breath being restored againe vnto him which you had thought to steale and smother that he plainely confesseth the Bread and Wine to be Flesh and Blood and that the Nature of the one being changed into the Nature of the other they are both reduced into one Essence which is the same Doctrine that your Aduersary professeth and maintayneth against you Your Aduersaries affirme the Bread to be made a Sacrament and the Body of Christ by the words of Consecration for the which cause they not only adore it before they receaue it but also they haue euer held that it might be lawfully giuen to Infants and that which remaines thereof they are wonte to reserue to be giuen afterward to the sicke or to others that come to receaue as occasiō requireth You Protestāts affirme on the other side that it becōmeth a Sacrament and a Seale of the Body of Christ vnto you without any change in the thing by the liuely Faith of the Receauers and consequently you giue it not to Infants because they cannot receaue it with that Faith which makes it a Sacrament and that also which remaineth thereof after the whole Action you take to be no better then common Bread and soe you vse it As custome is the best interpreter of the law so the practise of the Church is the best interpreter of her owne Doctrine Wherefore to know what S. Cypriā with the Church of God in the secōd Age after Christ belieued at that tyme concerning this point of the B. Sacrament there can be no surer way then to examine what is practized in communicating the same to Infants and in reseruing of it to be taken as need required Which S. Cyprian in his sermon De Lapsis his owne vndoubted worke hath not obscurely recorded for he relateth Teste meipso sacrificantibus nobis my selfe being witnes and we our selues offering sacrifice that an Infant hauing beene fedde with a sopp of wine before an Idoll and being afterward brought to Church was much tormented during the tyme of the Sacrifice and when it 's turne came to receaue it resisted so vehemently that the Deacon was faine perforce to open it's mouth and to power in somewhat of the Sacrament that was in the Chalice but sayth S. Cypriā The drinke sanctified into the Bloud of Christ brake out of her polluted bowels c. In which Sermon he likewise testifieth That a certaine Woman when she would with vnworthy hands haue opened her coffer wherein was reserued the Holy Thing of our Lord there sprung vp fire from thence wherewith she was so terrified that she durst not touch it And That another defiled Person presuming to receaue with others could not eate nor touch the Holy Thing of God for in his opened hands insteed thereof he found Ashes By Document whereof sayth S. Cyprian it is shewed that the Lord doth depart when he is denyed By which Documents of reseruing the Eucharist and giuing it to Infants they who will not be obstinate may also learne out of S. Cyprian that the Eucharist after the words of Consecration was belieued to be really the Body of Christ and not figuratiuely by Fayth only to him that doth worthily so receaue it Wherefore to conclude this Dispute concerning the Testimony of S. Cyprian for Transubstantiation and Reall Presence as it was false that your Doctors claymed him in the former Conferēce so being plaine agaynst them in this point besides many other of no lesse importance it was fondly done of you to say they claymed him Section IX S. Augustine falsly alleadged by Syr Humphry against the Reall Presence FYnally against the Reall Presence you obiect other places of the Fathers affirming the Sacrament to be a figure of Christs body which your Aduersaries deny not For they define all Sacramēts to be signes and figures according whereunto they also holde that as the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a figure in respect of the Shape or externall accidents therof so it is the Body of Christ in respect of the thing contained in them But now that the Eucharist is only a figure or that it is not the Body of Christ which you should haue proued against them or els you proue nothing none of the places alleaged by you do shew neyther is it possible in all the Fathers to find so much as one place that doth sufficiently proue it While they in the meane tyme besides many most expresse Scriptures Matt. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 11. confuting also your principall obeiction that the Body of Christ cannot be in two places Act. 9.5.22.8.23.11 1. Cor. 15.8 They I say on the other side produce so many superabūdant Authorities from the Fathers Councells in all Ages conuincing the holy Eucharist to be the Body of Christ that I must needs say they haue discouered more bouldnes if not impudency thē learning or conscience who eyther in bookes or in Pulpits haue pretended to shew that the Fathers in this point are plainely against them To make this appeare it may suffice at this tyme briefely to set down the beliefe only of those Fathers in particuler which your selfe in your papers haue produced for you Tertullian S. Austen S. Ambrose S. Hierome and Gelasius shewing how euidently they teach the cōtrary Doctrine aswell in their writing elswhere as in those very places which your selfe haue cited First therefore let vs begin with Saint Augustine who in his Workes making often mention of the Sacrament giueth vs these particulers of his Doctrine therein That before the words of Consecration that which was offered is called Bread but after the words of Christ haue beene pronounced now it is not called Bread but it is called the Body Serm. 28. de verb. Domini That if Children had neuer seene the likenes of those thinges but only when it is offered and giuen in the Celebration of the Sacrament and that it should be tould vnto them with most graue Authority whose Body and Bloud it is they would belieue nothing els but that our Lord had neuer appeared to the eyes of Men saue only in that likenes lib. ◠de Trin. cap. 10. That Childrē were wont to receaue it apud Bedā in 1. Cor. 10. Who haue not the mouth of Faith to receaue it That it pleased the Holy Ghost was vniuersally obserued that our Lords body enter into the mouth of a Christiā before other meates in the honor of so great a Sacrament Epist 118. cap. 6. which must needes be meant of the mouth of the Body That we receaue with our hart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man Iesus Christ Man giuing vs his Flesh to be eaten and his Bloud to be drunke although it seeme more horrible to eate Mans flesh then to kill it and to drinke Mans bloud then to spill it lib. 2. cont Aduersaer legi◠Prophet That we doe not eate dead flesh dilaniated and cut in peeces as the Capharnaites vnderstood it for this
as the Sonne of the substance of his Father so as he himselfe hath sayd it is true Flesh which we receaue That is to say not by grace or by Fayth only but in Truth and in Substance Finally in the place which you cite for your selfe lib. 4. cap. 5. de Sacram. where there is nothing to be found in your fauour he hath these expresse words Therefore before Consecration it is Bread but after the words of Christ come to it it is the Body of Christ. And before the words of Christ it is a Cup full of Wine and Water when the words of Christ haue wrought then it is made the Bloud which redeemed the People To conclude our Lord Iesus testifieth vnto vs that we receaue his Body and Bloud Ought we to doubt of his Fayth and Testimony Heere if I had concealed the name of S. Ambrose would not the Reader thinke the man had liued in our tyme that wrore so forcibly and vehemently agaynst you Finally in the former Chapter of the same Booke he saith againe The bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament but after the words of Consecration of Bread is made the flesh of Christ And againe in the same little Chapter as if by often repeating the same thing he meant to vexe or confound euery obstinate Protestant that should reade it he saith Therefore that I may answere thee It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration I say vnto thee it is the Body of Christ And agayne a little after repeating the same againe as if he had now conuinced his Readers he concludeth You haue therefore learned that our Bread is made the Body of Christ and that Wine Water is put into the Chalice but is made Bloud by the Consecration of the heauenly Word But it may be thou wilt say I see not the forme of Bloud But it hath the likenesse for as thou hast receaued the likenesse of death so thou drinkest also the likenesse of Bloud and not the visible forme of Bloud that there might be noe horror of Bloud and yet the price of our Redemption which is the Bloud of Christ might worke in vs. Thou hast learned therefore that thou receauest the Body of Christ. Which you also might haue learned if you had read him your selfe and not trusted others that read him for no other purpose but only to wrest his words against his meaning Section XI S. Hierome falsly alleaged by Syr Humphry agaynst the Reall Presence NOW come we to S. Hierome who thinketh it noe blasphemy to say Epist 1. ad Heliod That Priests with their sacred Mouthes doe make the Body of Christ And Epist ad Euag. That his Body and Bloud is made at their prayer And in cap. 25. Matth. writeth as followeth After the typicall Passouer was ended c. he taketh Bread and passeth ouer to the Sacrament of the true Passouer that as Melchisedech the Priest of the most high God had done offering Bread and Wine to prefigure him he also might represent the truth of his Body and Bloud That is to say as Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine to prefigure him so he also taking Bread and wine offered the truth of his Body and Bloud to fulfill the figure According wherunto in Ps 190. speaking to our Sauiour he saith As Melchisedech offereth Bread and Wine soe thou also offerest thy Body and Bloud the true Bread and the true Wine In that sense true Bread as in Epist. ad Hedibiam quaest 2. he saith that Moyses gaue noe true Bread And as our Sauiour sayd Ioan. 6. That his Father gaue them true Bread from heauen Where also S. Hierome hath these words Let vs heare the Bread which our Lord brake to be the Body of our Lord and Sauiour And he adeth a little after He sate at the Banquet and was himselfe the Banquet he the eater and be that was eaten Finally lib. cont Vigil cap. 3. he reprehendeth Vigilantius for speaking against Reliques in this manner Therefore according to thy speach the Bishop of Rome doth ill who vpon the Bones of Peter and Paul which we call venerable but thou esteemest most vile dust doth offer Sacrifices to God and maketh their Tōbes to be the Altars of Christ According wherunto in Prouerb 11. he also saith That after this life small sinnes may be taken away by paine by prayers and almes of others and by celebrations of MASSE Lastly in his Booke against Iouinian which you cite at randome without any number I find nothing but this that may any way please you In the type of his Blood he offered not Water but Wine lib. 2. cap. 4. This testimony I find alleaged by your Doctours as S. Hieroms for their meere figuratiue or typicall Presence wherin they discouer eyther ignorance or desire to deceaue their Readers For whosoeuer shall take the paynes to peruse the place will find the aforesayd words not to be S Hieroms but Iouinians whose discourse against Abstinence from flesh and wine S. Hierome there setts downe in that Heretike his owne wordes whereof these are a part In the Type of his Bloud he offered not water but wine And S. Hierome afterward cōming to answere this obeiction against drinking of water and Abstinence from Flesh sayth that Christ neuer vsed wine nor dainties excepto mysterio quo Typum suae passionis expressit pro probanda corporis veritate Where the Saynt tearmes the holy Eucharist a Type not of the Body and Blood of Christ as the Hereticke did but of his Passion which is represented in the Mystery of the Masse which is the ordinary Catholike Doctrine and phrase Notwithstanding seeing this Heretike erred not agaynst the Catholike Doctrine of the Reall Presence his wordes haue a true sense and make agaynst you Protestants For you deny that in his last Supper he offered any thing at all and say that only vpon the Crosse he offered himselfe once for all not only sufficiently by his Bloud and Passion Heb. 2. but also effectually agaynst Mal. 2. without any other cleane oblation for the application of the merit of his Passion vnto vs. This place therefore maketh not for you neyther is it any way against them though it were S. Hieroms for they graunt he offered Wine in type or figure of his Bloud but he offered also his Bloud answering the figure in Truth and Substance As he was Priest after the order of Melchisedech in Bread and Wine he offered Bread and Wine in figure As the offering of Melchisedech was a figure of his offering he offered also his Body and Bloud which was the Truth or Substance of that figure Which to be the meaning of S. Hierome may sufficiently appeare by that which hath beene sayd and these other wordes of his Epist. ad Marcellam doe make it yet to appeare more plainely saying Melchisedech in the Type of Christ offered Bread and Wine and dedicated the Mystery of Christians in the Body
Cyprian which Bellarmine himselfe lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. holdeth to be none of Cyprians Wherein you must giue me leaue to tell you that your selfe much more deserue to be accused For first albeit Bellarmine doth say he thinketh that Sermon de Coena Domini not to be S. Cyprians yet he addeth immediatly in the same place that it is The Sermon of some auncient most holy and most learned Man as the Aduersaries meaning Protestants do confesse which words that you might with more shew eleuate and auoyd the former Authority were fraudulently concealed by you It is the worke of some learned Man of that Age sayth Erasmus in his annotations vpon the workes of S. Cyprian In tyme not much inferior to Cyprian sayth Fulke in 1. Corinth cap. 11. Wherefore doe we reuerence the Authority of S. Cyprian but because he was an Auncient holy and learned Father If therefore the Author of this Sermon was a most holy and learned Man as Bellarmine sayth the Protestants themselues confesse and of the same Age with S. Cyprian or in tyme not much inferior vnto him as I haue shewed that the Protestants themselues doe likewise witnesse why should any Protestant reiect him Besides though Bellarmine thinketh this Sermon to be none of Cyprians yet many other Deuines of great name Cypriano tribuunt doe iudge it to be the worke of S. Cyprian as well for the likenesse of the stale as for the dignity of the matter sayth Gaulortius a learned Protestant in his annotations thereupon Why then may not your Aduersarie follow heerein the iudgment of many other great Deuines In fine your Aduersary may alleage for himselfe in this matter the testimony of S. Augustine cont Donat. lib. 4. cap 22. his words are these From that Theefe to whome not being baptized it was sayd This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise the same S. Cyprian tooke no sleight document that passion or death or Martyrdome doth sometyme supply the place of Baptisme According whereunto both in sense and words in the same Sermon de Coena Domini it is sayd and therefore according to S. Augustine by S. Cyprian That our Lord c. deferred not his benefit but with the same speedy Indulgence he gaue presently aswell a document as also an example thereof saying vnto the Theefe This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise He had his condemnation and punishment for robery but his contritioÌ„ of hart changed his payne into Martyrdome and his bloud into Baptisme Why now may not your Aduersary cite that Sermon as Saint Cyprians which Saint Augustine himselfe so long a goe alleadged vnder the name of Cyprian First therefore heerein you deserue both blame and shame insimulating your Aduersary of fraud for misalleaging S. Cyprian by the testimony of Bellarmine and fraudulently coÌ„cealing those words of Bellarmine in the same place which euen the testimonyes of Protestants themselues do shew the words alleaged by your Aduersary out of Cyprian to be of no lesse Authority then the words of Cyprian Secondly you deserue the more blame heerein because you alleage agaynst it another place out of S. CypriaÌ„ which according to the opinioÌ„ of Bellarmine in the same place in the same Chapter is none of Cyprians And plaine it is that the Sermon of the Supper of our Lord alleaged by your Aduersary and the other of Chrisme alleadged by your selfe are both the Sermons of the same Author for the whole Booke contayning 12. Sermons is intituled Of the Cardinall workes of Christ and dedicated to Pope Cornelius the Martyr who liued in the tyme of Cyprian And therefore he that denyeth the one hath no reason to affirme the other to be the worke of Cyprian How then out of the same mouth could you breath both hoat and cold And how out of the same Bellarmine could you proue the Sermon alleadged by your Aduersary to be none of Cyprians and affirme agaynst Bellarmine the other alleaged by your selfe to be the worke of Cyprian Thirdly the like foule fraude coÌ„mitted by you appeareth yet more grossely in the words which you cite out of the same Author who when you take him to be with you is Cyprian but not Cyprian when he speaketh against you The words of the Author are these Our Lord therefore at that Table wherein he made his last Feast to his Aâ—ostles with his owne hands gaue Bread and Wine but at the Crosse he gaue his Body to be wounded by the hands of his Enemie that sincere verity and true sincerity being more secretly imâ—â—inted in the Apostles might expound to Nations how the Wine and the Bread was Flesh and Blood and after what manner tâ— causes agreed with their effects That diuers shapes might brought to one Essence and the things signifiyng and the things signified might be called and knowne by the same names Thus S. Cyprian But not thus Syr HuÌ„phry for hauing alleaged the words which seemed to make for him he gaue Bread and Wine to his Apostles but his Body to his Enemies he chopt off with an c. the words following That sincere verity and true sincerity being more secretly imprinted in the Apostles might expound to Nations how the Wine and Bread was flesh and Blood which as euery man may see are expressely against him and serue to expound the meaning of the Author in the rest of that Sentence which though otherwise beeing a little obscure yet being a little considered may be thus explained Our Lord sayd to his Apostles This is my bodie which shall be giuen for you when at the table he gaue to them visibly Bread and Wine but at the Crosse he visibly gaue his owne Body that his Apostles thereby might visibly see he had giuen them inuisibly his owne Body because he gaue them the same Body into their owne hands which was giuen for them into the hands of their Enemies 1. That the sincere verity and true sincerity heereof being thus secretly imprinted in the harts of the Apostles they might confidently expound to all Nations how the Bread and Wine of that table was truly and sincerely Flesh and Blood 2. How the causes agreed with their effects the words of our Sauiour which were the causes going before agreed with their effects both at the Table and at the Crosse that followed after 3. How vnder diuers â—hapes of Bread and Wine at the Table was contained but one the same Essence because the same shapes remayning the Natures of Bread and Wine by the omnipotency of the Word were changed oâ— reduced into the Nature of his Body as before you haue heard â—ut of his former sermon 4. How the thinges signifying which were the shapes of Bread and Wine remayning and the things signified which were the Body and Blood of our Sauiour came both to 〈◊〉 called by the same names because the one did signify exhibit and coâ—aine the other By all which it appeareth the Author hauing his right brought backe againe and his owne
and Bloud of our Sauiour Section XII Tertullian and Gelasius falsly alleaged by Syr Humphry agaynst the Reall Presence And S. Ignatius absurdly claymed by the Protestant Doctours THere remayneth behinde of the Authors you alleage Tertullian and Gelasius Tertullian is cleare for them who in his Booke De resurrectione caruis to proue that our flesh shall ryse agayne and be saued vseth these words that follow The flesh is washed that the Soule may be clensed The flesh is annointed that the Souls may be consecrated The flesh is fed with the Body and Bloud of Christ that the Soule may be fatned Though the Soule may feed on Christ by the metaphoricall mouth of Fayth yet the flesh hath no such mouth to feede vpon him and if it had being only fed metaphorically therewith nothing would follow thereof but that it might rise and be saued only metaphorically and so Tertullian should haue proued that which he there impugned In fine as the flesh is heere sayd to be truly washed and annointed so also it must be vnderstood to be truly fed and not to be fed by fayth only or in figure Which Argument to proue the Resurrection Tertullian seemeth to haue learned of Irenaeus lib. 4. cont Haer. cap. 34. whome also he calleth Omnium Doctrinarum cariosisimâ—m Exploratorem lib. cont Valent. prope initium And therfore because the Doctrine of Irenaeus in that place doth serue very well to confirme both the doctrine of Tertullian and the Reall Presence heere in question I will giue you his whole discourse Quomodo constabit ijs c. sayth he of the Heretiks against whome he wrote How can they assure themselues the Bread wherein thankes are giuen to be the body of their Lord and the Cup to be the Cup of his bloud if they do not confesse him to be the Sonne of him that made the world And how againe doe they say that that flesh must go into corruption and not receaue life which is nourished by the body and bloud of our Lord Therefore eyther let them change their opinion or let them cease to offer the things aforesayd But our Dictrine agreeth with the Eucharist and the Eucharist againe confirmeth our Doctrine for we offer therin vnto him those things that are his because being the Sonne of God he maketh theÌ„ by his omnipotency his owne Body his owne Bloud and consequently we teach the communication and vnity of his Flesh and of his Spirit with vs our flesh being fed with his Body and Bloud and receauing thereby his Spirit to liue for euer For as the bread which commeth from the Earth receauing the vocation or word of God is now no more common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly comming from the earth and the other Heauenly the Body and Bloud of the Sonne of God so also our bodies receauing the Eucharist by the communication and vnitie of his flesh with ours are no more corruptible hauing now the hope of Resurrection So that according to these auncient Fathers as we belieue our Sauiour to be the Sonne of God so must we belieue the Eucharist to be his Body and Bloud And as we belieue the Resurrection of the Flesh so must we belieue that our flesh is fed with the flesh of Christ And eyther you must change your opinion or els as now you haue ceased to offer these things and to feed your flesh with the body and bloud of Christ so you are also in danger to change your beliefe as well of the Diuinity of Christ as also of the Resurrection of your owne bodyes But it may be the place which your selfe haue cited lib. 4. cont Marcionem out of the same Author is no lesse with you theÌ„ was the former agaynst you his words are these Professing therefore that with a desire he desired to eate the Pasche as his own for it was not seemly that God should desire to eate the Pasche of another hauing taken the Bread c. he made it his owne body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body But the figure had not beene vnlesse there were a true body Whereof citing imperfectly but halfe the Sentence This is my body This is the figure of my body and changing that into this to make it sound more fully for you you guilefully omit the other halfe The bread which he tooke he made his body saying This is my body which are euidently against you The words also which you cite wherein the Author seemeth to say This is my body that is to say this is the figure of my body and no more your Aduersaries do clearly shew to haue another meaning First because otherwise he should not only teach that which is directly contrary to his former Doctrine in the place before alleaged but also should contradict himselfe in this very sentence for according to our expositioÌ„ he should not haue sayd that Christ tooke bread made it his body which is false if it be only a figure of his body but that he tooke bread and made it the figure of his body saying This is my body that is to say the figure of my body and consequently in the words that follow he should haue sayd But it were not a figure vnlesse there were a true body and not as he doth but there had not beene a figure if there were not a true body For if the figure and the body were both at the same tyme why should he say of the one that it had beene and of the other that it was Secondly your Aduersaries therefore do say the meaning of those words This is my body that is the figure of my body to be This is my body that is the figure of my body in the law now by me fullfilled Or This is my body that is to say this is the bread which was a figure in the Law signifying my body and is now fullfilled by me hauing relatioÌ„ to the words of the Prophet Ieremy which a little after he citeth and expoundeth and sheweth to haue beene then fullfilled by our Sauiour As in the like sense S. Iohn Baptist for example when he saw our Sauiour might haue sayd This is the Messias that is to say The Lambe of God which was the figure of the Messias in the Law to signify that the Prophecy of the Lambe of God in Isa 16. was then fullfilled in our Sauiour Therfore that Tertullian meant to say This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body now fullfilled c. your Aduersaries doe plainely proue First because it is euident that Tertullian in this place intended to shew how our Sauiour in his Pasche fullfilled the law against Marcion who being an Enemy of the Old Testament contended that our Sauiour came to dissolue it and Tertullian argueth against him in this maÌ„ner The Bread of Christ in the law did signifie the Body of Christ which he proueth out of Ieremie 11. saying
putidius Whereas they produce the testimony of Ignatius I say nothing is more rotten or corrupted with Papistry then those trifling Epistles that go vnder his name If nothing be more rotten that is more Papisticall and contrary vnto Protestants then the Doctrine of the writings we haue of S. Ignatius the Apostles Disciple then is he asmuch for vs as S. Ignatius of Loyolae And the same M. Caluin in his Booke de participatione Christi in Coena whereas Westphalus the Lutheran alleadgeth the testimony of Ignatius cited by Theodoret in his 3. Dialogue out of his Epistle ad Smirâ—enses where he chargeth the Menandrian Heretikes with his Caluinian hereticall Doctrine Non confitentur Eucharistiam esse carnem Saluatoris nostri Iesu Christi they do not belieue the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ Caluin I say not without disdayne frameth this answere What ingenuity is this to cite the Epistle of Ignatius which euen an ordinary Friar or Monke would hardly acknowledge as his owne They know that haue read those toyes that they contayne nothing but tales of Lent of Chrisme of Tapers of Fasting and festiuall dayes which through superstition and ignoraÌ„ce crept into the Church after Ignatius his dayes Thus Caluin speakes of the Epistle cited by Theodoret by Eusebius by S. Hierome for the Epistle of Ignatius So that as I sayd if the Religion of S. Ignatius the Disciple of S. Iohn be tryed by his writings which all antiquity acknowledge as his he is found euen by the confession of Protestants as very a Papist as was S. Ignatius of Loyola to wit more then any ordinary Friar or Monke What desperation then was it of Doctour Featly to what a Non-plus was he brought when he was forced to giue vnto Ignatius and his writings the first place after the Apostles in the Catalogue of Caluinian Professors For this Author can no more be coupled togeather with Caluin in the same Religion and Church then light can agree with darknes Christ with Beliall Which besides what hath beene sayd may appeare in the Preface of his Epistle to the Romans by the great Encomium he maketh of that Church Quae praesidet in Regione Romanorum which presidence must needs be vnderstood of the Church of Rome aboue other Churches Thirdly to draw to an end of this point Tertullian seemeth to proue that our Sauiour gaue his true body because he professed That with a desire he desired to eate the Pasche as his owne for that it had beene vnseemely that God should haue longed after the flesh of the Iewish Lambe or quid alienum or after any thing els that was anothers But if he had desired to eate bread with his Apostles he had not desired to eate his owne but that of another and it had beene no lesse vnseemely that God should haue longed to eate the bread of another with his Apostles then to eate flesh of another with the Iewes Lastly if this sentence of Tertullian be obscure it must be expounded by the other place before alleadged where he sayth without any ambiguity that our flesh is fed with the body and bloud of Christ For it were agaynst all reason that the plaine words thereof should be expounded by this other place which seemeth to contayne two contrary senses and therefore is often alleadged by vs agaynst our Aduersaries and by our Aduersaries against vs. As concerning Gelasius cont Eutichem the last Author that you alleage I wil be content that Chemnitius a learned Lutheran and as great an Enemy of Transubstantiation as your selfe be iudge betweene vs whether that place doth fauour it or doth sound any way for it his words are these Examen part 2. pag. 88. Gelasius sayth that the Wine and the Bread of the Eucharist by the work of the holy Ghost doe passe or conuert into the diuine Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ and verily these words do seeme to sound very strongly for the establishing of Transubstantiation For that which passeth into another substance and that by the working of the holy Ghost certainely doth seeme not to remaine in his former Substance If you had seene this place or if passion had not blinded you had it beene possible you should haue cited Gelasius against Transubstantiation which by the iudgmeÌ„t of such a professed Enemy thereof doth make so strongly for it Section XIII The Conclusion of this Treatise THus much concerning the Authories of the Fathers alleaged by you partly false cited which may be pardoned partly falsified which seemeth to touch your Honour and all of them eyther wholy peruerted or far from the matter which coÌ„ming from a Knight sheweth an excusable ignorance in this kind of learning But against the substance of the booke you receaued as I haue shewed in the 4. first Sections of this Treatise you haue answered nothing Now therefore good Syr if according to your Degree you will doe your owne selfe Knights seruice indeed set to your shoulders and vnderprop your Church as Atlas was faigned to support the heauens for as you haue heard and seene in the former Sections it is so mainely battered with fower such peeces of great Ordinance that vnlesse it be mightly sustained the sound of theÌ„ alone is sufficieÌ„t to shake it downe and ouerthow it 1. Their visible Succession in all Ages 2. Their Conuersions of Nations in all Ages 3. Myracles in confirmation of their Doctrine in all Ages 4. Censures of Fathers and Councells for the condemnation of yours in all Ages For 1. your Doctors did but beg the Question when they made clayme to Christ and his Apostles and began at the wrong end making that their Argument which should haue beene their conclusion was to be proued by nominating Protestants to succeed them in all Ages and especially in the Ages before Luther according to the words of the Question which they vndertooke to answere What foule shame and extreme confusion is it to your Cause when being vrged to name or bring forth but one Protestant in 500. or 1000. yeares before Luther you are eyther constrained to answere it is not necessary or els supposing the ignorance of those that heare you yow are inforced to cloth your nakednesse with the raggs of Wyckliffe Waldo and other such accursed Heretikes all of them holding some points with your Aduersaries against you and being for other grosse heresies noe lesse detested by them then condemned by you Rather let the bowells of Oxford Librarie be ripped vp and ransacked from end to end Or els neuer leaue digging vntill you haue wrought your selues into those caues where Protestants liued for so many hundred yeares to find some Volumes some CommeÌ„taries or some Records of the Actes and Gestes of your Auncestors If nothing can be found in Europe recommend the matter to the East Indian CoÌ„pany or to the Westerne Voyagers to seeke and search among furthest Nations for Protestants lineally descended from Christ his Apostles
Come let vs put Wood on his Bread that is sayth Tertullian the Crosse vpon his Body But our Sauiour gaue his Apostles that Bread which he made his Body saying This is my Body therefore he fullfilled the law in giuing that Body which the law figured in Bread and was therefore called Bread in Ieremie In the same manner againe he proueth that giuing his Bloud in the forme of Wine he fullfilled the law because he gaue that which the law figured in Wine and therefore Gen. 49. was called Wine where it was prophesied of our Sauiour That he should wash his stole in Wine that is sayth Tertullian his Flesh in bloud So sayth Tertullian he qui tunc vinum in sanguine figurauit who then made Wine a figure of his Bloud now consecrated his Bloud in Wine Secōdly your Aduersaries proue the same because Tertullian vrgeth these former words to proue also against Marcion that our Sauiour had a true Body and not the shadow or phantasme only of a Body as he contended Which supposing that his Body was as Tertullian speaketh the figure of his Body then fullfilled he proueth because vnto the figure of a Body to be Crucified there must answere a true Body for of a Phantasme saith he there can be noe figure Secondly he proueth the same Because in the mention of the Cupp instituting his Testament signed with his Bloud he cōfirmed the substance of his Body That is to say he confirmed his Body to be no shadow but a substance for sayth he the proof of Bloud is a proof of Flesh and the proof of Flesh is a proofe of a true body Wherefore hauing giuen Bloud in his Testament he gaue also a true Body These Arguments therefore haue place if according to the sense which your Aduersaries make of the words of Tertullian Our Sauiour fullfilled the law by giuing that which was figured in the law But if according to your exposition he gaue only a figure of his Body and Bloud he gaue not that which was figured in the law as Tertullian himself expoūdeth the law for that which was figured in the law sayth Tertullian was that Body which was to be crucified by consequence he fullfilled not the law which notwithstanding was the Heresie of Marcion there condemned by Tertullian And againe if our Sauiour had giuen that which was only a figure of his Body Tertullian could not haue proued thereby that our Sauiour had a true Body answerable to the figure therof in the Prophet Ieremie For if there might haue beene a figure of a figure there might haue been also a figure of a Phantasme And if in the mention of the Cup he had not signed his Testament with true but only with figuratiue Bloud his Testament had not beene true but only figuratiue neyther had he thereby confirmed that his Body was a true Substance For figuratiue Bloud could haue proued but figuratiue flesh and figuratiue flesh could haue proued but a figuratiue Body Add vnto this that if in your sense Tertullian hath sayd This is my Body that is the figure of my Body Marcion might as well haue sayd in lyke manner This is my Body that is to say the shadow or Phantasme of my Body And so in effect Tertullian had agreed with Marcion whose Heresy he there condemned and had impugned the Truth of the Eucharist which he there mētioned for as Ignatius long before obserued the Simonian and the Saturnian Heretikes did not admit Eucharists and Oblations because they did not confesse the Eucharist to be that flesh of our Sauiour which suffered for our sinnes Epist. ad Smyr vt citatur à Theodoreto Dial. 3. Wherefore if Tertullian had not confessed the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ he must also haue denyed the Eucharist and the oblatiō thereof and for the same reason the Protestants denying it to be the flesh of Christ and consequently denying the oblation thereof it is euident that they admitt not the Eucharist of Ignatius no more then the Simonian and Saturnian Heretikes haue done before them but insteed of the Eucharist which was in his dayes they haue supposititiously brought in another of their owne inuentiō This is that S. Ignatius Martyr the disciple of S. Iohn thought to be that Boy who was found to haue the fiue Barly loaues and two fishes which our Sauiour multiplyed that thereby the harts of men might be the better disposed to belieue the locall multiplication of his owne body in the dreadfull Mystery Euen frō thence he tooke a great deuotion thereunto and was euen then ordayned to be a witnes of the admirable Doctrine thereof I delight not sayth he Epist. ad Rom. post med in the nutriment of corruption I desire the Bread of God the Heauenly Bread which is the Flesh of Christ the Sonne of God and the drinke which is his Bloud And as he had beene fed with the bread which was Christs flesh while he liued so when he came to dye he desired that his flesh might be grown'd as in a Mill with the teeth of Lyons that he might be made cleane bread for the mouth of our Sauiour Where also he sayth It is not lawfull without a Bishop that is to say without orders receaued from a Bishop to baptize nor to immolate Sacrifice And what Protestant Minister will take vpon him to immolate Sacrifice Or what Protestant Bishop eyther can or will giue him power to doe it For which cause the Centurists Cent. 2. cap. 4. affirme those wordes of his to be incommodious Col. 55. dangerous and as it were the seedes of errors Col. 167. Yet this is that Ignatius of the first Age whome your Doctors with vnspeakable bouldnes claymed to be theirs as you know in the former Cōference and in their Booke would make fooles belieue that the Catholikes when they heard him named much reioyced taking him to be Ignatius Loyola the founder of the Society of IESVS But the truth is your Doctors might aswell haue claymed the latter as the former For ī his Religion be tryed by Workes or Epistles that are extant then your Authors disclayme from the former no lesse then from the later Your M. Wotton being vrged with the saying of Ignatius in the behalfe of Merit taken out of his Epistle to the Romans vndoubtedly his as both S. Hierome and Eusebius acknowledge yea S. Irenaeus lib. 3. aduers haeres prope finem doth alleage a sentence of this Epistle yet to be found therein being I say pressed with this testimony your Doctor in his defence of Perkins pag. 339. answereth in these wordes I say plainely this mans testimony is nothing worth because he was of little iudgment in Diuinity What more could he haue sayd in contempt of the testimony of S. Ignatius of Loyola But your Grand Maister Caluin yet speaketh more plainely in his Institutions l. 1. c. 14. § 44. Ignatium quòd obtendunt nihil naenijs illis quae sub Ignatij nomine edita sunt