it is bread saith he but after consecration of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. And againe before the words of Christ be vttered in the consecration the Chalice is full of Wine and Water but when the words of Christ haue wrought their effect there is made the bloud that redeemed the People I. D. Whether those bookes of the Sacraments here cited by you vnder the name of Ambrose be his or no is not agreed vpon by all Possevine the Iesuite affirming that all almost together with Cardinal Bellarmine hold them to be legitimate plainely insinuates by the word almost that some are of another minde Their reasons are first because the stile much differeth from that of Ambrose his being cleare perspicuous florid and elaborate this oftentimes negligent harsh rude savouring of Monkish barbarisme Secondly because no writer before Lanfrank Guitmund who liued six hundred yeares after Ambrose quote them which were strange if they be his especially considering the matter of these bookes and how commonly the rest of his writings were alleaged Lastly because repeating the Lords Prayer hee deliuereth the sixt Petition in these words And suffer vs not to bee led into temptation whereas the words of Christ are And lead vs not into temptation which it is not to bee thought that S. Ambrose either was ignorant of or meant to amend As touching the other booke de Imitandis you should say de mysterijs initiandis the same iudgement haue they as of the former But if you will let them bee Saint Ambroses For I meane not to be peremptory herein What would you conclude out of him That hee denies it expresly to bee bread after consecration Certainely in expresse tearmes he doth not All he saith is that after consecration bread is made flesh and wine bloud out of which it followeth not that it ceaseth to be bread and wine for S. Ambrose himselfe affirmeth that this notwithstāding they still remaine what they were If saith he there bee so great power in the word of the Lord Iesus that they should beginne to bee that which they were not how much more effectuall is it that they be what they were yet be changed into another thing But how may this be will you say that it should remaine bread and yet be made flesh Let S. Chrysostome resolue you The grace of God saith he sanctifying the bread it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the name of the Lords body Yea and S. Ambrose himselfe also The Lord Iesus himselfe saith he cryeth this is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly words it is named another kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He saith his Bloud Before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud Where by the way I cannot but marvel at the fore-head of your Cardinall Bellarmine who vouching this place changeth that clause the body of Christ is signified into this it is the body of Christ. Happily he did not brooke the word signifie because it cleareth this point of the Real Presence more then willingly he would But hereby it is evident how bread may be made flesh and yet still remaine bread namely because it is made so only typically and in a signifying mystery N. N. Whereas Christ hath said of the Bread This is my Body who will dare to doubt thereof And whereas hee hath said of the Wine This is my Bloud who will doubt or say it is not his Bloud He once turned Water into Wine in Cana of Galilee by his owne will which Wine is like vnto Bloud And shall we not thinke him worthy to bee beleeued when he saith he hath changed Wine into his Blood Our Lord Iesus Christ doth testifie vnto vs that we receiued his Body and Bloud and may we doubt of his credit or testimonie Those things that are written let vs read and what we read let vs vnderstand so shall we perfectly performe the duty of Faith for that these points which wee affirme of the naturall verity of Christs being in vs except we learne thē of Christ himselfe we affirme them wickedly and foolishly c. Wherefore whereas he saith My Flesh is truly Meat and my blood truly drinke there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of Christs body and blood for that both by the affirmation of Christ himselfe and our owne beleefe there is in the Sacrament the flesh truly and the blood truly of our Saviour Eusebius bringeth in Christ our Saviour speaking in these words For so much as my flesh is truly meat and my Blood truly drinke let all doubtfulnesse of infidelity depart for so much as he who is the author of the gift is witnesse also of the truth thereof And Saint Leo to the same effect Nothing at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and those doe in vaine answere Amen when they receaue it if they dispute against that which is affirmed And finally St Epiphanius concludeth thus Hee that beleeueth it not to bee the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament is fallen from grace and Salvation I. D. Your Argument Christ saith This is my Body This is my Blood True no man denieth it The Fathers say He is worthy to be beleeued and wee may not doubt of his testimonie True also and he is an infidel whosoever questioneth any thing he saith What then Ergo by the judgement of the Fathers the flesh of Christ is Really and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament It followeth not For Christ saith not so and his Flesh without Transubstantiation may be present Sacramentally and Spiritually Saint Paul expresly saith The rocke was Christ and he is worthy to be beleeued neither may wee doubt of his credit Yet I hope you will not inferre thereupon Ergo in S. Pauls iudgement the Rocke was transubstantiated into Christ. No more can you conclude the like Change out of Christs words for the case is exactly the same In a word to argue from the Thing to the Manner It is Ergo it is so or so is meerely ridiculous With this generall answere might I at once quit all your authorities but to three of them I haue somewhat more to say in particular Christ saith Cyril hath said of the bread This is my Body and who will dare to doubt thereof Verily no true beleever Yet Papists dare For that Bread should bee Christs Body tropically figuratiuely they iest flout at and that it should be so literally and properly they flatly deny It is impossible saith your law that Bread should be the Body of Christ. And Bellarmine which sentence this is my body either must be vnderstood tropically that bread is the body of Christ significatiuely or it is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot be that bread should
these things hang together for my part I cannot see Would to God your selfe had taken the paines to shew it But this is your solemne fault you quote the sayings of the Fathers and leaue mee to gather your Conclusions I may well thinke because you saw no great force or strength in them And whether Gregory did favor Transubstantiation or no let it be tried by these words As the Divinity of the word of God is one which filleth all the world so although that body bee consecrated in many places at innumerable times yet are there not many bodies of Christ nor many cups but one body of Christ and one bloud with that which he tooke in the wombe of the Virgin and which he gaue to the Apostles For the Divinity of the word filleth that which is every where and conioyneth and maketh that as it is one so it bee ioyned to the body of Christ and his body be in truth one Here according to Gregory the body of Christ doth not succeed and fill vp the roome of bread after the substance thereof is abolished but the fulnesse and vertue of the Divinity which filleth the bread maketh it â—o passe into the body of Christ and so to be one body of Christ. Which how it can stand with your Transubstantiation iudge you N. N. These Hereticks admit not the Eucharists and oblations because they will not confesse that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Iesus Christ which hath suffered for our sins which the Father hath raised vp againe by his goodnesse These words alleaged by Theodoret are reported by him to be the words of St. Ignatius the Apostles scholler written in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses and therefore of greater antiquitie I. D. These words are not found in that Epistle ad Smyrnenses which is now extant Whereby you may perceaue it is true that I said the Epistles of Ignatius are not come perfect to our hands Of this Epistle saith Eusebius Ignatius when he wrote to them of Smyrna vsed words I knowe not whence taken And Hierome If you vse not his testimonies for authoritie at least vse them for antiquity And the Abbot of Spanheâ—m reckons it not among the rest of his Epistles as being doubtfull Yet for all this the credit of this Epistle shall not be questioned by mee I answere therefore the Heretikes which Ignatius meanes were Menander and the Disciples of Simon These denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and consequently that hee had Flesh. Wherevpon they reiected the Eucharist also least thereby they should be constrained to confesse that he had true Flesh. For granting the signe of a body you must also grant a true body Figure and Truth being Correlatiues whose Relation is to figure and to be figured And thus they added aloes vnto wormwood one error vnto another first denying the truth of Christs body and then that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of his body or that it was Sacramentally his body More then this cannot bee meant For I presume Theodoret would not alleage this to crosse himselfe who holdeth that Bread and Wine still remaine and argueth from them for the verity of Christs body because they are symbols of his body as is aboue declared N. N. Doth not the Evangelist Iohn say in the Apocalyps If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke and if any man shall minish of these words of the booke of this Prophecie God shall take away his part out of the booke of life and out of the holy City and the things which are written in this booke Is this malediction or curse lesse to be feared here that we diminish not or put any thing to the words of him that said This is my body which shall be delivered for you this is my bloud of the New Testament which shall be shed for many in the remission of sinnes For when he saith This is my body wee shall put to an vnderstanding saying a Figuratiue Body or that it is spoken by a similitude when I say he saith this is my Body we shal say this signifieth my Body is it not much that we put to his words or by an evill change take from them and make a sense which so great an author God man in no place hath spoken nor at any time did ascend into his heart This man especially with many of the rest answereth M. Downe and all Protestants fully I. D. In this Authority I cannot but greatly pitty you to see how miserably you are gulled and beguiled by your Author For what was this Rupertus but a man of yesterday one that liued towards twelue hundred after Christ and a very Heretike in this point of the Sacrament For he maintained that the Eucharisticall Bread is hypostatically assumed by the Word iust after the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by the same Word This he expresseth in words as cleare as the noone day For expounding that of our Saviour The Bread which I will giue is my Flesh he saith That the eternall word by incarnation was made man not destroying or changing but personally assuming the humanitie and after the same manner by consecration of the Eucharist the same word is made Bread not destroying or changing but personally assuming Bread This he declareth elsewhere very largely shewing that Bread is made the Body of Christ not by turning it into his Flesh but because it is assumed by the Word Whence it followeth that Bread is the Body of Christ yet not his Humane or Carnall but Bready Body much differing from that which he tooke of the Virgin That yet these two bodies may be said to be One because the Person is but one or Christ is one who assumed them both so that the same Christ aboue that is in heauen is in the Flesh and beneath that is on the Altar is in Bread This grosse errour Algerus who liued in the same time with Rupertus confuâ—ed calling it as it iustly deserued a new and most absurd heresie What say you now to this good sir Is this the man who especially among the rest fully answereth Mrâ— Downe and all Protestants Doth he not as fully answere you Papists who cleane contrary to his Tenet destroy and change the bread to make it Christs body Yea but we adde vnto the Text vnderstanding it to be a Figuratiue body That is a shamelesse slander for wee place no Figure in the word bodie but litterally interpret it of Christs naturall body At least we say bread signifieth his body So wee say indeed and so say the Fathers also And to giue the true sense vnto a Text is not to adde vnto it Neither can I conceaue why it should be counted addition in vs to say This is my body Sacramentally or by way of signification more then in you to say it is so by way of Transubstantiation or
and vnheard of vntill this time and example whereof you cannot find in any writer Neither finally is the body of Christ it For that is the thing signified and by your rule the signe and the thing signified must be two differing and distinct things not the same Which also perfectly agreeth with right reason For seeing nothing is opposite vnto it selfe the signe and the thing signified are opposed one vnto another by way of Relation they being Relatiue tearmes it cannot bee that the thing signified should bee one and the same with the signe and consequently that Christs body should be a signe of it selfe The conclusion of all is that if neither bread nor the Accidents of bread nor the body of Christ be the signe in the Eucharist then there is no signe at all therein and if no signe then is the Nature of the Sacrament destroyed a signe being necessary to the constitution thereof Secondly the signe as you say ought to be visible and sensible which is very true For the Sacrament being a Representation of the Death of Christ it can no more be expressed by Insensible signes then a Picture be drawne with Invisible colours But in the Eucharist there is no sensible signe Not the bread for ceasing to be it ceaseth also to bee visible Not the Accidents of bread for though they be visible yet are they not signes as we haue shewed but only of their proper subiect Nor the body of Christ for that being covered from our sight vnder the Accidents of bread cannot be seene of vs. What Seraphicall and piercing eyes some of your Illuminates may haue I knowne not but sure I am ordinary men see it not and what they see seemes to them rather bread then flesh Your owne men confesse so much and therefore the more shame against their owne rule to make it a signe that I say which is Invisible and cannot be seene so that which is visible and may be seene Thirdly lastly you acknowledge that in every Sacrament there ought to be a Proportion and agreement betweene the signe and the 2 signified 1 thing But in the Eucharist as you order it there is no such Proportion For there is nothing that resembleth vnto vs either the Passion of Christ or the nourishment of our soules by his Flesh and Bloud or our mutuall Vnion and Coniunction in his mysticall body Wherein the Analogie and agreement principally standeth Bread indeed would every way be answerable therevnto if according to Christs institution you would suffer it to bee there For the Breaking of the one resembleth the Suffering of the other and the nourishing of our bodies by the one the nourishment of our Soules by the other and our Participation of one Bread our Vnion and Communion in the same mysticall body But you haue banisht it out of the Sacrament and therefore this Analogie also together with it Besides it there remaineth nothing but Christs body and the Accidents of bread Christs body is one and the same for he assumed not more Bodies And to seeke a similitude in an Identitie or betweene the same thing and it owne selfe is meere phrenzie It resteth therefore to make vp the Proportion that the Accidents be broken that they be composed of divers graines and grapes and that they are able to feed and nourish our Bodies or else neither is Christs passion nor our mysticall coniunction nor the spirituall nourishment of our soules by his body resembled by them But this is a foule heresie in Philosophy and whosoever affirmes it deserues to haue his braine purged with a good quantity of Hellebore For if Accidents nourish then are they turned into our substance and if so then haue wee here a stranger Transubstantiation then of bread into Christs body for that is of one substance into another this of Accidents into substance If your Monks for tryall hereof might for a while be fed with nothing else but Accidents I thinke the swaging of their fat paunches would soone put an end to the controversie and force them to confesse that nothing but substance can keepe them from staruing It may be you will say though the Accidents of bread feed not yet they seeme to feed which is sufficient Wherevnto I answere that God vseth not to mocke his Church with vaine shewes and illusions but as he truly and really feedeth our soules with the body and bloud of his Sonne so hath hee ordained true and reall Symbols and resemblances thereof Thus haue wee learned Christ and no otherwise Fourthly it gainesayeth the perpetuall consent of Antiquity And here to avoide tautology I omit all those passages of the Fathers already quoted wherein is affirmed either that bread is the body of Christ or that it is the Figure of his Body Out of both which as wee haue shewed it necessarily followes that bread remaines and that the words of Institution This is my body are to bee vnderstood not literally but tropically Neither will I alleage such frivolous broken and impertinent sentences as your Author furnished you with for your Reall Presence and Transubstantiation But among many I will select a few choice ones such as shall be pregnant and direct to the purpose For I desire to be breefe and to beare you downe not so much with the number as the weight of them Iustin Martyr affirmeth that by the sanctified foode of the Eucharist our Flesh and bloud is nourished by the change thereof and Irenaeus that the substance of our flesh is nourished and augmented thereby It is bread therefore for the true bread of Cstrist neither nourisheth our bodies nor is converted into them The same Irenaeus saith that the Eucharist consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heavenly Take away bread and there remaineth no Earthly thing therein vnlesse you will say that the Accidents are Earthly Clemens of Alexandria proueth against the Encratites who abhorred wine that our Saviour himselfe dranke it because he dranke of the blessed cup. But the argument followes not if there were only bloud in the cup and no Wine Tertullian What then he would haue bread to signify he sufficiently declared calling bread his body If bread signifies his body then is it not his body Origen That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer as touching the materiall part thereof goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught This cannot possibly be vnderstood of the Accidents for they are not materiall nor of the Body of Christ for that were too vnworthy of bread therefore which in the same place hee calleth the Typicall and Symbolicall Body of Christ distinguishing it from his true Body Cyprian The Lord offered Bread and the cup mixt with Wine That which is offered is Consecrated Ergo after Consecration it is Bread and Wine Againe Wee finde it was a mixt cup which the Lord did offer and that it was wine which he
Chrysostome doe proue not only this but the Resurrection also of our Bodies by the truth of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament for that our Flesh ioyning with his Flesh which is immortall shall bee immortall also I. D. The truth of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament and the Coniunction of our Flesh with his Flesh neither is nor ever was by vs denied And therefore to heap vp Fathers for the proofe thereof is but to spend your labour to no purpose That you should proue is the Presence of Christ by Transubstantiation Which hitherto you haue but little aymed at In the Sacrament say these Fathers our Flesh is ioyned to Christs Flesh Ergo our Flesh shall rise againe The Antecedent is true and the sequele is good But what ioyning doe they meane The taking of Christs flesh into the mouth They neuer dreamt of it And if it were so it would follow that all they that eat Christ Sacramentally among whom how many Reprobates are there shall rise againe vnto life everlasting For I hope you will not say that the sacred Flesh of Christ doth quicken any vnto everlasting death How then is it By eating him not only Sacramentally but also spiritually and by Faith For by this meanes Christ becomes the food of our soules which redounding vpon the Flesh by making it the Temple of the Holy Ghost and an instrument of righteousnes fitteth and prepareth it to a glorious Resurrection Hence our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath life everlasting and I will raise him vp at the last day And the Apostle S. Paul If Christ bee in you the Body indeed is dead because of sinne but the spirit is life because of righteousnesse But if the spirit of him that raised vp Iesus Christ from the dead dwell in you hee that raised vp Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortall bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you And that this is the meaning of the Fathers appeares by that they say Our bodies come not into corruption but partake of life by being nourished with the body bloud of the Lord. For that our bodies in litterall sense should be nourished with Christs body is to make it the food of the belly not of the minde then which saith Bellarmine nothing can bee deuised more absurd And what I pray you is Nourishment properly Only to take meat into the mouth No but the alteration and conversion of the substance thereof into the substance of that which is nourished which to affirme of the Body of Christ is horrible impiety Of force therefore must the Fathers be vnderstood to speake of such a Nourishment by the body of Christ as is spirituall Now if the Nourishment be spirituall such is the Eating also and it is as absurd to say that the soule is nourished by bodily eating as that the body is nourished by spirituall eating Will you haue all in a word The things that wee eat with our mouth in the Sacramēt are not the causes but the pledges of our Resurrection So saith the great Councell of Nice We must beleeue these things to be the symbols or pledges of our Resurrection N. N. And the same S. Irenaeus doth proue farther that the great God of the old Testament Creator of heauen earth was Christs Father For proofe whereof hee alleageth this reason that Christ in the Sacrament did fulfill the Figures of the old Testament and that in particular wherein bread was a figure of his Flesh which he fulfilled saith Irenaeus making it his Flesh indeed I. D. The Marcionites whom Irenaeus confuteth taught that the God of the old Testament was not the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ and that the Creator was knowne but the Father of Christ was vnknowne Against this hee endeauoureth to proue that the Father of our Lord was he who created the world That this he intendeth manifestly appeareth by those words where hee saith Others saying that another besides the creator is his Father and offering vnto him those creatures that are here amongst vs shew that he is greedy and covetous of that which is anothers And among other arguments this he vseth for one Bread and Wine are the creatures of the Creator of the world which creatures Iesus Christ vseth in the Sacrament the one to be his Body and the other to be his Bloud and therein are they offered to his Father Ergo the Creator is his Father Were he not his Father he would never haue takē that which belongs vnto another or whervnto he had no right and convert it to his owne vse So that here your Author hath notably deceaued you For Irenaeus proueth Christ to bee the sonne of the Creator not by his omnipotence in turning Bread and Wine into his Flesh and Bloud a thing that neuer came into his thought but from his right and title to the Creatures which maketh nothing for Transubstantiation Touching the Figures of the old Testament and how they prefigured our Sacraments we haue spoken enough already N. N. What is so sacrilegious saith Optatus Milevitanus as to breake downe scrape and remoue the altars of God on which your selues haue sometimes offered and the members of Christ haue beene borne c. What is an altar but the Seat of the Body and Bloud of Christ And this monstrous villanie of yours is doubled for that you haue brokē also the chalice which did beare the Bloud of Christ himselfe When the mixed chalice and the Bread broken taketh the word of God the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ is made Bread receauing the calling of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one earthly another heavenly the earthly thing is the old forme of bread the heavenly is the body of Christ newly made vnder that forme Let vs now consider also the persons to whom this Commandement was giuen they were those twelue Apostles whom Christ at his last Supper taught the new Oblation of the new Testament giuing them authority by this precept to consecrate to make present and to offer to God his body and bloud I. D. Where little or nothing is objected the answer is soone made Optatus saith that the altar is the seat of Christs body and bloud and that the chalice beareth his bloud Irenaeus saith that after consecration the Eucharist of the body and bloud is made that in it there is a heavenly thing and the Apostles had authority to make present the body of Christ. Ergo the body and bloud of Christ is really corporally locally and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament A poore and silly consequence which all the wity our author hath wil neuer be able to make good For those words of the Fathers may be salued and verified if Christ be Present any other way And Present hee is Sacramentally to the signes and spiritually to the Faith of
the worthy receauer Neither are the Fathers alwaies literally to be vnderstood when they vse the names of the Body and Bloud of Christ. For it is the common practise of them all writing of the Sacraments specially of the Lords Supper to call the signe by the name of the thing signified following therein the custome of Scripture and the example of our Saviour who as Theodoret saith changed the names and called the signe by the name of his Body So that when they say the Body is on the altar the Bloud is in the Chalice and so of the rest the meaning by this rule is the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud is there or the Body and Bloud is there Sacramentally But in vouching Irenaeus what is the reason you curtal one place and adde vnto another Meant you to play the Giant Procrustes and to shorten the one because it was too long for your bed and to stretch out the other because it was too short For whereas to those words the Eucharist of the Bloud and Body of Christ is made Irenaeus addeth immediatly by which the substance of our flesh is augmented and consisteth this you thought good to omit because it maketh directly against you For it is not the naturall Flesh and Bloud of Christ whereby our Bodies are nourished and increased Yet in the Sacrament by his Body Bloud they waxe and grow Ergo by his Symbolicall Body and Bloud the Bread and Wine still remaining Againe whereas Irenaeus saith The Eucharist consisteth of two things one earthly another heavenly you adde the earthly thing is the old forme of bread the heauenly is the body of Christ newly made vnder that forme But this is your owne Glosse and no part of the Text and such a Glosse as corrupteth the Text. For Irenaeus neuer dreamt of your Formes and Accidents without substance and his plaine meaning is that whereas before Consecration there was but one thing and that earthly namely Bread now it is made the Eucharist consisting of two things the one Earthly namely Bread the other Heauenly to wit the Body of Christ. N. N. For we doe not take these as common Bread Wine but like as Iesus Christ our Saviour incarnated by the word of God had Flesh and Bloud for our salvation eveÌ„ so we be taught that the food wherewith our Flesh and Bloud be nourished by alteration when it is consecrated by the prayer of his word to bee the Flesh and Bloud of the same Iesus Christ incarnated I. D. It is not common bread saith Iustin. What of that For hee that denies it to be common bread doth not deny it to be bread nay he confesseth it to be so though not only so by vertue of the addition of Grace vnto it If every thing that ceaseth to be common loose its nature and cease to be what it was then whosoever comes to Rome must not beleeue his eyes but thinke he is in Fairy land where things are not what they seeme to bee For there doubtlesse all things are hallowed nothing Common Iustin saith farther As the word became flesh so is bread made the body What after the same manner Then farewell Transubstantiation For the Word became Flesh by vniting it vnto himselfe hypostatically not by Transubstantiating himselfe into it In like manner therefore is bread made Body not by a substantiall change of Bread into body but by a Sacramentall vnion of the body with bread Nay saith hee but the same powerfull Word that wrought the one worketh also the other Yet this enforceth no Transubstantiation For no power is able to make a Sacrament by earthly creatures to convay vnto vs heavenly Graces saue only that which is Divine But would you see a prety tricke of legerdemaine and how your author juggles with you The words of Iustin runne not in the same order as they are set downe but thus Even so are wee taught that the food blessed by the prayer of the word of God whereby our flesh by conversion is changed c. Then which nothing maketh more against that which you intend For the consecrated Food as Iustin saies nourisheth our Flesh and Blood But the Body of Christ nourisheth them not neither to that end is converted into our substance Wherefore of necessity it must bee Bread and if bread after Consecration what is become of your new found Transubstantiation N. N. Neither hath Moyses giuen vs the true Bread but our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe the Feaster and the Feast himselfe the Eater and hee that is eaten I. D. Christ indeede is the Feast and is eaten but eaten as he is the Feast not of the Body but the Soule eaten therefore is he by the mouth of the Soule not of the body For a Spirituall meat must spiritually be receiued And more then this Saint Hierom vnderstands not For as for that he saith Manna was not the true bread it cannot be denied For our Saviour affirmeth it and in it selfe it was no more then the food of the belly Yet was it made a Sacrament both Significatiue and Exhibitiue of Christ though generally to the Iewes it was fruitlesse because they considered it carnally and vnderstood not the mystery thereof So all the Fathers Heare one Augusâ—â—â— for them all The ancients saith he while as yet the true sacrifice which the faithfull know was foreshewed in Figures did celebrate the figures of the thing figured some of them with knowledge but more ignorantly And againe Your Fathers did eat Manna in the Wildernesse and are dead for they vnderstood not that which they did eat Therefore not vnderstanding they receiued nothing else but corporall meat And yet againe The same meat the same drinke but to them that vnderstand and beleeue but to those that vnderstand not only Manna only water Neither can wee conceiue of this otherwise vnlesse wee will leaue Christ and Saint Paul at variance the one denying that Moyses giuing Manna gaue the true bread the other affirmâ—â—g that they all ate the same spirituall meat Which being so it seemes strange to mee how you can hammer your Reall Presence from hence For to reason thus is very ridiculous Moyses gaue not the body of Christ Ergo bread in the Eucharist is transubstantiated into Christs body Yet this is all I can see and vntill you shew mee better reason farther answere you may not looke from mee N. N. If you aske how it is made it is enough for thee to heare that it is made by the Holy Ghost even as our Lord made for himselfe a Body out of the Virgin mother of God and wee know no more but that the word of God is true strengthfull and almighty And againe Not as the Body of Christ came downe from heaven but because the Bread and Wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. I. D. This Damascen lived vpward of seauen hundred years after Christ and hath not yeares
enough to be numbred among the ancient Fathers In regard whereof as also because of those many shamefull errors and fabulous narrations every where appearing in his writings hee is one of little or no authority in the Church of God He was the first that removed the bounds of the ancient Doctors in this matter bringing in sundry new strange terms never heard of in former times the misvnderstanding of which by little and little prepared a way to that deformed monster of Transubstantiation Neverthelesse it is certaine that howsoever many of his speeches may seeme harsh and inconvenient and great advantage hath beene taken of them that way yet himselfe was cleane of another mind Let vs therefore heare what hee saith It is made saith hee by the Holy Ghost even as our Lord made for himselfe a body out of the Virgin mother If so then is it not made by Transubstantiation for Christ assuming a body turned not his Deity into it Yet was the worke of the Holy Ghost necessary for he alone is able to sanctify the Naturall element and to invest them with Supernaturall graces The same saith he of Baptisme He hath ioyned the Grace of the Holy Ghost to oile and water and hath made it the washing of Regeneration And Leo yet more fully vsing the selfe-same comparison Christ gave vnto water that which he gaue vnto his mother for the power of the most high and over shaddowing of the holy Ghost which made that Mary brought forth the Saviour hath made water to regenerate the beleeuer Whereby you see that the same power of Gods Spirit by which the blessed Virgin conceived may be emploied in a Sacrament without that change and conversion that you imagine of And that Damascen though hee aknowledged a change of the Bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ yet was not acquainted with your change may appeare by these words Because it is the manner of men to eat bread and to drinke wine with water he hath conioyned his divinity with them and made them his body and blood that by vsuall things and which are according to nature we might be setled in these things that are aboue nature Here you see hee conioyneth the Divinity with bread and wine Now coniunction is only of those things that are and haue a being Bread and Wine therefore still are If they be then are they not abolished And if they be not abolished then is Transubstantiation gone Adde herevnto that Accidents without Substance are not Vsuall things nor according to Nature and therefore not they but true bread and true Wine are the things which in Damascens judgement raise vs vp to those things that are aboue Nature But of him enough N. N. The perishing meat and pleasures of this world please me not I long for Gods Bread the heauenly Bread the bread of life which thing is the flesh of Christ the Sonne of God I. D. That Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Romans both Eusebius and Hierom testify and that this which now passeth vnder that title may be the right Epistle I deny not Howbeit it is confessed of all that those Epistles which are granted to be his are not come vnto our hands perfect For some passages are cited out of them by some of the ancients as Hierom Theodoret and others which now are not found in them and some are manifestly corrupted and depraved as appeareth So that if Baronius and Bellarmine might challenge them of corruption in those places which make for Saint Pauls marriage and against halfe Communions I hope I haue as much liberty to challenge the place by you alleaged if it made any thing against vs. But it needs not for Ignatius speaketh not there of the Sacrament and therefore it maketh nothing to the purpose Neither doth it follow The bread is flesh Ergo by Transubstantiation N. N. We ought so to communicate with our Lords table that wee doubt nothing of the verity of his Body and Bloud seeing he said Except yee eat the Flesh of the Son of man c. I. D. Leo disputeth in this place against the Eutychians who denied the truth of Christs body and thus he argueth The Eucharist is a symboll of the body of Christ Ergo Christ hath a true body and whosoever will rightly communicate must nothing doubt thereof So reasoneth also Theodoret. For Orthodoxus demanding whether Bread and Wine were Symbols of the true body blood of Christ or no and being answered yea he thus concludes If the divine mysteries be samplars of the true body then the body of the Lord is now also true and not changed into the nature of the Divinity Hence may you see the weaknesse of your Argument Communicants may not doubt that Christ hath a true body or if you will that the true body of Christ is in the Eucharist Ergo bread is transubstantiated into body Ridiculous N. N. As therefore our Baptisme is made by reall washing with water and reall renewing of the Holy Ghost so now in the Supper of Christ it behooueth wee bee really fed with the fruit of the tree of life which is none other thing besides the flesh of Christ. I. D. If we yeelded Euthymius vnto you the matter were not great For he liued vpward of eleven hundred yeares after Christ and your owne Chronologers place him after Gratian and Peter Lombard Yet what saith hee It behooueth that in the supper wee be really fed with the flesh of Christ. Really fed Who doubteth of it But you are to know that Reall doth not necessarily import your Carnall manner For Spirituall is also Reall vnlesse you will say a spirit is no thing N. N. It is a remembrance of Christs death by the presence of the body which died It is the Body and Bloud of Christ covered from our eyes revealed to our Faith feeding presently our body and soule to everlasting life I. D. This Nicephorus also liued eleauen hundred yeares after Christ and therefore is none of the Fathers nor of any great authority Neither doth that which hee saith conclude your purpose For Christs Body may bee and is present Sacramentally and to our faith and presently feed both soules and bodies to everlasting life and yet Bread and Wine remaine still in the Sacrament Else where hee calleth the outward Elements symbolls and signes of the Passion of Christ. If symbolls and signes then not the Body it selfe N. N. They receiue not the fruit of Saluation in the eating of the healthfull sacrifice They eat the healthfull Sacrifice which surely is nothing else but the naturall body of Christ but the frute they receiue not As many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies bee evill affected it proueth not healthfull to them I. D. Thus you reason The healthfull Sacrifice is the naturall body of Christ Ergo Bread by Transubstantiation is made the body of Christ. How
vntill Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory being advanced to the Crowne hee returned into England where hee was according to his worth soone after preferred to the Bishoprick of Salisbury Now if so obscure a man as your vnkle liuing but as a serving Priest beyond seas doe so much strengthen you I hope the example of so profound a Clarke and so reverend a Bishop and Confessour as my vnkle may much more confirme and settle me But it is high time to heare the reasons why you cannot beleeue the Fathers meaning to be as I say N. N. Your first reason some of our writers giue the same sense to the Fathers that you doe as Mason Perkins Field Covel Sir Edwin Sands Midleton Morton the now Archbishop of Canterbury I. D. Suppose all this were true yet seeing the sense I giue I haue by sundry plaine arguments demonstrated to bee the right sense the bare saying of others cannot be a sufficient reason why you should forbeare assent But what Doe all these indeed interpret the Fathers as you doe A vast vntruth vtterly incredible saue only to those whom the Romish Circe hath turned out of their wits For would any man thinke that they who so confidently alleage the Fathers against Transubstantiation should notwithstanding in their writings acknowledge that their meaning is cleane contrary to that they alleage thē for Were it not that you haue bound your Faith absolutely to beleeue what every Popish shaueling tell◠you how vnlikely soeuer it be and never to beleeue vs with what strength of reason soever we speake so absurd a thought as this could never haue entred into your mind Let vs yet examine the Particulars N. N. Mason is forced to these Words St Ambrose testifieth that imposition of hands is certaine mysticall words whereby he that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed receiving authority his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may be bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lords steed S. Chrysostome saith in many places there is offered not many Christs but one Christ every where being full and perfect S. Augustine saith that Christ commanded the Leper to offer sacrifice according to the law of Moses because this sacrifice the holy of holies which is his Body was not yet instituted And elsewhere what can be offered or accepted more gratefully then the Body of our Priest being made the flesh of our sacrifice And Cyril Leo Fulgentius and other Fathers haue commonly the like I. D. First these words are altogether impertinent to the matter of Transubstantiation being vouched for the Sacrifice of the Masse and therefore no way opening the meaning of the Fathers for you in that point Secondly these are not the words of Mason but the Obiection of a Papist For you are to knowe that this booke of Mason is written Dialogue-wise as a conference betweene Philodoxus the Papist and Orthodoxus the Protestant Now these words are by Mason put into the mouth of Philodoxus and are indeed obiected to vs by Bellarmin whom he calling himselfe Orthodoxus vndertaketh in that place to answere Whereby you may easily perceaue what credit is to be giuen vnto such cheating companions as your Author is who beare you in hand that the Objection of a Papist is the resolution of a Protestant Which that it may yet more plainely appeare take Masons Answer also S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe saying What therefore doe we Doe we not offer daily Truly we offer but so that wee make a remembrance of his death And againe We offer him alwaies or rather we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place We offer him or rather we work a remembrance of the sacrifice What S. Augustines meaning was let himself declare Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe And yet he is offered in a Sacrament not only at all the solemnities at Easter but every day to the people Neither doth he lye that being asked doth answere that he is offered For if Sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not be sacraments at all And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues Therefore as after a certaine manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of Faith is Faith And else-where The flesh and bloud of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before he came was performed intruth and indeed when he suffered is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascended Thus he Whereof nothing maketh for your sense but every thing rather for the contrarie N. N. Mr Perkins writeth thus the ancients when they speak of the supper haue many formes of speech which shew a conversion S. Ambrose vseth the name of conversion and mutation S. Cyprian saith it is changed not in shape but in nature Origen saith that bread is made the body Gaudentius saith Christs body is made of bread and his bloud of wine Eusebius Emissenus that the Priest by secret power changeth the visible creatures into the substance of Christs body and bloud and that the bread doth passe into the nature of our Lords body I. D. Here Mr Perkins only reporteth the words of the Fathers but declareth not the sense of them That hee doth by and by in the words following The ancient Doctors saith he when they speake of the conversion and changing of bread vnderstand the change of vse and condition not substance In the reading of them therefore the Sacramentall change in signification and obsignation is to bee distinguished from substantiall And we are to know that for 800 yeares at least they knew not Transubstantiation but condemned it rather And all this he proues by the sayings of Cyprian Ambrose Theodoret Gelasius and others which I forbeare here to set downe because you haue them already in my answere Now if your meaning accord with this of M. Perkins I am the gladder If not it was too great boldnesse to say he vnderstood the Fathers in the same sense you doe N. N. D. Morton the Centuriators and others are plentifull in such citations and so manifest for the verity that D. Field writeth thus that the Primitiue Church thought the sanctified and consecrated Elements to bee the body of Christ. D Covel saith the Omnipotency of God maketh it his Body I. D. Quote the sayings of the Fathers they may and that plentifully But Transubstantiation or your sence they doe not nor cannot find in them for they never dreamed of it The words of Dr Field are these The manner of the Primitiue Church was as Rhenanus testifieth if any parts of the consecrated Elements remained so long as to bee musty and vnfit for vse to consume them with fire which I thinke they would not haue done to the
there and how many battles haue there beene fought betweene the Iesuits and Dominicans about no meaner matters then Gods free Grace and mans free will To be breefe there is scarce any thing wherein you dissent from vs that you agree in amongst your selues as our Divines haue at large proved Hugo de sancto victore Richardus de sancto Victore Petrus Cluniacensis Liranus Dionisius Carthâ—sianus Hugo Cardinalis Thomas Aquinas Waldensis Richardus Armachanus Picus Mirandula Caietan and others reiect all those bookes as Apocryphall which wee doe Scotus Gerson Occam Cameracensis and Waldensis affirme the Scriptures to be sufficient in all matters of Faith Stapleton confesseth that the infallibility of the Popes judgement is yet no matter of Faith but of opinion only because so many famous and renowned Divines haue held the contrary as Gerson Almaine Occam almost all the Parisians with â—undry others The same Divines together with Adrian the sixt Durandus Alfonsus à Castro and many besides hold that a Councell is aboue the Pope That a man 〈◊〉 not iustified by any inherent quality but only by faith in the merits of Christ. Gerson Contarenus Albertus Pighius the Canons of Cullen the authors of the booke offered by Cesar to the Protestant Collocutors at the assembly of Ratisbon Stapulensis Peraldus Ferus and others doe justifie That wee may be assured we are in the state of Grace Alexander of Hales Iohn Bacon Ambrose Catharin Andreas Vega with others doe clearly testify That all sins are in their owne nature Mortall Gerson Almaine and Fisher B. of Rochester even by the testimony of Bellarmine doe confesse That there is any merit of Condignity Scotus Cameracensis Arminiensis and Waldensis vtterly deny That Matrimony is no Sacrament Durandus affirmes Alexander of Hales saith there are no more but foure Sacraments That one body should be locally in more places then one at once implyeth contradiction saith Thomas of Aquin. and with him agreeth Aegidius Godfrey de Font Alanus and Henricus The conversion of bread wine into Christs body bloud all of vs saith Caietan doe teach in words but in deed many deny it thinking nothing lesse Finally Peter Lombard Thomas and the other Schoolemen hold not a reall and proper Sacrifice in the Masse as now you doe as your owne Bellarmine is forced to acknowledge It were easy for me to instance in diverse points besides but this may suffice for the present to stop your mouth and to teach you this lesson that you be not so busy to vpbraid others with their warts or freckles your selues meane-while being so full of vlcers and botches For it is fowle indiscretion to obiect that to another whereof our selues are more deepely guilty as here you haue done to vs taxing vs for our petty quarrels while your selues like Amalekits are nothing but stabbing and killing one the other N. N. Your third reason D. Field saith the Church of Rome hath continued a true Church even till our time held a saving profession of truth by it converted nations and divers of that Church even learned are saved D. Covel they of Dome were and are the Church and they that liue and die in it may be saved Willet Kings and Queenes of the Roman faith are Saints in Heauen Yea saith your author Many Kings and Queenes of Great Brittaine haue forsaken their Crownes and Kingdomes to become Monkes and Nunnes I. D. That which you obiect out of D. Field D. Field him selfe hath long since at large answered I will contract it as briefly as I can The Summe is the Roman Church is not now the same it was before Luther His reasons First the then Church was the whole number of Christians subiect to the Papal tyranny of whom many desired to be free of the yoke and as soone as Luther began to oppose shooke it off but the now Church is the multitude of those that adore the plenitude of Papal power or are content to be vnder the yoke still Secondly the Roman Church then consisted of men not hauing meanes of information and so not erring pertinaciously but the now Church consisteth of those who obstinately resist the truth or at least consent in outward communion with them So that they might be saued in their simplicity and these perish in their contradiction Thirdly the Roman Church then had in it the same abuses superstitions it hath now and those that erred the same errours but it had also those that disliked them and thought right in those points wherein the rest erred These were true liuing members of the Church those a faction in the Church In regard of those it was truly a Church that is a multitude of men professing Christ and baptized in regard of these a true Church that is a multitude of men holding a sauing profession of Christ. Lastly the errours then taught in the Church were not the Doctrines of the Church but now they are the Doctrines of that Church That they were not then the Doctrines of the Church appeareth thus The Doctrines then taught were either those which all consented vnto such as are the Articles of the Creed or those errors which many then taught or the contrary truths opposed to those errors The first were absolutly the Churches Doctrine So were the third though all received them not because they were theirs who were so in the Church that they were the Church But the second were not because they were taught by the faction in the Church and not consented vnto by them that were the Church Thus farre the Doctor who at length concludeth that whatsoever it hath beene the present Romish Church is not that true Church of God whose communion wee must embrace whose directions we must follow and in whose judgement we must rest Yea but D. Covell in the name of all the rest affirmeth that it is still a true Church and Salvation may be had in it In the name of all the rest Why who gaue him that commission and how comes hee to be the mouth of vs all more then any other of his brethren Certainly your Author much wrongs the Church of England and abuses his reader to make the private sayings of this man or that man to be the common voice of all If he haue spoken more largely then can be justified hee must answere for it himselfe no reason the whole Church should bee charged with it You will not endure it amongst your selues and why should you then obtrude it vpon vs To the words themselues I answere with D. Field Some will say is the Roman Church at this day no part of the Church of God Surely as Augustine noteth that the Societies of Hereticks in that they retaine the profession of many parts of heavenly truth and the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptisme are so farre forth still conioyned with the Catholike Church of God and the Catholike Church in and by them bringeth forth children vnto God so
glorie thereof one of the Word another of the Flesh. The glorie of the Word standeth in two things first that hee is the eternall Sonne of the eternall Father begotten after an vnspeakable manner of his owne substance and therefore the brightnesse of his glory and the expresse image of his Person A name too excellent for the Angells themselues For neuer did the Father say to any of them Thou art my sonne this day haue I begotten thee Secondly that being so begotten hee is consubstantiall and coequall with his Father neither counteth he it robbery to bee equall with him For though he be the Sonne and not the Father yet being of the same Substance hee is one and the same God with him and may iustly challenge vnto himselfe the fulnesse of the Deitie as farre forth as the Father A glory infinitely transcending that of any creature The glorie of his Flesh is likewise double of Assumption and Communication Of Assumption by which it was taken into the divine nature For as soone as it began to haue being in the wombe of the blessed virgin it was prevented from subsisting in it selfe and was drawne into the vnitie of the Person of the Sonne of God eternally to subsist therein The highest dignitie that a creature can aspire vnto That of Communication is whereby glorious things are communicated vnto his humane nature And it is either Personall or Habitual Personall is that whereby as the nature of man is truely giuen to the Person of the Sonne so the Person of the Sonne is truely communicated vnto the nature of man Wherevpon because in the Person of the Sonne is the fulnesse of all perfection and all the essentiall attributes of the Deitie as namely Omniscience omnipotence omnipresence and the rest therefore doe wee say that all these attributes and that fulnesse of perfection are communicated also vnto the Manhood Howbeit not Physically and by effusion as if the same properties which are in God should formally and subiectiuely be in man as heat transfused from the fire is inherent in the water For that which is infinite cannot bee comprehended of that which is finite How then Personally in the sonne of God So that by reason of the hypostaticall vnion there is such a reall communion betweene them that the sonne of man is truly the Sonne of God and consequently also Omniscient omnipotent omnipresent and the rest The want of due consideration hereof was it that bred that monster of Vbiquitie and that great quarrell betwixt vs and the Saxon Churches Communication habituall is that whereby the fulnesse of grace was bestowed vpon him to be subiectiuely and inherently in his Flesh. And this is the glory of his Vnction For the spirit of the Lord rested vpon him the spirit of wisdome and vnderstanding the spirit of counsell and might the spirit of knowledge and of the feare of the Lord. By this Spirit was he annointed with the oile of gladnesse aboue his fellowes yea he receiued the spirit without measure or limit both for the essence vertue thereof intensiuely and extensiuely to all effects and purposes both for himselfe and others So that in his Will there was perfect iustice without taint or staine in his Minde perfect wisdome and knowledge both Beatificall whereby he saw God farre more clearly then any other as being more neerely vnited vnto him and Infused whereby he knew all heauenly and supernaturall verities which without the revelation of grace cannot bee knowne yea Acquisite and Experimentall also whereby hee knew all whatsoeuer by the light of reason and nature might bee knowne So that he was ignorant of nothing which hee ought to know or might make to his full happinesse And this was his Habituall glory Now the Glory of his Office breefely was to be the Mediator betweene God and Man An office of so high a nature that it could bee performed by none but only him who was both God and Man For herevnto it was necessary that he should be a Prophet a Priest and a King A Prophet as an Arbiter to take knowledge of the cause quarrell depending betweene them and as an Internuntius or legate to propound expound the conditions of peace that are to be concluded vpon A Priest to be an Intercessor and to make interpellation for the party offending and then to be a Fideiussor or Surety making satisfaction to the party for him A King hauing all power both in heauen and earth to keepe and preserue the Church so reconciled in the state of grace to tread downe vnder his feete all the enimies thereof Wondrous Glory and farre aboue that of any creature And this is the Glory he was already possessed of Wanted he yet any further Glory yes verily and that in regard both of his Divine and Humane nature Of his Divine for the Word had now emptied himselfe of his glory Emptied himselfe I say not simply and absolutely for he could no more in such sort abdicate his glory then cease to be himselfe it being essentiall vnto him and his very selfe but oeconomically and dispensatiuely vailing couering it vnder the cloud of his flesh For if as St Leo saith the exinanition of the divine Maiesty was the advancement of the servile forme vnto the highest pitch of honour then by like proportion the advancement of the servile forme was the exinanition of the divine Maiesty This Exinanition or Emptying of himselfe was in his Incarnation conception nativity obedience actiue to the law of nature as being the sonne of Adam and to the law of Moses as being the sonne of Abraham Passiue in suffering hunger and cold and wearinesse a thousand sorrowes wherevnto the infirmity of his flesh was subiect In this state Christ now stood neither had he as yet recovered the Glory whereof he had emptied himselfe nay he was not as yet come to the lowest degree of his humiliation For though they were instant and nere at hand yet his agonie his sweating of bloud his arraignment his crosse his death his emprisonment in the graue were not yet come All which did more more eclipse the glory of his Deity so that this Glory of the word as yet he wanted In regard of his Humane nature hee had not yet deposed humane infirmities as hunger thirst feare sorrow anguish and the like Neither had hee obtained incorruption impassibility immortality nor that glorious purity strength agility clarity of the body which he expected together with the fulnesse of inward ioyes and comforts in the Soule Adde herevnto that the actions of his mediation namely of his Prophecy Priesthood and Kingdome had not nor could not bee hitherto performe gloriously but only in such an humble manner as suted with the state of humiliation in which presently he stood To make all plaine though as the Schoole speaketh he were Comprehensor in termino affectione iustitiae yet he was viator extraterminum
only vpon misprision as some worthy divines haue obserued not well distinguishing betweene Essence and Subsistence whereof that is finite this infinite For Christs humanity though according to its essence or Naturall being it bee not every where but determined vnto one place yet in respect of his Subsistence or Personall being it is every where and circumscribed in no place For proper Subsistence of its owne and in it selfe it hath none only the Subsistence of the Sonne of God is communicated vnto it which is infinite vnlimited Secondly if this Power of Christ though finite yet be incommunicable and cannot passe from him to any other what presumption what arrogance is it in him who not being Christ yet dares say with Christ Data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo in terrâ all power is given me both in heaven and in earth Who therevpon takes vpon him to forge new Articles of Faith and to obtrude them vpon the Church vnder paine of damnation who also takes authority vnto him to make lawes equally binding the conscience with Gods lawes that without any relation vnto divine law at all Who finally for to reckon vp all the blasphemies of this sort would bee infinite pretends a power to dispence with the law of God to grant indulgences for sin to free men from the punishment inflicted by God vpon them for sinne Certainly whosoever challengeth these things to himselfe can be no lesse then Christi aemulus even Antichrist himselfe whose proud vsurpations vpon the power of Christ shall one day bee recompenced with equall shame and confusion The rather because thirdly whereas the power of Christ is not secular but spirituall hee claymeth both and so assumeth to himselfe more then euer Christ did Ecce in potestate nostrâ imperium vt demus illud cui volumus Lo saith Pope Adrian the empire is in our power to bestow it where we please And hence I suppose it is that insteed of the old style Vicarius Christi the Vicar of Christ they now begin to stile him Vicedeum the Vicar of God for that by this they may perhaps wrench in his temporall power which by the other they could not inasmuch as Christ neuer had it Lastly therefore seeing Christ contented himselfe with his spirituall power only reiecting that which is secular let not vs looke after outward pomp or state in his kingdome nor iudge of the Church by such deceitfull notes Rather let vs iudge of it by the lawes thereof and by the rule of Faith professed therein As the power of Christ is Spirituall so is his kingdome also and therefore by spirituall markes and notes to be discerned But to proceed The second point is in quos ouer whom or how farre his authority extendeth It is saith my text Over all flesh This word Flesh is diuersly vsed in Scripture Among other significations vsually it is put for Mankinde As where it is said that God saw all flesh had corrupted his way vpon earth that is all men And againe All flesh is grasse and all the goodlinesse thereof is as the flower in the field And yet againe Except those daies should bee shortned no flesh that is no man should be saued And so is it to bee vnderstood in this place Christ hath power ouer all flesh that is ouer all mankinde Now he that saith all excepts none All men therefore of what age sexe degree condition or qualitie soeuer are vnder the power and iurisdiction of Christ. And as touching the Saints and those that are members of his mysticall body it is questionlesse For to them he is Caput a head to rule and governe them a Husband to order and direct them a Shepheard to feed and ouersee them Hee hath bought them with his most pretious blood he hath conquered them out of the hands of Satan and all that hated them hee rules by the scepter of his word and guides them by the manuduction of his blessed spirit And as he hath many waies made himselfe Lord ouer them and testified his authority and power by his mighty operations in them so haue they freely and voluntarily submitted and resigned themselues vnto him Power therefore hath he over these as over his obedient and louing subiects But question may be made touching reprobate and wicked men whether hee haue any authority and power over them yea or no. For as the Psalmist saith They band themselues and take counsell together against the Lord and against his anointed saying let vs breake their bands asunder and cast their cords from vs. And our Saviour in the parable Nolumus hunc regnare super nos we will not haue this man raigne ouer vs. But notwithstanding all this reluctation and resistance yet power and authority hath he ouer them still Rebellious subiects they may be yet subiects they are Will they nil they Dominabitur in medio hostium hee shall raigne in the midst of his enimies If they will not submit vnto the gentle scepter of his word he hath an yron rod in his hand wherewith to breake and dash them in peeces like a potters vessell And those his enimies that would not hee should raigne ouer them bring them hither will he say and slay them here before me Authority then he hath though they acknowledge it not and ouerrule them he will resist they neuer so much Overrule them I say either to their salvation by converting them or to their confusion by delivering them vp vnto their owne lusts In a word whether they be good or evill how high or low soeuer they be he is Lord of them all Rex regum dominus dominantium King of Kings and Lord of Lords yea Dominus tum mortuorum tum vivorum Lord both of quicke and dead But what Hath he power only of men and not of other things Yes questionlesse For saith David Omnia subiecisti pedibus eius thou hast put all things vnder his feet And the Apostle applying it vnto Christ addeth In that he put all in subiection vnder him hee left nothing that is not put vnder him Our Saviour Christ also himselfe affirmeth that all things are deliuered him of his Father yea that al power is giuen him both in heauen earth Particularly in heauen ouer the blessed Angels For saith S. Peter he is gone into heauen and is on the right hand of God Angels and authorities and powers being made subiect vnto him Hee is vnto them a Head and Mediator though not of Redemption as vnto man yet of Confirmation in the state of grace and though not to deliuer out of misery yet to preuent their falling into misery Hence it is that they are reckoned in the number of those that pertaine vnto the Church that they minister both to the Head thereof and it also reioycing at the conversion of a sinner and desiring throughly to
the Church may be without them So was it for some while after Christs Ascention for then neither was the Christian Church so Eminent as that of the Iewes nor was it Vniversall as being confined within Iudea nor great in number as consisting but of a very few nor in Possession of the name Catholike it being a word of a latter date and such as could not well be giuen it vntill it was growne Catholike So will it be also if wee may beleeue your owne writers in the time of Antichrist For then the Church shall bee darkned all externall communion with it shall cease there shall be no Sacrament in publike places all the glory and dignity of Ecclesiasticall order shall lye buried none shall come vnto the solemnity of the Lambe an innumerable multitude shall cleaâ—e vnto Antichrist even all besides the elect and those whose names are written in the booke of life But lastly whether these things be Markes or no is not now much materiall for it makes little to the purpose wee haue sufficiently proued that the Church is not the last Resolution of Faith As touching the second point that the Church may be beleeved securely for that shee can neither deceiue nor bee deceiued I demand what you meane by the Church If the company of all true Beleeuers that now are and heretofore haue beene including the holy Apostles together with them then I grant it For these were so lead by the Spirit into all truth that they could not possibly erre in any matter of Faith that was either to be taught by them or knowne by vs. But if you meane the Present Church in every age successiuely after the Apostles as here Saint Austin doth referring his friend Honoratus therevnto then I distinguish Either you must vnderstand thereby the whole number of true beleeuers who for the present life in the world or the Society and Fellowship of those that in their time rule and sway most in the Church If you take it in the former sense I grant what you say to be true in Fundamentall points but not in such as are not absolutely necessary nor preiudice the Foundation of Faith If in the latter then I affirme that the Church may both deceiue and be deceiued even in Doctrines of highest consequence neither can with such security bee beleeued Witnesse the time when the whole world groaned vnder Arianisme and the greatest part of the Prelates together with Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed therevnto Neither doth the passage you alledge out of Saint Austin inferre the contrary For although the surest course to put an end to all labours and turmoiles be to follow the way of Catholike discipline which hath flowne downe to vs from Christ by his Apostles yet the Authority that swayeth most in the Present Church doth not alwaies either follow this way her selfe or direct others vnto it as for example it did not in the time aboue mentioned of the Arian heresy And thus much in answere vnto your generall ground N. N. Now I will shew first out of the old Testament how it was prefigured and prophecied and in the new both promised againe exhibited and confirmed by the intendment interpretation of the gravest and most ancient Fathers that haue lived in the Church of God from age to age who vnderstand so the said Figures and foreshewing of the old Testament As for example the Bread and Wine mysteriously offered vnto almighty God by Melchizedek King and Priest who bare the type of our Saviour The shew-bread among the Iewes that only could bee eaten of them that were sanctified And the Bread sent miraculously by an Angell to Elias whereby he was so strengthned as hee travelled forty daies by vertue only of that Bread These three sorts of bread to haue beene expresse Figures of this Sacrament of the true flesh of Christ therein contained doe testify by one consent the ancient Fathers as Cyprian â—lemens Alexandrinus Ambrose Hierom Chrysostom Augustine Cyrill Arnobius Euseb. many others as my author fetâ—eh downe Three other figures not expressed in the forme of Bread but other things more excellent then Bread as the Paschal Lamb the blood of the testament described in Exodus and to the Hebrues and fulfilled by Christ when he said This cup is the new testament in my blood and againe this is my blood of the new testament The Manna also sent by God from heaven was an expresse figure of this Sacrament as appeareth by the words of our Saviour and of the Apostle I. D. This Argument seemeth to be of great esteeme among you for who almost vrgeth it not and that with great confidence It standeth thus Melchizedecks Bread and Wine the Shew-bread Elias his Bread the Paschal-Lambe the Bloud of the Testament and Manna bee Figureâ— of our Sacrament Ergo Christ is corporally and locally present therein by way of Transubstantiation The consequence you maintaine in the next Section the Antecedent in this Wherevnto I answer first that the Legall sacraments and ceremonies if we may beleeue Scripture directly respected Christ So saith S. Paul They are a shadow of things to come but the Body is of Christ. And again Sacrifice and offerings thou wouldest not but a Body hast thou prepared me And hence is it that he doubteth not to call Christ our Passeouer or 〈◊〉 Lambâ— and to affirm that the Rock whereof the Israelites dranke in the â—â—ldernesse was Christ. Yea our Saviour himselfe plainly professeth that the Brasen serpent did prefigure him and that he was the Bread or Manna that came downe from heauen But that those Sacraments and Ceremonies are Types Figures of ours otherwise then by representing the same Substance together with ours I suppose if you searched every corner of Scripture neuer so narrowly you should never finde it therein Adde herevnto that our SacrameÌ„ts are themselues Figures being as S Augustine saith one thing and signifying another Whence it would follow that the old Sacraments being Figures of the New they should be Figures of Figures and Sacraments of Sacraments which standeth not greatly with reason For thus the Circumcision of the foreâ—kinne should figure the Water of Baptisme and water Christ and curious heads might runne on infinitely and as Irenaeus sometime obiected vnto the Heretikes of his time might ever bee devising of types vpon types and figures vpon figures Lastly if the Sacraments of the old Testament were but Signes of ours it would follow that they were ordained rather for the benefit of the Christian then the Iewish Church which is absurd For of our Sacraments which you say is the thing signified by theirs benefit they never reaped any as neuer being partakers of them and to leaue vnto them no more but bare signes that is emptie shels without the kernell how it might availe them I cannot conceaue Certainely all Sacraments
Sacramentaries imagine this Sacrament to be only the creatures of Bread and Wine I would faine knowe whom you vnderstand by these Sacramentaries If the Church of England it is a loud vntruth For we acknowledge that the Sacrament consisteth of two things the one Earthly the other Heavenly as Irenaeus speaketh that is of the outward Elements and the Lords Body If there be any other who imagin as you say spare them not let them hardly be called Sacramentaries But know withall that we detest both them you them for retaining no more then the signes you for excluding them and establishing nothing but Shewes Accidents insteed of them In regard whereof they may iustly requite you with the name of Accidentaries N. N. And if Protestants will say for an evasion as they doe that their Bread is not Common Bread but such Bread being eaten and receaued by Faith worketh the effect of Christs Body in them and bringeth them his Grace Catholikes answer that so did the Figures and Sacraments also of the old Testament being receaued by Faith in Christ to come as the ancient Fathers and Preachers receaued thē And forasmuch as Protestants doe farther hold that there is no difference betweene the vertue and efficacie of those old Sacraments and ours which Catholikes deny it must needs follow that both Catholikes and Protestants agree that the Fathers of the old Testament beleeued in the same Christ to come that we doe now being come their Figures and Shadowes must be as good as our truth in the Sacrament that was prefigured if it remaine Bread still after Christs institution and Consecration I. D. Here least wee should escape your hands by some one Evasion or other you endeavor very diligently to block vp the passage against vs. For whereas your Argument was that vnlesse Christ be really present in the Sacrament the Iewish Figures are as good as our truth you bring vs in answering thereto that our Bread is not Common Bread but such as being eaten by Faith worketh the Effect of Christs Body and bringeth Grace Indeed we say that our Sacramentall Bread is not Common Bread and we farther confesse that whosoeuer receaueth the same worthily eateth withall the Body of Christ and receaueth Grace But we neuer say it in answer to your Objectiō neither cā we with any reason For wee are not ignorant that the signes also in the old Sacraments were not Common or Profane things but sanctified and set apart to holy vses and that being receaued by Faith they were thereby partakers of Christ and all his benefits as well as we The right answer wee giue is by denying the consequence our Sacraments as wee haue shewed many waies excelling those of the old Testament though there be no Transubstantiation at all So that this is not an Evasion as you say of ours but rather a fiction and device of yours to the end you may seeme to prevaile in something being not able to gainesay the true Answer But Catholikes you say deny the old Sacraments that Vertue and efficacie which they grant to the new I know they doe For they hold that the new Sacraments justifie and conferre Grace by the very work done without any respect to the merit or Faith of the receauer which the old Sacraments did not But hereby you vtterly overthrow your owne Argument For how doth this follow vnlesse there be a Real Presence our sacraments excell not seeing in your owne opinion they are farre more Vertuous and Effectual then those of the old Covenant Howbeit this Tenent of yours is too palpably absurd for it giueth vnto the creature a divine vertue of percing into the soul and cleansing the sinnes thereof which is proper vnto God And if the word preached profit vs nothing vnlesse it be mingled with Faith no nor the Flesh of Christ it selfe except it be eaten by Faith how can it be imagined that Water or Bread or any other Sacramentall Element should availe vnto Iustification without any respect vnto Faith at all Herevnto agree the Fathers S. Hierom Man only applyeth water but God the holy spirit by whom ou◠filthinesse is cleansed the sinnes of bloud are purged And S. Augustine Without this sanctification of invisible grace what doe the visible sacraments availe That visible Baptisme which wanted invisible sanctification nothing profited Simon Magus And againe Water clenseth the heart the word effecting it not because it is spoken but beleeued But of this enough N. N. But Catholike Fathers did vnderstand the matters far otherwise And to allege one for all for that hee spake in the sense of all in those daies S. Hierom talking of one of those foresaid Figures to wit of the shew-Bread and comparing it with the thing figured and by Christ exhibited saith thus There is so much difference betweene the Shew-bread and the body of Christ prefigured thereby as there is difference betweene the shadow and the Body whose shadow it is and betweene an image and the truth which the image representeth and betweene certaine shapes of things to come and the things themselues prefigured by those shapes And thus of Figures and presignifications of the old Testament I. D. To what end this passage of St Hierom To proue our Sacraments to be of greater vertue efficacy then those of old This indeed should be your conclusion but St Hieroms words inferre it not For hee compareth the Shew-bread not with the bread in the Eucharist but with Christs body betwixt which I confesse there is as maine a difference as there is betwixt the Shaddow and the Body But I beseech you is there not as great a difference betweene water in Baptisme and the Blood of Christ or bread in the Eucharist and the Body of Christ Doubtlesse there is for they are all but figures of the same Verity namely Christ. Whereas therefore you argue thus Hierom preferreth the body of Christ vnto Shew-bread as farre as the substance exceedeth the shadow Ergo our Sacraments are more vertuous then those of old or if you will for indeed I know not well what you would conclude Ergo the body of Christ is really present by transubstantiation it is a miserable non sequitur and without either rime or reason For vpon the same ground I may aswell inferre the contrary thus Christs body excells Eucharisticall Bread as much as the substance doth the shadow Ergo Shew-bread and the old Sacraments are more vertuous then ours The maine error is that you tye the Body of Christ vnto our new Sacraments if not vnto the Eucharist only whereas indeede he is the Truth of all Sacraments both old and new and therefore is alike present and powerfull in them all to all that beleeue as contrarily to the incredulous and vnbeleeuers his Grace is alike vneffectuall And thus much of your first Argument N. N. The opinion of the ancient Fathers grounded vpon the Scriptures as vpon those speeches of our Saviour This is my
so doth Saint Augustine expound himselfe elsewhere Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly Beleeue and thou hast eaten Wherevnto St Cyprian also accordeth calling the blessed Body of Christ the food of the mind and not of the belly But St Augustine farther addeth No man eateth that flesh but first adoreth it Adoreth I grant that flesh which is hypostatically and inseparably vnited to the Deity but not the mysticall signes in the Sacrament for that were foule idolatry Now if to eat the flesh of Christ be to beleeue in him as the fame St Augustine oftentimes affirmeth and none adoreth but he that beleeueth it necessarily followeth that neither Iudas nor any other Hypocrite partaking of the Sacrament eat the flesh of Christ because they neither beleeue in him nor adore him which maketh strongly against Transubstantiation The third Author you alledge is Hesychius who saith no more but this that he gaue the selfe-same body which should be conceaued of the Holy Ghost which wee readily yeeld vnto you For the selfe-same Flesh is in the Sacrament truly offered and giuen vnto our Faith But that Hesychius never dreamed of your Reall Presence may appeare by these words His flesh saith he which before his passion was vnfit to be eaten for who desireth to eat the Lords flesh hath he after his passion made fit for meat For if he had not beene crucified wee had not eaten the sacrifice of his body but now wee eat that meat receiuing it in memory of his Passion From Hesychius you returne vnto Saint Chrysostome againe where he saith that Christ is seene on the altar and in the hands of a Priest What literally and with the eye of the body I trow no. For though Transubstantiation were granted you yet is it not the Body of Christ but the Accidents only of Bread and Wine which wee see How then Surely as your owne Sixtus Senensis obserueth Saint Chrysostome is full of hyperbolicall speeches which if they be rigorously interpreted cannot possibly bee true Such is this here and such are those other of touching Christ and feeling him with the hand of fastning our teeth in his flesh of making our tongues red with his bloud that we receiue not the body of God from a man but from the Seraphims themselues taking vp fire with their tongues such as Esaias saw and the like All which Phrases how they are to be vnderstood Saint Chrysostome himselfe teacheth vs oftentimes adding an as it were vnto them As hauing said The spirituall blood floweth on the table within a few lines after he saith Thinke that the saving blood issueth as it were out of the divine and vnpolluted side and that thou doest as it were sucke it from his side In like manner doth Theophilact his Abridger interpret him For whereas Chrysostome saith Wee are in this Sacrament mingled with Christ Theophylact for explanation addeth after a certaine manner Whereby it is manifest that the meanin of your author in this passage also is as if hee had said Thou seest him as it were on the Altar and as it were in the hands of the Priest that is Sacramentally and by Faith for with other eyes then those of the spirit he is not there to be discerned But if wee come with faith according to that which elsewhere he saith Without doubt wee shall see him lying in the cratch for this table is vnto vs insteed of the cratch Lastly you vouch Saint Augustine the second time where he saith that Christ in his last supper bare himselfe in his owne hands Wherevnto I might answere that Saint Augustine whether misled by a wrong translation or vpon some other mistake was much overseene to alledge that for Scripture and to make it his ground which is no where to be found in Scripture For the text intended by him hath it farre otherwise then so The vulgar Bible saith Hee fell downe or reeled betweene their hands Saint Basil He was carried by the hands of the servants The Originall He plaid the foole or madman in their hand or while he was in their power All which is much differing from that of Saint Augustine He was carried in his owne hands And no marvaile if a fained text which hee vnderstood not drew from him such a violent interpretation To say nothing how carelesse hee is of the letter in his Enarrations vpon the Psalmes and how hardly it beareth his Mysticall constructions But this notwithstanding Saint Augustine you will say plainely deliuereth his judgement touching the Sacrament when hee saith Christ therein was carried in his owne hands Not so plainely for your purpose if Saint Augustine who knew his owne meaning best may be his owne interpreter For thus doth he expound himselfe How was he carried in his owne hands Because when hee commended his very Body and blood he tooke into his hands that which the faithfull know and after a sort carried himselfe when he said This is my Body He saith not Really or Substantially or Corporally but after a sort even as elsewhere also The Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine manner the body of Christ that is to say Sacramentally Significatiuely For if he had meant properly and litterally hee would never haue said after a sort but speaking in that manner it is evident he meant improperly and figuratiuely He carried himselfe that is the Sacrament or Symbole of himselfe N. N. But yet farther Thou must knowe and hold for most certaine saith S. Cyril that this which seemeth to bee Bread is not Bread but Christs body though the tast doth iudge it Bread And againe in the same Father Vnder the forme or shew of Bread is giuen to thee the Body of Christ and vnder the forme or shape of Wine is giuen to thee the Bloud of Christ. And S. Chrysostome to the same effect We must not beleeue our senses easie to bee beguiled c. We must simply and without all ambiguitie beleeue the words of Christ This is my Body c. How many say now alwaies I would see him I would behold his visage his vestments c. But hee doth more then this for he giueth himselfe not only to be seene but to be touched also handled and eaten by thee I. D. First what if I should except against this Cyril as an vnsufficient witnesse For perhaps he deserueth it and so doing I shall not at all wrong him That there was an ancient Father of that name Bishop of Hierusalem I confesse that he wrote Catechismes is testified by S. Hierom but withall that he wrote them in his youth and long before he was Bishop which much elevateth the weight of his testimonie Howbeit you are father to knowe that those Catecheticall bookes now entitled vnto him are but of a very late edition For your owne Harding acknowledgeth that in his time namely about sixtie yeares since
they were only manuscript and knowne but to a few learned men Since which time they haue beene published in print and perhaps to winne more authority vnto them mis-fathered vpon Cyril of Hierusalem For if wee may beleeue Gesner or Simler or your owne Gretzer a Iesuit sundry written copies entitle them to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem one who liued well neere eight hundred yeares after Christ even then when the quarrell about Images and relicks was on foot Whence happily proceeded that overlashing speech that the wood of the Crosse was so multiplied as the whole world was now full of it Howsoever seeing they are come to our hands from no better places then Trent the Popes Vatican and Cardinal Perrons Library you cannot blame vs if we vehemently suspect that they haue passed through Purgatory and suffered much addition and substraction For wee are not ignorant of your Pious fraudes and holy couznages in purging of bookes not permitting them to speake what their Authors wrote but what maketh most for your owne advantage But let it be supposed for the present that your author is the right Cyril of Hierusalem and free from all corruption and if you will also that he wrote his Catechismes in his elder yeares what then is the testimonie that begiueth for Transubstantiation Forsooth that which seemeth to be Bread is not Bread but Christs body though the tast iudge it Bread And againe Vnder the shew of bread and Wine the Body and Bloud of Christ is giuen Wherevnto I answer and first to the former that the common Latine Translation reads it otherwise thus This bread which wee see is not bread so denying it to be Bread that yet hee affirmeth we see Bread Which seeming contradiction is easily accorded by Cyril himselfe where hee saith it is not simple or naked or common bread as if hee should say Bread it is yet not only bread but something else besides Even as when we deny Christ to be meere man we meane not that he is no man but that he is Man and besides that God also It is not then bread that is Prophane or Vnsanctified bread but the Body of Christ that is bread sanctified to bee a Type or Sacrament of Christs Body And although our tast iudge it to bee no more then bread yet Faith teacheth vs not to stay on bread but to mount higher even vnto the Body of Christ. I beseech you when Pachymeres saith The holy oyle is no longer called oyle for the oyle is Christ doth he meane it hath lost its nature and is transubstantiated into Christ I trow no. In like manner might Cyril say The bread we see is not bread but Christs body and yet neuer dreame of your Real Presence For in his opinion there is the like reason of both Even as saith he the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so also this holy ointment is no more bare or common ointment after it is now consecrated but a grace which worketh the Presence of Christ and the holy Ghost To the second passage I answere that your Author whosoeuer hee bee hath rendred it captiously vnder the forme or shew or shape of Bread and Wine as if hee had meant your Accidents without substance whereas indeed Cyrils owne words are in the Type or Figure of Bread and Wine And this wee acknowledge to bee most true For in the receauing of the Bread and Wine which typically are the body and bloud of Christ wee truly and really after a spirituall manner receaue his very body and bloud also In regard whereof as he calleth bread winetypes so he maketh the body bloud of Christ their Anti-types They are commanded saith he to tast not of bread and wine but of the Anti-type the body and bloud of Christ. The body therefore and the bloud is in the bread and in the wine as the Anti-type is the type or the thing figured in the figure which I hope may be done without any Transubstantiation Certainely if wheresoeuer you read of Formes shewes or shapes you by and by conceaue of nothing but Accidents without substance it cannot be avoided but you must needs fall into dangerous errours When Saint Paul saith that Christ being in the forme of God counted it no rapine to be equall with God Neverthelesse emptied himselfe taking the forme of a servant made after the similitude of men and being found in figure as a man humbled himselfe c. What will you conclude hence that Christ is onely shew without substance and neither true God nor true Man I knowe you will not And seeing you dare not doe it in this I would advise you to beware how you coÌ„clude so in the like As for the testimonie of S. Chrysostome I answere vnto it breefly We must not beleeue our senses saith he True for they discerne nothing else but bare bread and Wine and are not capable of the mystery signified and exhibited by them To apprehend that belongeth vnto Faith and not sense Yet is not sense every way to bee discredited for we beleeue it is Whitenesse which we see and sauour which we tast yea we may safely beleeue it is bread which we take and eat Wherein then may we not beleeue sense That it is meere bread For it perceaueth not that it is sanctified and sacramentall bread But of this more hereafter Againe We must saith he simply and without all ambiguity beleeue the words of Christ saying This is my body Questionlesse we must and hee that beleeueth them not is an infidell But seeing as your selues confesse bread in proper signification is not the body of Christ neither was it Christs meaning we should beleeue it to be so To beleeue Christs words then is to beleeue them in Christs meaning which because it is not literall as we haue said it must needs be Figuratiue thus This bread sacramentally is my body But of this also more hereafter Lastly saith he He giueth himselfe not only to bee seene but also to bee touched handled and eaten This is sufficiently answered already whether to avoid tautologie I referre my selfe Only I adde that if properly we see touch tast Christ theÌ„ may we beleeue our senses contrary to that which Chrysostome saith But if we may not beleeue them then neither doe we see nor touch nor tast him properly but as himselfe interpreteth himselfe after a manner that is in a sacrament spiritually and by Faith which importeth not your Real Presence N. N. Nor only doe the Fathers affirme so asseverantly that it is the true naturall Body of Christ though it appeare to bee Bread in forme and shape and that we must not beleeue our Senâ—es herein but doe deny expresly that it is Bread after the words of Consecration as appeareth out of S. Ambrose in his booke de Sacramentis Imetandis Before the words of consecration
retaining the forme of bodily substance by invisible working proueth the Presence of Gods power to be there would you from hence conclude Transubstantiation I knowe you would not No more can you from this And indeed the word species which you translate Forme yea and outward Forme too though the word outward be not in the text doth not signifie shew without substance or Accident without subiect but in the writings of the Fathers vsually it signifieth the truth nature or kinde of a thing So Ambrose I see not speciem the truth of bloud speaking of the Lords Cup but it hath the resemblance which afterward repeating I see the resemblance saith he but I see not veritatē the truth of bloud Again the word of Christ changeth the species of the Elements What is that The Formes or Accidents of the Elements No for they you say remaine What then but the Elements or things thēselues And St Augustin Their meat was the same with ours but the same in signification not in specie that is in kinde So that when your Author saith it keepeth the species of bodily substance it is not necessary to render it by Forme that is Accident or Shew void of substance for you may as well turne it thus it still retaineth the nature or truth of its bodily substance N. N. This graue Father and Martyr doth plainely shew how Mr Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For the Popes and the Doctors of the Church did agree alwaies in matters of Faith notwithstanding the great shew M. Downe hath made to the contrary For here S. Cyprian sheweth you that this food of immortality keepeth the outward forme of the Bodily Substance but prouing that there is present a divine power which is confessed by Gelasius And therefore when Gelasius saith the nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not to be his meaning is the outward forme of the corporall Substance And with this agree many of the Fathers which are also wrested from their true meaning as appeareth manifestly by the manifold plaine places of the Fathers by me here set downe I. D. If to neglect the Premisses and to contradict the Conclusion by the right way of answering arguments then haue you taken the right course and made vp my mouth for ever replying vpon you For whereas M. Downe as you say hath made a great shew to proue that the Fathers disagree among themselues in some points you passing by all the proofes thinke it sufficient to affirme the contrary that the Popes and Doctors of the Church doe agree Wherevpon you farther inferre that M. Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For although hee haue proued by the expresse words of Gelasius that the Bread is not transubstantiated because the substance thereof stil remaineth yet is the conclusion false For Popes and Doctors Gelasius and Cyprian must needs agree But questionlesse if Cyprian for for the present wee will suppose him to bee the right Cyprian doe by Forme of bodily substance vnderstand nothing else but shew without Substance it is impossible to make him agree with Gelasius For Gelasius saith The Substance or nature of Bread and wine cease not to be and Substance cannot possibly be shew without substance So to interpret is to expound white by blacke and light by darknesse and would argue extreame either stubbornesse against the truth or brutishnesse But Cyprian by Forme vnderstandeth not as wee haue shewed Accidents miraculously subsisting without Subiect but them together with the Subiect or the verity and truth of the thing And so hee perfectly agrees with Gelasius and the rest of the Fathers and all of them against Transubstantiation For as for those manifold plaine places by you here set downe I hope by this time they appeare not so plaine vnto you but are all of them fully answered and that without wresting any one of them from his true meaning N. N. Therefore though the Fathers doe sometimes call the Sacrament a Figure or Signe Representation or Similitude of Christs Body death passion and bloud they are to bee vnderstood in the like sense as those places of St Paul are wherein Christ is called by him a Figure the substance of the Father and againe an image of God and farther yet appearing in the likenesse of man all which places as they doe not take away from Christ that he was the true substance of his Father or true God or true man indeed though out of every one of those places some heresies haue beene framed by ancient heretiks against his Divinity or Humanity so doe not the foresaid Phrases sometime vsed by the ancient Fathers calling the Sacrament a Signe Figure Representation or Similitude of Christs Body exclude the truth or Reality thereof I. D. That the Sacraments by the Fathers are called Signes Figures Representations Similitudes and the like is so cleare that you cannot deny it and I feare it greeueth you much to read it in them because it maketh so directly against you Wherefore to salue all some pretty shift or colour must be devised those tearms must bee vnderstood as St Paul meaneth when he saith Christ is the Figure of his Father the Image of God and appeared in the likenesse of man For as here they deny not either the Godhead or Man-hood of Christ so neither in the Fathers doe they exclude the Body or Blood of Christ from the Sacrament And doe they not indeed Why then when Cyprian ere while said Retaining the forme of Corporall Substance did you so hastily exclud Substance and fancy to your selfe shewes subsisting of themselues without it But let vs examine this a little farther A Symbole saith Maximus is some sensible thing assumed insteed of that which is intelligible as Bread and Wine for immateriall and divine nourishment and refection And againe These are Symbols not the truth Sacraments saith Augustine are signes of things being one thing and signifying another It were no figure saith Chrysostome if all things incident to the truth were found in it And Saint Augustine againe If Sacraments haue not a resemblance or Similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they are not Sacraments These sayings of the Fathers plainely shew that in Sacraments they never conceiued the Figure and the Truth to be one and the same thing but that the signe is one thing and the thing signified cleane another And herevpon in expresse tearms they affirme that they are two not one The Eucharist saith Irenaeus consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly And Saint Augustine The sacrifice of the Church is made of two and consisteth of two things the sacrament or sacred signe and the thing of the Sacrament And it is to be noted that they speake generally of all Sacraments so as in the Lords Supper the Figure is no more the same with the Truth then it is in Baptisme And indeed vnlesse you can make Sensible and Insensible Corporall and Spirituall Earthly and
Heavenly Corruptible and Immortall to bee all one neither shall you ever be able to make the signe and the Thing signified in any Sacrament to be the same Adde herevnto that the Fathers not only say that Bread is a Figure of Christs body but also that when wee are commanded to eat his Body or drinke his Bloud the speech is Figuratiue For as Saint Augustine saith Hee seemeth to command an evill and wicked act it is a figure therefore instructing vs to communicate with his passion c. Now to vnderstand a Figuratiue speech literally is very dangerous for the letter killeth and it is the Death of the soule If therefore Figuratiue and Proper cannot bee the same and in Sacraments when the thing signified is affirmed of the signe the speech be Sacramentall that is Figuratiue it followeth necessarily that the signe and the thing signified are not the same And if not the same then haue you wronged the Fathers saying they are so to bee vnderstood as if they were the same N. N. I will now conclude with two authorities more The first Counsel of Nice one of the foure Counsells allowed by Protestants for sound The words of the Counsell are these Let vs faithfully beleeue with an exalted mind that there lyeth on the holy table the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world which is sacrificed by the Priests I. D. This Canon here by you alleaged came but very lately to light for it is found neither in Ruffin nor in Balsamon nor any of the Tomes of the Counsells heretofore published except those of the newest impression And in them it is set forth in a different letter signifying that it was but newly found and that in the Popes Vatican Library vnder the name of one Gelasius Cyzicenus All which cannot but breed great suspicion and much weaken the authority thereof But what saith the Canon There lyeth on the Table the Lamb of God What Corporally and Really No but Symbolically and Sacramentally Neither doth it say as you translate Let vs faithfully beleeue with an exalted mind that the Lamb of God lyeth on the table But thus Let vs not basely attend the Bread and the Cup set before vs but lifting vp our mind by Faith vnderstand the Lamb of God vpon the table which rather maketh against Transubstantiation then for it For first he plainely telleth vs it is Bread that is there then secondly it commandeth vs to lift vp our mind which needed not if Christ himselfe were there Really on the table where obserue by the way that it is a table not an altar And thirdly that wee are to conceiue Christ Sacramentally to be on the table though Really hee bee there whether wee are to advance our thoughts The last clause of the passage is cut off by the wast and mangled by you I thinke to intimate that the Masse is a Sacrifice truly and properly so called But the words at full are these which is sacrificed by the Priests without being sacrificed manifestly insinuating that it is not Properly a Sacrifice but Representiuely and by way of commemoration Not much vnlike to these words is that of Saint Chrysostome which may serue insteed of a commentarie vnto them teach you that all which the Fathers say speaking of this Sacrament is not alwaies litterally to bee vnderstood What doest thou o man saith he at the houre of the mysticall table Didst thou not promise to the Priest who said lift vp your hearts saying wee lift them vp vnto the Lord And fearest thou not nor blushest that in that very houre thou art found a Lyar The table is furnished with mysteries and the Lamb of God is sacrificed for thee the Priest is troubled for thee a spirituall fire flowes from the sacred table the Seraphins stand by couering their faces with sixe wings all the incorporeall vertues together with the Priest make intercession for thee a spirituall fire comes downe from Heaven the Bloud in the cup is drawne out of the immaculate side for thy purification Thus he N. N. Saint Cyril saith that in this mystery wee should not so much as aske how it can bee done for it is a Iewish word and cause of everlasting torment From which good Lord deliuer vs. I. D. In this mystery wee may not inquire How What of that Ergo Christ is present by Transubstantiation Indeed if the doubt had beene how Bread might be made the body of Christ or how the substance of bread might be turned into substance of his body and then resoluing that it is so Cyril had advised in any case not to inquire How as being derogatory to Gods omnipotence here you had a pregnant testimony for Transubstantiation But Cyril handling those words The bread which I will giue is my Flesh exagitateth the Iewes for demanding How hee could giue his flesh to eat For seeing Christ by his miracles had demonstrated himselfe to be God it was their duty simply to beleeue his words and to know that hee who had spoken them was able to find a meanes by which to make them good and that without such immanity and anthropophagy as they imagined Now if in these Mysteries wee may not be so sawcie malapert as to demand How how cometh it about that your selues take vpon you so magistrally to define it that it is done after an Orall manner and by way of Transubstantiation Your Cutbert Tonstall saith Perhaps it had beene better as touching the manner how it is done to haue left every one that would be curious to his owne coniecture even as it was free before the counsell of Laterane Yet I must doe you to wit that the Question how is not alwaies evill and forbidden The blessed virgin her selfe demanded of the Angell How may this be seeing I know not man And Saint Ambrose This therefore wee say How can that which is bread be Christs body Saint Augustine some may thinke with himselfe how is bread his body Neither did they offend in asking How because firmely beleeuing the thing it was only out of admiration or desire of learning that they moued that Question That How Which is forbidden is that which is demanded ouâ— of Incredulity Such as was this of the Iewes who beleeued not Christ but reiected his saying as requiring some savage or inhumane thing to be done Hence Cyril It had beene meet that they had first set the roots of Faith in their minds and then to haue enquired those things that are to bee â—uquired but they before they beleeued enquired out of season For this cause our Lord did not expound how that thing might be brought to passe but exhorteth that it be sought by faith By all which you may perceiue that these words of Cyril are obiected to little purpose For your words are not Christs words neither hath he taught vs any such Reall Presence by Transubstantiation His words wee stedfastly
called his bloud What words can bee more plaine And yet againe the Bloud of Christ cannot seeme to be in the cup when wine is wanting to the cup whereby the bloud of Christ is declared Athanasius He distinguished the spirit from the flesh that wee might learne that the things hee spake are not carnall but Spirituall For how many men would his Body haue sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world But therefore hee made mention of his ascension into heaven that hee might draw them from corporall vnderstanding and then might vnderstand his flesh whereof he spake to be meate from aboue the Heavenly and spirituall food which he would giue Here expresly he reiecteth the Corporall eating of Christs Body and acknowledgeth none other but that which is spirituall Eusebius Bishop of Cesaâ—ia Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that haue followed in all nations celebrating the spirituall divine service according to the ordinances of the Church signifie vnto vs by the Bread and Wine the mysteries of his body and bloud If they signify them they are not the same Macarius They knew not that in the Church Bread and Wine was to be offered as the anti-type of his flesh and bloud and that those who partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord. A knot of arguments Bread Wine are offered they are Anti-types of Christs Flesh and Bloud they are receiued of vs and the eating of Christs flesh is spirituall Your Cyril of Hierusalem As the Bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so this holy ointment is no more bare and common ointment after it is consecrated but the gift of Christ. Not common bread saith hee yet bread and the body as the Ointment is the Grace of Christ. But Grace it is not by conversion into it for it remaineth ointment still but by accession of Grace vnto it Ambrose speaking of the miracles of the Prophets who changed the Nature of things and comparing therewith that which is done in the Sacrament as being nothing lesse at length concludeth It is no lesse to giue new natures vnto things then to change their natures plainely intimating that in the Sacrament Nature is not changed but some thing is added aboue Neture Wherefore else where hee saith in expresse tearmes If there bee so great force in the word of the Lord that they should beginne to bee what they were not how much more operatiue are they that they bee what they were and yet be changed into another thing Lo bread and Wine are changed yet remaine what they were changed therefore not in substance but in vse and signification Saint Basil in his Liturgy for him you make the author thereof He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of thy Maiesty on high who shall also come to render vnto every one according to his workes But hee hath left these Memorialls or monuments of his healthfull passion which wee set forth according to his commandement Hee is gone and hath left vs Memorialls of himselfe Ergo himselfe is not here For remembrance is of things past not present Gregory Nazianzen Now we shall bee partakers of the Passeouer but as yet in a figure though more cleare then in the old Law for the passeouer of the Law I will not be a fraid to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure The Passeouer therefore in proper speech is not a figure of the Lords Supper but both of them are Figures of the death of Christ. Gregory Nyssen declaring the change of Water in Baptisme expresseth it by three similitudes of an Altar which being dedicated vnto Gods Worship of a common stone is made a holy table of Bread in the Eucharist which by Consecration is no longer common bread but the Body of Christ and of a Priest who of a vulgar and ordinary man is by the blessing made a teacher Prelate of divine mysteries Bread therefore is no more transubstantiated then Water in Baptisme the stone of the Altar or the Priest Cyril of Alexandria Doest thou say that our Sacrament is the eating of a man and doest thou Vrge our minde vnto the grosse thoughts that beleeued so and doest thou attempt with humane thoughts to handle those things which cannot bee receiued but only with a pure and exquisite faith The Flesh of Christ therefore is not eaten with the mouth for that were to eate a man but only with a pure Faith Epiphanius After he had given thankes he said This of mee is that and wee see that it is not equall nor like neither to the incarnate image nor the invisible Deity nor to the lineaments of his members For this is oblong or of roule fashion senselesse as concerning power If it bee vnequall to Christ and void of Sence then is it not Christ. Saint Chrysostome before consecration wee call it bread but Divine grace through the ministry of the Priest sanctifying it it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the appellation of the Lords body although the nature of bread continue in it Behold the nature of bread remaineth after Consecration and yet it is called the Body of Christ. And againe If therefore it be dangerous to convert vnto private vses these sanctified vessels in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of Christs body is contained how much more the vessels of our body which God hath prepared to be an habitation for himselfe ought wee not to giue way vnto the Divell to doe in theÌ„ what he pleaseth Not the Body but the mysteries are contained in the vessels if so what becomes of your Reall presence Hierom The wicked nor eate the flesh of Iesus nor drinke his bloud But they eat and drinke the Eucharist Ergo it is not the Flesh and Bloud of Christ. Againe Wee may eate of that Sacrifice which is wonderfully made in commemoration of Christ but of that which Christ offered vpon the Altar of the Crosse no man may eate The Sacrifice then of the Sacrament is not that of the Crosse and the Body offered on the Crosse is not eaten in the Sacrament Saint Augustine The Apostles ate the Bread the Lord Iudas the bread of the Lord against the Lord. Againe He that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth the Flesh of Christ nor drinketh his Bloud although he daily receiue the Sacrament of so great a thing to iudgement Obserue the Bread of the Lord not that which is the Lord and the Sacrament of Christs Flesh and Bloud not his Flesh and Bloud So againe you shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that bloud which my crucifiers shall shed I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament which spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you And yet againe
later shorter and taller broader and narrower thicker and thinner greater and lesser then himselfe and such like of the same garbe But I study to be briefe it is high time to remoue my hand as they say from the Table Onely I must forewarne you that if being vnable to vntie these knots you shall attempt to cut them asunder with the sword of Gods Omnipotence you shall but loose your labour For if they be contradictions as vndoubtedly they are your Angelicall Doctor can tell you that they fall not within the compasse of Divine Power So that of force you must either demonstrate that these things are not contradictorie which I am sure you can neuer doe or as becommeth Christian ingenuity you must for ever bid farewell to Transubstantiation and yeeld vnto the truth discouered vnto you And thus at length by Gods assistance haue I finished the taske you haue laid vpon me fully answered whatsoeuer here you haue alleaged in maintenance of your Reall Presence My desire now is that laying aside all prejudice you will but with indifference read what I haue replied therevnto Which if you shall vouchsafe to doe I perswade my selfe it will make you to remit much of that confidence you had in this cause when first you sent this Schedule vnto me Especially if withall you consider that the wittiest and subtlest heads amongst you could never finde it so clearely and strongly grounded either vpon Scripture or Fathers as you pretend Scotus sirnamed the subtle Doctor affirmeth that there is extant in Scripture no place so expresse as without declaration of the Church can evidently constraine a man to admit of Transubstantiation And this saith Bellarmine is not altogether vnprobable For although the scripture may seeme vnto vs so clear as it may constraine a man that is not froward yet it may iustly be doubted whether it be so seeing most learned and witty men such as Scotus specially was haue thought the contâ—ary The same Scot farther saith that were it not for the authority determination of the Roman Church the words of Christ and of the Fathers might more simply plainely truly be vnderstood and expounded Nay hee yet farther addeth and your Cardinal Bellarmine confesseth it that before the Lateran Councell Transubstantiation was not a doctrine of Faith and he wondreth that being no principle article and such as exposeth the Christian Faith to contempt it could be receaued and beleeued The Cardinall of Cambray also doubteth not to avouch that that manner which supposeth the substance of Bread still to remaine is possible neither is it contrary to reason or the authority of scripture Nay it is easier to conceaue and more reasonable then that which saith the substance doth leaue the accidents And of this opinion no inconvenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And he addeth that the opinion which holdeth the substance of Bread not to remaine doth not evidently follow of the Scripture nor to his seeming of the Churches determination Cardinall Cajetan is as peremptory that there appeareth nothing in the Gospell that can force a man properly to vnderstand these words This is my body and that were it not for the interpretation of the Roman Church they might very well admit another sense as that of the Apostle the Rocke was Christ. To these Cardinals may wee ioyne another Cardinall though happily he neuer ware the Cap I mean Fisher Bishop of Rochester who expresly averreth that in that place of Mathew where the institution of the Sacrament is recorded there is never a word whereby it may bee proued that there is made in the Masse the true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ. Gabriel Biel also The Scriptures may be salved and expounded after a more easie vnderstanding And Occam This doctrine that the substance of bread remaineth is subiect to lesser inconveniences and is not so repugnant to reason the Scriptures And Durand It is great rashnesse to say that the body of Christ cannot by divine power be in the Sacrament but by converting bread into it Howbeit if that way which supposeth bread to remaine were indeed true many doubts which meet vs holding it not to remaine were dissolued The Master of the Sentences also freely confesseth that if it be demanded what that conversion is whether formall or substantiall or of another kinde he is not sufficient to define From these your Iesuits swarue not very much Gregory de Valentia saith that the Fathers spake of Transubstantiation somewhat obscurely simply as thinking they could not be vnderstood of Catholikes but Catholikely and least they should haue exposed the mystery to be laughed at of Infidels if in their popular Sermons they should haue vnfolded their minds Your Secular Priests affirme that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Societie and what Catholike would not beleeue them that the Fathers haue not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation Finally not to muster vp any more it is well knowne that divers of your Priests being demanded if after sentence of death pronounced vpon them that very morning when they were to be executed they might haue leaue to say Masse to the intent they might be certaine of their owne intention to consecrate and not doubtfully depend vpon anothers whether after consecration for the confirmation of our Faith in the point of Transubstantiation they durst to say thus vnto the multitude Vnlesse that which is now in this Chalice whose Accidents you see be the very selfe same bloud which issued out of the side of Christ hanging on the crosse let mee haue no part either in the bloud of Christ or in Christ himselfe for ever and so with these last words bid farewel vnto the world being I say demanded whether they durst adventure to doe so they all with one voice denied it And Father Garnet in a conference with the Deanes of the Chappell Pauls and Westminster being in particular asked the like answered very perplexedly not daring to hazard his saluation therevpon All these testimonies duly pondered and considered you must needs acknowledge vnlesse you see better then these quick-sighted Eagles that you haue not so strong hold either in Scripture or Fathers or right reason as you imagined and that not only the name but the Doctrine also of Transubstantiation hath beene but of late created an article of your Faith It remaineth that I entreat you these things vndoubtedly being thus that you suffer not your selfe any longer to be beguilded with novelties vnder pretence of antiquitie but rather that you open your eyes and stretch forth your armes to embrace the truth now that she offereth her selfe so manifestly vnto you And this I intreat the more earnestly because of the great danger that followeth vpon this errour For if Christ bee not present in the Sacrament in such sort as you hold there