he tooke in his hands which he brake blessed This is my body Staptlet ibid. art 2. fol. 41. b. Now hee will not haue it sig nify the bread But hee will not abide by this he goeth from it in the examination of the second article for there he reasoneth after this manner The scripture saith Hoc ost corpus meum this is my body which this M. Iuell Can you say this bread is my body you knowe Hoe this is the neuter gender panis bread is the masculine Was it not bread which he blessed Then what this This forsooth which Christ had blessed made saying This is my body Thus far Stapleton Doth not his secoÌ„d affirmation frustrat his first his first the second In the first he is plaine Christ spake of the bread which he brake blese sedâ—n the second he wrangleth about the genders and maketh interrogations when he knoweth wel enough what it is as hee in the Poet that said Sed quid hoc pner herclè est Ter. Andr. act 4. scen 4. 1. Reioyn fol. 304. 2. Tonstall fol. 58. 3. Bellar. de sac euch l. 2. â— 6 fol 155. 4. Dureus consur resp Whirrat 9. fol. 657. 5. Hard cont Iuel art 17. fol 210. b. 6. Bell. de missa l 1. c 10. fol. 687. Hard Reioynd pag 305. a. in noe case he wil not haue this to point to the bread M. Hardinge comming as neere the truth as 4. and 4. is to 8. dare not yet stand vnto it he telleth vs out of Ireneus that Christ tooke the creature of bread or that which by creatioÌ„ it bread gaue thankes saying this is my body Can any man in his right witts imagine that Ireueus did not thinke writing so plainly as he doth that Christ spake of the bread wheÌ„ he said this is my body And saith himselfe in the next page that for signification of mystery they brake distribute also vnto others that heauenly bread in the forme of commoÌ„ bread I hope to salue this they wil not saie that they breake the reall fleshly bodie of Christ breake bread they doe though heauenlie heauenlie bread we doe not denie but the bread of the holy communion maie be called when it is sanctified made holy by the word of God and prayer put apart for that holy vse Dureus cont whit rat 2. f. 114 Stapl. reto art 1. fol. 12. Reioyn fol. 149. b. but yet bread and such bread as of which the substance of our flesh is increased consisteth as they all teach with one ioint consent out of Ireneus also I hope they are not come to that degree of blasphemy as to say that our substantial naturall bodies are augmented doe consist of the real and naturall body of Christ Therfore he must needes meane by their own trauises out of him that Christ both spake meant the bread when he said this is my body Quam vterque est similis sui Teren. in Phor act 3. scen 2 act 1. scen 5. such bread as is in vse amongst vs. You shall see further how like they are in this one to an other Ecce autem similia omnia omwes congruuni Vuum cognoris omnes noris all feathers of one winge knowe one knowe al Tradunt mutu as operas They help one an other but bringe their causes to noe good passe Lib. 1 fol. 18. Saunders saith Christ spake of the bread GratiaruÌ„ actio Fractio panis bene dicti This conuinceth plainly he spake of the bread L. 7. fol 629. Now hee cannot tel what to make of it Nec ad visibileÌ„ corporis Christi formaÌ„ nec ad hunc paneÌ„ velut qui maneat panisnec simul ad hune panem hoc corpus nec c D. Saunders in his visible monarchy treating of the sacrament saith verie plainly Christus de pane quem Apostols nonduÌ„ acceperant dixit Christ said of the bread which the Apostles had not yet receaued This is my body then he handleth his giuing of thankes after commeth to the breaking of the consecrated bread which I hope they wil not verifie of Christs reall body And a little after the words of our Lord saith he in the Eucharist are referred to the Elements for that saying This is my body is referred to the bread This is my blood to the Cup. But after yet a great while after so that wel he might forget himselfe in the same worke treating of the same matter he hath these words Disparata sunt panis triticens Corpus Christi Bread the body of Christ are saith hee two seperate diuers thinges so that wee iustly saie that the pronoune hoc this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ nether to the bread as it should remaine bread nether to the bread to gether with the body nor to the whole action of the supper but only to the body of our Lord iam tum de substantia panto factum euen then made of the substance of bread exhibited vnder the forme of bread Thus doth Saunders here make Christ haue two seuerall bodies one visible their present the other made of bread to that body there made of substance of bread hee referreth the worde this in the sentence this is my body so hee maketh the sence thus This body made of the substance of bread is my body which is a very vaine speech to noe purpose For by that exposition Christs body should bee there before the words of coÌ„secration were pronounced so there should be noe force and vertue in consecration or rather there should be consecration before consecration so consecratioÌ„ without consecration And a little after he saith At nunc pronomeÌ„ hoc But now the pronowne hoc this which she weth the whol substance rei proposita of the thing that is proposed or shewed What thinge you are afraid to call it any thing doth demonstrate noe other thinge then the body of Christ not remembring what hee said in the first booke as I even now recited that Christ spake of the bread which the A postles had not yet receaued when he said This is my body If he spake of the bread he spake not of his bodie if he spake of his body hee spake not of the bread and yet Saunders avoucheth both Saunders ibid l. 7. fol. 633. Marke this that he cofesseth the blessing came before the break ing In an other place going about to proue that the word this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ saith thus Cum Christus post acceptum panem benedictionem interpositam Seeing Christ after the taking of the bread and the blessing comming betweene did breake and giue to his disciples saying take eate this is my body it is cleare by the order course of the sentence that hee called that thinge his body which he gaue which
made partakers of his flesh and blood of the sacrament of the aultar without any transubstantiatiō of the bread into the body of Christ Vt ante can 8. sacramentally really are a tearmes contrary yet cōfounded More ouer they hold that Christ is eaten there sacramentally really which two tearmes as they vtter them are very opposit for if there be nothing to be eaten but the reall substātiall body of Christ what is eaten sacramentally Wee affirme that Christ is there sacramentally is eaten sacramentally by his spirit present by his grace as hee is in the sacrament of baptisme that is properly sacramentall Againe speaking of the vse and profite of that sacrament Cap. 8. de vsu admirabilis hu ius sacramenti 1. Sacramentally they say there be three sorts of Receiuers some that receaue it only sacramentally as sinners others spiritually in desire by a liuely faith thirdly those that receaue it sacramentally spiritually both together Which three waies may bee taken for sound Orthodoxall 2. Spiritually who cannot for the time communicate if we could cause them to tell vs what they meane by sacramentally If by sacramentally they mean really fleshly and substantially as at the first they treated of his presence there 3. Sacramentally spiritually who doe cōmunicate as they ought Ioh. 6.54.56 Sacramentally Spiritually so say the Protestants how doe they make good that sinners and wicked persons doe eate his verie flesh and drinke his verie blood as they saie they doe since the worde of life it selfe that mouth which neuer spake guile hath said He that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood hath eternall life I will raise him vp at the last daie And hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me I in him And by the third waie described that those eate him sacramentally spiritually who doe duly prepare themselues puting on the wedding garmēt doe come vnto that holy table doth breed an other scruple how sacramentally can stand with spiritually vnderstanding by sacramentally Really substantially may stād to gether but spiritually cannot as they did before really fleshly substātially those two tearmes being also vsed of the Protestants who say the wicked doe eate sacramētally only that is the sacrament of his body and bloud the godly sacramentally spiritually that is bread and wine with the hand mouth the body blood by faith and noe otherwise which are the right vse of the words sacramentally spiritually Againe I may demand of them why they doe not describe the presence of Christ to be spiritual sacramental aswel as describe him so to be eaten they saie he is eaten by on of those three waies of al men in generall good bad and to al men good bad they describe him presēt really truly substantially body soule diuinitie and al yet eaten only sacrementally spiritually now it is not possible to be thought but that the spirituall eating of Christ in the sacrament excludeth the corporall as his spiritual presence wil his corporall or substantiall nether can noe one meat be fit both for the body and soule as al men knowe And therfore if they will dissent from vs not from themselues also they must dispute either of a corporall eating of the flesh of Christ De manducati one corporis domini sit ne illa vera antropica sensibilis an insensibilis modo corporeo an spirituali l. 4. chron fol. 790 Fallacia alia aliā trudit Ter. in And. act 4. scen 4. De sac euc l. 1 c. 11. fol. 92. c. 14. fol. 117. l. 2. c. 8. fol. 163 or of a spiritual only as Genebrard confesseth was brought in about Bertrams time almost 800. yeares since not to a corporall to adde a spiritual of one the same thinge nor confound the tearmes of sacramentall spirituall reall Againe it is alwaies seene one absurditie draweth on an other I demand how their tearme of receauing spiritually doth agree with Bellarmine whoe saith that the body of Christ is verily properly eaten in the Eucharist by our body sent frō the mouth into the stomake that the body of Christ entreth in at the mouth of the communicants and is verily receaued by the mouth of the body small spirituall receauing is there by the instruments of the mouth belly Faith must haue other food if it were so it should not be said Crede manducasti beleiue thou hast eaten but lay hold with thy hand thou art safe The next in authoritie to the Trent Fathers is the Romish Cathechisme gathered by their decree Catec Rom. p. 1. art 6. c. 7. fol 57. The right sēce of the article ouerthroweth Transubstantiation published by Pius quintus the Pope The catechisme intreating of that article of our beleife He ascended into heauen and suteth one the right hand of god the father almightie doe say the right sense of that article is that the faithful without al doubt ought to be leiue that Christ the mysterie of our redemption being perfected and finished vt homo est in coelum corpore animâ ascendisse as he is man is ascended in body and soule into heauen For as hee is God hee was neuer from thence Vt qui diuinitate sua loca ominia cōpleat The causes why hee ascēded ib. fol. 59. The benefits of his ascention ibid. fol. 61 filling al places with his diuinitie And speaking of the causes whie Christ our sauiour would ascend vp into heauen one is beecause by ascending say they hee would bringe to passe that wee should mount vp thither in minde and affection and amongst many benefits which come vnto men by his ascention into heauen they reckon this a great one quod amorem nostrum ad coelum rapuit ac diuino spiritu inflammauit that it draweth our mindes and loue to heauen inflameth them with a diuine spirit for it is truly said There our harte is Marc. 6. where our treasure is surly if Christ our Lord were conuersant in earth omnis nostra cogitation in ipso hominis aspectu consuetudine defixa esset al our cogitations would be placed in the looking maner of him we shold behold him only as man becaus he had don so great things for vs But ascending into heauen it maketh our loue heauenly and causeth that whom wee think of being absent him we worship and loue as God which doctrine of theirs being very sound and Catholike cannot chuse but ouerthrowe their owne opinion of Transubstantiatiō Catec p. 2. c. 4. fol. 181. which bringeth the same body of Christ that same that was borne of the Virgin which is ascended and sitetth now euer shal at the right hand of his father in heauen to bee transubstantiated into bread to bee contained in the sacrament
that sacrifice which the ancient Church of God 1400. yeares before those of Trent spake of was not so caled properly according to the rigor of the word with them the celebration of the Lordes supper is called an oblation for that it is a representatioÌ„ of Christs death sacraments haue names of the things which they signifie because the merits fruits of Christs passion are by the power of his spirit devided bestowed on the faithful receauers of these mysteries Thomas of Aquine was in his time of greater credit with them then the Master of the sentences Acutè diuus Thomas vt omnia Camâ— rat 9. argutissime Canus l. 12 to 408. Melius diuus Thomas vt omnia dixit Allen fol. 419. p. 3. q 83. art I resp dicendum ex Aug. ad sim pl. quest 3. If Thom. had thought that Christ had bin killed sacrificed to God his father as D. Allen disputeth l. 2. c 11 he needed not to haue hand led it as here he doth Camp rat 5. Duraeus eaâ—… fol. 265. Art 17 cont luel fol 206. b. 207. a. though in time later the Master is not euer allowed by them but Thomas they saie hath done all things acutly well yet hee saith as we say in this In two respects saith hee celebratio butus sacraements dicitur immolatio Christi the celebratioÌ„ of this sacrameÌ„t may be called the sacraficing of Christ First because as S. Augustine saith resemblances are wont to be called by the name of those things wherof they are resemblances therfore the celebration of this sacrament is a certaine representatiue Image of the passion of Christ which is his true sacrificing Secondly touching the effect of Christs passion quia scilicet per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus dominicae passionis because by this sacrament wee are made partakers of the fruite of the Lords passioÌ„ This of Thomas were ceaue against their reall external corporal kinde of offering the liue flesh of Christ to God the Father by the Preists handes vnder the formes of bread wine as now they teach they doe With what facilitie of language D. Harding D. Stephan Gardiner proceeded in this question I will now also shew you and the rather because Campian Durâ—us both doe highly commeÌ„d D. Harding his worke he hauing spoken something of the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse done with shedding of blood in his owne person as the scripture witnesseth commeth to shew how he is handled in their Masse saith Sacramentally or in a mysterie Christ is offered vp to his Father in the daily sacrifice of the Church vnder the forme of bread and wine truly indead not in respect of the maner of offering but in respect of his very body blood really present And after recitinge the words of the Evangelists Luc. 22 how that Christ at his last supper took bread gaue thankes brake it said take eate this is my body which is giuen for you and this is my blood which is shed for you in remission of sinnes out of which he would proue his sacrifice saith they are wordes of sacrificing offering they shew and set forth an oblation in act deed though the tearme it selfe of oblatioÌ„ or sacrifice be not expressed therfore belike seeing nether any tearmes nor words to make for it there afterwards vpon more deliberation he peeceth out the Euangelists S Paul for Christ said Doe yes this in my remembrance he readeth doe yee or make yee this in my remembrance Reioynder f. 283. 305. Tully de natur deotum l. 1. feâ—e fine Elephanto belluarum nullaprudentior at figuraÌ„ quae vastior Of beasts saith Tully none is more wiser then the Elephant in shape none more deformed M. Harding was thought for that time to haue dealt substantially against his aduersary in substance of matter none more weake Who can explaine how Christ is offered really in their Masse yet not in respect of the manner of offering what manner what respect is this Or what words of sacrificing and offering did Christ vse at his last supper without any tearme of oblatioÌ„ sacrificing Hoc non est considerare sed quasi sortiri quid loquare Tull. ibid. This is not to speake with discretion but as it were by lot hap-hazard But the truth is Christ vsed noe word tearme or act of sacrificing at his last supper we maruaile not then though M. Harding say hee expressed it not by any tearme Yet the farthest of from al truth is Hard. Ibid. fol 209. A necessary point of Christian doctrine yet without al manner of Religion that which in the prosecution of this article he deliuereth which is that Christ at the very same instant of time that he offered himselfe on the Crosse with shedding of blood we must vnderstaÌ„d for a necessary point of Christian doctrine that he offered himselfe invisibly as concerning man in the sight of his heauenly father bearing the markes of his woundes and there appeareth before the face of God with that thorne prickt naile boared speare perced other wounded rent torne body for vs. Here are 4 sacrifices made of one The same Christ sacrificed at his last supper the same Christ on the Crosse the same Christ at the same time sacrificed in heauen the same Christ sacrificed in the Masse How M. Harding can bring Christs sacrificed into heaueÌ„ without his tormentors is hard to conceaue Aâ—…as Caiphas Iudas Pilate the rest of that damned crew indeed for without those wretches Christs blood was not shed and without shedding of blood there is noe remission of sinne Where M. Harding shold euer findany such doctrine deliuered before him I cannot iudge Heb. 9. l. 12. fol. 421. a incruentam oblationem Christus in cae lis fecit In his explication assertion of the true catholike faith l. 5. fol. 144 b. Noe iteration of Christs sacrifice except he did allight vpon it in Melchior Canus who amongst other idle vaine discourses of their Masse insinuateth such a thinge speaking of an vnbloody sacrifice in heauen offered there by Christ Stephan Gardiner sometime Bishop of Winchester a sure card to the posters at Rome writing purposly of the sacrifice of the Masse beginneth wel saith it is agreed by the scriptures plainly taught that the oblation sacrifice of our sauiour Christ was is a perfect worke once consummate in perfectioÌ„ without necessity of iteratioÌ„ as it was neuer taught to be iterate but a meere blasphemy to presuppose it This is sound Catholike if he would abide by it but within two leaues after hee saith wee must beleiue the very presence of Christs body and blood on Gods board and that the Priests doe their sacrifice and bee therfore called sacrificers If the Preists doe there sacrifice Ibid. fol. 146. b verie sacrificers theÌ„ doe they either iterate Christs sacrifice or
theÌ„ al there is noe one that standeth sure either to himselfe or to his fellowes it must needes bee iudged the weaknesse of the cause which they maintaine Conâ—ut resp Whitak rat 9. sol 601. that cause them thus to stumble Dureus the Iesuite comming to handle this matter against D Whitakers saith If Christ testified that which hee gaue to his disciples was his body assuredly it could not be bread from whence it necessarily commeth to passe that the bread which Christ took into his haÌ„ds was changed into his body by the force and vertue of his diuine wordes â—oc totam nimirum quam manicus tenebat substantiaÌ„ demonstrans est corpus meum Accipitâ— inquit Christus comedite Take saith Christ eate Quid tandem what then This shewing al that substance which he had in his hands is my body Why how now Dureus why walke you in these cloudes why doe you not tell vs what substance that was which Christ had in his handes Bread or noe bread the bodie or noe bodie That which Christ tooke he gaue although you deny it saying panem in manus accepisse fatcor Dureus rat 2. fol. 94. dedissenego That Christ tooke bread in his hands I confesse that he gaue bread I denie but was not the bread which he took that substance which you saie he shewed hauing it in his hands it cannot be otherwise for the words of chang as you saie this is my bodie not come yet If Dureus aunswere as hee will that he spake not of the bread which he tooke let him yet resolue vs what inbstance that was which he had in his han des shewed his disciples when he said Take eate this is my body Fecistis probèi incertior sum mulâ—o quaÌ„ dudum Teren in Phor. act 2. scen 3. Si verò quenquam illud ad huc moueat quomodo pro. nomina in sacramentalibus verbis possint demonstra re corpns sanguinem quae adhuc non suÌ„t cum ca efferuÌ„tur aut quomodonoÌ„ plane in dicent paneÌ„ vinum quae reuera tum ex istunt-Legat c. AlleÌ„ de sac Euch. l. 1. f. 42â— Bellar. de sacr Euc. l i c. ii f. 83 This doth not demonstrate the bread nor the body according to Thomas It doth not demonstrate the bread precisly Sic tamen vt demonstratio proprie ad species pertineat Sed in obliquo hoc modo Ibid fol. 85. Ibid. fol. 88 This Ens this thinge or this substance If he resolue not this he resolueth not our doubt but leaueth vs more vncertaine theÌ„ before for this is it that troubleth vs how the word this can demonstrate the body and blood which are not there when the word is spoken not demonstrate point the bread wine which certainly are there then as saith D. Allen And if the bread wine be there then euen when the wordes this is my body are spoken then are they there both at the breaking and giuing as they vtterly woulde denie Sâ—…ll Bellarmine the mouth of their senate conclude the coÌ„trouersie yes say they we al agree Heare him theÌ„ a maÌ„ of a polished wit Although saith hee the Catholikes doe agree in the thinge yet doe they not agree in the manner of explaining what the worde this should demonstrate Two famous opinions there are amongst them one that the pronoune this should demonstrate the body which opinion he refuseth as not consonant to the truth howsoeuer Allen and Saunders as you heard before did so teach The other is of Thomas Aquinas others verie manie whoe haue followed him that the pronoune this doth not demonstrate the bread precisely nor the bodie but a substance in common which is vnder those formes yet so that the demonstration appertaineth properly to the formes but not that the fence be This that is these formes are my body but thus on this sort this is my body that is vnder these formes is my bodie So that the word This doth not demonstrate the bread nor the body of Christ but that which is coÌ„tained vnder those forms Therfore we doe not say saith he this that is this substance or as Scotus this Ens but This that is the substance contained vnder these formes Here in Bellarmine you haue al that art or falshood can deuise to darken the truth with all Doth anie man yet conceaue by them what the word This poiuteth vnto but for very shame he wold saie it pointed to the bread he denieth it but in part he saith it doth not preciselie point the bread therfore I say he doth not precisely denie it His fellowes before him wil in noe sort haue it so But hee vtterly denieth that it pointeth to the body yet is he more out then they when hee saith the demonstration this doth properly belonge to the formes and yet the sence must not bee These formes are my body But not withstanding his deniall it must be so if he saiâ— true For if you referre the word this to the bread the sence wil be This bread is my body This body is my body Theâ—… formes are my body 〈◊〉 bread it my bodie therfore they denie it If it be referred to the body the sense must be this bodie is my bodie which Bellarmine denieth And what should let but if he saie it pointeth to the formes it should bee These formes are my body But he wil haue it thus That which is contained vnder these formes is my bodie And what with him them too is contained vnder those formes but the body of Christ Bread they saie there is none so according to Bellarmine the sense wil be This body vnder these formes is my bodie or otherwise to tel vs directly what it was that was contained vnder those formes In the chapter next beefore reciting out of S. Bellar de euch sacra l. 1. c. 10. fol. 69. Allen de Euc. sac l. 1. c. 15. Rhem an not Mat. 26 v. 26. parag 7. Refertur ad materiam quae erat in manibus Luc. 9. Marc. 8 Luc. vlt. Resolue me in this and I will yeild the whol Markes Gospel the order of the EvaÌ„gelists he saith it cannot bee doubred but Christ hauing taken the bread blessed it brake it gaue it to his disciples but as the breaking and giuing is referred to the matter which was in his handes so his blessing too should bee referred thither which was to the bread We grant him if so that wil pleasure him that Christ blessed the bread and that Christ neuer vsed to blesse or giue thanks but at some notable memorable worke as at the multiplying of the loaues in the Gospel and blessing of his disciples is read here in the institution of the supper But did Bellarmine euer read that the blessing of any creature sensible or insensible was the changing transubstantiation of the substance of it so that it was not the same substance after
that it was before if he cannot proue this he commeth short of his purpose to take needlesse paines to proue a thing not denied For both he al others of his side when they speake of blessing of the bread meane only a turning change of one substance into an other such a change as blessing nether can or euer did work yet Bellarmine must remember that in the institution of the supper the breaking followeth after the blessing so that here is a doubt what is brokeÌ„ bread there is none the Body of Christ I say must not be brokeÌ„ which consideratioÌ„ maketh Bellarmine salue himselfe an other waie by saying To be broken agreeth not to the body of Christ but in the forme of bread Bellar. de mis l. 1. c. 12. f. 699. To be brokeÌ„ a. greeth not to the body of Christ but in the forme of bread Allen de Euch. sacra l. 1. c. 15. c 16. Bell. de sac euch l. 1 c. 10. Rhem. annot Mat. 26 v. 26. parag 7. what need hee saie in the forme of bread why the body of Christ is not there but vnder the forme of bread therfore by him there is as very a breaking of the body of Christ as there is a verie presence a preseÌ„ce vnder the forme of bread a breaking in the forme of bread D. Allen in two seuerall chapters goeth about to proue First that Christ did blesse or Eucharishze the bread wine that with certaine words next that those wordes Hoc est corpus meum this is my body are the words of Consecration that those two are both one first froÌ„ the nature of the worde benedicere to blesse he discourseth wonderfully both in Greeke Latine of the strength vertue of it Fol. 291 Quanquam totam ceremo niam ordinem non narrent nec plura verba quibus ea seu â—ucharistiâ— seu Eulogia facta est Ver bonè an sola voluntatâ— aut impositione manuum fol. 294. Luc. vlt. the vse it hath in holy scripture in the Doctors yet hath not brought any one example neere his purpose For how can he say that that blessing vsed by our sauiour was the blessing of the creatures elemeÌ„ts an actiue blessing a powerful blessing seeing he confesseth himselfe that the Evangelists doe not recite any order of the blessing nor expresse any more wordes that belongeth therto but only the words blessing giuing thaukes and also doubteth whether Christ did blesse by auie words or by his intent and will or by laying on of hands For we read not saith he what Christ did or said in the blessing of the things Notwithstanding this hee is so far in loue with his owne conceipt of blessing by certaine words that he bring eth the bread for an example which Christ blessed at Emaus when the two disciples knewe him which saith he is taken of many of the ancients to bee the Eucharist although the Evangelist recite no wordes in forme how it was done No words of consecration mentioned so that we may see whatsoeuer he is disposed to proue be there scripture or be there none all is one with him he wil aduenture to perswade what liketh him best Allen eodem lib post c. 45. fol. 480. And yet the same maÌ„ a farre of in an other part of the same booke speaking of the same matter as hauing forgotten himselfe saith That the text of S. Luke cap. vlt. and all the order of the narration doth shew that the whole action was like to the consecrating of the Eucharist Now it is the Eucharist hee tooke saith the Evangelist bread he blessed it he brake the bread and reached it vnto them If this action here done be like to the order of consecration vsed at the Eucharist then there may be consecration without addition of This is my body which hee professeth to proue to bee al one or to be the words of blessing it selfe yea without receauing at al for there is no commaund of eating Allen trauerseth here this example to proue the coÌ„munion in one kinde lawfull for the lay people But I would not wish D. Allen or any papist of them al to liue by the losse for although they thinke to gaine by the practise of Christ there in drawing it to confirme their defaulking of one part of the sacrameÌ„t from the lay people because there is no mention made of the wine yet will they lose by it if the exaÌ„ple were stronge enough for one kinde because there is no mention of any consecration where no consecration is there is no reall presence and so they shall lose Transubstantiation all And can it bee the Eucharist without these But howsoeuer D. Allen woulde haue vs beleeue that it is the opinion of many of the ancients and of great druines that that is to be vnderstood of the Eucharist yet Bellarmine who is more freer of his report saith De sacraÌ„ ieuc l. 4. c. 24. f. 563. that touching that place there be two opinions amongst the Catholikes themselues The one is of Iohn of Louaine others that it was the Eucharist the other of Iansenius that it was not the Eucharist both these great men with that side But to returne to D. Allen from whom I haue a little digressed to follow him in his Blessing ConsecratioÌ„ Allen vt ante de euch c. 15. fol. 294. Qua re credeÌ„ dum est Christum benedicendo panem verbo aliquo vsum fuisse non solo tactu aut virtute euÌ„ sanctificasse Et cum eodeÌ„ verbo quo benedixit consecrasse putetur ab antiquitate pene ab om nibus theologis licet pauci quidam negeÌ„t cumque hic vt saepe docuimus coÌ„secrare materiam sit conficere sacramentum sequi tur idem illud verbum benedictionis esse formam huius sacramenti vt idem sit beney dicere vti verbis consecrationis seu applicare verba consecrationis ad elemeÌ„ ta proposita To blesse to consecrate is al one He commendeth this opinion with great reasons yet he refuseth it Ibid. 295. 1. He tooke bread 2. He blessed 3. He brake gaue 4. This in my body Tho. Aquin. p. 3. q. 78. saith the order should be Wherfore saith hee it is to be beleeued that Christ by blessing the bread vsed some word that he did not sanctifie it only by touching it or by his power And since it is iudged by antiquitie almost by all diuines although some few denie it that Christ consecrated by the same word wherby he blessed that to consecrate the matter is to make the sacrameÌ„t it followeth that that same worde that is the blessing is the forme of this sacrament insomuch that it is al one to blesse to vse the words of consecration or to apply the words of consecration to the elements set before
vs Notwithstanding this saith he it must not be dissembled that there are some diuines amongst whom is Bonauenture Caietane Dominicus Soto who affirme that Christ did not blesse by the wordes of Consecration therfore to blesse the bread and to consecrate the bread was two diuers things in the action of Christ so the chāge was not made by the blessing but after by the sacramentall wordes Which opinion saith he although it may probably be defended may seeme to be agreeable to the vse of the Church which nowe blesseth the bread by the signe of the Crosse before it vse the word of Consecration and may lesse trouble the order of the Evangelists who after the mention of blessing doe put the breaking distributing then in the fourth place the word of the sacrament it bringeth also some reuerence to the sacrament for if bread should bee broken by Christ after it were consecrate some small mites of the cōsecrated host might by likely hood haue fallen away These reasons saith he although they be waighty yet the safer opinion more agreeable to antiquitie and in euerie Church almost allowed which the Tridentine counsel doth in their catechisme follow is that whē Christ blessed he consecrated the things set before him That we ought so vnderstād that Christ blessed by saying This is my body 1. Hee tooke bread 2. Blessed it said 4. This is my body 3. He brake gaue Cicer. offic l. 2. although the Euāgelists by an inverted order of the speech or seting that after which should goe before doe put the distributing the breaking betweene the blessing and the forme of the sacrament which as it is very likly was done after the consecration or else euen as Christ did speake the words Facta omnia celeriter tanquam floscule decidunt This trecherie and deceipt cannot any lōger be hid it is apparent to all mē Neither is it any maruel that they who make of the Gospell as a thing made to bee handled as they thinke good should lose themselues in the labarinth of their owne druises as if reason had euen purposly forsaken them who of purpose forsake God the author therof For haue they these 1605. yeares been mounted on the stage of arrogancie out brauing a better cause then their owne and crying the Gospell the Gospell you Protestants heretiks both denie depraue it now doth D. Allen tell vs freely and vnconstrianedly that the Gospell will not serue their turnes as the Euangelists haue deliuered the order of the Lords supper What shall now become of Campians bragge Agedum pagella scripta superiores sumus ac sententia scripticontenditur Camp 2. ratio Goe to saith he we haue the better of it by the written word now we must debate the meaning No saith Allen the Gospel is not for vs And I say nether the writing nor the meaning of the writing is any for you And therfore Christo proprior ab hac lite remotior that age or antiquity which is nearest to Christ is farthest of from thē in this controuersy And for that one hand washeth an other they both wash the face often one foote strengthneth an other and they both stay the body so the testimonie of Cardinall Caietane in this case shall stay D Allen that hee be not vtterly ruinated because of his large graunt which they both haue yeelded in confirming the truth Caiet commēt super Tho p. 3 q. 75. art 1. Caietane in his Commentary on Thomas Aquinas vpō this question whether in the sacrament there be the body of Christace cording to the truth of it saith that touching that present demaund the rest following for the more manifest cleare vnd erstanding of the difficulties in them it is to be considered that touching the being of the body of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist there is nothinge writtē in the holy scripture but the words of our sauiour This is my body and those words must be true And because saith he the words of the scripture are expounded two waies ether properly or figuratiuely Vel propriè vel metaphoricè the first error about those wordes is of them that did interpret them figuratiuely which both the M. of the sentences Thomas doe proue in this article Ft consistit vis reprobationis in hoc the strēgth of the reproofe resteth in this that the words of the Gospell are vnderstood of the Church properly I say of the Church beecause there is not any constraint in the Golpell to cause vs to take them properly ex subiunctis siquidem verbis There is nothinge in the Gospell to cōstraine vs to take these wordes properly without a figure De lapsis ser 5. Cont. haeres l. 3. c. 11. fol. 237 Parisijs anno 1545. Allen vt ante l. 1. c. 16 Reciteth 4. seuerall opiniōs amōgst them touching the words of consecreation The iudgment of that Pope is refused who determined transubstantiation for thē for truly by the words following which shal be giuen for you in remission of sinnes it cannot bee concluded euidently that the former wordes This is my body are to be vnderstood properly So here be two cardinals Allen Catetaine who say that not the Gospel but the Church maketh for them Is there a Church where the Gospel is not Non iungitur Ecclesia qui ab Evangelio separatur he is not ioyned to the Church saith S. Cypriam who is separated from the Gospell S. Ireneus saith Columna firmametum ecclesie est Evāgelium spiritus vitae The Pillar and stability of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life But the truth is there is on their side in this question neither the Church nor the gospel nor any antiquitie at all To proceede with D. Allen in the other Chapter specified before by me wherein he laboureth to proue that the words of Christ This is my body are the words of Consecration he is further willing to let vs knowe what differences there hath bin amongst their schoole diuines who euer haue bin the vpholders of popery about the words of Consecratiō which they should be The first opinion is of Innocentius the third who called the great councel of Lateran and decreed Transubstantiatiō who said that Christ did consecrate by his divine power when he blessed and vsed therein the power of his might doing that without forme of words which we cannot do without a prescript order so that after he had consecrated he deliuered to vs these words This is my body by which words the Church should euer after consecrate This opinion of the Pope is reproved by Thomas Aquinas as beeing directly against the words of the scripture and by Allen as being vntrue The second opinion is of some who thought that Christ when hee blessed did consecrate 2. but with other words thā those where with he taught vs to consecrate But
that opinion saith he caÌ„ scarsely be excused from heresie now 3. The third opinion is of some who thought that Christ did consecrate twise once secretly whereby he did consecrate and then openlie for the Churches instruction But this saith he is most absurd of all 4. The fourth and last opinion saith he is the common opinion The 4. last opinioÌ„ is their owne now How many amongst them haue denied that Christ did ether breake bread or gaue bread Quanquam propter narra tionem Marci adducor in eaÌ„ sententiam vt putem potius priorem commentarium esseveruÌ„ Prothusteron esse Multò melius D. Thomas vt omnia dixit Allen. fol. 419. without question Catholike which although in the explaining it be two fould yet this in generall it teacheth That Christ did then consecrate when he blessed with the same words once spoken before the breaking giuing or which as Aquinas thinketh were spoken either before the breaking and giuing or which hee thinketh to bee more agreeable to the texte at the very breaking and distributing that so blessing breaking and giving bread hee saide This is my body Although saith Allen by reason of the order of S. Marke I am brought into the minde to thinke rather the former exposition to be true that it is not in order For S. Marke saith when he had blessed that is after he had blessed he brake and so it seemeth not that he did breake and coÌ„secrate at once or altogither Thus haue you seene in briefe the discourse of D. Allen proving against his fellowes their consecration But with such difficulty and hardnes that in the conclusion he leaueth the chiefest of his pillers Thomas Aquinas of whom afterward he giveth a definitiue censure that he saith althings better than his fellowes Bonaventure Caietane Dominicus a Soâ—o thought that Christ did not blesse by the words of consecration and that therfore with Christ it was two things to blesse the bread and to consecrate the bread that there was no change made by the blessing but after by the sacramental words This opinion of his fellows he confesseth hath good matter in it insomuch that it seemeth to be agreeable to their owne vse doth not disturbe the order of the EvaÌ„gelists doth bring revence to the sacrament and that these bee weighty reasons for them so to thinke And yet as being Lord of himself he chuseth such an opinion as is most absurd in it selfe overthroweth the order and whole narration of the Evangelists For thus saith the Evangelists 1 Christ tooke bread 2 He blessed it 3 He brake it and gaue it saying 4 Take eate this is my body Tho. Aquin. 3. p. 78. q. art 1. ad 1. They pervert the order and say 1 Christ tooke bread 2,3 He blessed it said Take eate This is my bodie 4 Hee brake it and gaue it And yet to see the miserable straights that these meÌ„ bring themselues into they are faine to cleaue to the former opinion against themselues for so in effect they say the breaking was eveÌ„ as he did consecrate it as who shoulde say the breaking blessing and cansecration were done at once because indeed they cannot tel what he brake whether his body or the bread So saith Gardiner Gardinerve ante fol. 97.2 Though the words sake eate goe before the words This is my bodie we may not argue that they took it and eate it before Christ told them what he gaue them al these rehersals of bread with he tooke bread he brake bread and blessed bread and if you will held bread all these induce no consequeÌ„ce He brake bread he gaue bread why They doe manifestly argue that hee gaue bread not his reall body If we may examine the Master in this point we shal finde him as vnready as the schollers Sent. Lumb l. 4. dist 12. b. Diuersities of opinions touching the breaking I meane in this matter of what is broken in the sacrament It was wont saith he to bee inquired touching the breaking partition which seemeth to be there whether it be a true breaking or no and if there be a true breaking indeed then wherein it is and in what thing it is made 1. And seeing there is no other substaÌ„ce there than the substaÌ„ce of Christ it seemeth to be made in the body of Christ but that cannot be since the body of Christ is incorruptible because it is immortall and impassâ—ble Therefore it pleaseth some to thinke 2. that there is no breaking as it seemeth to be but it is said to be broken because it seemeth to be broken 3. some others say That as the forme of breade is there there is not that thing there wherein the forme remaineth so there is a breaking which is in nothing because nothing is there broken which they say is by the mighty power of God that there should be a breaking where nothing is broken 4. Others deliver that the body of Christ is essentially broken yet remaineth whole and incorruptible which opinion they gathered froÌ„ the confessioÌ„ of Beringarius who confessed before Pope Nicholas and others that the bread and wine which are set on the Aulter after consecration are not only the sacrament but also the very body and bloud of Christ and that they are sensually touched and broken with the hands of the Priests and torne with the teeth of the faithfull not only in a sacrament but also indeed and truth But the more probable opinion saith he is that because the body of Christ is incotruptible â— it cannot be said that the breaking and partition is in the substance of the body The breaking is in the forme of bread sacramentally but in a sacrament that is in shew in the forme of bread sacramentally Neither may we insult or marvaile that the accidents of bread seeme to bee broken seeing they are there without a subiect Accidents of bread brokeÌ„ although some say they be in the aire There is a true breaking and division which is made in the bread that is in the shew of bread As the Apostle saith the bread which wee breake because the show of bread is broken and divided Thus far Lumbard If any thinge were euer dreamed not done this doctrine is only deuised in shew without substaÌ„ce what a breaking is here no breaking bread brokeÌ„ in shew the shew of bread brokeÌ„ this to be a communion of his flesh that was crucified for vs for so S. Paule saith 1. Cor. 16.16 Is not the bread which wee breake a communion of the body of Christ if nothinge be brokeÌ„ but in shew let them shew me what is the communion of the body of Christ Againe were it not strange if whitnesse should be broken yet nothinge broken that is white yet so it must be if they saie true Steph. Gard. vt ante f. 13â—
pleased God to reserue two of the strōgest in out liuing their first labours more thā 20. years the most learned and iudicious Bishop of Winton D. Reynolds the one for his dialogues against the Iesuits the other for his conference with Hart wherein they see their desire on their enimies no aduersary daring to propound against either of them Who doth not thinke the memory of D. Humfrey is yet fresh and laudable in the highest degree for his answere to Campians chalenge for elegancy of stile exactnesse of method and substance of matter without all cast of the dice as Lactantius said by St. Cyprian D. VVillet hath bin very painefull as his Synopsis and Tetrastilon doe plainely shew The venerable Deane of Exeter D. Sutcliue may not in this page of praise be omitted for answering aswel the most learned amōg the aduersaries as those that haue the most dissolute tongues Bellarmine and Gifford It woulde be too long to reakon all therfore I cōtent my selfe with picking out the choise It shal alwaies be my praiers vnto Almighty God that whensoeuer it shall please him to call these or any of these to him selfe out of this wearisome life there may others arise in your places to goe on with the cause as the Poet speaketh of the Golden bough primo avulso non deficit alter Aeneid lib 6. one being taken away there wanteth not an other and so giue the aduersarie not so much as a breathing time And when you of the Cleargie and Schollers haue thus discharged their duties to God the Prince what rests for the Laity to doe but to take vp and read and hauing read as the men of Baerea in the Acts to compare both sides with the scripture then resolue to iustifie the truth in all sinceritie Act. 17. And to you I say this againe the clearnesse and perspicuitie of your writings hath added such a plainenes to my vnderstanding to the finding out of the truth that if I should not absolutely averre that the doctrine this day taught and professed in this Realme were the true and sincere doctrine of Christ and of his Church I should surely sin against mine owne conscience the contrarie of the Church of Rome beeing only built on the rubbish of contradictions impieties gloses slights falsifications and forgeries as by the samplar which I haue drawne out of their bookes for that purpose wil manifestly appeare I say not to you who are mighty in knowledge that way already but to euerie meane reader for whose sakes only I vndertooke this labour Ignoscant scientes ne offēdātur nescientes satius est offerre habēti quà m differre non habentē Aug. de bapt contra Donat. lib. 2. cap. 1. The Lord Iehova continue the Kings Maiestie in his holie intention of furthering and fauouring the doctrine established and blesse prosper the Reuerend Bishops and Cleargy to be watchfull against the common adversarie the Papist And to giue the rest of the Kingdome sound resolutiō to ioine strongly togither to the discountenauncing of Antichrist and all his designes From Tydworth the 1. of Nouember 1607. Yours in all duty and reverence John Panke TO AL OBSTINATE AND STIFFE Recusants held in wilfull blindnesse and to all luke-warme indifferent Papists not yet fully setled in their Recusancy health of body and soundnesse of iudgment I That hitherto bin your courses poore seduced Bretheren by the charge that your Masters haue laid on you to refuse all manner of conference with vs or to read any of our treatises or books that do any way tend to the crossing of your opinions which purpose as it taketh away all sounde iudgement which may anie way come vnto you so it hath given me for my part a ful a resolute determination never to beleeue but that by that policy they only would vphold the drift of their religion that they feare it woulde fal if it shoulde come to trial To meete with this mischiefe on your part I haue taken a labor not vsual to win you if it be possible to reading I haue laide almost forty of your owne writers togither some our owne countrymen here at home others the best of your side that ever wrot The Catologue of their names and editions of their books that so you be not deceiued I haue noted vnto you in the next pages following I haue compared them in three of the principal questions betweene you and vs. The sacrifice of your Masse Reall presence or transubstantiation and Popes supremacy and do protest I never did nor yet do thinke any man living is able to take those authors and proue any of those points by them or can draw out a plaine and simple forme of speech how they would bee vnderstoode in any of those questions I am not ignorant neither do I make your teachers so simple but you and they can say This they belieue in grosse 1 you offer vp the sonne of God to his father and that is your Masse 2 you haue him really present and so you eate him and that is your sacrament And 3 that the Pope is Christs Vicar and that is your beliefe All this I beleeue you can say but this is not that which you ought to seeke at your teachers hands For come to explane what agreement your Masse hath with that which Christ did at his last supper the night before he suffered And what that was which he did at his last supper and what the morrow on the crosse And what your Masse is to either or both When we aske discourse vpon this here they stagger and turne like madde men as though it did belong to them only to affirme what they lusted and yeeld no account of what they say or indeed as though they knew not what to say Harding What wordes are there and what termes are not there Stapleton Not as vpon the Crosse explane and proue How is it vnbloudy The Rhemists say that the same bloud that Christ shed on the Crosse is in the chalice at Masse Dureus saith the sacrifice of the Masse is not without bloud in it but is offered with out shedding of bloud Cōt Whit. rat 4. fol 183. what shoulde the bloud do ther if it be not shed How the Pope claimeth his supremacy is doubted of amongst them Being demanded where be the words of scripture by which the Priest hath power to offer vp Christ to God his father they answere there be words that set forth an obligation in act and deede but no termes expressed a solution to a question much like the direction givē by a Miller to a passenger who bid him leaue the bottome and ride the lower way betweene the two hils What difference is there betweene word and tearms Can any man distinguish The Church offereth a daily sacrifice not as vpon the crosse but the selfesame thing that was offered on the crosse The thing offered is one selfe same sacrifice but in
sinketh not into my head that men otherwise learned and verie religious should so wilfully hood wincke themselues against the truth as in this last declaration it seemeth you meane they doe for besides their owne words and few of their bookes haue I yet seene in iustification of themselues I see a famous Catholike Church of theires I meane Rome who hath bin and yet is renowned for succession of Bishops This hath bin and yet is maketh all the error Iulius Caesar was once faithful to the Romans but affecting Soue ranitie he cōtinued not so so the Church of Rome was agreat church amongst the rest But now it beareth witnes of it selfe as Simon Magus said That hee was some great mā Act 8.9 Their vsual tables in writing which they giue to their freinds containing a Catalogue of the Bish of Rome and continuance of Apostolike doctrine vvhose gouernor head is the Pope vvho keepeth it in the same integritie and soundnesse of doctrine that S. Peter our Lords cheife Apostle vvhose successor hee is did vvhen hee sate and ruled there as he doth now I tell you I haue a table of the Bishops of Rome from S. Peter to Climens the eight vvho latly deceased as the speech was You cannot shew me the like of any Church in the world but of that Al churches saue a fewe of late yeeares haue ever acknowledged that Church for the mother and head of them al and whatsoeuer was amisse vvas thither referred and determined therfore if you will oppose your selfe against them or their religion you had need bringe sound arguments or else they wil bee quickly confuted Rom. See now you require that of mee already vvhich you cannot performe your selfe To enterinto the discussing of the points of doctrine vvhich concerne either side you haue nether abilitie nor iudgment by reason you are but newly begun to be tutered by them And then if I shoulde of my selfe discourse of them vnto you you vvould in the end say of my labour therin as a merrie fellow in Wilteshire said of an hare in a course with his dogge when my dogge was let slip at the hare quoth he she went forth right was before my dogge some foure acres bredth But my dogge fetcht her and gaue her a turne and awaie she goes againe then he gaue her another and did beat her so that she had many turnes wrenches but in the end quoth he the hare went awaie and had nether turne nor wrench so if I should shew vnto you the vnsoūdnes of the doctrine of the church of Rome from scriptures Fathers Counsells Doctors yea of the intrusions of Bishops into that sea which you from them call succession you would giue me the hearing how soever I did beat the hare in giuing her manie wrentches turnes yet you would saie she went from me in the end and had nether turne nor wrentch I am not ignorant in what painted Cyphers In the 1. petition to his Maiestie Adde fidem dictis Ovid. Medea Ias the Catholikes did of late a greable to your report of them set forth their religion calling it venerable for antiquitie maiesticall for amplitude constant for continuance irreprehensible for doctrine inducing to all kind of vertue and pietie dissuading from all sin wickednesse A religiō beloued by all pri◅tiue Pastors established by all Oecumenicall counsells vpheld by al ancio◅ doctors maintained by the first and most Christian Emperours recorded almost alone in all Ecclesiasticall histories sealed with the blood of millions of Martyres adorned with the vertues of so manie confessors beautified with the paritie of thousands of Virgins so conformable to naturall sence and reason and finally so agreable to be sacred text of Gods word and Gospell Of which speech of theirs I will saie noe otherwise nowe Cor. Tac. hist l. 2. c. 27. then Tacitus doth of Vitellius the Emperour of Rome in these words The daie following saith he as though he had spoken before the Senate and people of a strange Citty he made a glorious speech of himselfe extolling his owne industriousnesse and temperancie when as they vvhich hard him of their owne knowledge vvere witnesses of his lewd actions al Italy besides through which he marched for drowsinesse and riot notoriously infamous Two pillars wherof the Papists must rest Whitak cont Dureum l 9. de Sophia There are two notable pillars which vphold the Church of Rome in al her buildings vnknowen to you yet but herafter better may be against which if you leane they wil surely deceaue you on is The Church of Rome cannot erre whatsoeuer it teacheth the other The Bishop of Rome ought not to bee accused what soeuer he doe Vpon such pillars as these they maie reate what vvorke they wil and so they doe but it fareth with thē as it was wont to the false Prophets One buildeth vp an muddy wall Exech 13.10 and others dawbe it over with a rotten plaister But because it hath pleased God to bringe vs againe thus luckely to gether I wil bend our conference for this time to some good purpose that you goe not altogether awaie without profite Will you graunt mee but so much as common humanitie will afford anie man or the meanest courtesie of freindes allowe Tub. I wil alowe you any reasonable graunt whereof if you doubt you doe me wronge it may be you deeme me so affectioned that I wil neither heare nor read anie thinge aganst my humor I would not haue you so thinke of me that were more beast like to follow the first of the heard then according to anie Christian course and if anie should wish me to it I should the sooner mistract them and grow the wearier of them Rom. You say well and my request shal be yet more reasonable then you would deeme it to be you are you saie vnable to dispute of the points of doctrine betweene them vs vntil you be further instructed in them Tub. I confesse it I haue only hetherto heard their our report without either their proofes or your acceptions Rom. Why then this I saie which you or anie man being neuer so vnlearned maie vnderstand if all their points of their religion be good sound Catholike according to Scriptures Fathers Counsells Doctors histories viz. their Masse their sacrifice their reall presence their meritinge of heauen their free wil in good and holy things their praying to Saints their seruice in an vnknowen tongue The points in con rouersie betweene vs. the forbidding of the lave people to read the Scriptures in their vulgar tongue The Bishop of Romes authoritie worshiping of Images and a number of questions else What need then is there for the Doctors of that side such as haue written in defence proofe of their cause Harding Dorman Saunders Stapleton Allen Cope Bellarmine Rhemists Dureus and manie others to misaleadg any Doctor Counsell Historie or Father either by corrupting of
the text The Doctors that defeÌ„d theÌ„ The manner of handling them or quoting of places not to be found to vse any vaine and foolish shifts in answere such as any may perceaue to bee feeble weake to deliuer their mindes so doubtfully that an English man in the English tongue shal not vnderstand vvhat they meane to be so contrarie and opposite on to an other and many times each froÌ„ himselfe to dispute for that which they confesse is not so ancient nor so good as the contrary It is an olde saying a rich man need not bee a theife and a good cause at their handes cannot bee lost for lack of pleading only that which wanteth is the truth of the cause they haue bin fashioÌ„ing of it these many yeares euer anon there comme some experter masters than formerly vvith some fresher vernish but noe better prose some tast of this dealing I gaue the readers be-but a more larger euidence and veiw shal follow after in diuers of the points mentioned that all the vvorld shal see confesse that the popish religion at this day taught and professed by the verie confused handling of it is nothinge lesse then accient catholike and true which shal be so faithfully collected that they shal not be denied to be their owne and so plaine for vnderstanding Peruium cunctis iter Sence in Oct. art 2. that although you concâ—aue little or nothing of the questions theÌ„selues yet you shall perceaue the weaknesse of their side by the manner of laying downe their proofes and defences Tub. When I shal see that performed substaÌ„tially which you haue here promised confidently I wil surly stay my haÌ„d from subscribing my harte from consenting to anie such doctrine as shal stand vpon such proofes Rom. By the grace of God I wil not faile to shew it you you shal not take any thing vpon report you shall see and read their owne bookes and discourses themselues and since now you are the man vnto vvhose conscience I appeale for your consent to our side let me shew you the dutie of a reader in a case of controuersie betweene two noe otherwise then D. Harding in his Reioynder against B. Iuell touching them both doth lay it down to you and me and al men else To the reader The dutie of a reader Consider I require thee saith he what is thy duty Remember thou be not partiall towards either of our persons Let all affection be laide aside Let your conscience be the rule of both loue hatred Let neither hope nor feare haue place in your hart to win or loose by either of our fortunes yea if you can so conceaue let our bookes represent vnto thee not Iuell Harding but two men Iohn Thomas departed this worlde to noe man liuing knowen to haue liued And when you haue left of all affection touching our persons then study to discharge thy minde of all blind parciality towards both our doctrines abandoning all humane likings and carnall phantasies with a single eie simple hart behold imbrace what is good true only for loue of God and for the truthes sake Being thus desposed commend your selfe vnto God with praier beseeching him to lighten your vnderstanding by his holie spirit to lead you vnto the truth This done with an humble hart read both our Treatises and iudg yet this much I saie in case of necessitie not to all in generall but to certaine such as by other meanes will not bee induced to consider of the truth The reply is that which B. Iuell wrot against him for otherwise I acknowledge that both the REPLY and all other hereticall bookes by order of the Church without speciall licence bee vnlawfull to be read and are vtter he forbidden to bee read or kept vnder paine of excoÌ„municatioÌ„ Remember I saie the part of a iudge is to iudge as the Lawyers speake secundum allegata probata that is to saie as things be alleadged proued Beware everie thing is not proued for which authorities bee alleadged Nota bene neither is all made good which by probable arguments seemeth to be concluded Allegations must be true plaine simple neither weakned by taking awaie nor strengthened by putting to of wordes nor wrested from the sence they beare in the writer else they bewraie the feeblenesse of the cause for proofe whereof they be alleadged also the great vntruth of theÌ„ that for furtherance of their purpose abuseth them if they haue corrupted their witnesses or brought in false witnesses if they haue vntruly reported their Doctors shamfully falsified their sayings theÌ„ ought you to giue sentence against them then is their honestie stained then is their credit defaced and then is their challenge quiet dashed Thus farr D. Harding Mat. 27.24 And Pilate tooke water and washed his handes before the multitude saying I am innocent of the bloud of this iust man euen so cleare is M. Hardinge and his fellowes froÌ„ misreporting the Doctors or falsifying their sayings or in not committing any thing wherof they would seeme to be most free as anon shal appeare Tub. Me thinketh by these words of D. Harding by your request made before vnto me that both parties on both sides require nothing more then that al their readers should ponder waighe the allegations proofes both of the one side other and then iudge of the truth accordingly but I feare he meaneth nothing less because he saith that both the REPLY al other hereticall books by order of the church without speciall licence bee vnlawfull to bee read or kept By hereticall bookes hee meaneth the protestants writings which inference abridgeth the libertie of reading consequeÌ„tly of iudging by any indifferent way or meane to come to the knowledge of the truth For the heathen Poet could deliuer a good speech to that purpose by the very light of naturall discourse Qui statuit aliquid parte inauditâ alterâ Aequum licet statuerit haud aquus fuit Senec in Med Act. 2. He that not hearing either part ponounceth his decree Vnrighteous maÌ„ accounted is though right his sentence be Rom. I did includ so much in mine owne speech vnto you before but that perhaps you wil sooner approue of your owne obseruation then my collection And to tel you truly which you shal certainty find by conuersing more with theÌ„ they doe not suffer the common laitie amongst them to see or read or heare any thinge without speciall licence so much and such parcells as it shal please them But those that they knowe are so stiffe and obstinate that nothing will a waken their vnderstanding perhapps they will giue some small libertie of reading the better to colour their denial to others And this doe they not only touching the vse or reading either of the holy scriptures or of the protestants bookes Hard cont Iuell art 2. fol. 56. In
into his blood the showes of bread wine only remaining which conuersion the catholike Church doth aptly call Transubstantiation let him be accursed Can. 8. gaine if anie man saie That Christ is exhibited or set forth in the Eucharist to the intent to bee eaten spiritually not also sacramentally really let him be accursed Not to speake heare how blasphemous contrary this their doctrine is to the holy institution of Christ at his last supper the verie manner of their handling seting downe their opinions is by their leaues erronious yet not vnder stood by their owne Doctors For first it must follow of their words if the whol substāce of the bread be turned into Christs body then is the body of Christ made of bread as is verified in the decrees which saith The bodie of Christ his blood by the power of the holy ghost is made of the substance De Cons dist 2. can vtrum sub figura of bread and wine Then will it follow that it is not that bodie which was made of the flesh blood of the virgin Mary Hard. cont Iu. art 12. fol. 168 D. Harding seeing this impietie of making our sauiour Christ haue two contrary bodies both avoideth his own authorities ouerthroweth his Transubstantiation for thus he saith Where the bodie blood of Christ is said to be made of bread wine beware thou vnlearned mā thou thinke not them therof to bee made as though they were newly created of the matter of bread and wine nether that they be made of bread wine as of a matter but that where bread wine were before This is noe trāsubstantiation after consecration there is the verie bodie blood of Christ borne of the verie substance of the Virgin Mary To say where bread was before there is the bodie of Christ as M. Harding saith is a departing or annibilation of the bread a comming of it as it were to nothing not a transubstantiation a turning of the substance of the bread into the substance of the bodie of Christ as the Trent fathers define Againe if bread be made the body of Christ or is the bodie of Christ as they are willing to grant why shoulde it not be said to be made of bread as of a matter If it bee made of the substance of bread why not made of bread as of a matter Againe They themselues teach vs Lumb l. 4. dis 1. b. Alan de sac in gener l. 1. c. 2. Dureus cont Whit. rat 2 fol 103. Hard. cont Iuell art 8. f. 144. b. Tonstal l. 1. fol 33. Allen de Euch sacra l. 1. c. 3. fol 217 Bellar. de euch sac l. 2. c. 9. fol. 151. ex Iren l. 4 cont haer c. 34 that a sacrament is a signe of an holy thinge or a visible signe of an invisible grace so that on two things doth a sacrament consist by both our cōsents Now least there should be anie strife what those two things are they teach moreouer that the on is earthly the other heauenly so they al teach our of Ireneus that ancient father who saith this being not commō bread but the Eucharist after consecration consisting of two things earthly heauenly what that earthly thing is al men may vnderstād that wel to be verie bread the substance of bread except he bee driuen to say as al they doe in those places quoted that by the earthly thing named by Ireneus is ment not the substance of bread but the accidents that is the tast colour waight show sauour fashion of bread What earthly thinge the tast colour shew waight and sauour of bread can bee I appeale to anie indifferent iudge So that to say as the Trent fathers saie that noe substance remaineth after consecration Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the nature of a sacrament They keepe it in the one and destroy it in the other Tons l. 1. f. 30. 48. b. ex cā conc Nicen. considera divinā vim quae in aquis latet Step. Gardin fol. 8 b. but the real and substantial bodie of Christ is to ouerthrowe the nature of a sacrament and to take awaie the earthly part of it instead of exhibiting the Grace of Christ putteth the Person of Christ God man in the roomth But see how they retaine the true nature definition of a sacrament in the one destroy it in the other They saie there remaineth the nature and substance of water the invisible grace of the spirit the holy Ghost commeth down halloweth the water there we cōsider the diuine spirit which lieth hid in the water there wee consider our baptisme not with the eies of our flesh but with the eies of our soules And as in the sacrament of Christs most precious bodie and blood we receaue Christs verie flesh drinke his verie blood to cōtinue augmēt the life receaued so in baptisme we receaue the spirit of Christ for the renuing of our life's And therfore in the same forme of words Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme In both sacraments Christ is exhibiteth himselfe vnto vs. Andra. Ortho. expl l. 3. f. 239. that he spake of the eating of his body drinking of his blood in both sacraments giueth dispenseth exhibiteth indeed those celestiall guifts in sensible elements In both sacraments the blood of Christ is included the sprinkling of our bodies with the water of Baptisme is nothing but that the soule be washed rinced with the blood of Christ If all this bee verified of the sacrament of Baptisme if Christ can giue exhibite himselfe as he doth indeed vnto vs without anie transubstantiation retaining the substance of the element of water we cannot but say so of the sacrament of the supper Lumb l. 4. dist 9. a Torren l. 3. c. 6. parag 3. fine vide tale a liquid apud Aug. tom 7. de peccat merit remiss l. 3. c. 4 that there we maie feed on Christs flesh drink his blood without anie transubstantiation of the bread wine Nay in more plainer maner they tell vs that Saint Augustine doubteth not to say of infants other faithfull people Nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum Noe man may in anie wise doubt but that euerie faithful man is then made partaker of the body blood of Christ when in baptisme he is made a member of Christ that he is not without the fellowship of that bread the cup although before hee eate of that bread and drinke of that cup he depart this world beeing in the vnity of Christs bodie for he is not made frustrate of the communion and benefit of that sacrament whiles hee findeth that thinge which is signified by the sacrament If infants and other faithfull people may be made partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of Baptisme I demand of our Trent fathers why we may not be
sonne of God there wee see that hee tooke our heauinesse and bare our sorrowes was wounded for our â—ffeÌ„ces and was rent and tormented for our wickednesse and in this respect the ministration of the holie communion is of the learned fathers called a sacrifice because therin wee offer vp vnto God the father thankes praise for that great sacrifice once made vpon the Crosse But for the same sacrifice that Christ offered with blood that same to be offered daily in the masse without blood or how blood shoulde bee shed there vnbloodily as they inferre noe age of the Church neuer yet knewe since Christs time but the petite deuisers of late Saint Augustine that ancient learned Father could in few and plaine words describe vnto vs the perfect signification of the sacrifices of the old law Tom. 6. contâ—… FaustuÌ„ Mani l. 20. c. 21. fine Camp rat 9. de Sophis eccum quos gyros quasrotaâ— fabricat Rhem. Annot. heb 9. v. 25. Marke S. Aug. words before he vseth none of these opposite ill fauoured tearmes to expresse the sacrifice of the Church after his ascention his sacrifice on the Crosse is frequented by a sacrameÌ„t of remembraÌ„c saith he Praeter hoc igitur ante hoc sacrificiuÌ„ mortis aliud pridie instituit fecit ipse idque nec crueÌ„tè nec paenali modo Allen l. 2. c. 10. fol. 541 Rhem. annot heb 9. v. 12. of our sacrament now and what relation they both haue to the sacrifice of Christ without any such obscure or obtuse tearmes as these men vse Huius sacrificij caro sangnis ante aduentum Christs per victimas similitudinum promittebatur The flesh blood of this sacrifice before the comming of Christ was promised by sacrifices of Resemblance the same was performed indeed in the time of Christs passion post ascensionem Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur but after Christs ascension it is frequented by a sacrament of remembrance And to this of Augustine they shal haue the whol Church of England subscribe therfore let them take home the slaunder they lay vpon vs in that wee vse circular turnings or windings in our disputs and aunsweres with them That the Rhemists are as dark and obscureas any other of them in this question it wil appeare to any that will read their notes which more at large I will nowe shewe As Christ neuer died but once nor neuer shal die againe so in that violent painfull and bloody sort hee cannot be offered againe nether needeth he so to be offered any more hauing by that one action of sacrifice vppon the Crosse made the full ransome redemption remedie for the sinns of the whol world Neuerthelesse as Christ died and was offered after a sort in all the sacrifices of the law nature since the beginning of the world al which were figures of this one oblation vppon the Crosse so he is much rather offered in the sacrifice of the altar of the new Testament incomparably more neere diuinly truly expressing his death his body broken his blood shed then any figure of the old law or other sacrifice that euer was as being indeed though in hidden sacramentall and misticall and vnbloody maner the very selfe same blessed body blood the selfe same host oblation sacrifice that was don vpon the crosse Againe they saie noe one of the sacrifices nor al the sacrifices of the old law could make that one generall price ransome redemption of al mankind and of al sinns sauing this one highest Preist Christ and the one sacrifice of his blood once offered vpon the Crosse which sacrifice of redemption cannot be often done One only sacrifice on the crosse the redeÌ„ption of the world and on only preist Christ the redeemer therof The Masse a commemotatioÌ„ of Christs sacrifice This sort because Christ could not die but once though the figures also therof in the law of nature of Moses were truly called sacrifices as especially this hie and marueilous commemoration of the same in the holy sacrament of the aultar according to the rite of the newe Testament is most truly and singularly as S. Augustine saith a sacrifice But neither this sort nor the other of the old law being often repeated and done by many Preists could bee the generall redeeming consummating sacrifice c. You would thinke that in these two verses of their annotations they had handled that text as though they had meÌ„t that Christ dying but once had need neuer to haue died againe Noe more shal he saie they for in that violent painful and bloody sort as hee died on the crosse he can neuer bee offered againe here they exclude his dying againe or often but not his offering againe or often It is maruaile they did not deuise how he might die againe so it were not in that violent painfull bloody sort as his death was on the crosse as wel as deuise such an offering as shal be neither violent painfull nor bloody so where they should lay their reasoÌ„s to proue either a reall offering or not a reall dying or not they leaue it in the halfe come in with manners respects altering cleane the nature of the thinge For nether coulde Christ himselfe much lesse any mortal man offer himselfe often without dying often as is most plaine by the Apostle in the 4 last verses of that 9. chapter so their fumbling here is with as ill successe as D. Allens before cited whoe maketh a reall offering which they stick at vnlesse they will haue it neither violent painfull nor bloody and then wherin is it reall a sacramentall shedding of blood Againe they saie that that one action on the Crosse made the ful ransome for the sinns of the world what need any more sacrifice for sinns then as their is But being the same that his was whie doth it not redeeme as his did euen as a generall price ransome or let them shew wherin the defect is that being the same Christ Heb. 10.12 it should not haue the same effect Christ saith S. Paule after hee had offered one sacrifice for sinne sitteth for euer at the right hand of God Furthermore that reall immolation which D. Allen speaketh of foundeth more then this hidden sacramentall mystical offering or immolation which they speak of here otherwise they maie speake of a reall betraying a reall crucifying a real sheding of his blood powring out of it on the ground now then qualify them with a hidden sacramentall and misticall maner But what caused them in this 12. verse as before set downe to cal their Masse a commemoration of Christs sacrifice when they haue spoken of the Iewes sacrifices of Christs But neither this sort nor the other of the law c. to cal their masse by an other name This sort Doe they take their masse to bee a different sacrifice from that of the crosse a
commemoration of it as they call it not the same but of an other sort D. Allen hath manifest words to that purpose making that which Christ did at his last supper and that of the masse now to be of an other sort of a different kinde from that of the Crosse Cap. 8. 9. 10. Allen de euch sacrif l. 2. c. 22. fol. 594. 596. Illa â—sse diuersi generis The oblation of him in the supper ours in the Masse 〈◊〉 but one oblation the same â—acrifice Hard art 17. f. 206. â— the fountaine referred to the fountaine or the same to the same For aunswering to our obiections that the same exceptions which serue S. Paul to the Hebrews against the Iewish sacrifices wil also serue against their sacrifice of the masse saith It is to be noted that it cannot be denied that the same opposition maie be almost set betweene the oblation of the supper the oblation of the Crosse since it is certaine they are of a diuers sore the one being an absolute indepeÌ„deÌ„t sacrifice the other commemoratiue significatine as were the Iewish sacrifices So againe faith he if any christian should bee in such an error as to thinke that the sacrifice of the Masse were an absolute independent sacrifice that it need not to bee referred to the fountaine of al sacrifices the death of Christ hee might be almost confuted by the same arguments of S. Paule how soeuer ours doe far exceed theirs This is plaine both against that of the supper and theirs in the Masse nether must the Rhemists any more in culcate that they offer the very selfe same body in number Annot. Heb. 10. v. 11. euen Christs owne body that was crucified except they wil make Christ inferiour to himselfe The Next vnto these before which I meane to bringe in Locor theol l. 11. fol. 427. a. is Melchior Canus a great scholler and an acute disputant He reproueth vs mightily because we gather si cucharistia exemplar image est non esse illam verâ— propriè sacrificium That if the Eucharist be a samplat and image it cannot properly truly be a sacrifice the collection saith he is very ridiculous for what can be more foolish then to say that the hosts of the old law were noe sacrifices because they were samplers of the true Cap. cum Mar de celeb miss And thervpon he telleth vs that Inuocentius the 3. Pope of that name doth laught at vs for such infereÌ„ces First touching Innocentius his authoritie cannot be much in this case because we knowe not that his definitiue sentence passed out of his chaire against vs in this point but only that he so wrot as a priuate man L. 6. c. 8. f. 205. because Canus himselfe telleth vs that Innocentius the 4. did make commentaries vpon the books called Decretalls if in them he wrot an error it is to bee imputed vnto him that he erred as a man not as a Pope And D. Harding by name refuseth this same Innocentius 3 Reioynder fo â—0 in the matter of al waightie matters the waightiest euen in the question of Consecration when it should be done saying what if Scotus Innocentius tertius doe thinke consecration to be done by other then our Lords wordes is not the catholike church agreed herein Thus we see a good matter if we wil The Catholik Church maie bee resolued with the Pope a good hearing in any point I hope aswell as in Consecration and therfore I hope they will not presse the Popes authoritie though hee bee against vs in this to haue the Eucharist the image the thing so make one thing both an image and the truth Indeed wee say with S Angustine Epist 23. ad Bonif. Epise If sacraments had not a liknesse and similitude of the things wherof they are sacraments properly and rightly they should not be called sacraments But if any thing become the same it hath not any liknesse to it any more but passeth wholy into that wherof it shoulde bee a liknesse Alioquin si eadem essent om nia iam non exemplaria di cerentur sed ipsae potius res de quib us agitur viderentur Cyp. in Symb. as saith S. Cyprian To come to the argument which he saith is foolishly gathered wil it please their wisdomes aswel to hear what fooles can saie further in defence of their folly as to controule without cause what they haue wel said we tel him that his example from the Iewish sacrifice coÌ„meth not neere where he would haue it reach For wil hee compare his sacrifice in this point with those of the law Theirs of the law did prefigure Christs sacrifice were true sacrifices in that kinde because they were truly and really done vpon slaine beastes whose blood was shed But were they so far forth true sacrifices that they were the same too vnto which they had relation Did the Preists in the law offer the same body that Christ offered as they say they doe in their Masse If they did not then for those to be granted to bee verie true sacrifices wil profit him nothing at al for his The Iewish sacrifices were also samplers for the perfect absolute sacrifice was not theÌ„ come but wherof should their Masse bee a sampler or remembrance since they sacrifice Christ present for that which is sacrificed must be present that which is represeÌ„ted and remembred is abseÌ„t Christs bodie being therfore represented in the Eucharist cannot bee then and there really offered And by this aunswere also the Rhemists are discharged whoe borrow Canus his argument who say that this Luc. for a commemoration cap. 22. v. 19. Masse of theirs is noe lesse a true sacrifice because it is commemoratiue of Christs passion then those of the olde testament were the lesse true because they were prefiguratiue of the same For those sacrifices were not the same sacrifice or thing wherof they were prefiguratiue noe more can their Masse being commemoratiue and though it were a sacrifice as they would haue it it could not bee the same thing wherof it is commemoratiue But come to Canus as to the rest for the manner of offering hee goeth backe to a mystery and to a figure In the Crosse saith he it is plaine the host was bloody and done without mysterie but in the aultar it is hid darkly mystically yet the same host is on the Crosse on the Aâ—… On the Crosse suffering In altari occultè mysticè obscondita Ibid fol. 436. b on the aultar hid in a mysterie â—…ce concludeth in the sacrifice of the Eucharist Christ is offered mystically vnbloodily therfore there is an host where in other sacraments there is none I speake properly saith hee for by a kinde of speech Baptisme also is somtime called an host Ibid. fol. 438. b And who euer called the Eucharist a sacrifice properly
as the nature of the word soundeth or said it was the thinge it selfe not a figure sampler similitude since Gregorie Nazianzene as D. Tonstall quoteth him vnto vs In sanctuÌ„ pase l. 2. fol 66. Figura figurae speaking of things done in the old law The arke or the Pascall Lamb saith Pascha legale audenter dicâ— figurae figura erat obscurior the Easter Lamb in the law I speak boldly was an obscure figure of a figure that is a figure of the Eucharist So that touching any substance of matter the Eucharist is noe more the body then the sacrifices sacrameÌ„ts in the law all both theirs ours being referred to Christ on the Crosse To proceed to the obiection made our of Saint Paule Heb. 9.16.25 That the host which is sacrificed by offering must of necessity be reall offered and slaine Canus ibid. ob fol. 404. ex Cal ui Instit l. 4. c. 18. par 5. f. 475 if then in euerie of their Masses Christ be offered in sacrifice in euerie of their Masses he is also slaine therfore ether S. Paules argument is frustrat where he saith Otherwise he ought to suffer ofteÌ„ from the beginning of the world or if Christ be offered in sacrifice he dieth verily and indeed but they al confesse they offer Christs liuing body impassible Can us ibid. fo 421. hee doth well to set the obiection and answere so far a sunder At corpus viuuÌ„ spirans non offerimus ideÌ„ enim in Eucharistia est at que in coelo so at the most they find an oblation they cannot finde a sacrifice To this obiection he seoffingly saith that wee haue found out wherwith to maintaine our counterfeit opinion but hee cannot finde how to ouerthrow so weake an argumer We wil grant saith hee to those that argue against vs that to the perfect offering of the eye ature there must be the death and end of it if it bee truly sacrificed But we offer not a liuely ond breathing bodie such a bodie is in the Euchâ—rist in heauen yet although the body of Christ in the Eucharist be a liuing body the blood bee in the body yet wee doe uether offer the body because it is aliue or the blood because it is in the body but the body in regard it is slaine the blood because it was shed on the Crosse Thus by this answer of his wher before the distinctioÌ„ stood with them of offering the same body which was offered on the crosse and that that body was in the Eucharist but after an other manner then on the Crosse vnbloodily or in a mystery now he confesseth they offer not a liuing body but because it is slaine then there must needs followe death nor the blood as it is in the body but because it was shed on the crosse whie then are they afraid to call their sacrifice bloody but vnbloody if the host be slaine and this argumeÌ„t of Canus haue the Rhemists borowed as they did the former for in their first conflict about this sacrament they professe That they consecrate the seuerall elements Rhem. 26. mat v. 26. shew the sence or meaÌ„ing of this note in anie writer ancient take the whole Dicth in a sacrament iâ— preseÌ„t indeed not into Christs whole person as it was borne of the Virgin or is now in heauen but the brâ—ad into his body a part as betrayed broken and giueÌ„ for vs the wine into his blood apart as shed out of his body for remission of sinnes in which mysticall and vnspeakable manner he would haue the Church to offer and sacrifice him daily he in mistery sacrament dieth though now not only in heauen but also in the sacrament he bee indeed by sequel of al his parts to each other whole aliue immortall Thus monstrously doe they teach now they thinke they haue gotten a sacrifice into their hands But how they offer without blood or with blood whether aliue or dead whether ther same that Christ did either at his supper or on the Crosse that they cannot tel nor with any wordes explaine Their descriptions in these are like that of Syrus in the Poet when he sent one brother to finde an other Teren in Adel. act 4. Scen. 2. Perplexa descriptio but by the derection taken he neuer knewe where to finde him Prâ—terito haÌ„c rectâ plateâ sursum vbs eo veneris cliuus deâ—rsum vorsum est Passe right through this street to the ouer part when you come there there is a steepe place towards the lower ende therof run downe this way after that there iâ— on this hand a Chappell and there fast by in a narrow corner A speech ful of perplexitie That they should violate or alter the holy ordinance of God touching Christs sacrifice which was as they say themselues violent The sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse The sacrifice of their Masse painfull bloody into a sacrifice reall true yea and propitiatory which shall bee neither violent painful nor bloody and yet sacrifice his body as betraied broken giuen for vs the blood as shed out of his body that very blood which was in the vaines of his body and yet for him to die in a mystery in a sacrament all to bee done vnbloodily so change the nature substance of that sacrifice which was the purchase redeÌ„ption of the whol world as it is blasphemous for them to teach so haue they brought such phrases and wordes as none can vnderstand vpheld by none but themselues God neuer intended that his sonne should offer himselfe anie more but once and that was with shedding of blood death so must hee be offered or not at all offered Reâ—d 7. 8. 9. 10 cap. to the Hebrewes if we wil speake of a reall offering and areal sacrifice a reall presence and a reall offering a real death caÌ„not be seuered If the ancieÌ„t Church of God had deliuered their doctrine opinions Aug. Epist 23. fere finè Christ is nowe offered not in substance but in asacrament or representatioÌ„ of his death D. Allen is out with his owne Catholikes be cause they caÌ„not bring this place of Aug handsomly to Ierue their turne de sac Euch. l. 2. ca. 11 in such confused tearmes as these men doe wee had bin as much to seeke what had bin their mindes in this case as wee are of these men nowe But they were expedite cleare as by their discourses appeareth Nonne semelimmolatus est Christus in scipso Was not Christ saith S. Augustine once offered in himselfe And yet in a sacrament hee is offered for the benefite of the people not every Easter only but euery day Nether doth hee lie when the question is asked answereth Christ is offered daily vnto the people For if sacrameÌ„ts had not a certaine similitude of the things wherof they be sacraments they should bee noe sacraments at al
part with him againe the Preist doth all Bellarmine treating of this same question De missa l. 2. â— 4. fol. 776. of the sufficiencie of the sacrifice of the masse deliuereth according to his maner certaine propositions distinctions of his own only making without confirming them either by the holy scriptures ancient Fathers or doctors and hauing that liberty hee were very simple if he could not make a bad cause shew wel Hooker praeâ— ad lib eccles pol. fol. 24. The masse is of value finite If this reason of Bellarmine bee good against the value of the mass in the behalfe of the sacrifice of the Crosse it ouerthroweth the whole masse establisheth that of the Crosse The sacrifice of the Crosse is of infinit valuâ— especially to those that wil take any thinge for good at their hands vnto whom they beare stronge affectioÌ„ For commoÌ„ly such is our forestalled mindes that whome in great things we mightily admire in them we are not willingly perswaded that any thing is amisse His fourth proposition therfore is valor sacrificij Missae finituâ— est The value of the masse is finite that is the masse is not of infinite worth or price And this saith he is the common opinion of the diuines is proued most plainly by the vse of the Church Marke his reasoÌ„s For if the value of the masse were infinite it were needlesse to haue many masses especially for the obtaining of one thing For if one masse were of infinite value it would suffice to obtaine al things therfore why should we haue other And this is confirmed by the sacrifice of the Crosse which for noe other cause was one nor neuer is repeated but only because it is of infinite value obtained a ransome for all sinnes past and to come But saith he although the masse be of value finite which is verje true in it selfe yet the reason howe it cometh to be so is not so sure For it may seeme strange Câ—r valor sacrificij huius fit finitus cum idem sit hoc sacrificium cum sacrificio crucis A great maruaile why the worth of this sacrifice should be finite since it is the same with that on the crosse which was infinite wheÌ„ there is the same host The offeringe the offerer is one in both and the same Christ offering himselfe which are infinitly acceptâ—ble to God Bellarmine might adde further of his own if it pleased him A maruaile it is how the sacrifice of the masse should be inferiour to that of the crosse since that of the masse is a most true sacrifice euen one of the tearmes he gaue before to the sacrifice of the crosse And maruaile it is that the sacrifice of the masse should not bee of the same value with that of the crosse seeing as he saith one where there is the the same offering offerer Christ in both Ibid. l. c. 25. fol. 749. c. 3. in principio infinitly accounted of by God otherwher that the sacrifice of the masse is a most true sacrifice so in a third place he graÌ„teth that in the sacrifice of the masse it may most truly bee said that the blood of Christ is shed there Take into these Ibid. fol. 49 in fine paginae the word propitiatory which the TreÌ„t fathers giue to the masse to then if al these to gether serue not the turne Iuel cont Hard art 1 druis 33. touching Amphilochius fo highly renowned by M. Hardinge to make a great maruaile why the sacrifice of the Masse should be of value finite that of the crosse infinite wee may say as one said in an other case nothinge I trowe will serue the turne For grant those things of the masse it cannot but be of infinite value price aswel as that on the Crosse but they knowe that none of those thinges are true of the masse and therfore Bellarmine playeth a desperate mans part in giuing such reasons as cannot proue the masse inferiour to Christs sacrifice Virg. Aeneid l. 8. inde repeÌ„te impulit impulso quo max imus insonat aether prima exparte hostiae quae offertur except hee in euitably ouerthrow the masse it selfe as Hercules in the Poet ouerthrew Cacus his den wheÌ„ heaueÌ„ rebounded with the noise His reasons salue moliore iudicio are 3. The first is drawen froÌ„ the host which is offered For in the sacrifice of the crosse Christ in his naturall being was there sacrificed destroyed in the forme of a man but in the sacrifice of the masse hee is destroyed in his sacramentall being In his sacrameÌ„tall being you say that Christ hath there a real substaÌ„tiall beeing the ProtestaÌ„ts say he is slaine and his blood shed in a sacrament Ipsa hostia offerens Christus but his naturall being is more noble more precious then his sacramentall This reason thus drawen from the nature of the host or thing offered is very friuolous absurd especially seeing Bellarmine deliuered before that the host in both was one where can he finde a defect in that In flying from his naturall being on the crosse to his sacramental beeing in the masse hee ioyneth with vs for we acknowledge he died sacramentally in his last supper because a sacrament of his death passioÌ„ was iustituted so when the Lords supper is now administred we say he is sacrificed beecause the memory of his sacrifice is celebrated 2. ratio sumitur ex parte of ferentis Ipsa hostia offerens Christus The second reason is drawen stronger as he saith from the party that offereth for in the sacrifice of the Crosse the party offering is the person of the sonne of God but in the sacrifice of the masse the offerer is the sonne of God by a minister did he not lay it for a ground in the same page of the leaf to take away an obiection that Christ is the offerer as well in the Masse as on the Crosse 3. Ratio sumitur ex ipsa Christi voluntate nam etiaÌ„si posset Christus per vnam oblationem sacrificij incâ—ueÌ„ti siue per se siue per ministâ—uÌ„ oblati quae libet deo pro quibuscuÌ„que impetrare tameÌ„ noluit perere nec impetrare nisi vt pro singulis oblationibus applicaretur certa mensura fâ—uctus passionis suae siue ad peccatorum remissionem sive ad alia bâ—ne fâ—cia quibus in hac vita indigemus And hath he not disabled him selfe his fellowes of a great excuse which they were wont to make in that behalfe for when we obiect the persoÌ„ of the Preist taking vpon him contrary to the scripture so great an office not called thervnto as to offer vp the sonne of God to his Father they had to say that it was not the Preist that did it but Christ that offered himselfe by the mynistery of the Preist end yet now Bellarmine would
thinge was it which Christ tooke all men agree The words of the institution examined This bread is my body it was bread What blessed hee bread What brake he bread What gaue he bread then said take eate this what bread is my body We say by this it is cleare that when Christ said Take eate this is my body he spake of the bread as if he had said Take eate this bread is my body One the other side they expound it Take eate this nothinge is my body wee knowe not what Or this invisible thinge Or this thinge I haue in my hands but in noe case this bread is my body For you must vnderstand that in the triall of this one word standeth all our whole controuersie both of the reall presence Transubstantiation the sacrifice of the Masse if Christ spake of the bread when he said Take eate this is my body This reason hath his force in nature confessed by al mē both they we are agreed that the substance of bread remaineth so nothinge on their side wil fal out right the reason is one contrary thinge as bread body cannot bee spoken of or be said to be an other thinge but in and by a figure so that to say of the bread this is my body must needes intend a figure And because they woulde avoid the figure they doe violate the eternall law of Reason which intendeth that if a man say take this hee must meane somthinge which he giueth or hath in his hand The evidence of this is so cleare that I could confute thē diuers waies but according to my first institution I will opēly shew by their owne darke perplexed speeches that did they not striue to vphold a thinge once apprehended they might more easier yeild then defend their errors Iuell art 24. The Reuerend Bishop of Sarum made this one of his questions at Paules Crosse publikly enough whether the people were euer taught to beleiue that when Christ said This is my body the worde this pointed not the bread but somthinge in generall they knewe not what M. Harding who seemed to say somthinge to every of those articles denied by the Bishopp said least of all to this which argueth he had not what to answere least he should haue runn himselfe vppon on shelfe or other there is so many diuersities of opinions amongst them in this How this worde Hoc in that saying of Christ is to bee taken and what it pointeth Hard cont Iuel art 24. f. 2 28 we knowe saith M. Hardinge who haue more learnedly more certainly and more truly treated therof then Luther Zuinglius Caluin Cranmer P. Martyr We knowe or any their ofspringe We knowe saith he But what hee knewe touching this point nether he whilst he liued Gard. in his explication fol. 39. b. referreth the word this to the inuisible substāce In his detectiō of the deuills sophistry fol. 29. b. Now it demonstrateth the bread nor his freinds since he died would neuer let vs knowe vnkinde as they are Freindlier yet hath D. Gardiner dealt with vs in this same case who hath yet giuen vs words though we knowe not his meaning When Christ said this is my body there is noe necessity saith he that the demonstration this should bee refered to the outward visible matter but may be referred to the invisible substance what outward visible matter what inuisible substance is there Is Christs body that invisible substance Then the speech will bee This body is my body yet was not the same man alwaies of the same opinion though hee would be called Marcus Constantius Allen de euch sacrif l. 1. c. 34. fol. 420. Disparata sūt opposita quorum vnū multis pariter op ponitur sic homo arbor lapis ciu smo di res infinite disparantur nec eadem res potest esse homo arbor lapis Ra mus de disparatis Ib fol. 419 421 Hoc demōstrat corpus vt sit sēsus hoc corpus meum est corpus meum This is it indeed that moueth vs. Bread wine are there indeed Vagè indefinite nec per sehocaut illud exacte demōstrare donec compleatur oratio AEneid l. 4. Staplet returne of vntruths against M. Iuell art 1. fol. 16. b. For before he had thus written Christ spake plainly making a demonstration of the bread when he said this is my body If it be plaine why are they so obscure For they dare not say what it meaneth neither one thinge nor other A third of theirs a country mā of ours reprouing the Protestants for referring the word this to the bread saith it is absurd both in philosophy diuinity that two thinges different distinct in nature substance should be affirmed spoken the one of the other It is true it cannot be without a figure So Dureus Quid obsecro stultius quam disparatorum vt dialectici appellant alterum dies de altero ac si lignum esse lapidem aut murem Elephantum deceret What is more foolish I pray you saith hee then as the Logitians vse to speake that one contrary should be spoken of an other as if a mā should saya peece of wood were a stone or an mouse an Elephant These men to avoid the figure rectifying what is amisse in vs haue made that crooked which before was straight Allen saith the word this demonstrateth the body But saith hee if there be any man whome it doth trouble how the word This can demonstrate the body blood which are not there present when the worde This is spoken Or that they should not shewe the bread and wine which are there indeed let him read not the scriptures for those ouerthrowe you Guimūdus Thomas who haue largly elegantly subtilly treated of these things To amend al he saith the safest best way is to take the worde THIS in the beginning of the sentence wandringly without any certainty nether to signifie this thinge or that exactly vntill the speech be ended Stapleton is as variable as the best we need not so much remember the Poet varium mutabile semper foemina a womā is an vnconstant and changable creature as maruaile at these Doctors in their vncertaine speches Now M. Iuell saith he doe you thinke it an vntruth to say that in Tertullians time Christian folke or the olde Fathers called that bread the body of Christ so consequently our maker re deemer By Stapleton here Christ spake of the bread whē he said this is my body But what saith our sauiour himselfe in the Gospell Doth not he saie of that bread which hee tooke into his hands which hee brake blessed This is my body Doth not he in these wordes call it his body To this we agree we desire noe more let him stand to this the controuersie is ended We say as Stapletō saith that Christ did say of that bread which
Christ which is in the sacrament If Bellarmine abridge Caietane of the word spirituallie he leaueth him never an other to expresse his minde by Now to drawe towards an end in this point Trent counsel Caietane Bellarmine Allen. Hardinge Gardiner let vs laie in breefe what wee vnfolded more largly Our Lord and sauiour Iesus Christ God man is truly really substantially contained vnder the forme and shew of bread and wine He is transferred from the hande to the mouth we fasten our teeth into his flesh and from thence he goeth into the stomacke and is mingled with our flesh c. And compare them with these of the same men in the same matter Christ is in the sacrament spiritually the maner of his presence is only spirituall he is eaten after a certaine spirituall manner The flesh of Christ is meate for the spirit not for the body It is a spirituall nourishment By faith we vnderstand he is there Wee see him with the eies of our faith eate him with the teeth of our faith by beleening not by receaning If euer there were a difference betweene the body and soule heauen hel light and darknesse sweete and sower ioye paine fire and water North south whatsoeuer may bee imagined to bee contrarie then is there a repugnancy in those their wordes expressing their meanings in the matter of the sacrament They will haue both true and yet our opinion must bee false and hereticall in vsing the later stile to expresse our meaninges But as wee and they are most opposite in the question so are one sort of their tearmes which they vse against vs vnto an other and such as can neuer verifie the truth of their assertion If they can reconcile all and prone vs heretikes I saie they maie vndertake any thinge yea though it be to the making of a black horse white or a white horse blacke as that cunning Grecian Autolycus did Of whom it is said Ovid. Met. l. 1◠Candida de nigris de candentibus atra facere assuenerat Although it hath beene a long time thought that they could doe much y I hope they can make no contradictorie propositions both true where euermore if one bee true the order wil be ineuitably false Tub. I assure my selfe so much as you haue said out of their owne bookes writings wil make anie reasonable mā astonied to thinke with how faire plausible tearmes they wil plead their religion as though there were agreement no where but amongst them disagreemēt everie where saue with them where if your collections quotations stand true sound I see not but they maie haue leaue to goe aside pen a new forme of wordes wherby to expresse their meanning in this point for the old wil not serue them Rom. Yea and a new Gospel too Allen Caietane for Allen Caietane confesseth both against themselues the one that the order of the Euangelists is peruerted and standing as it doth wil not serue their turne The other that there is nothing in the Gospell that doth binde vs to take those wordes in the proper signification as they sound to make the reall and substantiall body of Christ present vnder the shew of bread In explicating of which their opinion you may now call to minde the grossest of the figures which they vse and let passe a many of others Figures vsed by them in the sacramēt in those few words of Christ at his last supper First they saie 1,2 Christ tooke bread he blessed that is he transubstantiateth or changeth it he brake not the bread but the accidents or shew of bread he gaue not the bread but his own bodie 3. How they expound the word This in the sentence This is my body you haue heard before This that is that which is contained vnder these shewes is my bodie 4. 5. Againe where the words lie in the Evangelists Take eate this is my body they haue deuised an hideous figure of figures which is called Hysteron Proteron the Cart before the horse and say it should be This is my dody take eate 6. Christ blessed saie they by saying This is my body although the Euāgelists place it not so in order 7. How manie figures how often are they out in the breaking some saying one thing and some say an other 8. And in the wordes of consecration which and where they should be 9. And of the accidents being there in nothing that is whitnesse and nothing white Roundnesse and nothinge round colour and nothing coloured and an hundred monsters differences else amongst them hath this one monster Transubstantiation begot The antiquity of Transubstantiation But when was the monster himselfe begotten It was holidaie at Rome then he is not so old by 1200. yeares and more as you haue by told made beleeue Our countrie man Tonstall telleth vs it was concluded in the coūsel of Lateran L. 1. fol. 46. de ◅rit corpor sang 3 Opinions touching trāsubstantiation held vnder Innocentius the third Pope of that name Before which time saith he there was 3. opinions concernning that matter some thought that the bodie of Christ was there together with the bread as fire in a peece of flint which waie it seemeth Luther following held the Consubstantiation Others thought that the bread was gon corrupted Others that the substance of bread was changed into the substance of Christs bodie which waie Innocentius followed refusing the other two although no fewer miracles he should say grosse absurdities contrarieties in nature naie more seeme to bee builded vpon the opinion which hee did chuse then one the other which hee refused For before that time it was left free to euerie man to thinke as himselfe liked Now for the antiquitie credit of this Lateran counsell wee may consult with Andradius Defenc. Trid. conc l. 2. f. 427. Genebrard Chro. l. 4. fol. 955. rekoneth in for the 12. generall so doth Bellar. l. 2 c. 5. de conc eccles the late defender of the Tridētine counsell and as great a Doctor in his time as Bellarmine is now and therfore his testimonie may not bee denied In order it was the ninth generall for place it was held in the pallace Lateran in Rome for time it was held in the yeare of our Lord 1215. twelue hundred odd yeares after Christ It was called together saith he rather to amend the ill manners that then raigned then to decree anie matters of faith nether did they much trouble thēselues to expoūd any hard places of scripture or open anie mysteries such good heed was taken to establish so high a point Thus hauing the receipt you maie distill the water I meane hauing these things brought to your hands so plainly you maie learne those two points of wisdome so much spoken of Be sober distrustfull Amicus