement in the sight of thine only sonne thou wilt deliuer and defend me from the paines of hell and make me partaker of heauenly ioyes These praiers if they be well marked will prooue my conclusion effectually as which conteine euery iote of power right maiestie glorie and soueraignty whatsoeuer is or ought to be yeelded vnto our Lord Iesus Christ. Yea these two last praiers make the virgine Mary not onely equall with Christ but farre
is not in another yet god is neither circumscriptiuely nor definitiuely in place because he is euerie where And Damascenus agreeth with Aquinas affirming that angels while they are in heauen are not on earth I say secondly that the angels as S. Paul saith are indeed Gods ministring spirits sent forth for their sakes which shalbe heires of saluation And the angels as Moses saith went vp and down by Iacobs ladder which reached from earth to heauen that the angels as Daniel writeth are defeÌ„ders of y e church vnder Christ for that purpose are sent vnto vs. But neuerthelesse they are but in one onely place at once while they see what is done in one place they are ignorant what befalleth to another for they passe to fro from affaires to affaires from place to place from person to person from heauen to earth and from earth to heauen again according to their appointed seruice so that no one angel doth or can know the hundreth part of our petitions much lesse the saints in heauen who haue no such appointed ministerie The third replie The saints are equall to the angels and are the sons of god since they are the children of the resurrection therfore they are present and see our affaires euen as doe the angels The answere I answer that the time by Christ named is after y e resurrection neither is the equalitie he speaks of general but particular to wit in that y e saints shal haue no more need or vse of mariage then y e angels But that the saints shalbe sent as the angels for y e seruice of the church the ministerie of the faithful it is nether recorded here nor in any other place of y e scripture For Christ here only answered to the captious Saduces who denying the resurrection asked whose wife she should be in y e resurrection that had bin maried to 7. brethren al dying without issue The 4. replie The angels in heauen reioyce when sinners repent heere on earth which they could neuer do if they did not vnderstand our affaires our prayers and our penitent hearts The answere I say first that Saints in heauen do not know what we doe on earth for as the Prophet recordeth Abraham was ignorant what the Israelites did and Iacob knew them not I say secondly that the text doth not say that the angels in heauen reioyce but simplie that the angels reioyce and so the reioycing which the text speaketh of may bee vnderstoode to bee done on earth while the angels are present I say thirdly that the angels which are appointed for our seruice on earth and thereby know our affaires on earth may make relation thereof in heauen and so the whole companie of angels in heauen may reioyce thereat together or it may please God sometime to reueale the conuersion of some sinner to the saints or angels in heauen But hereupon will it neuer be concluded that either the saints or the angels do knowe the secrets of our hearts or our petitions vniuersally as is alreadie said The fift replie To do myracles is as proper to God as to know the secrets of our hearts therefore since God hath communicated the one to his seruants so may he without contradiction do the other The answere I say first that God himselfe did euer worke the myracles and did onely vse the ministerie of his apostles and seruants in the externall act I say secondly that God can hath de facto reuealed the secrets of mens hearts euen to his holie prophets yet hee neuer did that generally but in measure at certaine times to speciall persons for the good of his church The sixt replie Although God cannot giue anie inherent qualities to the saints in heauen by which they may knowe all the desires and prayers of the liuing heere on earth because no creature is capable thereof yet may God from time to time reueale all such prayers to his Saints The answere I say first that it is not impossible for God so to doe though God should be so driuen without need to worke innumerable miracles that almost euery houre I say secondly that thogh god shuld bestow such reuelations on his saints yet would many absurdities folow therupon For first these reuelatioÌ„s must follow the prayers and not goe before them and so my conclusion is still in force Secondly thus to require myracles at Gods hands were to tempt God grieuously Thirdly such prayers should be a flat mockerie in Gods sight because God must first reueale the prayers to his Saints then must he giue eare to the saints while they inculcate the same prayers lastly he may grant theÌ„ if he list Fourthly in this maner of praying they leaue God whom they should inuocate they run to theÌ„ at whom they should not come Fiftly they do al this of infidelitie because they haue no warrant from God so to make their prayers The 7. replie Yee cannot denie but that the liuing may pray one for another and also desire one an others prayer therefore since the faithful departed loue vs as much as before are as mindful of vs as before and are as deare in Gods sight as before we do no more iniurie or dishonour to God in praying now to them then when they were liuing here among vs. The answere I say first that we haue coÌ„mandement promise examples to pray one for another while we are yet liuing on earth but we haue no such thing in the holy scriptures neither in the olde nor in the new testament concerning the inuocation of saints departed I say secondly that if the saints departed could heare and vnderstande our prayers as the liuing do then might wee without dishonour and iniurie to God desire them to pray for vs as wee doe the liuing neuerthelesse such kind of praying should be in vs great temeritie and presumption because wee haue neither coÌ„mandement nor example in gods word so to do I say thirdly that if the liuing should desire the prayers one of another as the pâ—pists desire the prayers of saints they shoulde not onely derogate greatly from Christs holy mediatourship but withal commit flat idolatrie For the papists desire as is alreadie proued to be saued by the merites and blood of saints for the coÌ„plement wherof I wil here adde a memorable testimonie The vsual practise of the papists especially of the Iesuites is to adde in the ende of their absolution these words Passio D.N.I. Christi merita B.V. Mariae omnium sanctorum quicquid bonifeceris vel mali sustinueris sit tibi in remissionem peccatoruÌ„ tuorum in augmentum gratiae praemium vitae aeternae The passion of our Lord Iesus Christ the merits of the blessed virgin Mary and of al saints all the good thou shalt do and punishment thou shalt suffer be to thee for the remission of thy sins for increase of grace for
The cause without which the latter shall not haue effect For as vocation iustification regeneration and glorification are the effectes of predestination euen so by Gods holy ordinance being predestinate wee are called by the hearing of his word vnto â—aith which faith is the cause of our iustification by apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus after wee be iustified of our iustification proceedes regeneration as who hauing remission of our sinnes and being ingraffed in Christ by faith are indued with more aboundant grace of his holy spirite thorough which we are dayly more and more regenerate and made new creatures after we be regenerate out of our regeneration spring good workes aswel internall as externall as who being made good trees begin to bring forth good fruits and so continuing are brought at the length of Gods free mercie to the possession of eternall life For as y e apostle saith we are created vnto good workes which God hath ordained that wee shoulde walke in them and continuing in them we shall at the dreadful day of doome heare this ioyfull sentence pronounced to our vnspeakable comfort Come yee blessed of my father take the inheritance of the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world For I was an hungred and ye gaue me meate I was thirsty and ye gaue me drink I was a stranger and ye took me in vnto you I was naked and ye clothed me I I was sicke and ye visited me I was in prison and ye came to me And with this it is true yet y t the apostle saith Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercie he saued vs by the washing of the new birth and by renuing of the holy Ghost which hee shed on vs aboundantly through Iesus Christ our sauiour that wee being iustified by his grace should be made heires according to the hope of eternall life This is a true saying and these thinges I will thou shouldest affirme that they which haue beleeued God might be carefull to shew forth good workes These things are good and profitable vnto men Thus saith S. Paule and therefore I thinke this a profitable conclusion By it rightly vnderstood many places of holy Scripture may easily be answered which seeme to ascribe iustification or glorification to good workes The 10. conclusion This popish assertion that workes doe iustifie and merite eternall life de condigno was for the space of a thousand and eightie yeares vnknowne to the church of God About which time Petrus Lombardus and his fellowes began their scholasticall theologie and disputed such matters doubtfully About the yeare of our Lord 1545. the late councell of Trent defined the same for an article of christian beliefe solemnely accursing al such as hold the contrary opinion This is the originall and antiquitie of this impudently defended heresie It is sufficiently confuted throughout the whole chapter CHAP. X. Of the popish idololatricall masse The 1. conclusion TO withhold from the vulgar and laycall sort of people the one part of the holy communion is a diabolical hereticall and sacrilegious fact I prooue it sundry waies First because it is flatly against the expresse scripture and Christes holy institution For Christ himselfe instituted and ministred the Sacrament in both kindes saying drinke yee all of it as Saint Mathew recordeth and they all dranke of it as witnesseth Saint Marke Saint Paule also taught all the Corinthians to communicate in both kindes protesting that hee deliuered the forme and maner of the holy communion euen as he had in spirite receiued it from the Lord. Secondly because the auncient fathers shew euidently that in their time it was the generall practise of the church to deliuer the holy communion to the lay people vnder both kindes Neither was the cup taken from the vulgar sort by any setled law vntill the late councell of Constance which was in the yere of our Lord God 1414. Origen hath these words Quis est iste populus qui in vsu habet sanguinem bibere haec erant quae in euangelio audientes ij qui ex Iudaeis dominum sequebantur scandalizati sunt dixerunt Quis potest manducare carnem sanguinem bibere sed populus Christianus populus fidelis audit haec amplectitur sequitur eum qui dicit nisi manducaueritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitam in vobis ipsis quia caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè potus est Who is that people that hath in custome to drinke bloud these were the thinges which the Iewes that followed Christ heard in the gospel and were scandalized and said Who can eate flesh and drinke bloud but the christian people the faithfull people heare these thinges and embrace them and follow him that sayth vnlesse ye shall eate my flesh drink my bloud ye shall haue no life in your selues because my fleshe is meate indeed and my bloud drinke indeed S. Hierome hath these words Sacerdotes quoque qui eucharistiae seruiunt sanguinem domini populis eius diuidunt impiè agunt in legem Christi The Priestes also that administer the eucharist and diuide the Lordes bloud to his people transgresse the law of Christ heynously Saint Cyprian with fourtie learned bishops in their ioynt Epistle to Cornelius write in this expresse maner Quo modo docemus aut prouocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus aut quo modo ad martyrij poculum idoâ—â—os facimus si non eis priùs ad bibendum in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicationis admittimus Howe doe we teache 〈◊〉 them to shed their bloud for the name of Christ if wee denie them the bloud of Christ when they go to warre or how doe we make them fit for the cuppe of martyrdome if wee doe not first admit them to drinke the Lordes cuppe in the Churche and that by the right of communion where I wishe the reader to note well that the lay people haue right to both kindes and consequently that the Romish church is become the whore of Babylon in that shee robbeth vs of our christian right which wee haue de iure diuino Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito vt quando fruendum est honorandis mysteriis Similiter enim omnes vt illa percipiamus digni habemur Non sicut in veteri lege partem quidem sacerdos comedebat partem autem populus non licebat populo participem esse eorum quorum particeps erat sacerdos Sed nunc non sic verum omnibus vnum corpus proponitur poculum vnum There is a place where there is no difference betweene the priest the lay person as when we are to communicate in the holy mysteries for we are all in
chance that may tend to the iniurie of so worthie a misterie which might chance especially in the receiuing of the bloud which if it were vnwarily receiued might easily be shed And because the multitude of christian people is increased wherin are conteined old men yong men and litle ones whereof some are not of so great discretion to vse due warines about the vse of this sacrament therefore there is a good prouiso made in some churches that the lay people shall not receiue the bloud but onely the priest Out of these words of Aquinas I note first that he liued a thousand two hundred seuentie and fiue yeers after Christ. I note secondly that the perfection of the sacrament consisteth in both kinds and consequently that the communion of the lay people is this day vnperfect in the church of Rome I note thirdly that both kinds were vsually giuen to the lay people in Aquinas his time that the contrarie was practised onely in some few odde churches apart I note fourthly that in his time yong childreÌ„ receiued the holy communion To this I adde fiftly that the papists can neuer shew any other alteration betweene the dayes of Aquinas and their late synode of Constance The second obiection Christ ministred the holy Eucharist in one onely kinde to his two disciples in Emaus for saint Luke maketh mention of bread onely and not of wine The answere I say first that your own Iansenius granteth that this place is not meant of the eucharist but was onely a figure thereof he proueth his opinion out of saint Austen S. Bede Theophilacte I say secondly that it is the vsuall phrase of the hebrew tongue to tearme all kinde of meate by the name of bread and so howsoeuer the place be vnderstood drinke can no way be excluded I say thirdly that if this place be vnderstood of the holy communion yet wil it not confirme the popish practise by any meanes For a singular act of Christ who was aboue his law and not bound thereunto cannot discharge vs from his holy institution which he commanded vs to obserue The third obiection S. Luke saith that the faithful continued in the apostles doctrine and felowship and breaking of bread and prayers where by the breaking of bread must needes be vnderstood the blessed eucharist and yet is there no mention made of wine The answere I say first that as it is true that these Textes are to bee vnderstoode of the holy sacrament of Christes body and bloud so is it true also that both kindes were ministred therein I prooue it because otherwise the Apostles shoulde haue ministred the sacrament in one onely kinde which yet no learned paipst will auouch I say secondly that the whole sacrament is figuratiuely signified by the breaking of bread by the figure Synecdoche which is frequent in the holy scripture wheÌ„ a part is named for the whole Whosoeuer reiects this glosse must charge the apostle with flat sacriledge Yea it is common with the fathers to vnderstand both the kinds whensoeuer they speake of the holy eucharist although they make but expresse mention of the one Therefore Saint Iustine after hee had made expresse mention of both the kinds addeth these words Alimentum hoc apud nos appellatur eucharistia This foode or nourishmeÌ„t we cal the eucharist S. Irenaeus hath these words Quando mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit eucharistia corporis sanguinis Christi When the cuppe mingled and the bread broken receiueth the worde of God it is made the eucharist of the body and bloud of Christ. So S. Cyprian naming the cup onely calleth it the eucharist Which cup being giueÌ„ to an infant proueth euidently that in the primitiue church both kinds were thought most necessarie The fourth obiection It was the vse in the primitiue church to beare the eucharist in one kind to the sicke because there was great danger in carrying the consecrated wine A sufficient testimonie hereof is the storie of Serapion The answere I say first that most ancient approued antiquity beareth witnesse of both kindes sent and carried to the sicke and to such as were absent S. Iustine the martyr hath these words Diaconi distribuunt vnicuique praesentium vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt panem vinum aquam ad absentes perferunt The deacons distribute to euerie one that is present a portion of the consecrated bread wine and water and they also carrie thereof to those that be absent Againe he writeth thus Distributio communicatióque fit eorum in quibus gratiae actae sunt cuique praesenti absentibus autem per diaconos mittitur A distribution and communication is made of those things that are blessed to euerie one that is present and the same is carried by the deacons to those that be absent Saint Hierome greatly commendeth saint Exuperius for his singular zeale in this behalfe these are his words Sanctus Exuperius Tolosae episcopus viduae Sarepâ—ensis imitator esuriens pascit alios ore pallente â—eiunijs fame torquetur alienâ omnémque substantiaÌ„ Christi visceribus erogauit Nihil illo ditius qui corpus domini canistro viminâ—o sanguinem portat in vitro Saint Exuperius the bishoppe of Tolose imitating the widow of Sarepta feedeth others euen when himselfe is hungrie his own mouth is pale with fasting yet it grieueth him to behold others famine al his substaÌ„ce he bestoweth on Christs members None more rich then he he carrieth our Lords body in a wicker basket and his blood in a glasse I say secondly that Serapion receiued both kinds though in some thing different from Christs institution For the bread was first infused into the consecrated wine and so receiued which manner of receiuing was a little corruption though farre different from the popish practise which altogether abandoneth the perfection of the holy sacrament This their owne Durand telleth them and if they will not heare mee yet must I request them to hearken to his words Thus doth he write Etsi in hostiâ consecratâ Christi sanguis sit non tamen est ibi sacramentaliter eò quòd panis corpus non sanguinem vinum sanguinem significat non corpus Quia ergo sub alterá taÌ„tum specie non est completum sacramentum quâ— ad sacramentum vel signum debet hoc sacramentum compleri prius quâm presbiter eo vtatur Although in the consecrate host there bee the blood of Christ yet is it not there sacramentally because the bread doth signifie the bodie not the blood and the wine doth signifie the blood not the body Therfore because the sacrament is not complete vnder one only kind in respect of the sacrament or signe this sacrament must bee first complete before the priest vse it Thus saith our popish Durand Out of whose wordes I note to the
body and bloud either the Lords supper or the Eucharist or the coÌ„munion or the liturgie or the blessed sacrament or the masse if we vnderstand rightly the thing signified by the same For all these words I know are rightly vsed by the ancient holy learned fathers Where I note this by the way that whether the word Masse be latin or hebrew or what it doth properly signifie the papists cannot yet agree among themselues I say secondly that the fathers indeede doe often call the Eucharist Christs body and bloud the sacrifice of the mediator the vnbloudy sacrifice and whatsoeuer else is due to the sacrifice of the crosse neuerthelesse they haue alwaies a godly sense and meaning in such kind of appollations that is to say they ascribe such names to the Eucharist not because it is properly the selfe same thing that the word importeth but for that it is y e sacrament the signe the memorial thereof or else bicause it is spiritually the sacrifice of laude and thanksgiuing for the proofe hereof it were enough to call to minde that sacraments in the scripture haue the names of those things whereof they â—e the sacraments For Moses saith of the paschal lamb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is the Lords passeouer yet most certain it is by the very text it selfe that the lambe was not the passeouer it selfe but only the signe and signification thereof like as al sacraments be signes of the things which they do represent but not the things which are signified by the same And this I hope to make so plaine euen by the expresse testimonies of the holy fathers wherein the papists vse to glory beyond al mesure as no papist in y t the christian world shal euer be able to answer me therein S Austen hath these expresse words Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum i sacrum signum est Therfore the visible sacrifice is the sacrament of the inuisible sacrifice that is an holy signe And a little after hee addeth these words Illud quod ab hominibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri sacrificij that which men cal a sacrifice is the signe of y e true sacrifice In another place he hath these words with many other to the like effect Cuius rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit ecclesiae sacrificium Wherof he would haue the sacrifice of the church to be a daily sacrament In another place he hath these words huius sacrificij caro et sanguis ante aduentuÌ„ Christi per victimas similitudinuÌ„ prrmittebatur in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur Before the comming of Christ the flesh and bloud of this sacrifice was promised by the sacrifices of similitudes in the passion of Christ it was restored by the verity after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by the sacrament of memorie In all these places S. Austen saith expressely that though the Eucharist be called a sacrifice yet is it not a sacrifice properly and indeede but onely a sacrament signe and representation of Christs sacrifice vpon the crosse For first he saith it is a signe of the true sacrifice as if he hadde said it is not the true sacrifice but a representation therof Secondly he saith it is a daily sacrament of the true sacrifice as if he had said it is not y e thing but a signe of the thing Thirdly he saith it is the sacrament of memory as if hee had saide it is but a commemoration of the true sacrifice indeede Fourthly he saith that that which men call a sacrifice is nothing els but a signe of the true sacrifice as if he had said though many vse to tearme the Eucharist a sacrifice yet is it but the signe of the true sacrifice indeede Greg. Nazianz. who was Hieromes schoolmaister for his singular knowledge in y e holy scriptures surnamed Theologus expresseth this matter very liuely in these brief pithy words Quo tandeÌ„ modo externuÌ„ illud sacrificiuÌ„ illud magnoruÌ„ mysteri oruÌ„ exeÌ„plar praefidenti animo ipsi offerrem How shuld I offer to him with a confident mind that externall sacrifice which is the example or signe of the great mystery Lo so soone as hee hath tearmed it a sacrifice by and by he interpreteth himselfe calleth it the signe and representation of the sacrifice as if hee had said we vse to tearme it by the name of sacrifice because it is the image signe sacrament and representation of the true and onely sacrifice S. Dionysius Areopagita S. Pauls disciple in his ecclesiastical Hierarchy which worke the Papists wil needs haue to be his hath these words Ad eorundem sacrificium quod signis continetur venit atque id quod à deo proditum sit facit The B. commeth to the sacrifice of those things which is contained in signes doth that which God hath appointed to be done Lo he calleth the eucharist a sacrifice as the other fathers do and yet for a plaine testimony of his right meaning he addeth that it only consisteth in signes As if he had said it is nothing else but a significatiue or commemoratiue sacrifice Saint Chrysostome hath these words Offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius Sequitur hoc autem quod facimus in commemorationem quidem fit eius quod factum est Hoc enim facite inquit in meam commemorationem NoÌ„ aliud sacrificiuÌ„ sicut pontifex sed idipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur Wee offer I grant but we do it for the remembrance of Christs death And that which wee doe we doe it for the commemoration of that which is already done For hee saieth Doe yee this in the remembrance of me There is not another sacrifice as there is an other Bishop but we doe alwaies the same thing yea rather we worke the remembrance of the sacrifice Out of these wordes I note first that the Eucharist or christian masse if any list so to call it is nothing else but a commemoration of Christes death vppon the crosse I note secondly and it is a point of importance that the sacrifice is euer the same thogh the priest or bishoppe bee changed I note thirdly that where the priest is changed there can not bee that reall sacrifice which was offered vppon the crosse the reason is euident because wheresoeuer that sacrifice is there the priest is not chaunged but is one and the same euen with the sacrifice it selfe S. Basil hath these expresse wordes Fac nos idoneos vt tibi offeramus sacrificium laudis tu es enim operans omnia in omnibus Make vs meete to offer to thee the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiuing thou that workest all in all To these and the like testimonies the Papistes can not possibly frame any true answer The reply True it
shall ye truely vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with the bit of the mouth Againe thus In principio cauendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias Et ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait apostolus litera occidit spiritus autem viuificat Cum enim figuratè dictum sic accipitur tanquam propriè dictum sit carnaliter sapitur Sequitur ea demum est miserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipere supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad hauriendum aeternum lumen leuare non posse Before all thinges thou must take heede least thou vnderstand that literally which is spoken by a figure For to this end is that which the apostle saith The letter killeth but the spirite quickeneth For our wisedome is then carnall when we vnderstand that properly which is spoken figuratiuely To conclude that is a miserable bondage of the soule to take signes for the things signified and not to lift vp the eye of our minde aboue the corporall creature so to behold eternall light Againe thus Possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum Non enim dominus dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui I may also interprete this precept to be figuratiue For our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe or figure of his body Againe thus Cum adhibuit ad conuiuium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis coÌ„mendauit tradidit When he admitted Iudas to the banquet in which hee commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his bodie and his bloud Againe thus Illi manducabant panem dominum ille panem domini contra dominum They ate the bread that was our Lord he ate not our Lord but the bread of our Lord against the Lord. Againe thus Quomodo in coelum manum mittam vt ibi sedentem tenâ—am fidem mitte tenuisti parentes tui tenuerunt carne tu tene corde quoniam Christus absâ—ns etiam praesens est nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset sed quoniaÌ„ veruÌ„ est quod ait Ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque ad consummationem seculi abijt hic est redijt nos non deseruit Corpus enim suum intulit coelo maiestatem non abstulit mundo Howe shall I reache vp my hand to heauen that I may take holde on him sitting there Reache thither thy faith and thou hast hold on him Thy fathers held him in the flesh holde thou him in thine heart because Christ being absent is also present for if hee were not present hee coulde not be holden of vs but because it is true that hee saith Behold I am with you till the end of the world both he is gone and he is here he is returned and hath not forsaken vs. For hee carried his body vp into heauen yet hee tooke not his maiestie out of the worlde Againe in another place thus Secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt According to the presence of his maiestie wee haue Christ alway but according to the presence of the flesh it was rightly saide to his Disciples but ye shall not haue me alway For the Churche had him in the flesh a few daies but now she holdeth him by faith she doth not see him with her eyes Againe thus Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christâ— corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est As therefore in a certaine sorte the Sacrament of Christes bodie is Christes body the sacrament of Christes bloud is the bloud of Christ euen so the sacrament of faith is faith In these manifold testimonies Saint Austen prooueth aboundantly that the popishe carnall imagined presence in the Eucharist is blasphemous and most execrable For first he telleth vs that these words of Christ This is my bodie This is my bloud must needes be vnderstood figuratiuely That is to say that the bread and wine are but the sacraments or figures and signes of Christes body and bloud Secondly hee telleth vs that Christ is ascended and that therfore his bodie cannot be eaten with the bit of mouth as the papistes teach blasphemously Thirdly he saith that the soule is neuer in greater bondage then when shee grossely and carnally taketh the figures and signes for the thinges signified by the same Fourthly he telleth vs that since the signes of thinges be vsually termed by the names of the things signified our Lord doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue but the signe of his bodie Fiftly hee saith that the bread which the other Disciples receiued was our Lord yet that which Iudas receiued was but the bread of the Lord. Which assertion is wonderfull if it bee well noted For if our Lord and maker bee present carnally in fleshe bloud and bone vnder the accidentes of bread and that so long as the same accidentes remayne vncorrupte as the Popishe detestable Faith auoucheth Then doubtlesse Iudas shoulde haue receiued his Redeemer Then perforce Iudas shoulde also haue receiued Panem Dominum Then Iudas coulde not by any possibilitie haue barely receiued panem Domini which yet S. Augustine affirmeth most constantly For first if it were true that after consecration the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christes naturall bodie as it consisteth of flesh bloud and bone and againe if it were also true that the selfe same bodie remained vnder the forme of bread vntill it were corrupted then let all the papistes in England or els where in Europe tel me how Iudas could receiue panem Domini but not panem Dominum as S. Austen saith that is how Iudas coulde receiue the forme of bread with the fleshe bloud and bones of Christes organicall and naturall body hâ—dden vnder the same and for all that not receiue Christ himselfe and panem Dominum as the other apostles did Let them I I say tell me this and I promise to subscribe If they wil not this doe because they cannot for if they can doe it all the worlde must thinke they will doe it then if the feare of God be before their eies they will acknowledge the trueth that I now defend which God graunt they may doe Amen Sixtly he telleth vs that albeit wee cannot reache with our handes to Christes body which is nowe in heauen yet may we by faith take hold vpon the same Which is the flat doctrine that the church of England this day teacheth of the eucharist For we teach that the eucharist is Christes true body spiritually and sacramentally
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
cleare that hee meaneth Christ to be no otherwise present then he affirmeth him to be broken And if any papist wil say that Christs bones are otherwise broken then in a mysterie then must the same papist tell me howe Christs body can be glorious and not mortall then must be tell me how it chauceth that I can not feele and see Christs bones and flesh For so Christ prooued the veritie of his body to his disciples Handle me saith Christ and see for a spirite hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue Then must he tel me to what end he sent the comforter in his steede if himselfe be still on earth among vs. For himselfe saith If I goe not away the comforter will not come vnto you but if I depart I wil send him to you Then must he tell me how Christ is not alwaies with vs since as they say their round cakes do neuer wāt him For himselfe saith Yee haue the poore alwaies with you but mee shall ye not haue alwaies Then must hee tell me howe accidents can be without a subiect since S. Austen saith that if qualities be takē from the bodies they loose their being Then must he tel me what scripture saith that Christs body which was visible before his ascension visible in his ascension and shal continue visible in heauen till his second aduent is for all that daily and hourely in infinite popish cakes and after an inuisible and insensible maner then must he tel me how Christs bodie being like to ours in all things sinne excepted can neuerthelesse be in many places at once then must hee tell me how Christs body is not a phantasticall body as Marcion and the Manichees held for Saint Austen saith that Christs true body can be but in some one place of heauen Vbi inquit totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam deum in eodem templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum Thou must not doubt saith saint Austen that Christ is wholie present euerie where as God and in the same temple of God as God inhabiting it and in some one place of heauen for the maner of a true body Lo this graue father telleth vs that Christ as god is euery where but in respect of his true body he is only in heauen and in some certaine place of heauen Only in heauen because the scripture sayth that he shal be there till the worlds end in some certaine place of heauen to declare the nature and veritie of a true body So then if he were present as the papists would haue him his body shuld loose the nature veritie of a true body indeede I say secondly that Saint Chrysostome expoundeth his owne meaning most plainely when hee saith that Christ in his last supper gaue the fruit of the vine to his disciples His words are before alleaged and are flat contrarie to these other heere obiected vnlesse they be glossed as I say The replie Saint Chrysostome in an other place confuteth your sophisticall answers and deliuereth his meaning in so plaine tearmes as no deniall can be made thereof These are his words Non enim sufficit ipsi hominem fieri flagellis interim caedi sed nos secum in vnam vt ita dicam massam reducit neque id fide solum sed reipsa nos corpus suum efficit For it is not inough for him to become man and in the meane time to be whipped scourged but hee doth as it were moulde vs into the same lumpe with himselfe neither is this done by faith onely but hee maketh vs his owne body indeede Lo there is a further kinde of eating then by faith onely we are made his body really and not onely by faith And Saint Hilary saith the very same in effect These are his words De veritate carnis sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus nunc enim ipsius domini professione fide nostra verè caro est verè sanguis est Concerning the veritie of his flesh and bloud there is no place left to stand in doubt for now as well by Gods attestation as by our owne faith he is flesh indeede and bloud indeede The answere I say first that I do not denie Christs true and real flesh and bloud to be in the Eucharist but I deny it to bee there in a fleshy corporall carnall and sensible manner In the latter of which twaine I onely dissent from you and your late councell of Trent I say secondly that neither S. Hilary nor yet S. Chrysostome affirmeth Christes fleshe to be present otherwise then I graunt Touching S. Hilary hee hath these wordes a little before Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus Wee truely receiue the flesh of his body yet not really or corporally but in a mysterie and by this wee shalbe one Loe though we receiue Christes flesh truely as I graunt yet is it in a mysterie not carnally or corporally as the papistes hold Againe S. Hilary saith we are made one by it and yet is it cleere that our vnitie is no other then mysticall the papistes agree thereunto it cannot be denied I say thirdly that to eate a thing really is not to keepe it a while in our mouth vnconsumed and then to put it out againe as euery childe can discerne and yet is this your carnall and reall eating of Christes body ye can it not denie For yee say that his body is hidden vnder the accidentes of bread and is only so long in your mouthes as the accidents be vnconsumed and not eaten vp That done Christ is by and by gone from you His body so loatheth your bellies that it wil by no means come in them or tarrie longer with you then the accidentes do remaine And when it is freed from those accidentes neither doth any see it come out neither can your selues tell whither it is gone But the priest by speaking foure wordes can bring it againe into his fist with a becke Now I would learne of some skilfull papist to what end so manie miracles are feined in your consecration Is it to possesse Christes bodie But alas it is no sooner come then gone againe Is it that Christ may dwell with you but alas he wil not stay Is it because you are delighted with his presence Alas it seemeth not for then the ordinary meane were this to keep your accidents long vndigested And yet are ye so weary of keeping them so greedie of your dinners as I neuer heard of any that kept them in his mouth till supper Christ saith that he will dwell with him that eateth his flesh but that guest cannot truely be said to dwell with one that is gone before dinner I say fourthly that it is true which S. Chrysostome saith to wit
that we are indeed made Christes body yet that is not done really or corporallie but in a spirituall and diuine sort And because none can expound S. Chrysostome better then himselfe let vs seriously examine his owne interpretation These are his wordes a little before from whence this obiection is taken Quontam ergo ille dixit hoc est corpus meum nullae teneamur ambiguitate sed credamus oculis intellectus id perspiciamus Nihil enim ensibile traditum nobis a Christo sed rebus sensibilibus omnia verò quae tradidit insensibilia sunt Sic in baptismo per aquam quae re sensibâ—lis est donum illud conceditur quod autem in ea conficitur regeneratio scilicet ac renouatio intelligibile quiddam est Nam si tu incorporeus esses nudé ipse dona incorporea tradidisset tibi quontam verò corpori coniuncta est anima tua in sensibilibus intelligenda tibi traduntur ô quot modò dicunt veblem formam speciem eius vellem vestimenta ipsa vellâ—m calciamenta videre Ipsum igitur vides ipsum tangis ipsum comedis Vestimenta eius desideras videre ipse verò seipsam tibi tradidit non vt videas solum verum etiam vt tangas in te habeas Because therefore hee said this is my body let vs not stand in doubt but let vs beleeue and behold it with the eies of our vnderstanding For Christ gaue vs no sensible thing but spirituall things with sensible thinges and all thinges that he gaue vs are insensible So in baptisme by the water which is a sensible thing that gift is giuen but that that is done in the water to wit regeneration and renouation is a certaine intelligible or spirituall thing For if thou were incorporall hee would haue giuen thee incorporall giftes barely and not hidden but because thy soule is coupled with thy body intelligible thinges are giuen thee in things sensible Oh how many now a daies say I woulde see his forme shape I would see his garmentes I woulde see his shooes Thou therefore seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him Thou desirest to see his garments but he hath giuen himselfe to thee not that thou maiest see him onelie but also that thou maiest touch him and haue him within thee These are the wordes of this auncient father and learned writer which I haue cited at large though they be somewhat tedious because they are able to confound the papistes euen in this argument which they deeme insoluble when due application shalbe made thereof I therfore note first that all giftes giuen vs by Christ in his sacramentes are spirituall and to be receiued by faith I note secondly that though the thinges giuen vs bee insensible yet are they giuen in such things as be sensible and the reason hereof is because our selues are sensible I note thirdly that as the gift in baptisme is incorporall and spirituall euen so is the gift in the Eucharist I note fourthly y t Christ is so present as he is seen touched and possessed but the papistes neither can see him nor touche him in their fondly conceiued reall presence S. Chrysostome therefore speaking of that kinde of presence by which Christ is seene and touched must needes vnderstand that spirituall kinde of presence which we defend according to the Scriptures S. Chrysostome will yet tell vs his meaning more plainly if it possibly can be done Thus doth hee write in another place Quemadmodum enim verba quae locutus est Christus eadem sunt que sacerdotes nunc quoque pronuntiant ita oblatio eadem est eademque baptismi ratio est adeò omnia in fide consistunt For as the wordes which Christ spake are the same which priests now pronounce euen so is it the same oblation and there is the same reason of baptisme all things doe so depend of faith Again in another place thus Haec omnia carnalia quae mysticè spiritualiter intelligenda sunt Infrà quid est carniliter intelligere simpliciter vt res dicuntur neque aliud quippiam excogitare Non enim ita iudicanda sunt quae videntur sed mysteria omnia interioribus oculis consideranda hoc est spiritualiâ—er Al these things are carnall which must be vnderstood mystically and spiritually What is it to vnderstand carnally simply as the things are spoken neither to thinke any other thing For they must not so be iudged which are seene but all mysteries must be considered with the interiour eyes that is spiritually S. Bernard though hee were a monke and liued in the altitude of popery yet is he sincere as in many other thinges so in this point of doctrine These are his wordes Adest enim nobis etiam nunc carnis ipsius vera substantia haud dubium sanè quin in sacramento Adsunt reuelationes sed spiritu virtute Infrà sed quomodo eum etiam nunc habet ecclesia in fide sacramentis For y e true substance of his flesh is euen now present with vs there is no doubt but it is in y e sacrament We haue reuelations present but in spirit and verity But as the church hath him euen now in faith and sacramentes Loe we haue and receiue the true flesh of Christ but in spirite and veritie but in faith and sacramentes This assertion of their owne beloued Bernard is doubtlesse our constant doctrine The popish approoued glosse teacheth vs the same doctrine For these are the expresse words therof Coelesie sacramentum quod est in altari impropriè dicitur corpus Christi sicut baptismus improprie dicitur fides Infrà coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significati mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus id est significatur The heauenly sacrament which is on the altar is called vnproperly the body of Christ as baptisme is vnproperly called faith The heauenly sacrament which truely representeth Christes fleshe is called the body of Christ but improperly Whereupon he saith suo modo after it owne maner but not in the trueth of the thing but in the mysterie of that which is signified that this be the sense it is called Christes body that is to say it is the signe of Christes body The 4. obiection Christ saith plainly this is my body and not this is a signe or this doth signifie my body Hee meant nothing lesse then to vse tropes and figures in the institution of this holy sacrament The answere I say first that the case is so plaine as no papist in Europe can deny that Christ vsed a trope or figure in the institution of this sacrament For these are the words of the institution This cup is the newe testament in my bloud In which wordes the trope or figure called Metonymia doth twise occurre