Will is contained and his legacy conueighed vnto vs which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deâ—â—â—t soules Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to bee no other then bare signes and types of Christs true body and blood as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person as Circumcision is called the Couenant because it was a signe thereof c. either not vnderstatding like a dull Scholler his Master Caluines doctrine or ouer sawcily willing to contradict him who towards the end of his booke de Coena Domini expressely denieth bread wine to be empty signes of our Sauiours body and blood but such signes as haue the signified substances of our Sauiours body and blood conioyned with them For Christ saith hee is no deceiuer to delude vs with bare figures c. According to which doctrine of Caluine it will be easie for my Adversarie himselfe to salue many of his owne obiections that for example which he maketh out of Tertullian page 3. saying The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his body saying This is my body that is a figure of my body For as Caluines former words import so also Tertullian meaneth the sacramentall symbols not to be naked signes of Christs absent body and blood as the Minister would haue them but such signes as haue the signified substance conioyned vnto them as smoake is the signe of fire warme blood of life the fiery tongues ouer the Apostles in that day of Pentecost and the Doue ouer our Sauiour in his Baptisme were signes of the holy Ghost present c. Which manner of being signes of Christs body and blood doth not exclude but suppose the Accidents of bread and wine to containe the true substances of our Sauiours body and blood in them So is Saint Augustine to be vnderstood where he saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when hee deliuered the signe of his body And when out of Gratian my Aduersary citeth those wordes The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ c. is a Sacrament of Christs body visible palpable mortal and pierced on the Crosse c. So when Theodoret and Gelasius affirme the substance and nature of bread and wine still to remaine in the Sacrament they meane not physicall substances and nature of bread and wine still to remaine after the consecration but onely the accidents to remaine vnaltered in their nature signifying and containing our Sauiours body and blood vnder them And if hee had cited the place of Theodoret fully out he had vtterly ouerthrowne his hereticall and fraudulent purposes of citing him His wordes are these Neither do the sacramentall signes after consecration depart from their nature for they remaine note how hee speaketh of the signes not of the substances of bread and wine remaining in their former substance figure and forme to be seene and touched as before but they are by our vnderstanding conceiued to be as they are made and they are beleeued and adored according to our faith of them So iudicious and learned is mine Aduersarie here and in other places in the choise of his Arguments and Authorities alleadged against vs. But howsoeuer he faileth in that he will be sure to helpe out the matter by maiming and corruptly citing such testimonies I haue iust cause to suspect his like dealing in citing Gratians Glosse on S. Augustines wordes in the precedent page and Caietans words cited by him page 2. But I haue not these Authors now by me to examine the places in themselues And they are of so small esteeme with vs especially Caietan in his dangerous and inconuenient manner of expounding Scripture with more subtilty many times then truth as I cannot but wonder to see the Minister so to magnifie him as if hee were the Oracle of our Church and his ipse dixit and bare assertion so certaine a proofe as it could not be denied by vs. IN the next place therefore skipping ouer this Confession of Caietan that there is nothing in the Gospell that may inforce vs to take those words of our Sauiour properly This is my body but that they may for ought that is in the Text be taken figuratiuely as well as those wordes The Rock was Christ. As also leaping quite ouer the Answer giuen to that Obiection that we are bound to beleeue our Sauiour when hee saith This my body as if wee could not beleeue those wordes of his vnlesse wee beleeue Transubstantiation whereas their owne writers grant that the words of our Sauiour may be true though no such thing be He picketh out here and there some by-matter to bee nibling vpon that hee may seeme to say somewhat though hee keepe aloofe off from the maine matter And first because hee thought hee had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet which hee was desirous to vent He saith I make a great stirre in asking how the Chalice may bee called the New Testament in Christs blood I halfe suspect that some body hath sometime pusâ—ed him with this Question and he is willing therfore here to explicate it for the saluing of his owne credit the rather hauing lighted vpon a new deuice that hee thinketh wil easily helpe out For I mooue no such Question much lesse make such adoe about asking it but say onely We must beleeue our Sauiour as well when he saith This Cup is the new Testament or This Cup is my blood as wee must beleeue him when he saith This is my body and that either may bee true though there be no such reall conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament or Christs blood in the one or of the Bread into his body in the other And his part had beene if he ment to keepe to the point to shew why the one may not be true in a figuratiue sense as wel as the other But let vs heare how learnedly though it bee beside the matter he explicateth our Sauiours wordes This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Thus forsooth My blood in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed and the eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood Did any man in his right wits thinke wee euer expound Scripture on this manner Yea but he hath a singular piece of Schollership by himselfe to iustifie his Exposition For all learned men saith hee know that the word Testament is apt to import not the dying mans Will onely but the deed wherein it is contained and the legacy conueighed by it which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deuout soules c. If he had beene himselfe inebriated when hee writ this hee could not lightly haue beene more absurd For 1. By this
same Or doth not Baptisme the like you may be pleased to consider what out of their owne Ambrose was before said of it as also out of Gregorie Nyssene is here after related For it is nothing to the purpose that Bellarmine obiecteth that no man would say that the water of Baptisme consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heauenly For neither doth Irenaeus say that the bread of the Eucharist but the Eucharist it selfe of such two things consisteth But I would faine know how the Eucharist according to their doctrine should when the bread is once consecrated consist at all of any earthly thing when the substance thereof is as they say thereby vtterly abolished Sure Irenaeus his Eucharist consisting of matter in part earthly and theirs hauing none at all such are not one and the same Thirdly Irenaeus saith that our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are no more now corruptible in regard of hope and expectation he meaneth of their future resurrection which thereby they are assured of and sealed vp vnto for otherwise who seeth not that they are not yet incorruptible as he afterward expoundeth himselfe And what is said more here of the Lords Supper then Tertullian and others say of Baptisme to wit that by it the Flesh also hath its assurance of resurrection to life eternall yea let them looke backe but a line or two and they shall soone see how little Irenaeus fauoureth their cause How saith he say they that the flesh perisheth and liueth not euerlastingly that is nourished with the body and blood of Christ He affirmeth our flesh to be nourished with that which hee calleth the body and blood of Christ. And else-where more plainely When the Cup mixed and the bread broken receiueth the word of God it becommeth the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ of which the substance of our bodies groweth and consisteth Now how deny they the flesh to be capable of life eternall that is nourished with Christs body and blood And againe That part of man that consisteth of flesh sinewes and bones is nourished by the cup that is his blood and groweth or is encreased by the bread that is his body The same with that which out of Iustine wee shall hereafter further consider of that our flesh and blood are nourished by the Eucharisticall foode by a change thereof that is it being changed and turned into them But to say so of the very body and blood of Christ is by these mens owne grants most absurd That in the Eucharist therefore that Irenaeus and before him Iustine speake thus of is not the very flesh and blood of Christ it selfe but the creature sanctified as he himselfe tearmeth it or the first-fruits of Gods creatures which in way of thankefulnesse with thankesgiuing he saith they offer vnto God why so tearmed is out of Augustine and others shewed else-where The third allegation is as he saith out of the voices of the Fathers in the first Nicene Councel Where I might well out of Cardinal Baeronius except that there are noâ— Acts of that first Nicene Councel now extant and that the worke out of which this allegation is taken is no record of those Acts but a story onely of that Councell written by one that liued long after it whom they themselues account to be but a sorry obscure fellow and one of no great credite But let the Author or the Relator rather passe and let vs heare his relation Those holy Confessors saith hee will vs at the diuine Table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed but to eleuate our minde by faith and be holde on the holy Table the Lambe of God c. by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to be symboles and pledges of our resurrection Heere is nothing at all that any way hurteth our cause First they acknowledge bread to be and abide in the Euchaerist which these men vtterly deny Secondly they will vs not basely to regard therein the bread and cup or the elements onely And the very same in the same place of Baptisme they say that wee must not so much regard in it the water that wee see as the power of God accompanying it of which wee shall speake more vpon another the like occasion hereafter Thirdly they will vs to lift vp our minde and by faith to consider for so their words are the Lambe of God lying on the Table And by faith we grant that hee is not seene and considered onely but receiued also in the Eucharist Fourthly they say not as this man translateth it that hee is vnbloodily there sacrificed but that hee is without sacrificing there sacrificed that is not really but mystically and symbolically sacrisiced or not in truth of the thing but in a mystery signifying the same as out of Pope Pascasius and Augustine in their Canons themselues speake Fiftly they say that wee receiue his bodie and blood in the Encharist yea they are reported to say which hee omitteth here that wee doe truely receiue them which that we doe truely also and effectually according to our doctrine though spiritually and not corporally hath already beene shewen and shall in his due place againe bee further confirmed And lastly that these are symboles or pledges of our resurrection which how they was are was before shewed out of Tertullian who from those Sacraments and sacred rites and exercises in generall as well other as these that the body partaketh in draweth Arguments to confirme the faith of the resurrection of it The next allegation is out of S. Ephrem whose both praises and speeches he hath borrowed from Bellarmine which Bellarmine when hee hath cited addeth withall in a brauery as if the proofes were so pregnant that there were no gainesaying of them To this testimonie our aduersaries neither doe answer nor indeede can answer ought That none had then answered was not much to be maruelled as Harding saith of their Cyrill few had yet the sight of him One of that name indeed wrote many things in the Syriacke tongue long since hauing no skill at all in the Greeke And vnder his name our Popish Fatherbreeders haue of late set out a many of Sermons and Treaeises that haue no testimonie at all from antiquity the most of them translated as they tell vs out of Greeke which hee good man neuer spake quoting some of them Greeke Authors at large whom hee neuer vnderstood wanting all of them that subtilty and sublimitie of wit that Ierome commendeth in Ephrems workes and appeared euen in the trarslations of them as both hee and others affirm of them very sorry and silly things a great part of them not free from grosse vntruths and contradictions yea and ridiculous too if not impious
assertions as that the damned spirits in hell salute all the Saints in heauen and by name the Apostles Prophets and Martyrs the Patriarches Monkes and the Uirgin Mary and lastly their seuerall editions of them so chopped and changed mangled and made vp againe cut off or pieced out as they pleased that had the breeding of them that scarce any one of them is any whit like another The testimonies cited out of him could not be answered before the Author himselfe was hatched and his workes abroad in mens hands that they might bee seene and knowne what they were And now that they are seen and known what they are they appeare plainely to be such that they are not worthy of any answer Vnlesse it bee deemed equall that wee bee tied to answer to euery saying that is alleadged out of any counterfeite that they shall at any time thrust out with the glorious title of some Ancient Father clapt on his Frontispice And yet neither are this Authors wordes what euer he be by the Cardinals good leaue for all his great bragge so pregnant and full for them that no answer can be giuen to them He saith that the mysteries of Christ are most admirable and inscrutable and who denieth it this follow himselfe bringeth in Caluin and Beza saying the same and that men ought not to pry ouer curiously into them wherein not we but their S. Dennis is faulty their Schoolemen who with their wanton wit haue therein exceeded all bounds as well of modestie as of measure that we partake with our Lords immaculate bodie by faith for so in Uossius his edition are his wordes distinguished which we may well without any such corporall presence of it as by their owne Authors is confessed that wee must be assured that we eate the Lambe himselfe whole which is contrary not to our doctrine who say and shew euidently that the Fathers did as much that liued euen before Christ was incarnate but to the doctrine of their Pope Nicholas as else-where is shewed So that here is nothing that we need so much to stick at or that should be deemed so vnanswerable vnlesse he wil presse vs with that that followeth that Christ giueth vs fire to feed on when hee giueth vs his body as Chrysostome saith sometime that fire floweth from the Lords table and it is a coale of fire that wee receiue in the Eucharist Which if they will expound figuratinely and spiritually as I suppose they must needs let them giue vs the like liberty to vnderstand the former wordes in like manner I will adde only and so leaue this Ephrem what in the very same discourse himselfe saith what this potion and perception is saith he it is our part to learne And it is lawfull then belike yea and our dutie too to make some kinde of inquiry into it Marke diligently how Christ taking bread into his hands blessed it and brake it for a figure of his immaculate body and how hee blessed the Cup for a figure of his blood Which wordes I take it encline rather to our doctrine then to theirs And yet further in the same Treatise With the eyes of faith when like light it shineth bright in a mans heart doth he cleerly see the Lambe of God that was slaine for vs and that hath giuen vs his holy and immaculate bodie perpetually to feede vpon and to partake of vnto remission of sinnes This eye of faith he that hath doth cleerely and openly see the Lord and by a sure and full faith eateth of the bodie of that immaculate Lambe the onely begotten sonne of the heauenly Father and drinketh his blood c. By faith saith hee wee see the Lambe of God as expounding that that was said out of the storie of the Nicene Councell before and by faith wee seede on him and his bodie and blood and partake of him perpetually and not in the Eucharist onely Which as it fitteth not their orall manducation which without faith may bee effected so it agreeth well with that spirituall feeding that we expound our Sauiours wordes of So little doth this their Ephrem further or auaile them in this Argument Lastly for the high tearmes and stately titles that the Ancient Fathers giue the Eucharist let him but compare them with those that they giue to its elder sister the other Sacrament of Baptisme and I suppose hee will finde little oddes betweene either Onely for what hee saith of their affirming that the Angels adore it let the places bee produced and they shall then bee answered That they are present oft and if present no doubt present with much reuerence as well at the celebration of the Lords Supper as at other parts of Gods worship and that they adore him who is therein represented which is all that Chrysostome saith in the places produced out of him by Bellarmine we deny not and of Baptisme in effect their Cyrist saith as much But that they doe adore as God a piece of bread or a sorry wafer cake as the Papists doe in their Masse therein committing as grosse idolatry it is their owne grant if it be not Christ which we well know it is not as euer any was in the world that we vtterly deny nor will this Defendant euer be able to produce any one Orthodox Father that euer so said And thus much for his allegations though produced here to no purpose to disprooue as they might well enough without hurting of vs no assertion of ours but a fiction of his owne framing nor was it necessarie therefore that they should haue beene answered Let vs now proceede to the next part of his Answer Diuision 6. HIs next ground for ouerthrowing our literall vnderstanding of Christs wordes and reall presence of his true bodie and blood in the Sacrament is an vnlearned and slender manner of proouing our Sauiours large discourse in S Iohn 6. not to bee at all vnderstood of sacrament all manducation but spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him And first hee quareleth at Pope Nicholas manner of speech making Berengarius in the abiuration of his heresie to affirme not onely the signe but the body it selfe of Christ to bee handled by the Priests hands and rent and bruised with the teeth of the faithfull c. Which manner of speech was purposely by Pope Nicholas in a Councell of learned Doctors devised to make this slippery shifting hereticke make a direct and plaine confession of his faith concerning our Sauiours being present in the hands of the Priest consecrating the Sacrament and mouthes of such as receiue him impassible now in his owne corporall nature glorified and vncapable of renting or any kinde of corporall mutation as being not with the sacramental signes also quantitatiuely extended but indiuisibly and after a spirituall manner existing
is a deale of durt indeede and mud raised to trouble Augustines cleere water The Question is whether our Sauiours words be to be vnderstood properly or figuratiuely They say properly and not figuratiuely Augustine saith figuratiuely and so consequently not properly which is as much as is here required Christs body saith Bellar mine is with the body properly eaten in the Eucharist But it is no proper but a figuratiue eating saith Augustine that Christ speaketh of Iohn 6. It is no such eating of Christs body therefore as they imagine to be in the Eucharist Yea so contrary to them and so pregnant for vs is that passage of Augustine that in Fulbertus his workes where those words of his are related they haue with a foule insertion branded them for hereticall Yea but saith mine Aduersarie there are many plaine places in Augustine cited by Bellarmine for the reall receiuing of Christ which my superficiall Aduersarie taketh no notice of Bellarmine is still much in this mans mouth and the superficialnesse of his silly and vnlearned Aduersarie But this I am sure is a very vnlearned slender and superficiall proofe of points questioned to turne his Reader ouer still for satisfaction to some other Yet I will doe him the couttesie since he telleth vs of other plaine places in Augustine to present him with one of them though such an one it may be as will not easily goe downe with him Augustine speaking of this place in Iohn on Psal. 98. saith that Christ hauing vsed those words Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you When some vnderstood them foolishly and carnally he taught them to vnderstand them spiritually saying It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speake are Spirit and life As if he should haue said vnderstand you spiritually what I haue spoken You are not to eate that body which you see and to drinke that blood which they will shed that shall crucifie me I haue commended a kinde of Sacrament vnto you which being spiritually vnderstood will quicken you Though it must be visibly colebrated yet is it inuisibly to be vnderstood Thus Augustine in plaine tearmes and yet if we beleeue these men the very same body of Christ that was then seene and that very same blood that was shed on the Crosse is orally eaten and drunke in the Eucharist ANd surely if the Authoritie of holy Fathers might preuaile with the Minister further then himselfe listeth he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that all the auncient Doctors expounding or treating of Christs words Ioh. 6. haue literally vnderstood them of the Sacrament as learned Tolet Saunders Bellarmine and other of our diuines haue particularly prooued collecting from them inuincible Testimonies also to prooue the verity of our Sauiours body and blood really in the Sacrament conteined and receiued Insomuch as S. Austin affirmeth S. Iohn purposely to haue emitted all mention of the Sacrament in our Sauiours last Supper because he had in the 6. Chap. of his Gospell so particularly expressed the promised excellency and heauenly fruits thereof and many euident and vnanswerable Arguments are by Catholike expositors of that Chapter made to prooue the same which with silence my Aduersarie ouerpasseth First for example our Sauiour from the 31. to the 60. verse of that Chapter maketh a difference betwixt the gift which his Father had giuen to the Iewes louing the world so as to giue his onely begotten Sonne for it and the gift which himselfe meant to giue to them speaking of the one as a gift already past but of the other as of a gift afterwards to bee giuen vnto them Secondly He compareth the eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna in the desert which was a corporall food really eaten by them Thirdly If by eating his flesh and drinking his blood our Sauiour meant no other thing then that they should beleeue in him it had beene a strange course in him who so thirsted after the saluation of soules by an obscure manner of speaking to driue away so many such persons especially as had formerly followed him without any word added which might open this obscure doctrine vnto them as Card. Tollet excellently relateth there the whole processe of our Sauiours doctrine § 5. MY second Proposition is that Christ in that whole Discourse Iohn 6 doth not speake of the Eucharist That Augustine and diuers others of the ancient Fathers doe expound it of feeding on Christ yet not corporally but spiritually in the Sacrament for so Bishop Iansenius also ingenuously confesseth that Augustine holdeth it to be vnderstood of seeding on Christ spiritually not corporally yea and so Pope Innocent himselfe witnesse Durand and Biel and Peter Lombard also witnesse Bonâ—uenture expound it I deny not nor doth it at all impeach our cause in the maine point here in question of Christs corporall presence Yet the rather herein wee are inforced together with diuerse Popish writers to depart from them in that their exposition so farre forth as they vnderstand the same as directly speaking of the Eucharist as for the one moitie of that discourse also euen Bellarmine himself doth in regard of some erronious consequences that they were by that meanes enforced vnto which euen the Papists themselues now condemne and for other weighty reasons as in my first writing I shew Yea but Catholique Expositors saith this Answerer by many euident and vnanswerable Arguments haue prooued that it is so to be vnderstood which his Aduersarie also saith hee euerpasseth with silence And say I A Catholique Expositor in their language to wit Corn. Iansenius no Iesuite now for so this Answerer hath informed me and yet a Bishop of Flanders in a worke of his by common consent of the learned among them well approoued of they are the Popes owne Censurers wordes of it hath by euident and vnanswerable Arguments prooued that it cannot so bee vnderstood which this mine aduersarie also ouerpasseth with silence And the like also doth Frier Ferus and Gabriel Biel at large in the place aboue recited But hee will at length I hope say somewhat himselfe 1. Our Sauiour saith he maketh a difference there betweene the gift which his Father had â—iuen the Iewes and the gift that himselfe ment to giue speaking of the one as past of the other as to come This out of Bellarmine I maruell where this man learned his Logicke He neuer is luckie in the framing of his Consequences There is a difference betweene the gift that God the Father had giuen and the gift that Christ would giue Ergò Christs wordes must needs be vnderstood of his corporall presence in the Eucharist How hang these things together or by what necâ—ssity of consequence doth the one follow from the other For first Are they diuerse gifts that God
who I pray you doubteth of or denyeth ought that is here said who teacheth men to speake otherwise then Christ euer taught but they that tell vs of bread transubstantiated and of a body of Christ made of bread of Christs flesh contained in bread or vnder the accidents of bread and of his blood in the bread and his body by a concomitancie in the Cup c Who doubteth with vs of the truth of Christs body and blood For of the corporall presence of either in the Sacrament Hilarie hath not heere a word Or who denyeth but that by the receiuing of those venerable mysteries Christ is spiritually in vs and we in him Doth not the Apostle say of Baptisme that by it we are ingraffed into Christ and Chrysostome that by it we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Hilaries scope is to shew that Christ is one with God and his Father and we one with him not by consent of will onely as some Heretikes said but by a true and reall vnion yet spirituall as his words implie when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Vpon whinch wordes their owne Bishop Iansenius They saith hee that thus eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood either by such faith alone or in the Eucharist are said to haue Christ abiding in them and to abide themselues in him in regard of the true vnion of our nature with the diuine nature by the spirit of Christ whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature Yea those words of our Sauiour cannot be meant of Christ corporally receiued in the Eucharist nor could Hilarie so meane if he were otherwise of their minde appeareth For Christs body so taken as they imagine doth not abide long in those that so receiue it but by their owne doctrine goeth away againe I know not whither a while after Whereas by vertue of such receiuing Christ as our Sauiour there speaketh of We doe abide in him and he in vs that is we are most inwardly and inseparably knit vnto Christ and he vnto vs they are still Iansenius his tearmes and Hilarie also saith the same and obteine therefore thereby not a transitorie life as we doe by the eating of corporall meate that passeth est-soones away and abideth not in him that eateth it but life permanent and eternall Whence it is manifest also saith the same Author that all are not in this place said to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of his body and blood since that all such haue not Christ abiding in them But they eate his flesh and drinke his blood as he there speaketh who beleeuing that his flesh and blood were giuen on the Crosse for the Saluation of mankinde and that by vertue of the hypostaticall vnion they haue a power to giue life do either by such faith alone or in the holy Eucharist also receiue the Lord himselfe within themselues imbrace him and by faith fast clasping him so keepe him within them as one by whom whatsoeuer we desire commeth to vs and is conferred on vs. Thus he by whose words it plainely appeareth that our abiding in Christ and Christ in vs which Hilarie from our Sauiour speaketh of dependeth not vpon any such corporall presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament nor doth necessarily require the same which by their owne doctrine also it doth not effect Diuision 9. HIS next Argument drawen from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments is idle and forcelesse For wee denie not as there he supposeth the Sacramentall Signes containing the bodie of Christ vnder them to signifie somewhat distinct from themselues to wit the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace that worthily receiue them They signifie likewise Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion And so a thing considered in one manner may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured represented his owne bodie as now it is in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem on Palme Sunday figured his owne entrance into heauen afterwards as Eusebius Emissenus and other Fathers teach and as an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victories c. MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments whose nature is to signifie one thing and to be another The Argument is this No Signes or Sacraments are the same with that that they signifie But the bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood in the Eucharist They are not therefore essentially either To this idle and forcelesse Argument as he pleaseth to style it he thus answereth 1. That the Sacrament all Signes signifie the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace as also Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his Passion Now 1. what is this to mine Argument was this man thinke we euer a disputant that answereth Arguments on this wise which part of my Syllogisme I pray you is this Answer applied to I had thought that a Syllogisme being propounded the Answerer should either haue denied or distinguished of one of the former Propositions 2. It is not true that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are signes of these things Some affections of them and Actions vsed about them indeede are The bread and wine themselues are signes of spirituall nutriment not nutrition The eating and drinking is a signe of it Signes they are of Christs body and blood not of the dolorous seuering of them in the passion though their being apart is a signe of it also 3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen and an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie But 1. If signum res signata the Signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues as without all Question they are a Father may as well be a father to himselfe as a signe may be the signe of it selfe Not to adde that the Ancients as hath formerly beene shewen are wont to call the Sacraments pictures and pledges and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture or a pledge of it selfe 2. I might well put this Defendant to prooue that Christs transfiguration was a representation of his present glorification or that his entrance into Ierusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heauen whatsoeuer his bastardly Eusebius Emissenus say of it whose authoritie is no better then his owne 3. Let him haue what he would that the one was a type of the other Doth it follow Christs transfiguration was a type of his glorification therefore Christ was a type or a signe of himselfe 4. An Emperour and his victorie I suppose are not all
accepting the bloodie Sacrifices of the Law 2. Is this their Sacrifice the very same with Christs on the Crosse. Then belike Christ is anew crucified againe The Apostle indeede telleth vs of some that crucifie Christ againe and it is to bee feared that to many of them are indeede guilty of that sinne But if this their Sacrifice be as he saith not a resemblance or commemoration as we say in the Eucharist of Christs passion but the very same with that of Christ on the Crosse how can it be but a new crucifying of him indeede Yea then Christ must needs die and suffer againe in it For a true and a reall Sacrifice saith Bellarmine requireth a true and reall death or destruction of the thing sacrificed And againe A sacrifice besides the oblation requireth a mutation and consumption of the thing offred yea and the slaying of it if it be a liuing thing And vnto a true sacrifice is required that that is offred vnto God in Sacrifice be vtterly destroyed Yea euen the Apostle himselfe saith that If Christ he oft sacrificed then he must die and suffer ost But Christ being once dead he dyeth no more Yea and Bellarmine himselfe granteth that Christ doth not truly die in the sacrifice of the Masse and that he dyeth not there but in a Sacrament or a Signe representing that one onely death that once he died He is not therefore really properly or verily there sacrificed Nor is this their Sacrifice of the Masse therfore the selfe same with that of Christs on the Crosse. 3. Is this Sacrifice of theirs a repetition of Christs sacrifice then belike Christs Sacrifice was imperfect For the Apostle euidently maketh the reiteration of Offrings an Argument of imperfection And if Christs Sacrifice then be as this blasphemous wretch saith repeated it must needs be by the Apostles Argument defectiue and imperfect But Christs Sacrifice was most absolutely perfect consummate and all-sufficient For by one oblation of himselfe once offred hath he obtained eternall redemption and for euer consecrated them that are sanctified Christs Sacrifice therefore needs no reiteration Nay it is an impious wrong to it to say it is reiterated and such as some of their owne writers themselues either are ashamed of or at least dare not aâ—ow Peter Lombard the grand Master of the Sentences as they tearme him and the first Father of their Schoole-Diuinity moueth this Question among others Whither that which the Priest doth be properly termed an immolation or a Sacrifice whither Christ be daily sacrificed or was once onely sacrificed Now to this Question saith he we may briefely say that that which is offred and consecrated by the Priest is called a Sacrifice and an oblation because it is a memoriall and representation of the true Sacrifice and the holy immolation made vpon the Altar of the Crosse. For once Christ died vpon the Crosse and was there sacrificed in himselfe but he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament because in the Sacrament is there a remembrance of that that was once done Whereupon saith Augustine Sure we are that Christ risen againe from the dead dieth no more c. But yet least we should forget the same that that was once done is in our remembrance done euery yeare to wit when the Passeouer is celebrated And we oft therefore so speake as to say when the Pasch is at hand Tomorrow or the next day will be the Lords Passeouer whereas hee suffered so many yeeres agone and his passion was but once in all performed and yet in regard of the celebration of the Sacrament is that said to bee done that day which not that day but long since was done the Sacrament bearing the name of the thing thereby represented But is Christ then so often slaine No but onely an anniuersarie memoriall doth represent that that was once and maketh vs so to be affected as if we saw Christ on the Crosse. And what is this more then wee also say or how is it the very same with Christs sacrifice on the Crosse if it bee not it but a memoriall of it onely 4. He saith Christs sacrifice on the Crosse is repeated there in an other vnbloody manner and yet the one is not so much as distinct from the other What not mysticall but mistie riddles are these For 1. what is the sacrifice of Christ but his bloody passion but the shedding of his blood and the pouring out of his soule vnto death as the Prophet Esay expoundeth it And how is this then the very same with that when it is in an vnbloody manner performed 2. If this be as they say an vnbloody sacrifice and Christ be therein vnbloodily sacrificed how is it that they affirme that Christs blood is verily shed in it and was therein really shed before it was shed vpon the Crosse which to prooue also Bellarmine in expounding the words of Christs Institution contrary to the expresse Canon of the Councell of Trent leaueth their owne vulgar translation which they count autenticall as also the Canon of their Masse the principall part of their seruice which both haue Qui pro vobis effundetur That shall be or is to be shed for you because they fitted not his turne so well and presseth the wordes according to the Greeke Qui pro vobis effunditur That is poured out for you If Christs very blood bee poured out in it how is it an vnbloody offering Or how is not this a riddle There is blood there but not as blood And it is the very same with Christs bloody passion and yet celebrated in an vnbloody manner 3. Is it be an vnbloody offering how is it as they vse to say a sinne sacrifice when without sheading of blood as the Apostle telleth vs there is no remission of sinnes Nor was there euer any sinne sacrisice without blood-shead saith Bellarmine The truth is that Christ once for all went into the holy place with blood and thereby obtained eternall redemption As for their vnbloody blood it is but a meere counterfaite And in this case with their owne Glosse may we soone stop their mouthes which expoundeth contrary to Bellarmine those words in the Canon Christs blood is shead or poured out that is the sheading of it is signified in the Eucharist 4. How doe these two stand together The one is bloody and the other vnbloody and yet the one is not so much as distinct from the other Here is not a distinction as they say without a difference but a difference which is more strange without a distinction Did this fellow thinke we vnderstand what he said But if the sacrifice of the Masse be not so much as distinct from the sacrifice of the Crosse how doth Bellarmine tell vs that the sacrifice of the Crosse is of greater value
Cups but allegorising the wordes as their manner is to doe many times letting the literall sense alone expound the vine to be the people of the Iewes and so the fruit of the vine the legall obseruances c. And what is all this to the literall sense of the words that this trifler is troubled with and cannot tell how to auoyd Let him produce if he can any one Father who denieth that Christ spake those wordes of the Eucharisticall Cup and of the liquor therein contained I alleadged Clemens of Alexandria Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine and might adde many others that affirme it Yea not onely Iansenius ingenuously acknowledgeth that it can be meant of no other then the Eucharisticall Cuppe which onely Matthew and Marke mention But Maldonate the Iesuite also freely confesseth that Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Epiphanius Ierome Augustine Bede Euthymius and Theophylact doe all expound those wordes of it howbeit himselfe saith that Christ spake there not of his blood but of wine Where first obserue we that Ierome and Bede cleane contrary to this fablers assertion by the Iesuites confession expound it of the Eucharist And secondly conclude wee from the Iesuites owne grants It was of that that was in the Eucharisticall Cup that our Sauiour spake those wordes as the ancient Fathers generally and ioyntly affirme But our Sauiour spake them not of his blood but of wine saith the Iesuite It was not his blood therefore but wine that was drunke in the Eucharist 2. Wee obiect the words of our Sauiour Doe this in remembrance of me not as this shamelesse lyer saith therby to prooue the Sacrament to be a bare memorie of Christs body and blood somewhat like the lye he told before that his Adversarie should affirme it to bee nothing but bare bread and wine but to prooue that Christ is not there corporally present For what needeth a memoriall of him when we haue him in our eye when if we may beleeue Bellarmine he is visibly present with vs When we see him and touch him as this fellow telleth vs else-where Or who would be so absurd as to say I giue you my selfe to be a memoriall of my selfe It is as if a man when hee dieth saith Primasius or when he goeth to trauell saith one that goeth for Ierome should leaue a pledge or a token with one that hee loueth to put him in minde of him in his absence and of the good turnes he hath done him which the partie if hee loue him entirely cannot looke on without teares And who would be so senselesse as deliuering his friend a ring on his death bed to say I deliuer you this ring to bee a pledge of this ringe or to be a pledge of it selfe But let vs heare I pray you his Answer Saint Paul saith hee interpreteth these wordes of our Sauiour when he saith So oft as you doe this you represent Christs death till hee come Would any man that had either braines in his head or wit in his braine answer in this manner or reason on this wise Christs death is represented in the Lords Supper Ergo Christs very body and blood must needs bee there present Yea or thus either In the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs death Ergò it is not a memoriall of it As if representation were not ordinarily of things absent or memorials represented not the things that they commemorate He wanted his Bellarmine heere to helpe him out who where Tertullian saith that Christ represented his body in bread saith that to represent there signifieth to make a thing really present But it is well that the word vsed by the Apostle here will not beare any such sense else it may be we might haue had it Meane while hee should haue done well as his vsuall manner is else-where to haue snipt off or concealed at least the last clause Till I come For after hee is come saith Theodoret we shall haue no neede of signes or symbols of his body any more when his body it selfe shall appeare He were scarce in his wits I thinke that would leaue a thing with his Friends at his departure from them to bee remembred by in his absence till hee returned againe to them that should lie lockt vp and kept out of their sight and should neuer come in their view but when himselfe should come personally in presence to shew it them or should bid them by such a thing remember him till hee came againe to them a twelue-moneth after when as euery weeke or moneth in the meane space hee meant to returne to them as oft as euer they desired to remember him in it But mine Adversary thought belike that none but such silly sots should reade what hee writ as would marke nothing but what he would haue them LAstly S. Paul literally declaring the institution of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. to the end that the Corinthians might vnderstand the excellency thereof maketh the sinne of such as vnworthily receiue it to consist in this that they discerne not that bread to be the body of Christ and his words read alone without hereticall glosses expresse plainely Catholicke doctrine And in the Chapter before hee mentioneth benediction or consecration of the Chalice then vsed saying Calix benedictionis The Chalice of benediction which wee blesse is it not the communication of Christs blood and the bread which we breake is it not the communication of Christs body c. Of which words saith S. Chrysostome this is the meaning That which is in the Chalice is that which floweth out of Christs side and wee are made partakers thereof Which is out of the Greeke text of S. Luke plainely to be gathered And the very manner of Christs speeches Quod pro vobis datur quod pro vobis effundetur Which is giuen for you which shall be effused for you import plainely a Sacrifice of his body and blood wherein the one is offered not to vs but for vs the other was to be not infused as wine but effused as blood for vs c. § 9. AT last remembring himselfe wherein he failed at the first hee will prooue out of S. Paul hee saith that Christs words are literally to be vnderstood This had beene more seasonable where it was questioned at first But better at last we say then neuer 1. The Apostle maketh saith hee this the sinne of those that vnworthily receiued the Sacrament that they discerned not the Lords body 2. Hee saith the bread broken is the communication of the body of Christ and the blessed Chalice of his blood Stout Arguments and fit for such a Champion as he is For the former how followeth it Men sinne in not discerning the Lords body when they come vnreuerētly to the Lords board Ergò our Sauiours words This is my body are to bee vnderstood properly Let him
figuratiuely meant as where he saith that Christ suffereth that in the Sacrament that he did not suffer vpon the Crosse to wit the breaking euen of his bones which there he did not that the altar is bloodied with Christs blood as hee saith else-where that the people are all died red with it that the bread is Christs bodie which in propriety of sense saith Bellarmine is impossible and that by taking it we are not onely vniâ—ed to Christs body and become one body with Christ or Christs body and all of vs one body but that wee our selues are that selfe same bodie that we take Not vnlike that which Haimo hath that Christs naturall bodie and the Eucharisticallbread and the Communicants themselues are all but one and the same body Yea that he is to be vnderstood figuratiuely appeareth as by that that hee addeth there that like Eagles we must soâ—re aloft vp to heauen and not flagge downeward nor creepe below vpon the ground if wee will come at Christs body so by that which hee saith elsewhere that it was wine that Christ deliuered when hee deliuered this mystery that which hee prooueth also by the wordes of our Sauiour himselfe in the place before discussed I will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine Chrysostome saith that the Altar is bloodied with Christs blood and his body suffereth that there which really it doth not as the Apostle faith that Christ was crucified in the sight of the Galatians who in likely hood many of them neuer saw peece of his Crosse and as August saith he lies not that saith that Christ is immolated on Easter-day in regard of the similitude that that Sacrament hath of his passion that that day is celebrated and in like manner may it very well be vnderstood when hee saith that Christs blood is in the Cup. Nor hindreth it but that this speech of Chrysostome may be taken tropically because he saith That that flowed out of Christs side as Augustine also though no friend to Transubst antiation is reported to say the same no more then it would haue hindered but that the Apostles words might haue bin takeÌ„ figuratiuely as Caietan also well obserueth hough of the Rocke hee should haue said That Rocke was that Christ that was crucified and died and rose againe from the dead § 10. In the next wordes hee commeth to prooue a Sacrifice there The very manner saith hee of Christs speeches Quod pro vobis datur quod pro vobis effundetur which is giuen for you which shall bee shed for you import plainly a Sacrifice which he hath as all that euer he hath almost out of Bellarmine As if those wordes had not a manifest relation to his passion which is a true Sacrifice indeed and a most perfect yea the full complement of all other that which their owne vulgar Translation also plainely importeth yeelding the wordes as they are also in the very Canon of the Masse by the future tense Tradetur effundetur shall be giuen shall be shed as hauing an eye to the passion then neere at hand wherein his body was to bee giuen and his blood to be shed So Gregorie of Ualence That is or shall be giuen or broken that is that shall bee offered by me for you being slaine or sacrificed on the Crosse as saith hee the Apostle himselfe also expoundeth it So Cardinall Hugh h He tooke bread and brake it thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Crosse and that hee did himselfe expose it to be so broken and crucified And when he said that shall bee shed he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue Yea so Card. Caietan who addeth also not vnfitly that Christs body is said then to be giuen and his blood to be shed because his passion was then in a manner begun l a plot being now laid for his life and his bodie and blood already bought and sold by them And to omit that Christs words concerning his bodie do no more intimate a present act of deliuering it then those wordes of his the like else-where n I lay downe my life for my sheepe Let him but shew vs how Christs blood is shed in this Sacrifice For as for Bellarmines bold assertion that bread is said to be broken when it is giuen by whole loaues and wine is said to bee poured out when it is giuen by whole hogs-heads or rundlets at least not by pots or pitchers full onely it is most senselesse and abfurd But why doth not this eager disputer vrge rather that which many of them doe that Christ bad them r Doe this that is as they senselesly expound it Sacrifice this For that is a maine pillar that they pitch much vpon Which expositioÌ„ yet as Bellarmine is almost ashamed of and blameth Caluin wrongfully as if he had wronged them therein by charging them with such expositions and arguments as they make not nor alleadge so Iansenius acknowledging ingenuously that some did so argue as indeede not a few doe yet confesseth that that is but a weake argument and granteth in effect that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be prooued that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice And is faine therefore to runne to tradition for it and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would haue it to be For Irenaeus saith he that liued neere the Apostles times calleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offred as types of Christs body and blood as also in regard of the thankesgiuing therein offred as well for the worke of our Creation as for the worke also of our redemption And howsoeuer this doughty Doctor say that our Sauiours words so plainly import it yet is their graund Champion Bellarmine where at large he debateth this businesse euill troubled to finde it out either in Christs Institution or in their owne Masse booke or to shew wherein it consisteth Where it is not indeede hee can easily tell vs but he cannot so easily tell vs where it is It is not he saith he in the oblation that goeth before Consecration for then not Christs body but bare bread should be sacrificed It is not in the Consecration for therein appeareth no oblation nor no sensible immutation which is needfull in an externall sacrifice It is not in the Oblation that commeth after Consecration for that oblation neither Christ nor his Apostles at first vsed It is not in the breaking for that is sometime â—mitted nor doe we saith vse such breaking as Christ did now adaies It is not in the peoples communication for then the
easily be reiected as it is auerred And Of that saith Tertullian there is no certaintie that the Scripture hath not But that Christ is present corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by vertue of any such Transubstantiation or reall conversion of the Creatures into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue Nor are we therefore bound to beleeue it That no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue it shall appeare by examination of those places that are alleadged commonly to prooue it The places vsually produced are principally two The former place is out of the Institution it selfe those words of our Sauiour This is my Body Matth. 26. 26. Marke 14. vers 22. Luke 22. vers 19. 1. Corinth 11. vers 24. That these words enforce vs not to beleeue any such thing is thus prooued If these words may well be taken figuratiuely as well as some other speeches of the like kinde in Scripture and other the like phrases vsuall in ordinary speech then these words enforce vs not to beleeue any such thing But these words This is my Body may well be taken figuratiuely as well as other speeches of the like kinde in Scripture to wit The seauen kine and the seauen eares are seauen yeeres The ten hornes are ten Kings The Rocke was Christ and as other phrases vsuall in ordinary speech as when pointing to the pictures of Alexander Caesar William the Conquerour Virgil Liuie and the like we say This is Alexander that conquered Asia This is Caesar that conquered France This is King William that conquered England This is Virgil that wrote of Aeneas This is Liuie that wrote the Romane storie and the like These words therefore enforce vs not to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament by vertue of any such Transubstantiation The truth hereof is acknowledged euen by our Aduersaries themselues Cardinal Bellarmine granteth that these words This is my Body may imply either such a reall change of the Bread as the Catholikes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold but will not beare that sense that the Lutherans giue them And Cardinal Caietan acknowledgeth and freely confesseth that there appeareth not any thing out of the Gospel that may enforce vs to vnderstand those words properly This is my body And he addeth that nothing in the text hindreth but that those words This is my body may as well be taken in a metaphoricall sense as those words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ and that the words of either proposition may well be true though the thing there spoken be not vnderstood in a proper sense but in a metaphorical sense onely And I finde alleadged out of Bishop Fisher in a worke of his against Luther for the booke I haue not these words There is not one word in S. Mathewes Gospel from which the true presence of Christs flesh blood in our Masse may be prooued Out of Scripture it cannot be prooued Thus by the Confession of our Aduersaries themselues our Sauiours words may well beare that meaning that we giue them and there is nothing in the Text that may enforce vs to expound or vnderstand them otherwise It is absurd therefore for any to reason thus as many yet are wont to doe Christ saith This is my Body and we are bound to beleeue Christ and therefore we must needs beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament Since that the words of Christ by our Aduersaries their owne confession may be most true and yet no such thing at all be meant by them or intended in them And the same may well be shewed as Caietan pointeth vs to it by the like For must we not beleeue the Apostle as well as Christ or must we not beleeue Christ as well in one place as in an other But the Apostle saith that The Rocke was Christ And yet no man beleeueth therefore that the rocke was turned into Christ though he beleeue the Apostles words in that place Yea our Sauiour himselfe saith This Cup is the new Testament and This Cup is my Blood And yet is no man so senselesse as therefore to beleeue that the Cuppe which our Sauiour then held was turned either into the New Testament or into Christs blood As well therefore may a man prooue that the Rocke was turned into Christ because the Apostle saith not The Rocke signified Christ but expressely The Rocke was Christ or that the communicants themselues are turned into bread because the Apostle saith We are all one Bread or that the Cup was turned either into the New Testament or into Blood because our Sauiour saith This Cup is the New Testament and This Cup is my Blood as that the bread is turned into the Body of Christ because our Sauiour saith of it This is my Body The Rocke was Christ onely symbolically and sacramentally by representation and resemblance and the Cup that is the wine in the Cup for so our Sauiour saith it was the fruite of the vine was the New Testament as Circumcision the Couenant as a signe and a seale of it And in like manner is the bread said to be the Body of Christ as the Paschal Lambe is called the Passeouer not really or essentially but typically and sacramentally as a type and signe of the same Yea so the Ancient Fathers expound the words The Bread saith Tertullian that Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his Body saying This is my Body that is a figure of my Body And The Lord saith Augustine doubted not to say This is my Body when he deliuered the signe of his Body And he giueth else-where a reason of such manner of speech to wit because Signes are wont to be called by the names of the things by them signified and Sacraments by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments in regard of the similitude that they haue of them And so saith he the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some sort the Body of Christ and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ. Yea you shall finde that which wee herein maintaine euidently confessed and confirmed by the Glosse vpon Augustine in the Popes owne Canons Augustines words inserted into the Corps of the Canon Law are these As the heauenly Bread which is the Flesh of Christ is in it owne manner called the bodie of Christ when as in deede and truth it is a sacrament of that body of Christ which being visible palpable and mortall was placed on the Crosse and that immolation of Christs flesh which is done with the Priests hands is called Christs passion death and crucifying not in the truth of the thing but in a mystery signifying it so the Sacrament of faith whereby we vnderstand Baptisme is faith And the Popish Glosse vpon that
place thus speaketh The heauenly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which truly representeth the slesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly and therefore is it said In it owne manner but not in the truth of the thing but in a significant mystery So that the meaning is It is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth the body of Christ. Thus word for word the Glosse Thus you see what our very Aduersaries themselues graunt vs concerning the exposition of these words This is my body and that which may be gathered from them The wordes of Christ prooue not necessarily saith the Romish Cardinall that the bread is turned into Christs body And when the bread is called Christs body the meaning is saith the Popish Canonist that it signifieth Christs body And what is this but the very same that we say To conclude as Augustine well obserueth Christ saith Iohn is Elias and Iohn himselfe saith I am not Elias and yet neither of them crosse the other because Iohn spake properly and Christ figuratiuely So Christ saith This bread is my body in one sense and we in another sense that it is not his body and yet wee crosse not Christ because wee speake properly hee figuratiuely as the Glosse it selfe confesseth And on the other side they were false witnesses though they alledged Christs owne words mis-expounded of the materiall Temple which hee meant of the mysticall Temple his humanity And so may others be though they alleadge Christs owne wordes of the bread being his body vrging that as spoken properly that by him was figuratiuely spoken If it be obiected that by this our deniall of Transubstantiation and of Christs corporall presence we make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread I answer that notwithstanding such Transubstantiation and corporall presence bee denied yet it maketh the Sacrament no more to be but bare bread then it maketh the water in Baptisme to be but bare water because all deny any such conuersion or corporall presence in it A piece of waxe annexed as a seale to the Princes Patent of pardon or other like deed is of farre other vse and farre greater efficâ—cy and excellency then other ordinary waxe is though it be the very same in nature and substance with it and with that which it was it selfe before it was taken vnto that vse And so is the bread in the Lords Supper being a seale of Gods couenant and of Christs last will and Testament of faire other vse and of farre greater efficacie and excellencie then any other ordinary bread is though it be the same still in nature and substance with it and the same with that for substanse that it was before it was so consecrated That which Pope Gelasius and Theodoret both expresly anouch Surely the Sacraments saith Gelasius which wee take of Christs body and blood are a diuine thing and thereby therefore are we made partakers of the diuine Nature and yet ceaseth there not to be there the nature or substance of bread and wine but they abide still in the propriety of their owne Nature And certainely an image and similitude of Christs body and blood is celebrated in those mysteries And The mysticall signes saith Theodonet after the sanctification doe not forgoe their owne nature but retaine still their former substance and figure and forme And againe the same Theodoret He that called that which is by nature his body wheat and bread and againe named himselfe a vine he hath honoured the symbols and signes which we see with the titles of his bodie and blood not changing the nature of them but adding grace to it Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood nothing but bare bread and wine The latter place vsually alledged to this purpose is that large Discourse our Sauiour hath concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Ioh. 6. 51-58 True it is indeed that if the bread and wine in the Eucharist be transubstantiated into the naturall body and blood of Christ and there bee such a corporall presence as Papists imagine it must needs follow that Christs very flesh is eaten and his very blood it selfe is corporally drunke in the Sacrament And to this purpose also Pope Nicholas in that solemne forme of recantation that hee enioyned Berengarius inserted into the body of the Canon auoweth that the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands and torne in pieces with mens teeth not sacramentally only but sensually and that all that hold the contrary deserue to be eternally damned A sensuall indeed and a senslesse assertion yea an horrible and an hideous speech full fraught I may well say though it proceeded from a Pope who they say cannot erre with extreame impiety and blasphemy and such as Christian eâ—res cannot but abhor to hear In so much that their owne Glosser vpon the place well warneth vs to take heed how we trust him Lest 〈…〉 fall into a worse heresie then Berengarius euer held But thus one monstrous opinion breedeth and begetteth another And this indeed must needs follow vpon the former The corporall presence of Christ in the thing eaten must needs inferre and enforce a corporall eating of him and to prooue the same they presse commonly our Sauiours words in that place of eating his flesh and drinking his blood Which as with some of the Ancients indeed they vnderstand of the Eucharist so they expound though without their consent therein of a corporall and carnall eating of Christs flesh But neither are those words of our Sauiour to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking nor doth Christ at all in that whole Discourse speake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was not then as yet instituted but of feeding on him spiritually by faith which is done not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also And first that the place is not to bee vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking it is aparent For it is a good and a sure Rule that Augustine giueth If in any precept some hainous or flagitious thing seeme to be enioyned you may thereby know it to be a figuratiue speech I need not apply this generall Rule to the point in hand Augustine doth it for mee Hee instanceth in that very particular that wee now treate of Vnlesse you eate saith he the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you It seemeth to enioyne an hainous and flagitious thing It is a figuratiue speech therefore commanding vs to communicate with Christs passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. So that this place by Augustines Rule and his owne application of it is to be vnderstood figuratiuely and doth
principall workes to passe by all others Our Lord saith he at the Table in his last Supper gaue Bread and Wine with his owne hands and on the Crosse he gaue vp his body to be wounded with the Souldiers hands Marke bread at the Table his Body on the Crosse that the sincere truth and true sinceritie more secretly imprinted in his Apostles might expound to the Nations how Bread and Wine were Flesh and Blood and by what meanes the causes agreed with their effects and diuers names or kinds were reduced to one essence and the things signifying and signified were called by the same names In which last words he most euidently sheweth how Bread is said to be Christs Body to wit because signes and the things by them signified are wont to haue the same titles giuen them The Bread is Christs Body as Christ himselfe is bread Christ giuing saith Theodoret the name of the signe to his Body and the name of his body to the Signe Or The Bread is Christ as the Rocke was Christ as Augustine well obserueth Yea that the Bread is said to be Christs Body is apparent and that it can in no other sense so be said Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe confesseth This sentence saith he This Bread is my Body either must be taken figuratiuely that the Bread be Christs body significatiuely that is by signification onely or else it is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot be that the Bread should be the Body of Christ he meaneth essentially or otherwise then by signification or representation So that The Bread is said to be Christs body the course of the Text sheweth it and the Auncients commonly acknowledge it but it cannot so be saith Bellarmine but figuratiuely In no other sense therfore are our Sauiours words to be vnderstood 2. We reason from the expresse words of Scripture wherein after Consecration there is said to be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament The Bread which we breake saith the Apostle is it not the Communion of Christs Body It is apparent by the Story of the Institution that Consecration goeth before fraction The Bread is blessed that is consecrated for the Benediction is in truth the Consecration before it be broken But it is bread saith the Apostle euen when it is broken It is bread therefore still euen after it is consecrated Yea is it bread when it is broken and is it not bread when it is eaten Yes if the Apostle may be credited euen when it is eaten 100. For as ost saith he as you eate this bread and Whosoeuer shall eate this bread vnworthily And Let a man therefore examine himselfe and so eate of this bread It is not so oft called Christs Body but it is called bread as oft euen after it is consecrated and by consecration made Symbolically and Sacramentally Christs body The Apostle then telleth vs of the one Element that it is bread euen after it is consecrated and of the other our Sauiour himselfe saith that it is wine For after that he had deliuered them the Consecrated Cup he telleth them that He will drinke no more of this Fruite of the Vine c. Now the fruit of the vine what is it but wine There was wine saith Augustine in the mysterie of our redemption when our Sauiour said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine And yet was that after consecration that he spake it And if it be wine still then sure it is not essentially Christs blood howsoeuer it may well be symbolically as we say So Origen In the first place he gaue his Disciples bread Yea He gaue them saith Cyril pieces of bread And Cyprian saith It was wine that hee called his blood And He deliuered wine saith Chrysostome when hee deliuered this mysterie which he prooueth also by those words of our Sauiour Of this fruite of the vine And here let me debate the matter with those that vse to presse vs with Christs words which yet we thinke not much to be pressed with if they be vnderstood as they ought Christ saith This is my Body And shall wee not beleeue what he saith The Apostle saith it is bread that is broken and that is eaten in the Eucharist and our Sauiour himselfe saith it was the fruite of the vine that he gaue them in the Cup. And will they not beleeue what the Apostle saith or what Christ saith Or shall we beleeue those that tell vs contrary to the expresse words of either that the one is not bread though the Apostle say it is or the other was not wine albeit our Sauiour say it was For how our Sauiours words may be true in the one place though the bread be not essentially but symbolically Christs body we can easily shew and themselues see and acknowledge as hath formerly beene shewen But how the Apostles and Christs words should be true or beare fit sense in the other places vnlesse there be bread and wine in the Eucharist after consecration I suppose they will not easily shew If they will say it is called bread because it was bread before as Aarons rod is called a rod after it was turned into a serpent I answer The reason is not alike For 1. The Serpent was made of that Rod but it is absord to say that Christs body is made of bread Yea the Papists themselues are at a stand here and cannot well tell what to say For they say indeede commonly that the Bread is turned into Christs Body and they say sometime also that Christs body is made of bread and that the Priest maketh Christs body of bread Yea Bellarmine sticketh not to say that That body of Christ which was crucified was truly or verily made of bread They may beleeue him that lift And yet they deny that Christs Body is made by the Priest He maketh Christs body of bread and yet Christs body is not made by him or that the body of Christ is produced of bread but doth succeede onely in the roome of bread But it is absurd to say a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth or is turned into that that succeedeth onely in the roome of it or to call a thing seriously for in mockery indeed sometime we doe by the name of some other thing onely because it is now in the place where that thing before was vnlesse it be in some Magicall action wherein that seemeth to be done that indeede is not and so the speech is not according to the truth of the thing but according to that that seemeth to be In a word we may truly say of that Serpent that it was once a Rod but we cannot truly say of Christs body that euer it was bread 2. The Serpent there though tearmed a Rod because it so had beene and should againe so be yet appeared euidently to be
a Serpent in so much that Moses himselfe at the first sight was afraid of it And so we shall finde it to haue beene euer in all miraculous conuersions that the change wrought in them was apparent to the outward sense to the sight as in the water turned into blood to the taste as in the water turned into wine Whereas in the Sacrament there is no such matter We see no flesh there we taste no blood there Nay we see euidently the contrary to that these men affirme For we see Bread and Wine there and we finde the true taste of either And we haue no reason vpon their bare words to distrust either sense and beleeue the contrary to that that we see and taste onely because they say it That which you see saith Augustine is bread and a cup that which our eyes also informe vs that which your faith requireth you to be informed of is that the bread is Christs body and the cup his blood which they cannot be but figuratiuely as Bellarmine before confessed A mysterie we acknowledge we deny a miracle they may be honoured saith Augustine as religious things not wondred at as strange miracles saue in regard of the supernaturall effects of them in regard whereof there is a miraculous worke as well in Baptisme as in the Eucharist And yet no such miraculous transubstantiation in either It is a rule saith the Schooleman that where we can salue Scriptures by that which we see naturally we should not haue recourse to a miracle or to what God can doe 3. We reason from the nature of Signes and Sacraments That which the Apostle saith of one Sacrament to wit Circumcision is true of all for there is one generall nature of all Sacraments are Signes A Sacrament saith Augustine that is a sacred Signe And Signes appertaining to diuine things are called sacraments Now this is the Nature of Signes that they are one thing and signifie another thing that they signifie some other thing beside themselues or diuers from themselues And in like manner saith Augustine Sacraments being Signes of things they are one thing and they signifie some other thing But the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are Signes of Christs body and blood as hath beene before shewed and the Auncients generally auow And therefore are they not essentially either They signifie Christs body and blood and what they signifie they are not And It is a miserable seruitude as Augustine wel saith for men to take the Signes for the things themselues by them signified 4. Wee reason from the nature of Christs Body euen after his Passion and Resurrection Christs naturall Body hath flesh blood and bones the limmes and lineaments of an humane body such as may be felt and seene to be such This appeareth plainely by that which he said to his Disciples after he was risen from the dead when they misdoubted some delusion Behold mine hands and my feete for it is I my selfe Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue But that which is deliuered handled and eaten in the Eucharist hath no such thing It is not in any wise saith Epiphanius equall or like vnto Christ either his humanitie that is clad with flesh or his Deitie that is inuisible or to the lineaments of his limmes For it is round senselesse and liuelesse as Christ himselfe is not It is not therefore the naturall body of Christ. Our sight and sense euidently enforme vs the contrary howsoeuer Bellarmine boldly sticketh not to tell vs that Christs body is verily and visibly vpon the boord after that the words of Consecration be once vttered they thinke belike they may make men beleeue any thing And our Sauiour himselfe teacheth vs by sight and sense to iudge of his Body As if to this day saith Pope Lee he spake still to each one that sticketh and staggereth as he spake there to his Apostles Why sticketh our vnderstanding where our sight is our Teacher I may well say here as Augustine in somewhat the like case I feare least we seeme to wrong our sâ—â—ser in seeking to prooue or perswade that by speech wherein the euidence of truth exceedeth all that can be said 5. We reason from the Nature of all true Bodies Christs body is in Heauen from whence wee looke for him And there is to abide till the end of the world Now a true naturall body as Christs still is cannot be in two much lesse in twentie or rather in twentie hundred places at once which yet Christs body must needs be if that be true that they say Augustine questioned by one Dardanus how Christ could be both in Paradise and in heauen at once supposing Heauen and Paradise to be two seuerall places howsoeuer with the Apostle Paul they are not maketh answer that he could not as he was man or in his humanitie his body and his soule though he might as he was God or in his Deitie that is euery where And he addeth The same Iesus Christ is euery wherein his Deitîe but in heauen in his humanitie And further in his discourse hereof saith he Take spaces and places from bodies and they will be no where and because they will be no where they will not be Take bodies from qualities and wanting wherein to subsist they must needs cease to be and yet in the Popish hoast are qualities found as before that haue no subiect body to subsist in being not the qualities of Christs body and yet hauing no other body for them to subsist in for they are the qualities of Bread and yet there is no bread there if they say true to beare them Euery Bodie therefore must needs haue a certaine place and they are so circumscribed with and confined vnto that place that they cannot at the same time or so long as they keepe that place be in any other place but it And so is it also euen with the glorified body of Christ Iesus Christs body saith Leo in no respect differeth from the truth of our bodies And therefore Christ saith Gregorie Naziâ—nzen in regard of his body is circumscribed and conteined in a place in regard of his spirit or his Deitie he is not circumscribed nor conteined in any place And Augustine Our Lord is aboue but our Lord the Truth is here too For our Lords body wherein he rose againe must needs be in one place but his Truth that is his diuine power is diffused into all places And therefore Doubt not saith he but that the Man Christ is now there from whence he is to come He is gone vp into heauen and thence he shall come as he was seene to goe thither the Angel saith it that is in the same forme and substance of flesh which though he haue giuen immortalitie vnto it yet he hath
not taken nature away from it According to this forme he is not euery where For we must take heede that we doe not so maintaine the deitie of the Man that we ouerthrow the veritie of his Body In a word As the Angel reasoneth speaking to the women that sought Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe So reasoneth the same Augustine concerning Christs bodily presence reconciling those two places that might seeme the one to crosse the other Behold I am with you till the worlds end And Me shall you not haue alwaies with you ' ' In regard saith he of his Maiestie his prouidence his grace we haue him alwaies here But in regard of his flesh which the word assumed which was borne of the Virgin nailed on the crosse c. We haue him not alwaies And why so Because he is gone vp into heauen and he is not here And againe speaking of Christâ— being on earth and not in heauen as man and yet in both places as God Man according to his body is in a place and passeth from a place and when hee commeth to another place is not in that place from which he came But God is euery where and is not contâ—ined in any place So that the Romanists if they will haue Christs Body in the Eucharist they must fetch it out of Heauen and indeed as if they had so done they doe in their Masse request God to send his Angels to carry it vp againe thither And their Glosse saith that so soone as men set their teeth in it it retireth instantly thither though that crosse their common tenent Or rather they must frame a new body and so make Christ haue two bodies one that remaineth whole still in heauen and another that the Priest maketh or createth here vpon earth But what speake I of two Bodies Christ must haue as many seuerall Bodies as there be consecrated Hoasts for the whole Body of Christ they say is in each Hoast yea more then so there is an whole entire mans body flesh blood and bones with all limmes and lineaments for so it must needs be if it be Christs naturall Body not in euery Communicants mouth onely but in euery crum of the Hoasâ— that they breake of it when they crush it betweene their teeth as they also flatly and precisely affirme And by this reason the whole body of Christ against all reason For it is a principle in Nature that The whole is euer greater then any part shall be lesse in quantitie then the least limme or member of his Body then a nailes paring of his little finger then which nothing is more absurd and senselesse Euen an immortall body saith Augustine speaking of and instancing euen in Christs body is lesse in part then it is in the whole For a body being a substance the quantitie thereof consisteth in the greatnesse of bulke And since that the parts of a body are distant one from another and cannot all be together because they keepe each one their seuerall spaces and places the lesse parts lesser places and the great greater there cannot be either the whole quantitie or so great a quantitie in each single part but a greater quantitie in the greater parts and a lesser in the lesse and in no part at all so great a quantitie as in the whole But if their opinion be true any part of Christ is in quantitie as great and greater then his whole body and his whole body lesse then any part of it is But how will you say is Christs Body and Blood conneighed vnto vs or how is his flesh eaten and his blood drunke then in the Eucharist if it be not really there present I might with Aug. well in a word answer this Question How saith he shall I hold Christ when he is not here How can I stretch mine hand to Heauen there to lay hold on him Send thy faith thither saith he and thou hast him Thy forefathers held him in the flesh hold thou him in thy heart You haue him alwaies present in regard of his Maiestie but in regard of his Flesh as himselfe told his Disciples not alwaies But for fuller satisfaction I answer 1. Sacraments are seales annexed to Gods couenant And as a deede being drawne of the Princes gift concerning office land or liuelyhood and his broad seale annexed to it and that deede so drawne and sealed being deliuered that office or that land though lying an hundred miles of is therein and thereby as truly and as effectually conueighed and assured vnto the party vnto whom the same deede is so made and to whose vse and behoofe it is so deliuered as if it were really present So these seales being annexed to Gods Couenant of grace concerning Christ his Flesh and Blood and his Death and Passion and our title too and intereâ—t in either the things themselues euen Christs body and blood themselues though sited still in Heauen are as truly and as effectually conueighed with them and by them vnto the faithfull receiuer when they are to him deliuered as if they were here really and corporally present 2. We receiue Christ in the Eucharist as in the Word and Baptisme wherein also we doe truly receiue him yea and feede on his flesh and blood as well as in the Encharist albeit he be not corporally exhibited in either We are buried together with Christ saith the Apostle by Baptisme into his Death And h As many of you as haue beene baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. We are dipped in our Lords passion saith Tertullian Sprinkle thy face with Christs blood saith Hierome speaking of Baptisme that the destroyer may see it in thy forehead Thou hast Christ saith Augustine at the present by faith at the present by the signe of him at the present by the Sacrament of Baptisme at the present by the meate and drinke of the altar Yea No man ought to doubt saith Augustine but that euery Faithfull one is made partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ and that he is not estranged from the communion of that Bread and Cup though he depart out of this life ere he eate of that bread and drinke of that Cup because he hath that which that Sacrament signifieth And for the Word Christian men saith Origen eate euery day the flesh of the Lambe because daily they receiue the Flesh of Gods word And The true Lambe is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world for Christ our Passeouer is offred for vs. Let the Iewes in a carnall sense caete the flesh of a Lambe but let vs eate the flesh of the Word of God For he saith vnlesse ye eate my flesh ye shall haue no life in you This that I now speake is the Flesh of the Word
of God And againe We are said to drinke Christs blood not in the Sacramentall rites onely but when we receiue his word wherein life consisteth as he saith The words that I speake are Spirit and Life And Hierome also vnderstandeth those words of our Sauiour He that eateth not my Flesh and drinketh not my blood not of the Sacrament of the Eucharist onely but more specially or as he speaketh more truly of Christs word and doctrine and addeth therefore that t When we heare the word of God both the word of God and the Flesh of Christ and his Bloud is powred in at our eares If in the Sacrament of Baptisme then and in the Ministery of the word we truly receiue Christ and become partakers of Christ yea we eate and drinke Christ in either as well as in the Eucharist what needeth any such reall transmutation more in the one then in the other 6. We reason from the Qualitie of the Communicants in the Eucharist If Christs body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist then all that eate of the Eucharist must of necessitie eate Christ in it But many eate of the Eucharist that yet eate not Christ in it For none but the faithfull feede on Christ none eate him as we shewed before but those that liue by him yea and in him that are liuing members of his mysticall Body Whereas many wicked ones eate of the Eucharist many eate of it that are out of Christ. The other Disciples saith Augustine did eate that Bread that is the Lord Iudas did eate the Lords Bread against the Lord. And disputing against those that hold that wicked men should be saued if they liued in the Church because they fed on Christ in the Eucharist saith that such wicked ones are not to be said to eate Christs body because they are not members of his body And that Christ when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I i◠him doth thereby shew what it is truly and not sacramentally onely to eate Christs body and to drinke his blood and that no man eateth his body and drinketh his blood that abideth not 〈…〉 Christ and Christ in him And againe he saith He receiueth the Bread of Life and drinketh the Cup of eternitie that abideth in Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth But he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood though to his owne iudgement for his presumption he daily receiue indifferently the Sacrament of so great a thing And againe They that eate and drinke Christ eate and drinke life To eate him is to be made againe to drinke him is to liue That which is taken visibly in a Sacrament is eaten and drunke spiritually in the truth it selfe For This meate and drinke maketh those that take it truly immortall and incorruptible This is therefore to eate that flesh and drinke that drinke for a manto abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in him And consequently he that abideth not in Christ nor Christ in him without doubt doth not eate his flesh nor drinke his blood spiritually though carnally and visibly with his teeth he crush the Sacrament of Christs Body To Augustine I adde Origen who hauing spoken what shall anone be related of Christs typicall and symbolicall Body as he calleth the Sacrament Much saith he might be said more of the Word it selfe that became Flesh and true Foode which whosoeuer eateth shall surely liue for euer and which no euill man can eate of For if it were possible that any man that continueth euill still should eate of the Word that became Flesh since it is the liuing Bread it had neuer beene written Whosoeuer eateth of this Bread shall liue for euer It is impossible then that any wicked man or any that are damned should eate Christ But many wicked men eate of the Eucharist many are damned that eate of it The Eucharist therefore is not really Christ. Lastly we reason from those things that are done about or may be fall those Creatures that in the Eucharist are consecrated which cannot be done to or betide now Christs glorified Body 1. The Eucharisticall Bread was broken in pieces and diuided into parts by our Sauiour at his last Supper And the like rite was obserued by the Apostles in the administratiof the Eucharist And is in the Romish Church also not vnusuall But as Christ saith the Apostle is not diuided so Christs Body is not diuided into parts as they themselues confesse nor broken into pieces His Body indeede is said to be broken not that it was really broken into pieces but as by the Prophet it is said that It pleased God to breake him and to put him to griefe which was fulfilled in those paines and torments that for vs he sustained and as we vse to say of men that with griefe and care they are broken Otherwise it was neuer broken much lesse is it now broken being wholly quit euen of all those infirmities that it was so broken with before Yea the Papists themselues not daring to auow that of Christs verie bodie are enforced to affirme that euery Communicant receiueth the whole and entire body of Christ. Yet they receiue but a part saith their owne Canon as you shall heare anone of the Element in the Sacrament That therefore that is so diuided there is not Christs naturall Body And here the Popish Glosser is strangely troubled to salue and reconcile the words of their Canons and to make their owne doctrine agree with the sayings of some of the Ancients there cited There is inserted into the Canon this saying of Augustine We doe 〈…〉 make parts of Christ when we eate him Indeede in the Sacrament we doe so and the faithfull know how we eate Christs flesh there Each one taketh his part and the Eucharist it selfe is therefore called their Parts Christ is eaten by parts in a Sacrament and yet remaineth whole in Heauen and yet remaineth whole in thy heart On which place saith the Glosser This is contrary to that which Pope Nicolas saith in Berengarius his Confession And so it is indeede for therein as before you heard it is said that not the Sacrament onely but Christs very Body it selfe is broken by the Priest But that cannot be saith the Glosse for a glorified Body cannot suffer any such maime or harme And therefore saith the same Glosse The Body and Blood of Christ is called by the name of Parts or the Species that are diuided are called the Body and Blood of Christ in a significant mysterie that is as we say because in a mysterie they signifie Christs Body and Blood That then which is taken in the Sacrament is diuided into parts and eaten by peece-meale But Christs naturall Body is not so diuided or taken corporally That therefore that is taken in the Eucharist
the praier added to it and the word spoken of it that maketh it profitable to the worthy receiuer But to say so or to thinke so of Christs blessed and glorious Body were most hideous most horrible Well therefore saith Ambrose It is not this Bread that goeth into the belly but the Bread of eternall life that sustaineth the substance of our soules And Augustine expressely telleth vs that We are not to eate that body that the Iewes saw nor drinke that blood which they shed that crucified Christ but there is a Sacrament commended vnto vs which being spiritually vnderstood will put life into vs. There can nothing be imagined more absurd saith Bellarmine himselfe then to thinke that Christs Body should nourish the mortall substance of mens bodies and so should be the foode not of the minde but of the belly But by the Popish doctrine this it must needs doe and worse then this the Popish doctrine therefore is most absurd Lastly what can be more horrible then to imagine that Christs body or any part of it should be not in the belly of a man but in the belly of a beast Christian eares saith Benauenture abhorre to heare that Christs body should be in the draught or in a mouses maw Yet by this Popish doctrine both the one the other too must needs be if a mouse chance as he may to meete with a consecrated Hoast Nor doe the Popish writers ordinarily make daintie of it to acknowledge as much If a pigge or a dogge saith Alexander of Hales should swallow downe an whole consecrated hoast I see not why or how Christs body should not passe into its belly And Thomas Aquinas A brute beast may by accident eate Christs body And Though a Mouse or a Dog eate a consecrated Hoast yet the substance of Christs body ceaseth not to be there no more then it doth if the Hoast be cast into the durt If it be said saith the Glosser that a mouse eateth Christs Body there is no great inconuenience in it since that the most wicked men that are receiue it Nene eateth Christs flesh saith Augustine but hee that first worshippeth it And I doubt much whether any of these dogs pigs or mice euer adored it howsoeuer Cardinal Bellarmine and some others tell vs either of an Horse or an Asse that worshipped the Hoast But let them and their brutish miracles and imaginations goe together Yet so necessarily doth this follow vpon their doctrine of the Eucharist that whereas some of their Doctors seeme to doubt what the mouse eateth when she meeteth with an Hoast and maketh a good meale of it And the great Master of the Sentences saith God knoweth for he knoweth not but he enclineth rather to thinke that the mouse eateth not Christs body though shee seeme so to doe whereupon the Masters of Paris giue him a wipe for it by the way and said the Master is out here And others of them to salue the matter would coine vs a new miracle and say that so soone as the mouses mouth commeth at it or her lips kisse it Christs Body conueigheth it selfe away and the bread miraculously commeth againe in the roome of it and this say they is the commoner and the honester opinion Here is miracle vpon miracle such as they are Yet Thomas Aquinas their chiefe Schooleman and one that could not be deceiued herein for they say that his doctrine of the Sacrament was confirmed by Miracle a woodden Crucifix miraculously saluting him with these words Thou hast written well of me Thomas telleth vs peremptorily that it cannot be otherwise if Christs body be in the Eucharist but that Mice and Rats must eate it when they meete with the Hoast and make meate of it Some say saith he that so soone as the Sacrament is touched by a dogge or a mouse Christs Body ceaseth to be there But this opinion derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament Thus you may see what hideous horride and horrible conclusions this carnall and Capernaiticall conceite of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist hath bred and brought forth and must needs breede and bring forth with all those that vphold it The Summe of all that hath beene said 1. THat there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may not be figuratiuely vnderstood is by Cardinal Caietan confessed 2. That our Sauiours words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be vnderstood not corporally but spiritually is acknowledged by many Popish writers of great note and is beside other Reasons by a Rule giuen by Augustine euidently prooued 3. That the Elements in the Sacrament remaine in Substance the same and are not really transubstantiated into Christs Body and Blood is euinced by diuers Arguments 1. From the Course of the Context which plainely sheweth that Christ brake and deliuered no other then he tooke and blessed 2. From the expresse words of Scripture that calleth the one Bread and the other Wine euen after consecration 3. From the Nature of Signes whose propertie it is to be one thing and to signifie another thing 4. From the Nature of Christs Body that hath flesh blood and bones which the Eucharisticall bread hath not that which our taste our sight and our sense informeth vs by which our Sauiour himselfe hath taught vs to discerne his body 5. From the nature of euery true Body such as Christs is which cannot be in many places at once nor haue any part of it greater then the whole 6. From the qualitie of the Communicants good and bad promiscuously feeding on the Elements in the Eucharist whereas none but the faithfull can feede vpon Christ. 7. From these infirme and vnseemely yea foule and filthy things that doe vsually or may befall the Elements in the Eucharist which no Christian eare can endure to heare that they should befall Christs blessed and glorious body Whence I conclude that since this Corporall presence such as the Church of Rome maintaineth hath no warrant from Gods word as their owne Cardinal confesseth and is besides contrary to Scripture to nature to sight to sense to reason to religion we haue little reason to receiue it as a truth of Christ or a principle of Christianitie great reason to reiect it as a figment of a mans braine yea as a doctrine of the diuell inuented to wrong Christ and Christianitie It is the Rule of a Schooleman We ought not to adde more difficultie vnto the difficulties of Christian beliefe But rather according to that which the Scripture teacheth we should endeauour to cleere that that is obscure And therefore since that the one manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist is cleerely possible and intelligible whereas the other is not intelligible yea nor possible neither it seemeth probable that that manner of his presence that is
fruit of the vine in the next verse And that which is called Christs body by the Apostle is immediately after more then once or twice expounded to bee bread § 3. The very scope saith he or Bellarmine by him of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words are literally to be taken as the seuen kine ten hornes c. And doth not the very nature of signes and Sacraments shew in what sense the wordes vsed of or in them are to be taken to wit figuratiuely and symbolically not properly or essentially For what are Signes and Sacraments but reall parables both therefore tearmed Mysteries as Chrysostome noteth because one thing is seene in the one as heard in the other and some other thing vnderstood Or what is more vâ—uall then as Augustine and others well obserue that Signes and Sacraments be called by the names of those things which they are signes and sacraments of What Sacrament also is there wherein or whereof such speeches are not vsed Circumcision is called the Covenant the pasohall Lambe the Passeouer the Rocke Christ Bapâ—â—sme the Laver of Regeneration And in like manner saith Augustine is the bread Christâ— body the name of the thing signified saith Theodoret being giuen to the signe So that whereas this worthy writer thus argueth out of Bellarmine In visions and parables the very scope euer sheweth that the things spoken are to bee vnstoode figuratiuely But these places the seven kine and the ten hornes are visions and parables And therefore the things therein spoken are to be taken figuratiuely Why may not we as wel reason on this wise The very nature of signes and sacraments leadeth vnto this that when the names of the things whereof they are signes and sacraments are given vnto them it is to bee vnderstood not properly but figuratiuely But it is a Sacrament wherein and whereof these speeches are vsed This is my bodie and This is my blood These wordes therefore wherein the name of the thing signified is giuen to the Sacrament are to bee vnderstood figuratiuely And so hee hath from his owne grounds by due proportion somewhat more to conclude then was before required to wit not onely that there is nothing that may enforce vs to expound them literally but that there is somewhat of moment to induce vs to expound them figuratiuely § 4. In all such figuratiue speeches saith he further out of Bellarmine Semper praedicatur de disparato disparatum One thing is said to be another when it cannot be indiâ—idually or specifically the same but wholly different in nature from it A man for example as Christ was cannot but similitudinarily be a Rock a Vine or a Lion But in Christs words This is my body no such absurd or impossible thing is affirmed but only that the substance which he had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 1. In this speech of our Sauiour This is my body as well as in that speech of the Prophet This is Ierusalem or in that speech of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ is one thing to wit bread as is afterward prooued both by the course of the context the words of the Apostle and the doctrine of the ancient Fathers said to bee an other thing to wit the flesh of Christ which is wholly different in nature from it Nor can this worthy Disputer prooue theÌ„ contrary vnlesse you grant him the point in question which heere hee shamefully beggeth to make good his Assertion to wit that that which Christ had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 2. A man may as well be a rocke as a rocke may bee a man or bread may be flesh And why was it not as possible for the rocke to be turned into Christ and so to become Christ as for bread to bee turned into the bodie of Christ and so to be the flesh of Christ that the one might be vnderstood properly as well as the other If they will say It is impossible that the rocke should bee turned into the flesh of Christ before Christ was incarnate I might answer them as they vse to do vs that God is able to do all things And questionlesse it is as possible that the rock should be turned into that flesh that as yet was not as that a little thinne wafer cake or the compasse of it at least should containe Christs whole and entire body here on earth while the very selfe same indiuiduall body should be whole and entire still in heaven A creature may as well be and yet not be at once as a naturall body may at the same time be wholly and entire thus contracted on earth and yet whole and entire also in his full stature in heauen Yea how is it not a thing absurd and impossible that Christs body sitting whole and entire at the table should hold the selfe-same body whole and entire in its two hands on the table and should giue the selfe-same body away whole and entire ouer the table to twelue seuerall persons to goe seuerally into each of their mouthes still whole and entire and to become so many whole and entire humane organicall bodies in their mouthes as in chewing they made pieces of that that was giuen them and yet the selfe-same body that they did thus take and eate remaine sitting there still vnstirred and vntouched If these things be not absurda absurdorum absurdissima as he speaketh as monstrous absurdities as euer were any I know not what are 3. Obserue how these men that cannot endure to heare vs say This or that thing is impossible yet tell vs themselues of many impossibilities and that euen then also when they speake of these miraculous mysteries in the confuting one of another It is impossible saith this worthy writer for a man as Christ was otherwise then similitudinarily to be a rock or a vine It is impossible saith Aquinas that a man should be an Asse It is impossible saith the Glosse that bread should be Christs bodie It is altogether impossible saith Bellarmine that this sentence This bread is my body should be true properly It is impossible saith Biel that Christs body should be broken or divided and so bee spoiled being impassible It is impossible saith Aquinas that Christ in his last Supper should giue his body impassible It is impossible that his body being now impassible should be altered in shape or hew It is impossible that Christs body in his proper shape should be seene in any other place but that one onely wherein he is definitiuely It is impossible that the substantiall forme of bread should remaine after consecration or that the substance of bread and wine should abide there It is impossible that Christs body by a locall motion should come to bee in the Sacrament It is impossible
stuffe their packets with for want of better and choiser wares And yet may wee but haue leaue to expound this Cyril or whosoeuer he is else by himselfe we shall soone shew him to say no more then we willingly admit For in the same Catechising that is here alleadged Doe not regard saith he these things as bare â—read and wine And in the Catechising next before Doe not suppose that ointment to be bare ointment For as the Bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost is no longer bare bread but Christs bodie so this holy Oyntment after inuocation is no more bare or common ointment but a gift of Christ and the holy Ghost by the presence of his Deitie And looke what he saith concerning the not trusting of our senses in the matter of the Eucharist the same doth the Ambrose before cited say of the Sacrament of Baptisme What seest thou saith he Water but not water alone c. First the Apostle teacheth thee to contemplate not the things that are seene but the things that are not seene Beleeue the presence of the Deitie For how could it worke there if it were not present And againe afterward Beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone that is better seene that is not seene And say not we as much that it is not bare bread nor bare wine that is offered vs in the Eucharist whatsoeuer this lying wretch hereafter shamelesly auoweth as when we come to it shall be shewed which is all that our outward sense is able to enforme but spirituall signes and seales and effectuall instruments of grace which the eye of our soule is alone able to conceiue and our faith to assure vs of 4. Chrysostome is alleadged but little to the purpose The former allegation is here cited out of Sermon 60. ad Popul Antioch which Sermon this Answerer had hee beene so well acquainted with the Author hee citeth as would beseeme such a Doctor as he professeth himselfe to be he should haue found to be an Homily neuer made by Chrysostome but by some other composed of part of two Sermons of his on the Glosse of S. Matthew pieced together to wit the 83. and the 51. according to the Latin or the 82. and 50. according to the Greeke The place produced is out of the 83. on Matthew for that is the proper place of it In which Sermon Chrysostome speaketh no more of the Eucharist then he doth of the Sacrament of Baptisme in the very next words It is no sensible thing saith hee that Christ hath left vs but in things indeed sensible matters all intelligible In like manner it is in Baptisme By a sensible thing to wit water is the gift giuen but the thing that is there wrought to wit regeneration and renovation is a thing intelligible If thou wert not corporall he would haue giuen thee the gifts themselues naked and spirituall but because thy soule is conioyned with thy body thereforeby sensible things he giveth thee things intelligible And in the other Sermon out of which that Homily is pieced Beleeue thou that the same supper wherein Christ himselfe sate downe is now celebrated For there is no difference betweene this and that For it is not a man that doth the one and Christ the other But it is Christ himselfe that doth both the one and the other When therefore thou seest the Priest reaching somewhat to thee do not imagine that it is the Priest that doth it but that it is Christs hand that is stretched out to thee For as when thou art baptised hee doth not baptize thee but it is God that holdeth thy head by his inuisible power and neither Angel nor Archangel nor any other dare approach and touch So is it now also Now what is here spoken but of Mysteries or Sacraments in generall applied after in particular as well to Baptisme as to the Eucharist and therefore may as well prooue a reall or essentiall transmutation in the one as in the other and if not in both in neither since the very same things are spoken of either to wit that we must in either regard not so much what our bodily eye seeth as what the spirituall eye of the beleeuing soule by faith apprehendeth and vpon ground of Gods word beleeueth and that by things sensible are things intelligible conueighed to vs and effected in vs as well in the one as in the other The 2. place of Chrysostome is out of his 3. booke de Sacerdotio Wherein this alleadger of him fareth as ill as in the former allegation Chrysost. saith indeed that Christ that sitteth aboue with his Father in heauen is at that time to wit when the Eucharist is celebrated held in the hands of each one and offreth himself to those that will claspe him about and embrace him But not to insist vpon what was aboue said by him that Christ himselfe and not Man both there and in Baptisme administreth nor vpon other phrases in the same place vsed by him both before of the same Eucharist that the people are all died purple-red in it with Christs blood and afterward of Baptisme that in it wee are buried together with Christ Which cannot bee vnderstood but figuratiuely he sheweth in the very next words to those here cited what his meaning was in them and how all this is done when hee saith And this they doe all then with the eyes of faith The third place is not as he seemeth to cite it out of the same booke but out of his 2. Sermon ad populum Antiochenum He found them ioyned together in Bellarmine out of whom he hath all and therefore tooke them it seemeth to bee both out of one booke Chrysostome there saith that Christ hath left vs his flesh and yet hath it still in Heauen But how that may be verified he himselfe sheweth in the same place a little before when he saith that there was a twofold Elias whom he compareth Christ withall when Elias was translated an Elias aboue and an Elias beneath he meaneth Elisaeus on whom rested the spirit of Elias whom hee therefore esteemeth a symbolicall Elias as Iohn the Baptist is called Elias because he came in the power and the spirit of Elias and so was also Elias as our Sauiour auerreth and Augustine well obserueth though not essentially Elias yet Elias symbolically And so here in like manner Christs essentiall flesh is in heauen whither they must also saith Chrysostome ascend and flie vp like Eagles that will haue it his symbolicall Flesh is here vpon earth as the Symbolicall Elias was in the Sacrament of his body which saith Augustine in some sort is his body being a Signe and Sacrament of it And thus you see what substantiall proofes this great Blusterer hath brought to prooue their Transubstantiation and how well he hath acquit himselfe
for a man well read in the auncient Fathers as hereafter hee boasteth himselfe to be Diuision 3. THis is the true Doctrine of the auncient Fathers and so plainely and vnanswerably doe they teach the literall vnderstanding of our Sauiours words and the miraculous coÌ„uersion of the bread wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the bodie and blood of Christ telling vs that we must not beleeue our sense or reason telling vs the contrarie nor conceiue it so impossible as our carnall and grosse Aduersaries pretend for the bodie of our Sauiour to bee in heauen and in numberlesse places of the earth together iâ—…sibly existing Whose plaine testimonies are in a whole Booke together by learned Bellarmine truly and particularly collected where also he refuteth the shifting answeres of Protestanticall Diuines vnto them soluing all Obiections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against Catholicke doctrine Who is by this Minister ignorantly or malitiously traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figuratiue and tropicall sense of our Sauiours words This is my Body because disputing against Luther supposing as well as he the literall sense of our Sauiours words argumento ad hominem by an Argument drawne from Luthers owne grounds hee driueth Luther either to confesse Transubstantiation necessarily purported in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie or for to admit barely against the knowne opinion of himselfe and all his disciples a figuratiue and metaphoricall vnderstanding of them For if Christs words be literally to be vnderstood and bread also admitted to remaine in the Sacrament the Pronoune Hoc This would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it and not the bodie of Christ inuisibly therein present and so bread in our Sauiours speech should falsly be affirmed to be Christs bodie Whereas if bread remaine not but be truly conuerted into Christs bodie no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literall vnderstanding of Christs words Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seeme to affirme that there is nothing in the holy Text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament or which is all one that may enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words c. Ignorance and mistaking must be my aduersaries best meanes to salue this falshood and many others which doe ensue afterward IN the next place hauing digressed all this while from the Argument he should haue answered he addeth that that which they teach coÌ„cerning the literall sense of Christs words and the miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ is the true doctrine of the auncient Fathers and to saue himselfe the labour of proouing that which neither he nor any of his side shall euer be able to make good he turneth his Reader ouer to Bellarmine out of whom he picked all that before he had said and telleth him that he hath both prooued it and refuted all the shifting answeres of the Protestanticall Diuines Bellarmine it seemeth is his Aiax behinde whose shield hee must shroud himselfe or else he dare abide no brunt of encounter againe Now to make Bellarmine againe some part of requitall because he is so much beholden to him he will doe his best to cleere him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad Minister by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of the Protestant doctrine concerning the figuratiue sense of our Sauiours words and to affirme c. It is true I say that Bellarmine granteth and so he doth I haue set downe his owne words they are not nor can be denied that these words This is my bodie may imply either such a reall change as the Catholickes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold and that is all I say of him The truth contrary to the maine drift and scope of his controuersie as it falleth out oft with those that against their owne knowledge maintaine errour did start from him vnawares Nor is the question now de re but de propositione as Bellarmine there speaketh the question is not of the maine matter in controuersie whether Christ did really conuert the Bread into his Body which Bellarmine affirmeth but whether that speech of our Sauiour may not beare such a figuratiue sense as we giue which Bellarmine in plaine and precise tearmes granteth And all that this his Champion can say for him is nothing but this that Bellarmine doth not say that which in expresse words I haue cited out of him without alteration of any one syllable and the falshood therefore lyeth manifestly on him that denieth it when he knoweth them to be Bellarmines owne wordes in precise tearmes But he hopeth it seemeth that with facing hee may carry away any thing I will adde a little more out of Bellarmine and yet no more then himselfe in precise tearmes saith Scotus and Cameracensis two great Schoolemen grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot necessarily bee gathered out of the text of the Evangelists howsoeuer they hold it because the Church of Rome that cannot erre hath so expounded it And Bellarmine himselfe granteth that this is not improbable For though the Scripture saith he that we bring may seeme so cleere that it may constraine a man that is not wilfull to yeeld it yet it may well bee doubted whether it be so or no since most learned men and most acute such especially as Scotus was are of a contrary minde And now we haue besides Scotus and others three Cardidinals Card. Bellarmine Card. Caietan and Card. Cameracensis all confessing that the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot cleerely or vnanswerably bee prooued by Scripture I conclude then with mine Adversaries grant It is all one saith he to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament and to say that there is nothing to enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words Card. Caietan freely confesseth the latter and vnlesse hee can disprooue Caietan which as yet hee hath not assaied to doe he must by his owne confession yeeld the former Diuision 4. PAge 3. He maketh a great stir in asking how the Chalice may be called the new Testament in our Sauiours blood I answer him because our Sauiours blood by the effusion whereof his last Wâ—ll and Testament was confirmed and our eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs is in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar for vs. For the word Testament as all learned men know is apt to import not onely the interiour act of the dying mans Wil but also the authenticall instrument or deed wherein that his dying
exposition of his our Sauiour should say This Cup that is this blood contained in the Chalice is the New Testament in my blood And so Christs blood shall be not in the Chalice onely but in his blood would any reasonable man say My body is in my body or My blood is in my blood But they care not what absurd language they fasten vpon our Sauiour so it may make for their owne turne 2. There is the blood of Christ really contained in the Chalice and yet this blood is vnbloodily offered It is vnbloodily offered and yet it is really blood yea there is nothing there but blood True it is the ancient Fathers oft tearme the Eucharist an vnbloody sacrifice which sheweth their speeches where they say that the Altar and the people are besprinckled and dyed purplered with blood were metaphoricall and hyperbolicall and well might they so call it not dreaming of any such bloody stuffe in the Chalice as these men seeme to imagine But how there can bee an vnbloody offering where there is much more blood then flesh and Christ offered vnbloodily where men drinke nothing but meere blood yea if Chrysostomes speeches were to be taken properly where all the Communicants are dyed red with blood let any reasonable man iudge 3. All learned men he saith of which number I hope he counteth himselfe one know that a Testament is apt to import not a will onely or a deed but a legacie too Vsus loquendi Magister Use is the Lord and Master of language We should thinke they say as the best speake as the most and vse as such coine so such speech as is commonly currant We ignorant and vnlearned Protestanticall Ministers are vnacquainted with this learning But I would request him if hee can here as well for the sauing and saluing of of his owne credite as for our better instruction to produce any one learned man besides himselfe and his associates that euer so said or euer so spake that euer called a legacy by the name of a Testament Such learned men I see as hee is may say what they list we vnlearned must speake by rule when we speake least such learned men as hee is controll vs if we doe otherwise for ignorant 4. Marke I beseech you this learned mans Logicke how soundly and substantially he argueth This word Testament may well signifie either a Will or a Legacie ergo Christs blood wherewith his last Will was confirmed may well be tearmed the New Testament What connexion there is betweene these two Propositions the one produced by him to prooue the other let any one that is not vtterly senslesse consider 5. Let it be obserued how these men that cannot endure at our hands to heare of any figure in the wordes of our Saviour though one neuer so frequent in signes and Sacraments especially which both they grant these things to be yet themselues in the explicating of them are enforced to flie to figures yea take liberty to themselues to coine and forge such figures as were neuer heard of before either in holy writ or in prophane writer For let him if he can shew a legacie so tearmed in either Lastly Christs blood indeed may in some sense be said to inebriate mens soules and the Ancients sometime so speake But that which is in the Chalice if it be taken which the Priest sometime may chance to doe ouer-largely will as Aquinas well obserueth inebriate the bodie and not the soule which I neuer yet heard that blood did or could doe And therefore wee haue cause to thinke if we see the Priest drunke with it yea we haue reason to beleeue because we know he well may that it is not Christs blood but the fruit of the vine the blood of the grape that is in the Chalice and produceth such effects § 2. In the next place like a man in a maze going backward and forward as vncertaine which way to turne himselfe Afterward saith hee relating but misrelating as his vsuall manner is some things spoken before confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to be no other then bare signes and types of Christs body and blood as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person as Circumcision is called the Couenant because it was a signe thereof c. True it is I say these wordes of our Sauiour This is my body may as well be vnderstood figuratiuely as those speeches are where the Rocke is called Christ and when pointing to the pictures of Caesar and Alexander it is the comparison that Augustine vseth we say This is Caesar and That is Alexander And in Answer to the Obiection before recited I say that the Cup that is the wine in the Cup is said to be the New Testament as Circumcision the Couenant because a signe and seale of it But that the bread and wine are no other then bare signes and types c. I no where say It is his vntruth not mine assertion I say expressely more then so that they are not signes onely but seales and signes and seales so effectuall as after I shew that by them the things signified by them and sealed vp in them are truely and effectually yet spiritually conueighed vnto those that doe faithfully receiue them Hee dealeth herein but as Bellarmine whom hee imitateth doth with Caluine one while charging him to make the Sacramemt nothing but a symbole and memoriall of Christs passion and so no better saith hee nay nor so good as a Crucifixe and yet else-where acknowledging that hee maketh it not a signe onely but a seale also confirming and sealing vp Gods promises made in the Word But like a dull Scholler he saith herein I vnderstood not my Master Caluine Master in these matters wee acknowledge none but Christ whose Word alone is absolutely authenticall with vs. Caluine we reuerence as a worthy seruant of Christ. And as dull a Scholler as I am I vnderstand him well enough where in that booke he calleth Transubstantiation a deuice of the Diuell their Consecration a kinde of Incantation the Masse an Histrionicall action and the Priest acting it a meere Ape The signes indeed saith hee in the Eucharist are not naked signes but such as haue the truth of the thing conioyned with them that which is true of Baptisme as well as of the Lords Supper Yet not inclosed in them nor carnally but spiritually partaked Nor doth God delude vs with bare figures though there bee no such reall change of the elements in the Eucharist more then hee doth vs now in Baptisme or did the Israelites of old when hee fed them with spirituall food and water in the Wildernesse § 2. And heere againe I cannot say cunningly but knauishly rather hauing falsly related my wordes and passing ouer mine Answer to this very Obiection wherein they challenge vs to make the Sacrament nothing
the first Nicene Councell will vs in this diuine table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed but to eleuate our minde by faith and behold on this table the Lambe of God taking away the sinnes of the world by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to bee symboles and pledges of our resurrection c. O holy Ephrem renowned so for thy great learning and singular sanctitie as Saint Ierome testifieth thy writings to haue beene read in the Church after the holy Scriptures why doest thou will vs not to search after these inscrutable mysteries c. but to receiue with a full assurance of faith the immaculate body of the Lord and the Lambe himselfe entirely adding those wordes which cannot agree to such a communion of bare bread and wine as this Minister teacheth The mysteries of Christ are an immortall fire search them not curiously least in the search thou become burned c. telling vs that this Sacrament doth exceed all admiration and speech which Christ our Sauiour the onely begotten Sonne of God hath instituted for vs. Finally why doe other ancient â—nd chiefe Fathers of the Greeke and Latine Church call the consecrated bread and wine on the Altar dreadfull mysteries the food of life and immortality hidden Manna and infinitely excelling it a heauenly banquet the bread of Angels humbly present while it is offered and deuoutly adoring it c. If there bee no more but bare bread and wine therein receiued in memorie of our Sauiours passion as my Aduersarie affirmeth of his Protestanticall Sacrament THe next Diuisiâ—â— hee maketh entrance into with a grosse and shamelesse deprauation and thereupon prosecuteth it to the end with an impertinent digression Hauing cited the forenamed Testimenies of Theodoret and Gelasius in mine Answer to that Obiection brought commonly against vs as if by a deniall of such a reall presence as Papists maintaine wee should make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread I conclude both mine Answer and the Allegation of those two Authors in these wordes Thus they to wit Gelasius and Theodoret and thus we and yet neither doe they nor we therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood NOthing but bare bread and wine Now this shamelesse wretch wanting matter to be dealing with turneth me NOthing into ANY thing a man able indeed with his shamelesse senselesse shifts to picke any thing out of nothing and relateth my wordes in this manner to a cleane contrary sense Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine Had either I or my Transcriber for the truth is it was not mine owne hand-writing that hee had I write a worse hand I confesse then he is aware of that accounteth that so bad an one If either I or hee I say had slipt heere with the pen as I suspected hee might haue done till I saw the copie againe that this Answerer had yet the whole tenour of my speech wherein I shew that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are no more bare bread or bare wine then the water vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme is bare water would sufficiently haue shewed my meaning But when the copie that was deliuered him remaining in the custodie of that Noble Personage for whom at first it was written is found apparantly to haue the wordes in the very same manner as I haue before cited them I cannot deuise what colour this audacious wretch can bring to salue his owne credite with and excuse his corrupt carriage It argueth not a bad but a desperate cause that without such senselesse and shamelesse shifts cannot bee vpheld And I beseech your Ladiship well to consider what credite is to be giuen to these men alleadging Authors Fathers Councels c. which they know you cannot your selfe peruse and examine when they dare thus palpably falsifie a writing that you haue in your owne hands and may haue recourse to when you will § 2. Now hauing thus laid a lewd and loud vntruth for the ground of his ensuing Discourse 1. Hee falleth into an Inuectiue against our Protestanticall Communion as acknowledged by me to haue nothing holy heauenly and diuinely for so it pleaseth him to speak therein contained but bare bread and wine c. adding withall that neuer Câ—ietan neuer Bellarmine neuer Gratian neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine beleeued or taught this sacrilegious doctrine a lye he meaneth of his owne forging as my Aduersarie in these wordes They and wee falsly pretendeth In which wordes first for hee cannot forbeare fâ—lsifying for his life no not then and there where he chargeth others with falshood he intimateth that in those words Thus they I should haue reference to Caietan Bellarmine and Gratian whereas my wordes euidently point at Gelasius and Theodoret whose owne wordes in precise tearmes I had next before cited 2. He chargeth me falsely to say that of the Eucharish that neither I nor any of our Diuines euer said yea which being by way of Obiection before produced I not onely disauow and disprooue approouing freely and at large proouing the contrary but in this place in plaine tearmes conclude the direct contrary vnto in the very wordes by him fowly falfified 3. Hee runneth out to giue vs some taste of his rowling Rhetoricke as well as his loose Logicke into a solemn inuocation of his forged S. Dionyse together with some of the Ancients as if hee were raising of Spirits with some magicall inchantment to fight with a shadow and to skirmish with a man of straw of his owne making to testifie in that against vs that hee would faine put vpon vs but none of vs by his owne confession euer said or doe say Thus hee hath nibled here and there cauilled at by-matters coined lies forged and faced but giuen no direct Answer to the Argument whereunto hee should haue answered and whereby it was prooued that these wordes of our Sauiour This my body may well beare a figuratiue sense so expounded by the Ancient Fathers and confessed by their owne writers not so much as attempted to prooue the contrary thereunto § 3. Now howsoeuer I might very well let passe as impertinent those citations and sayings of the Authors here summoned to giue in either testimony or sentence against that that none of vs auoweth and which therfore though all that either they doe say or hee would haue them say were true did no way crosse vs or once touch vs in ought that is heerein affirmed of vs and I had sometime therefore determined wholy to passe by them for feare of ouercharging this Discourse yet considering that some weake ones peraduenture may stumble at some passages in them especially as they are vnfaithfully by this alleadger of them here translated I haue thought good now ere wee part with them to examinine what they say that
with some shew of allegations 1. Hee telleth vs that Iohn Husse was of their iudgement concerning the Sacrament and alledgeth a sorry Rome to prooue it which whence hee hath I know not nor am able to say what Husse sometime held But sure I am that in the Councell of Constance one of the Articles wherewith he was charged and for which condemned and contrary to the Emperours safeconduct granted him perfidiousâ—â— burnt was the deniall of Transubstantiation as a deuice inuented to delude simple people with and the teaching and maintaining as well publikely as priuately that the substance of bread and materiall bread remained after Consecration in the Sacrament deposed by many that had heard him and that had argued about it with him 2. He citeth a few Fathers some forged as the Author of the Passion of S. Andrew some falsified as that of Iustine Martyr which shall by and by be examined some saying nothing but what wee will willingly yeeld him as both Irenaeus and that also out of the apocryphall Story of S. Andrew which howsoeuer he saith that Bellarmine which is his wonted manner of proofe hath proued to be authenticall Yet neither are his proofes pregnant no iust antiquitie being produced for it and by others of their owne as we shewed before it is confessed to be apocryphall and if we may beleeue Bellarmine himselfe there is some grosse vntruth in it For this vncertaine Author affirmeth that S. Andrew was not nailed with nailes but with cords eyed to the crosse as their counterfeit Abdie also saith that he might liue the longer in paine as he did preaching two daies together as he hung there aliue Whereas if Bellarmine may be beleeued it was not so but he was with nailes fastned as Christ was to the Crosse. But to leaue that as saying nothing that we neede sticke at no more then we doe at ought that out of Irenaeus is alleadged I may not let passe his falsifying of Iustine Martyr whom hauing so little occasion to alledge here he may well seeme for no other end to haue alleadged but to falsifie what he saith of this Sacrament in which kinde he hath the best gift one of them that euer I knew any Iustine Martyr saith he in his 2. Apologie where as far as was fit c. he describeth the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is now celebrated by vs telleth Antoninus the Emperour that they did therein eate bread and drinke wine conuerted by the miraculous force of Christs words into his naturall flesh and blood Now heare Justines owne words Hauing spoken before of Baptisme After this saith he is there bread and a cup of water and wine presented to the Prelate of the brethren Who receiuing the same sendeth vp praise and glory to the Father of all by the name of the Sonne and the holy Ghost and at large giueth thankes to him for being vouchsafed to be by him reputed worthy of these things And when he hath ended his prayers and thankes-giuing all the people answer Amen Now when the Prelate hath giuen thankes and all the people haue answered those that we call Deacons giue to each one of those that be present to partake of the blessed Bread and wine and water and they carry of it to those that be not present And this foode is with vs called the Eucharist which none may partake of but those that beleeue haue beene baptised and liue as Christ taught For we receiue not these things as common Bread and Wine but in like maner as Christ our Sauiour being by the word of God incarnate had flesh and blood so haue wee beene taught that the foode blessed by the word of prayer that is from him whereby our blood and flesh by a change are nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ incarnate For so in the Gospels haue the Apostles deliuered that Iesus enioyned them hauing taken the bread and giuen thankes to say Doe this in remembrance of me This is my Body And taking the Cup likewise and hauing giuen thankes to say This is my blood and to giue it to such onely Now first tell me I pray you where there is any mention of a Sacrifice in Iustine distinct especially from the Sacrament that this corrupter of all almost that he dealeth with should say Iustine describeth the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament True it is that the Fathers tearme the Lords Supper oft a Sacrifice as we also in our Liturgie partly in regard of the spirituall Sacrifice of praise therein offred and partly because it is a liuely representation and commemoration of Christs Sacrifice once offred on the Crosse as their Master of the Sentences himselfe explaineth it and partly also because it succeedeth in the roome of the Passeouer and those other Sacrifices that in the old Testament were offred But that they euer dreamed of any other Sacrifice distinct and diuers from the Sacrament no Papist shall euer be able to prooue Nor either out of our Sauiours words or Iustines report can be gathered 2. Obserue how iustly Iustine describeth the whole order of this Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is celebrated by them Yea marke and iudge I pray you whether his description of it come neerer vnto ours or vnto theirs 1. Where are all those crossings and bendings and â—ringes and turnings and eleuations and adorations and mimicke gestures and apish sooleries that their Masse-bookes enioyne 2. As well the cup as the bread is giuen to all present which Iustine also saith that Christ enioyned them to giue and which Pope Gelasius saith cannot be seuered from the Bread without great Sacriledge Whereas with them the people may not meddle at all with it How many toyes are there in theirs that are not touched at all in Iustine And againe what is there in Iustines relation that is not found in our Protestanticall as he tearmeth it communion that sending of it home ordinarily onely excepted which neither they themselues vse ordinarily when they celebrate and the danger of repaire hindring accesse it seemeth then occasioned 3. Where doth Iustine say as this corrupt corrupter reporteth him that they eate bread and drinke wine conuerted by the miraculous force of Christs words into his naturall flesh and blood No one word in him of a miraculous conuersion nor of their being the naturall flesh and blood of Christ. There is mention indeede of a change and that a naturall change not of the creatures into Christs naturall flesh and blood but of the blessed foode Or the foode made the Eucharist as Bellarmine translateth it into our flesh Which words though Bellarmine would faine wrest awry because they wring him yet no Grammer will admit any other sense of them From whence it is apparent that the blessed foode that Iustine speaketh of is not really but
symbolically and figuratiuely Christs body For there can nothing be deuised more absurd saith Bellarmine then that the Substance of our bodies should be nourished with Christs flesh But our flesh and blood and that I hope is the substance of our Bodies as Irenaeus also expressely speaketh are nourished saith Iustine by the blessed foode or by the Bread and Wine made the Eucharist and that by a change of the things receiued The blessed foode therefore that Iustine speaketh of is not really Christs naturall Body as this mis-reporter and mis-expounder of him affirmeth NEither can euer the Minister prooue his ensuing Assertion that Christs corporall presence in the thing eaten must necessarily inferre and enforce a corporall and carnall manner of eating him vnlesse his bodie had therein a corporall extensiue and sensible manner of existing which is by no Catholike Author affirmed and so no hainous and vnseemely thing is in such a manner of receiuing Christs body committed For auoiding whereof we should be enforced to runne to a figuratiue interpretation of our Sauiours speeches Ioh. 6. So as to exclude the reall receiuing of our Sauiours flesh and blood in the Sacrament as out of an obscure place of S. Austin cited by him page 7. and fully answered by Cardinall Bellarmine hee falsely gathereth the place proouing no more but that our Sauiours speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figuratiue so farre forth as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten but after a Sacramentall and inuisible manner as the signes of bread and wine doe containe them the chiefe end of his being so receiued by vs being indeed to communicate with Christs passion and profitably to lay vp in our memories that his flesh was wounded for vs as S. Austin in that place affirmeth Whose plaine places for the reall receiuing of our Sauiours body and blood in the Sacrament my superficiall Aduersarie taketh no notice of but as Eeles loue rather to hide themselues in durt then to swim in cleere waters so are hee and his companions glad to hide themselues and their hereticall nouelties in darke and obscure places of the holy Fathers not regarding their pregnant and plaine testimonies for vs and against them vnanswerably in other places expressed § 3. AT length he pleaseth to recollect himselfe and returne to the matter in hand Christs corporall presence saith he in the thing eaten doth not necessarily inferre and enforce a corporall and carnall manner of eating him vnlesse his body had therein a corporall extensiue and sensible manner of existing To passe by these mysticall and metaphysicall tearmes wherewith he and his Associates are wont to enwrap and inuolue themselues like Eeles in mire and mud as himselfe speaketh that their absurd and senselesse doctrines or dotages rather may not be discerned nor to insist vpon the implication of contradiction when he saith that Christs body is corporally that is bodily present in the Eucharist and yet hath there no corporall that is bodily existence a bodie bodily present and yet not bodily existing like the Marcionites riddles in Tertullian A man no man Flesh no flesh a body no body blood no blood or A body but not as a body with blood but not as blood in a place but not as in a place with qualities but not qualitatiuely with quantitie but not quantitatiuely Such strange fancies and prodigies are these mens braines possest with 1. If the one doe not follow vpon the other Pope Nicholas was much to blame when he inferred thereupon that Christs very body was sensually that is as much if not more then corporally chewed and eaten in the Eucharist 2. If it be true that Bellarmine telleth vs that by the Eucharist Christ remaineth carnally in vs which he citeth also but with a foule hand and some of his owne words foisted in as a saying of S. Hilaries then sure he must needs carnally be eaten of vs. And to see how inconstant error is and how contrary to it selfe one while he saith that there is a corporall eating of Christs body in the Sacrament as their common tenent is and how is he not then corporaelly eaten and that Christ carnally thereby abideth in vs And yet againe another while out of Athanasius that the eating of Christs body is not carnally to be taken nor is in a carnall manner to be vnderstood In a word 1. Either Bread or Christs body must needs be corporally eaten in the Eucharist but not bread if we beleeue them for there is none there and to say that meere accidents onely are chewed and fed vpon is most senselesse and absurd It remaineth therefore that Christs body if that alone be there be corporally eaten there as Pope Nicholas before affirmed 2. Either Christs flesh is eaten there corporally or spiritually onely If corporally why doth this fellow sticke at it and is so loath to acknowledge it If spiritually onely why vrge they those passages of Iohn 6. to prooue 〈…〉 corporall and bodily manducation of Christs body in the Eucharist And so come we to examine that place by them so much and so oft vrged to prooue such a carnall eating of Christ. § 4. Here this profound and learned Doctor telleth vs that his superficiall Aduersarie hath in an vnlearned and slender manner endeauoured to prooue that our Sauiours discourse there is not to be vnderstood of Sacramentall Manducation but of spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him I propound two Propositions to be prooued 1. That the words are not to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking as they hold 2. That Christ doth not in that whole discourse speake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was not as yet instituted but of such spirituall feeding on Christ as is performed not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also The former I prooue by a plaine place of S. Augustine which this Aduersarie referring vs still for an answer to Bellarmine from whom he borroweth the most that he hath saith is an obscure place and is pleased a little after to tearme it no better then durt which wee Protestants like Eeles desire to hide our selues in 1. Were it not an absurd thing for Augustine to speake â—bscurely there where he giueth rules for the opening and right vnderstanding of places obscure where should he speake more plainely and perspicuously then there where his maine aime is to make things cleere 2. This shifters answer borrowed from Bellarmine is but a bare shift to wit that the place prooueth no more but that our Sauiours speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figuratiue so far forth as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten and in a bloody manner as flesh sold in the shambles is wont to be eaten c. As if flesh bought in the shambles vsed to be eaten raw and in bloody manner Here
that is the meate that I will giue is my flesh it selfe that is to be crucified and staine for the saluation of mankind And he addeth that peraduenture our Sauiour called his flesh sometimes bread to shew that vnder the species of bread it was to be eaten So that all the force of Bellarmines Argument is but meerely coniecturall and dependeth vpon a peraduenture which hee cannot certainely auerre But without all peraduenture hee affirmed before that the bread of which our Sauiour said My Father giueth you the true bread from heauen and The bread of God is hee that came from heauen and giueth life to the world and I am the bread of life hee that commeth to mee shall neuer hunger and hee that beleeueth in mee shall neuer thirst and I am the bread that came downe from heauen and againe I am the bread of life and This is the bread that came downe from heauen that whosoeuer eateth thereof should neuer die and I am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer that the bread I say of which hee said all this was not the Encharist or the sacramentall bread and none of all this directly and properly concerneth it And well may wee put it out of peraduenture that the bread of which our Sauiour saith it is his flesh that he wil giue for the life of the world and whosoeuer eateth of it hath life euerlasting which no man also can haue without it is no other then that of which hee had before said that it is himselfe and that it giueth life to the world and life euerlasting to euery one that eateth of it the rather also for that our Sauiour himselfe so informeth vs when he saith not passing as Bellarmine would haue it from a second bread to a third but more particularly expressing what the second bread was and repeating more fully what before hee had said I am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer and the bread that I will giue what bread thinke we but the same that he was euen then speaking of which yet was none of the sacramentall bread saith Bellarmine is my flesh that I will giue for the life of the world Those ensuing passages therefore are not meant of the sacramentall bread or the Eucharist no more then the former But leaue wee Bellarmine and returne we to this our Defendant whom we are principally now to deale with His last Argument out of Tolet is not so much for the Eucharist as against the spirituall eating Christs flesh and drinking his blood by faith If our Sauiour had meant nothing but that they should beleeue in him it had been a strange course by such an obscure manner of speaking to driue away so many that had formerly followed him and beleeued in him without any word added that might open this darke doctrine To omit that here againe he departeth from Augustine who saith thus expresly Our Lord being about to giue the holy Ghost called himself bread exhorting vs tobeleeue in him For to beleeue in him is to eate that liuing bread He that beleeueth in him feedeth on him he is fatted inuisibly because he is inuisibly bred againe he is there filled where he is renewed And again They that shed Christs blood drank his blood whē they beleeued in him and they drank it by beleeuing in him 1. It pleased our Sauiour sometime as to Nicodemus and to the people oft-times to speake things in obscure Parables which yet to them he did not explicate Nor may any taxe the wisedome of Christ without impiety for so doing Yea so saith Augustine he spake that here which he would not haue all to vnderstand 2. Those that went away from him vpon it were as our Sauiour himselfe intimateth such as followed him onely to be fed and did not beleeue in him 3. If his meaning had beene that they were to eate of his very flesh it selfe miraculously made of bread as these men would make vs beleeue had it not beene as obscure and as difficult for them to haue conceiued it 4. It is not true that our Sauiour added nothing to explicate himselfe Augustine in the place before cited sheweth that he did And both in the beginning when hee first told them of this bread and d they desired him euer to giue them of it he maketh them answer in these words I am the bread of life Hee that commeth to me shall neuer hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst and in the processe of his speech againe Uerely verely I say vnto you Hee that beleeueth in mee hath life euerlasting Whereby saith Iansenius they might well haue vnderstood in what manner hee would giue them his flesh to eate Who also thence gathereth agreeably to Augustine and other of the Ancients that it is all one to feed on Christ and to beleeue in him As also in the Conclusion and shutting vp of all when hee saw how they mistooke him It is the spirit that quickneth the flesh availeth nothing the wordes that I speake are spirit and life In which wordes saith the same Iansenius out of Chrysostome Theophylact and Augustine hee sheweth how they should vnderstand what before he had said MY Aduersaries Arguments to the contrary are meerely topicall and prooue nothing For first it is false that the faithfull Iewes before Christ did sacramentally receiue our Sauiour as well as we which hee barely affirmeth and prooueth not page 7. Secondly those words of Christ Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you was a precept respectiuely giuen and onely obliging such persons to an actuall receiuing of the Sacrament as they were to whom it was vttred such persons to wit as are by age capable of Sacramentall manducation And surely if Christs words be onely vnderstood as my Aduersarie would haue them of spirituall eating Christ by faith they must necessarily import a precept more impossible to be fulfilled by children then sacramentally to receiue him For sooner may children receiue the Sacrament especially drinke of the consecrated Chalice as anciently in the Greeke and Latine Churches they were went to doe then actually beleeue in him His next Argument pag. 8. maketh more if this Minister had wit to discerne the force thereof against his owne exposition of Christs words then it doth against our vnderstanding of them For as all that receiue Sacramentally Christs flesh and blood are not saued no more are all that spiritually and by faith eate him This being sufficient for the veritie of our Sauiours speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce those excellent and
sticke to contemne them Had he any wit in his adle braine he would neuer haue asked this idle Question It is as if in a Law-suite because a man taketh hold as he may well doe of somewhat that falleth from his Aduersaries or is granted him and confessed by them because it furthereth his owne cause he were therefore bound to beleeue or admit all that euer they say to the preiudice of his right The greater differences are betweene them and vs yea in the present controuersie concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament the lesse cause there is to suspect that they should speake partially for vs and the greater cause to suppose they were by euidence of truth enforced to confesse that that should take away some of those grounds whereby the cause that themselues stiffely maintained is ordinarily vpheld 3. He addeth in the end These men herein without hereticall intention or obstinâ—cie of iudgement differed from vs. Whom he meaneth by that Vs I leaue to himselfe to explaine And the lesse hereticall their intention was as he vnderstandeth hereticall the lesse suspition there is of collusion or any purpose therein to gratifie vs and so much the stronger therefore is their testimonie for vs. The testimonie of a meere stranger or no well-willer to the cause maketh it to be of more moment But when he speaketh of obstinacie of iudgement he glaunceth at a secret in their Church which I shall in a word or two take occasion hereby to discouer It is no matter what a man hold or maintaine among them so long as he acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacie the maine pillar of their faith and submit himselfe and his workes wholly to his censure and so be ready to vnsay what he saith when he will haue him so to doe For his censure indeede alone is that which they call commonly the censure of the Church And to this purpose they confesse that many of their writers haue held the very same points for which they condemne vs now as Heretikes of whom yet they say that they were not Heretikes because they submitted themselues to this Censure I will adde an instance or two hereof out of Bellarmine 1. In this very particular he confesseth that many of the Authors before mentioned expound that 6. Chap. of Iohn as the Heretikes doe but they submit themselues saith he and their writings to the Censure of the Councels and Popes which the Heretikes doe not 2. In the present controuersie Durandus held not a Transubstantiation but a transformation in the Sacrament which opinion saith he is hereticall and yet was hee no Heretike because he was ready to yeeld to the iudgement of the Church 3. Ambrose Catharines opinion of the Ministers intention in the Sacrament differeth not saith he for ought I see from the opinion of Chemnicius and other Heretikes saue that he in the end of his booke submitteth himselfe to the Apostolike Sea and Councel 4. Durandus in the point concerning merite of workes held as we now doe that no reward was due to them but out of Gods meere liberalitie and that it were temerarious and blasphemous to say that God were vniust if he should not so reward them And yet was he also no Heretike for the cause before-mentioned And thus are we at length arriued after much winding to and fro while wee follow a shifting wind at the end of the former part of my Discourse wherein hath beene shewed beside other Arguments confirming the same by the confession of their owne Authors that those places of Scripture doe not enforce any such corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament as Papists maintaine which they commonly produce to prooue it Diuision 7. PAg. 9. My Aduersarie becommeth a more formall Disputant then before and against our Doctrines of Transubstantiation and reall presence of our Sauiour in the Sacrament ignorantly by him in many places confounded he frameth this wise Argument Looke what our Sauiour tooke that he blessed what he blessed that he brake what he brake that he deliuered to his Disciples what he deliuered of that he said This is my Body But it was bread that he tooke And bread therefore that he blessed bread that hee brake and bread that he deliuered and bread consequently of which he said This is my Body Which is a formelâ—sse and fallacious kinde of arguing wholly forcelesse if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy Fathers to be true that Christs words haue force now as then they had when himselfe vttred them to change the substance of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood As if after the like manner of the water conuerted by Christ into wine I should make this deduction The Ministers drew water out of the well carried what they drew therefore that which they drew and carried was water If the Minister shall tell me that they drew water but carried it made wine by our Sauiours omnipotent operation so I will tell him that Christ tooke bread and wine and conuerted them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction into his owne bodie and blood before he distributed them as he by his plaine words pronounced of them saying This is my Body c. HItherto if you will beleeue this worthy Doctor his Aduersarie hath disputed without forme or figure that you may not maruaile why his Answer is so diffused deformed and mis-figured for the fault it seemeth was in his Aduersaries mishapen Syllogismes which made him also so loath to meddle with any of them Here he confesseth he becommeth a more formall Dissutant and I hope therefore we shall finde him a more formall Defendant Yet ere he come to my first Argument he must needs haue a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of Transsubstantiation and the reall presence corporall hee should haue said for more perspicuitie for so I speake ignorantly the one with the other I perceiue well what his drift herein is to make some beleeue that howsoeuer Transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times yet a reall that is a corporall presence was euer acknowledged But if we will beleeue Bellarmine Aquinas and the Councel of Trent the one of them is euery iot as ancient as the other yea the one cannot possibly bee without the other This the Councel of Trent telleth vs was alwaies the faith of the Church that by the consecration of Bread and Wine the whole Substance of the Bread was turned into the Substance of Christs body and the whole Substance of wine into his Blood And A body saith Aquinas cannot be where it was not before but either by locall motion or by the conuersion of some other thing into it But it is manifest that Christs bodie beginneth not to bee in the Sacrament by any locall motion And therefore it must needs come there by the conuersion of the bread into it Yea by locall motion it cannot be there nor by any meanes but
by this And Bellarm. cleane contrary to himselfe else-where It cannot be that the words of Christ should be true but by such a conversion and transmutation as the Catholike Church calleth Transubstantiation It is no matter of ignorance therefore in this Controversie to confound those things which those we deale with conioyne yea which they tell vs cannot be dis-ioyned To ouerthrow this their opinion then of Transubstantiation and Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist I first reason from the Context Christ tooke bread and blessed it and gaue it and said This is my body Whence I thus argued What Christ tooke hee blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he deliuered what he deliuered of that he said This is my body But it was bread that hee tooke blessed brake and deliuered It is bread saith Durant a Popish writer that all those verbes are referred to It was bread therefore of which he said This is my body Now this saith mine Adversarie forgetting it seemeth what he had said but euen now that heere I began to dispute formally is a formlesse fallacious and wholly forcelesse kinde of arguing if we suppose with the holy Fathers who belike held Transubstantiation then as well as a reall and corporall presence if this worthy man vpon his bare word may bee beleeued that the substances of bread and wine were by the force of Christs wordes turned into Christs body and blood That is as if hee should say this Argument is of no force at all if the point in Question be granted or if that be yeelded that is not at all in the Text. Yea but this is as if a man should make the like deduction of the water that Christ turned into wine The Ministers drew water out of the well carried what they drew Therefore that which they drew and carried was water How formall a Disputant soeuer this mans Adversary is sure I am hee disputeth neither in forme nor figure But let vs helpe him a little to bring his Argument into forme and then hee shall haue an Answer Thus it seemeth he would argue if he could hit on it What the Ministers drew out of the well they caried But they drew water Therefore they carried water And now I deny his Proposition The Ministers carried not that that they drew They drew water they carried not water but wine And for his addition hereunto that Christ after hee tooke the bread and wine and before hee distributed them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction converted them into his owne body and blood as hee sheweth by his wordes plainely pronounced of them This is my body Though it be nothing to the Argument and a meere begging of the point in Question yet let vs consider a little of it where in the Text hee findeth that Christ thus converted them for the wordes This is my body as was formerly shewed doe not euince it But he findeth it it seemeth in the benediction or the blessing of the bread which is yet against the common conceite of his Associates that say there was no conversion at all till Christ vttered those words This is my body Heare we Bellarmine a little arguing this point against Luther Hauing acknowledged as was said formerly that Christs words This is my body may beare either the sence that wee giue them or the sense that they giue them but not that sense that the Lutherans giue For saith hee the Lord tooke bread and blessed it and gaue it his Disciples saying This is my body Bread therefore he tooke bread hee blessed and of bread of he said This is my body Either therefore Christ by blessing changed the bread into his body truely and properly or he changed it improperly and figuratiuely by adding signification or as Theodoret rather by adding to nature that grace which before it had not If hee changed it truely and properly then gaue he bread changed and of that bread so changed he truely said This is my body that is that which is contained vnder the shape of bread is no more bread but my body and this we say If it be said that he changed the bread figuratiuely then shall there be that bread given the Apostles that is siguratiuely Christs body and those words This is my body haue this sense This is the figure of my body and so the Protestants hold Yea so indeede as you haue heard before did Augustine in precise tearmes after Tertullian expound them who belike then by Bellarmines ground was in this point a Protestant Now let either Bellarmine or this Answerer prooue that our Sauiour by his blessing wrought any other conuersion and wee will yeeld vnto them But they will as soone proue that Christ turned the children that hee blessed into bread as that he turned the bread by blessing it into his naturall bodie Yea runne ouer all the whole Chapter in Bellarmine wherein hee propoundeth to himselfe to proue Transubstantiation out of Gods word in the entrance whereunto hee confesseth that the words of Christ may be taken as well our way as their way but not Luthers way and you shall finde that there is neuer a word in it much lesse any sound proofe either to prooue that Christs wordes are so to be vnderstood as they say or that they are not to bee vnderstood as we say but it is wholly spent in confuting of Luthers opinion to wit that bread remaineth together with Christs body in the Sacrament Which opinion also themselues confesse that Luther admonished by Melancthon renounced before he died Hee beginneth with a first Argument without any second the summe and substance whereof was before related Either his second he saw was vnsound and it seemed best therefore to suppresse and conceale it or else he wanted a second and thought to let the first though without a fellow stand still as first by the rule of the Ciuilians who say That is first that hath none before it though no other come after it or that is first that hath none before it that is last that hath none after it And so is this Bellarmines both first and last Argument there And in Conclusion he is faine to flie to the Councels and pretended Fachers Though there were some ambiguity saith hee in our Sauiour Christs words yet it is taken away by Councels what Councels think we Surely none but such as themselues held within these 300. yeeres as himself afterward sheweth and the consent of Fathers which remaineth yet to be shewed As for the benediction the best nay the sole Argument whereby hee can prooue such 〈…〉 conuersion wrought there is this Christ is not wont to giue thankes but when hee is about to worke some great and maruelous thing For he is read onely to haue given thankes when hee would multiply the fiue loaues and againe when the seuen and when hee was to raise Lazarus from the
and many more of their learnedest companions meer Iuglers and Impostors who seeke to plaister rotten wals and maske with great wordes the naked breadinesse of their Protestanticall Sacrament AT the end of this Argument I answer an Obiection how Christs body and blood can be conveighed vnto vs or eaten and drunke of vs in the Eucharist if hee be not there present Which Question from the Fathers as you heard before may in a word be soone answered Because our Sauiour shewed it by those wordes of his concerning his ascension his speech therunto annexed to be a spirituall not a corporall kind of communication And if they will heare one of their owne Bishops Iansenius hee will tell them that to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood is to beleeue in his Incarnation and in his passion and blood sheading and that so by faith either of them are both present with vs and conueighed to vs as well in the Sacrament as out of it But hereupon this mine Aduersary befooling me for my labour for taking such a task vpon me to answer such a Question saith I vndertake to declare that by comparisons as if there were no difficulty at all in it which Calvin and Beza confesse to be a mysterie vnconceiuable incomprehensible inexplicable yea which as wee hold it implyeth an evident contradiction affirming that Christ is no more present therein nor in any manner conioyned with the sacramentall signes then the land conveighed by an Indenture sealed is present with the same or then hee is present with the water in Baptisme Whereupon hee worthily inferreth that this our Sacrament then is but a bare signe or figure of Christs body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration and Calvin and Beza c. are but Iuglers and Impostors It might well haue been one of Hercules his labours to purge this mans writings Augaeus his stable was not fuller of durt and dung then they are of foule and filthy corrupt matter and of lowd and lewd lies 1. Where doe I affirme it to bee a matter without all difficulty fully to explicate the admirable efficacy and operation of divine mysteries or the manner how the same is effected I shew onely by some comparisons and those such as the Apostle warranteth the vse of how Christ may being absent bee truely and effectually conueighed and assured vnto vs. But followeth it thence that I hold the thing it selfe for the manner of effecting it to haue no difficulty at all in it Doe not the ancient Fathers hold the Trinitie an vnsearchable mysterie And yet what is more common among them then by Comparisons and similitudes to shew how in one nature there may be a plurality of persons This Disputant himselfe among other wondrous workes reckoneth the resurrection of mens bodies for one will hee say that the Fathers therefore deeme that there is no difficulty in it because by sundry similitudes they endeauour to proue a possibilitie of it notwithstanding the frequent and successiue conuersions of them into other things altered and consumed as hee speaketh 2. Let him shew how it implieth an evident contradiction to say that Christs bodie is truely given with the sacramentall signes though it bee no neerer then heauen-top is to the mouthes of the receivers How this may be without colour of contradiction not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also when as the thing is done spiritually beside the comparisons that I expresse it by his owne Iansenius will shew yea or his owne Albert will enforme him where hee saith that Some eate and yet eate not and some eate not and yet eate The former hee meaneth of those that eate vnprofitably in the Sacrament the latter of those that eate spiritually out of it If out of the Sacrament men may truely receiue Christs body though it be no neerer then heauen top to their mouthes then is it no such strange paradox as should imply contradiction to say that the selfe same is done in the Sacrament also I will tell him of a stranger matter Many thousands thus did eate Christs flesh a thousand yeeres before hee was in the flesh For howsoeuer hee required before to haue it prooued and Bellarmine in diuerse places would faine deny it and in effect sometime doth though directly and absolutely he dare not yet it was shewed before out of Augustine to whom I now adde Gregorie Nyssene who in his tenth Sermon on the Canticles speaking of those wordes Eate and drinke my friends There is no difference saith hee betweene the wordes here vsed and the words vsed in the Institution of the Eucharist For that which hee exhorteth vs to doe in the one was then also done in that divine meate and drinke And very many yea the most of their owne writers vniformly confesse it Thomas Aquinas on 1 Cor. 10. They did eate all the same spirituall meate that is Christs body in a signe spiritually vnderstood and dranke all the same spirituall drinke to wit Christs blood in a signe They did eate Christ spiritually according to that Beleeue and thou hast eaten Anselm or Hervae◅s rather that goeth vnder his name They did eate in the Manna the same food of Christs body that wee eate in Bread and the same drinke of Christs blood that wee drinke out of the Chalice did they drinke from the Rocke Hugh of S. Uictors The same saith hee that is signifying the same and having the same effect And Hugh the Cardinall They did eate signified in the Manna the same spirituall meate that is the body of Christ and dranke the same spirituall drinke the blood of Christ and this did they by faith according to that of Augustine Beleeue and thou hast eaten If Christs flesh then might be spiritually eaten by faith so long before it was and it implyeth no contradiction to say that Christs flesh was so eaten even before his Incarnation much lesse doth it to say that it is now spiritually eaten though locally and corporally it be no neerer then heauen-top is to the mouth or lips of him that so eateth it Faith like an Epistle maketh things and persons absent present Nor doth a spiritual feeding necessarily require a corporall presence of that that is fed on 3. Where say I that Christ is no otherwise conioynrd with the Sacrament then the land with the Indenture and seale of it I say onely that Christs body maybe and is as effectually conveighed vnto vs by the one as land is cōveighed to vs by the other though neither of them be locally or materially present And if no more then so were done in the Sacrament yet were there much more done thereby then by their owne confession is done by their orall and corporall manducation in which manner they grant themselues that many so eate Christ as yet hee is neuer effectually conueighed or assured
vnto to be theirs 4. I say indeed that Christ is as truely present in the Word which he slyly passeth by and maketh not a word of and in Baptisme as in the Eucharist and wee receiue him as really and as effectually in the one as in the other Nor doth hee answer one word to the allegations of the Fathers to that purpose produced To which may be added that of Tertullian which shall hereafter be recited And this of Augustine which he saith of Mary that shee did eate him whom shee heard and prooueth what he saith by that place of Iohn I am the living bread which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer As that also of Ambrose He eateth that bread that observeth Gods word And further also that Bellarmine acknowledgeth that Clemens of Alexandria Basil of Caesarea he might haue added Origen also and Chrysostom and Hierome apply those words of our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. to the word which howsoeuer indeed they bee not directly spoken of there yet certaine it is that both in the iudgement of those Ancients who else would not so haue applied it and in truth it selfe also for neither dare Bellarmine himselfe therein controule them the thing there spoken of is in and by it also effectually performed But to passe by the Word and the vnutterable effects of it together with the vnconceiuable manner whereby it either worketh vpon our soules or conueigheth Christ into our soules for in receiuing of it we receiue Christ in it Doe not the ancient Fathers call the Sacrament of Baptisme an ineffable mysterie as was cited out of Gregorie Nyssene a little before Yea doe they not speake as much of the dignitie and excellency and of the vnconceiuable and vnutterable efficacy of it as either Calvin or Beza doe of the Eucharist And yet this shamelesse and blasphemous beast sticketh not to say if Christ be no otherwise present in the Eucharist then hee is in Baptisme it is but a bare signe or figure hauing no mystery at all worthie of admiration And so by necessary consequence he taxeth those Worthies to speake in his fribald language as meere Iuglers and Impostors that in speaking so honourably of it and ascribing such admirable power and efficacy vnto it seeke to plaister rotten walles and maske with great wordes the naked watrinesse of their Baptisme by them so much admired Let him shew how with any colour at all he can here cleere himselfe of impietie and blasphemy And let him if hee dare deny that Christ is effectually receiued both in the Word and in Baptisme in neither whereof yet there is any such reall transmutation or corporall presence as they necessarily require vnto the receiuing of Christ in the Eucharist Diuision 13. MY Aduersaries next Argument from the qualitie of the Communicants page 18. is this If Christs body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist then all that eate thereof must of necessity eate Christ in it But many eate of the Eucharist that yet eate not Christ in it for none but faithfull and liuely members of Christ eate him in this Sacrament In which Argument hee endeavoureth to prooue one falshood by another equally by vs denyed because the holy Fathers expressely affirme that Iudas and the Corinthians blamed by Saint Paul receiued albeit vnworthily and to damnation the body of Christ as the Apostles words 1 Cor. 11. euidently import and when S. Augustine and others seemed to deny them to receiue Christ in the Sacrament they speake not of bare sacramentall but of profitable and fruitfull receiuing of him MY sixt Reason is taken from the qualitie of the Communicants The Argument is briefly this Many eate of the Eucharist that eate not Christ in it Ergò Christ is not corporally in it The Antecedent is thus prooued None feed on Christ but the faithfull such as be in Christ and liue by Christ But many eate of the Eucharist that are vnfaithfull and are out of Christ Ergò c. The Proposition of this latter Syllogisme he denyeth and saith it is a meere falshood and why so forsooth they deny it themselues And why doe they so because the holy Fathers say that Iudas and the Corinthians blamed by S. Paul did receiue Christs body as the Apostles words evidently import 1. For the Apostle he saith expresly He that eateth this bread as plainely as can bee telling vs more then once or twice that it was bread that they did eat though tearmed also Christs body as hath oft beene said and as Augustine sheweth because a Sacrament of it 2. Is not this shamelesse dealing to say the Fathers affirme that Iudas receiued Christs naturall body for of that is the question yet not alleadging any one tittle out of any of them for the proofe of it and that when the saying of one them is produced directly to the coÌ„trary that Iudas ate Christs bread but not the bread Christ which he answereth not a word to If they say that Iudas ate with the rest Christs body they expound themselues what thereby they meane to wit Christs bread the Sacrament of his body § 2. Yea but the Fathers when they deny wicked men to receâ—â— Christ in the Sacrament they speake not of bare sacramentall but of profitable and fruitfull receiuing of him 1. It is true indeed they speake not of bare sacramentall eating And who saith they do Or what is this tothe purpose what is it but that I say They speake not of bare sacrametall eating when they say wickedmen eat not Christ in the Eucharist but they speake of it when they say they do eat yet of the Eucharist wherein they should eat Christ were Christ corporally in it which they say they doe not 2. They say you haue their owne wordes that it is not possible for any wicked man to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood albeit they doe gnaw or chew the Sacrament with their teeth because our Saviour saith Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in mee and whosoeuer eateth of this bread shall liue for euer 3. This Answer implieth that Christs body it selfe may vnfruitfully and vnprofitably be eaten as if the ancient Fathers had dreamed of a twofold eating of it a worthy and profitable and an vnworthie and vnprofitable eating To which I might answer with his owne Bishop I ansenius his words He that vnworthily eateth the bread of life in the Sacrament doth not truely eate of that bread of which it is said I am the bread of life and My flesh is meate in deed And hee addeth that it were an absurd thing to expound our Sauiour where he saith If a man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer as if he should meane If a man eate worthily of this bread he shall liue for euer as if any man could
that through Iesus Christ by whom he continually createth quickeneth and blesseth all these good things And againe that that which they haue taken may of a temporall gift become an eternall remedie How stand now these speeches and prayers with their Transubstantiation Are Christs body and blood those temporall gifts and good things that God by Christ daily createth and quickeneth Or needeth Christ the Priest to entreate his Father to looke propitiously vpon him Or any Angell to cary him vp and present him before his Father in heauen in whose presence and sight he is continually there Or is it not absurd to place Abels fatlings and Abrahams Ramme in equipage with the body and blood of Christ Iesus But these things it seemeth were in their ancient Liturgies before euer this new monster was hatched and to their owne shame confusion are yet vnwisely still retained And if you will see how handsomely things therein hang together obserue but this one passage The Priest prayeth to God to send an Angell to fetch the holy Housell vp into heauen and yet they tell vs withall the most of them that it neuer came from thence nor neuer returneth againe thither wherein we better beleeue them then we doe some other of their fellowes that say otherwise and within a while after hee swalloweth it downe himselfe and then praieth God as if he repented him of his former prayer that that which hee hath eaten may sticke fast to his guts Let him shew any such absurdities as these if he can in our Seruice If some pieces of Antiquity found in theirs be retained still in ours that is neither derogation to ours nor commendation to theirs Wee embrace true and sound Antiquity wheresoeuer we finde it their corrupt nouelties which it suteth so euillfauouredly withall we deseruedly reiect THey pretend cleare places of Scripture for each point of their doctrines wherein they differ from vs. But when they come to be duly discussed they either make against themselues or prooue nothing at all against vs as I will briefely declare in this very controuersie for a Corollarium of my whole doctrine For whereas S. Cyprian S. Hilarie Saint Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and vniuersally all the ancient Fathers commenting the 6. Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell haue literally vnderstood Christs promise of giuing his flesh to eate and his blood to drinke in the Sacrament these men restraine them to a metaphoricall and spirituall eating by faith onely and for this their interpretation quite contrary to the iudgement of the ancient Church they onely cite those wordes of Christ It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing c. and affirme them to import that Christs wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood and not at all according to the literall signification of them to wit of Christs body and blood receiued in the Sacrament Whereas at most they can import that Christ promised not to giue his flesh and blood cannally as the Capharnaits vnderstood him cut to wit in pieces and by bits eaten as S. Augustine explicateth them but that Christs body and blood were to be after a spirituall manner present and receiued in the Sacrament which we deny not And great Authors as Tolet noteth so expound them as to make this sense It is the deity or diuine spirit which is vnited with my flesh that viuificateth by grace soules worthily receiuing it and not by flesh alone barely of it selfe eaten Neither of which explications prooue a figuratiue vnderstanding of Christs wordes this being a Glosse of their owne besides the text neuer before them taught by any Catholike Doctor and so it can be no solide sufficient ground sor them to rely vpon for their hereticall deniall of Christs true body and blood really present and receiued in the Sacrament For Scripture ill vnderstood is no Scripture but Gods word abused § 7. YEt in concluâ—ion to say somewhat againe of the present point hee telleth vs that S. Cyprian Hilarie Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and all the ancient Fathers vniuersally vnderstood that place of Iohn concerning the eating of Christs flesh not figuratiuely but literally whereas wee contrary to the iudgement of the whole ancient Church vnderstand them of spirituall eating by faith alleadging onely for this our exposition those words of our Sauiour It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing which wordes as Tolet sheweth may beare another sense 1. How prooueth hee that these Fathers so expound that place Forsooth he sendeth vs to seeke the proofe of it in Bellarmine It is enough that he saith it let Bellarmine if he can prooe it But is not this impudent out-facing to say that these Fathers all literally vnderstand it when out of diuerse of them the contrary hath beene euidently shewed Yea when Augustine one of them giuing rules to expound Scripture doth expressely affirme that the place is to be taken figuratiuely and that it were an haynous and flagitious thing otherwise to vnderstand it 2. It is another vntruth as grosse as the former to say we ground our exposition on those wordes onely Wee vrge indeed the wordes following The wordes that I speake are spirit and life And we vrge and expound them no otherwise then diuerse of the Ancients haue done before vs. To omit Athanasius formerly alleadged Augustine besides that that is in the selfe same place cited What meane those wordes saith he They are spirit and life but that they are to be vnderstood spiritually And againe He spake this that hee might not bee vnderstoode carnally as Nicodemus before had done Yea and of those former wordes Thomas Aquinas out of Chrysostom When Christ saith It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing his meaning is that we ought spiritually to vnderstand those things that wee heare of him and that whoso heareth carnally getteth thereby no good Now to vnderstand them carnally is to looke on the outward things onely and to imagine no more then wee see To vnderstand them spiritually is not so to iudge of them but also with the inward eyes to looke on them Which in all mysteries ought alwayes to be done And Tertullian When Christ saith that The flesh profiteth nothing His meaning must be drawne from the matter of his speech For because they thought his speech hard and intollerable as if hee determined to giue them his very flesh to bee eaten or his flesh verely to bee eaten to place the state of saluation in the spirit hee premiseth It is the spirit that quickeneth and then adioyneth the flesh profiteth nothing to wit to quicken And withall he sheweth what he meaneth by the spirit The words that I haue spoken are spirit and life As he said before Hee that heareth my word and beleeueth in him that sent mee hath life eternall So
that he maketh the word the quickner because the word is spirit life and he called it also his flesh because the Word also became flesh and is therefore to be longed aâ—ter for life to be deuoured by the hearing chewed by the vnderstanding and digested by faith Heere is the eating that our Sauiour spake of in that place not carnall but spirituall which our Aduersarie also earstwhiles confessed Neither vrge we this alone as he vntruely here affirmeth But wee vrge diuerse other passages also as before hath beene shewed wherein our Sauiour expoundeth himselfe obserued by Augustine long since and by their Flaunders Bishop Iansenius of late beside diuerse others of their owne And if he had had any thing of moment to say against this our exposition why did hee not then produce it where the place was discussed But he thought it better and safer it seemeth to let all this alone there lest the allegations to the contrary being then in the eie might easily conuince him of grosse and palpable falshood 3. Doe we alone thus expound that place Doe not very many of their owne writers herein agree with vs Or do those of theirs build onely vpon the clause he here mentioneth To which purpose howsoeuer enough hath already beene said yet for his better information concerning both the soundnes of our exposition of that place and the reasons thereof drawne from our Sauiours owne wordes let him heare one though not then Pope yet that afterward came to bee Pope and was as learned a Pope as any of late times Aeneas Syluius writing against the Bohemians It is not saith he any sacramentall drinking but a spirituall that our Sauiour speaketh of in that 6. of Iohn For there is as Albertus Magnus she weth a threefold drinking of Christ a sacramentall that the Priests onely receiue an intellectuall that the people take in the species of bread and a spirituall which all vse that are to be saued by daily deuout meditation ruminating on Christs incarnation and his passion And of this drinking our Sauiour speaketh in Iohn 6. as the very series of the Euangelists wordes clearely sheweth For when some of them that heard it murmured our Sauiour said Doth this scandalize you What if you should see the Sonne of Man ascend where before he was It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing In which wordes he declareth that hee speaketh not there of any carnall eating or drinking But would you plainly see that he speaketh of spirituall eating that is by faith Marke what hee saith He that eateth and drinketh He speaketh in the present tense not in the future There were euen then those that so ate him and dranke him when as the Sacrament was not yet instituted And how did they then eate and drinke Christ but spiritually by faith and loue and doing his wordes For he said also before I am the bread of life hee that commeth vnto mee shall not hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst For Christs speech was figuratiue So also the Glosser vnderstandeth this Gospell and so doth that great Augustine noble both for doctrine and modestie whose glory is so great that no mans commendation can adde to his credit no mans dispraise can disparage him And yet dare this shamelesse out-facer confidently affirme that none of the Fathers euer so expounded the place and that the Heretickes as he esteemeth them as if none but they so expounded it had no other inducement so to expound it but those wordes onely It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing all which you see are nothing but grosse vntruths SEcondly whereas we prooue that Christs wordes This is my body c. as being vttered to the Apostles to whom it was giuen to vnderstand the mysteries of Christs Church plainely and without parable and containing in them the institution of a Sacrament fit in plaine wordes to be deliuered and vnderstood by all Christians bound to receiue it are as we say literally to bee vnderstood and not in tropicall and figuratiue senses as our Aduersaries expound them producing for our opinion all the Fathers successiuely in all ages since Christ so vnderstanding them Protestant Diuines slenderly obiect first that of the sacramentall Chalice Christ affirmed that he would no more drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill after his passion ergò it was wine contained in the Chalice wee answer that S. Luke expressely mentioneth two Chalices one drunke after the Paschall Lambe eaten and the other afterwards blessed by Christ and distributed to his Apostles and that Christ onely called the first the fruit of the vine c. So S. Ierome S. Bede and other great Authors explicate and solue this difficulty with vs. Secondly they obiect those words of Christ Doe this in memory of me ergò the Sacrament is a bare memorie of Christs body and blood c. We answer and make S. Paul to interpret these words of our Sauiour for vs 1 Cor. 11. saying As oft as you shall doe this you shal represent or declare Christs death till hee come Which is best declared and represented by the parts of the Sacrifice and Sacrament as they containe the very body and blood of our Sauiour in them For so himselfe present seemeth to triumph more gloriously and exhibite vnto vs a more liuely memorie of his passion then if the Sacrament were no more then a bare signe thereof § 8. HAuing affirmed that all the holy Fathers in all ages from Christ haue expounded the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body literally and not tropically as they also do The contrary wherevnto hath as clearely been shewed as that the Sunne is vp at noone-day nor had this trifler ought of moment to except thereunto where the same is shewed and yet now craketh as their manner is of all the Fathers when indeed they cannot bring any one vndoubted testimony to confirme what they so confidently affirme Hee will at length forsooth for fashion sake vndertake to answer two slender obiections of ours to the contrary 1. Christ say wee calleth that in the Cup or Chalice the fruit of the vine He answereth that S. Luke mentioneth two Chalices the Paschall and the Euangelicall or Eucharisticall and so S. Ierome and S. Bede solue this difficulty 1. Hee spake of slender obiections And so it seemeth indeed he esteemeth them for he returneth very slender answers to them For who would be so senslesse as to reason on this manner S. Luke mentioneth two Chalices ergò our Sauiour did not speake any such thing of the Eucharisticall Cup as yet both Mathew and Marke say expressely he did 2. Ierome and Bede saith he so solue the difficulty He would make his Reader beleeue that Ierome and Bede had long since propounded this obiection and so assoiled it as he doth Whereas the truth is they take no notice either of them of the two
heare Augustine expounding the words of the Apostle what it is not to discerne the Lords body to wit not to discerne that from other meates by a reuerence singularly due vnto it which is as he speaketh else-where in some sort Christs body because a Signe and a Sacrament of it Yea let him heare himselfe where he saith The sinne of such persons is made this by the Apostle that they distinguish not this bread from other common bread And then see how well they serue to prooue that that here they are alleadged for For the latter Not to demand of them how chance they oft celebrate contrary to both our Sauiours and the Apostles practice without any breaking of bread at all if their paper wafer-cake at least deserue that name Who denied euer a communication of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament But must it needes bee corporall or else it is none at all The tongue tripping now and then telleth truth And the truth start out of his mouth before vnawares where he said that Christ is present there in a spirituall manner And in a spirituall manner as out of Athanasius and Augustine yea and their owne Iansenius I haue shewed doe wee participate of and communicate with the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament sending the hand of our faith as Augustine speaketh vp into heauen yea reaching it as I may well say to Christs Crosse. I will adde to the former onely one obseruation of Bernard who in many places speaketh of this our communication with Christ Alluding to those words of our Sauiour Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Christ saith he both eateth vs and is eaten of vs that wee may the more firmely and strictly be fastened vnto him Otherwise should wee not bee perfectly vnited to him For if I eate and be not eaten he may seeme to be in me but not I yet in him Againe if I be eaten but eate not he may seeme to haue me in him but not to be yet in me For there is no absolute vnition in either of these alone But when both he eateth me that I may be in him and is eaten of me that he may be in me then is there indeed a firm and an entire connexion I being in him and hee in mee But Christs eating of vs is not orall or corporall but mentall and spirituall of the like kinde therefore is our eating of him and our mutuall participation alike in either Which in these wordes also most sweetly doth Iansenius expresse By faith this bread is not simply taken but being chewed as it were with teeth while it is well considered what and what manner of food it is and so broken it is conueighed with a kinde of delight and spirituall taste into the bowels of the soule and is incorporated into vs that so Christ being in an hidden and secret manner by faith vnited vnto vs may dwell as the Apostle speaketh in our hearts by his presence there quickening and nourishing them and so expell all hunger and thirstinesse out of them while he remooueth both the want of things needfull to true life and the desire of other transitorie things And it is the same in effect that Caluine meaneth when he saith To feede on Christ is somewhat more then barely to beleeue in him and that it is not so much beliefe it selfe as an effect and fruite of it That which Bonauenture the Schooleman also not vnfitly thus expresseth Eating saith hee is properly spoken of the body and is by way of similitude applied to the soule That therefore we may know what is meant by spirituall eating wee must haue an eye vnto corporall feeding Now in corporall manducation there are these two things mastication and incorporation or a chewing of the meate in the mouth and an incorporating of it into the body In like manner in spirituall eating there is first a spirituall chewing that is a recogitation or a serious consideration and faithfull meditation of the spirituall meate that is of Christs flesh exposed for vs both as a ransome to redeeme vs and as food also to feed vs and secondly a spirituall incorporation when vpon such recogitation or consideration the soule is by a louing affection vnited and incorporated to the thing considered and is thereby refreshed or nourished and so made in grace more and more like vnto it So that vnto spirituall manducation are two things required a faithfull recogitation and a louing affection Whence it followeth that neither is euery kinde of faith sufficient to effect this spirituall feeding on Christ but such faith onely as worketh by loue nor is euery effect of faith a feeding on Christs flesh but that onely whereby Christs flesh that was boyled as it were to make food for vs on the Crosse is so considered and in a spirituall manner digested and conâ—â—cted as was before said for the feeding and refreshing of our soules So that Caluines doctrine and ours concerning this spirituall feeding on Christ and so communicating with his body and blood is no other then the Ancients long since taught and their owne writers themselues acknowledge Which in one word I shut and seale vp with that short saying of Chrysostome tha tboth in Baptisme and the Eucharist It is faith that doth all Yea but Chrysost. saith that that that is in the Chalice is that which flowed out of Christs side and we are made therof partakers And out of S. Lukes Greeke Text it is plainely gathered What out of S. Luke hee alleadegth wee shall see anone Onely mark how he fleeth from their onely authenticall Latine heere to the Greeke Text which at other times they say is so corrupted that there is little certainety of ought from it further then their Latine and it concurre Chrysostome saith indeede as hee is here cited But it must be remembred what both their Sixtus Senensis and Bellar. also say of him to wit that Chrysostome is wont to speake many things hyperbolically or excessiuely in his sermons especially To passe by other places where hee saith that the Church is that very Chamber where Christ celebrated his last Supper that we touch his side with our lips that we set our teeth in his flesh that we cut his flesh assunder that our tongue is died with blood and our mouth is filled with fire while no man but an Angell with tongs reacheth a coale of fire to vs that Christ doth â—neade as dough and mingleth himselfe together with vs and that we are likewise knod as dough and mixed or tempored together with him into his flesh To let these passe I say in the very Sermon here cited he hath diuerse passages which themselues will not deny must needes be
you are they Signes of Heretike Of the Lords Body and Blood Orthodox Of a body that is truly or of one that is not truly Heretike Of one that is truly Orthodox Very well For of the Image there must needs be some Originall For Painters imitate nature and draw Images of such things as are seene Heret True Orthodox If then the diuine mysteries represent that that is truly a body then the Lords body is a true body still not changed into the Nature of the Deity but filled with Diuine glorie Heret You haue in good time made mention of the diuine Mysterie for euen thereby will I shew you that the Body of our Lord is turned into another Nature Answer you therefore my Question Orthodox I will Heretike What call you the gift that is offred before the Priests Inuocation Orthodox I may not tell openly because it may bee there be some here that are not yet initiated Heretike Answere then aenigmatically Orthodox The foode that is made of certaine graine Heret The other Signe how call you it Orthodox By that common name that signifieth some kinde of drinke Heret But after sanctification how doe you call them Orthodox The body of Christ and the blood of Christ. Heret And doe you beleeue that you are made partaeker of Christs body and blood Orthodox I doe beleeue so Heret As then the Signes of the Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests prayer but after it are changed and become another So the Lords body also after his Assumption is changed into a diuine Substance Orthodox You are taken now in a net of your owne weauing For the Mysticall Signes doe not after Sanctification depart from their owne Nature For they remaine still in their former Substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be that which they are made and they are beleeued and adored or reuerenced as being those things that they are beleeued to be Compare then the Image with the Originall and you shall see the Similitude For it is meete that the Figure bee like to the Truth For that Body hath indeede its former forme and figure and circumscription and to speake in a word bodily Substance But since the Resurrection it is become immortall and such as no corruption or destruction can befall and it is vouchsafed to sit at Gods right-hand and is worshipped of euery creature as being called the Lords naturall Bodie Heretike Yea but the mysticall Signe changeth his former Name For it is not any more called as it was before but it is called a Body In like manner therefore should the Truth be called God and not a Body Orthodox Me thinkes you are very ignorant For it is not onely called a Body but it is called Bread of Life So the Lord himselfe called it And moreouer the Body it selfe we call a diuine Body and a quickning Body and the Lords Body and teach that it is not the common Body of any man but the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ who is God and Man For Iesus Christ is yesterday and to day the same and for euer Will you heare more yet of Theodoret In his first Dialogue out of which I cite also one or two Sentences which this scambling Answerer hath not list it seemeth to take notice of he bringeth in the same Parties thus discoursing together Orthodox Do you not know that the Lord called himselfe a Vine Heretike I know that he said I am the true Vine Orthodox And how call you the juice of the fruite of the Vine Heretike Wine Orthodox When the souldiers opened Christs side with a speare what saith the Euangelist did then issue on t Heretike Water and Blood Orthodox The Patriarch Iacob then calleth Christs blood the blood of the Grape For if Christ be called a Vine and the frnite of the Vine and streames of blood and water issuing out of Christs side trickled downe his whole Body he is fitly said by him to wash his coate in wine and his raiment in the blood of the Grape For as we call the mysticall fruite of the Vine after sanctification the Lords blood so doth he call the blood of the true Vine the blood of the Grape Heretike That which was propounded hath both mystically and cleerely beene shewen Orthodox Though the things said be sufficient yet I will adde another proofe Heretike You shall doe me a pleasure because the more profit in so doing Orthodox Doe you not know that God called his body Bread Heretike I know it Orthodox And else-where againe hee called his Flesh wheate Heretike I know that too For vnlesse the wheate corne saith he fall into the ground c. Orthodox Now in the deliuery of the Sacraments he called Bread his Body and that which is poured into and mixt in the Cup Blood Heretike He did so call them Orthodox Yea but that which by nature is his Body is also iustly tearmed his Body and in like manner his Blood Heretike It is acknowledged Orthodox Our Sauiour indeede hee changed the Names and imposed that Name on his Body that was the Name of the Symbole and Signe of it and on the Symbole or Signe he imposed that Name that is the Name of his Body And so hauing named himselfe a Uine he called that that was a signe Blood Heretike It is true that you say But why did he thus change the Names Orthodox Because his will was that those that are partakers of those diuine Mysteries should not attend the nature of the things that they see but for the change of the Names beleeue the change that by grace is wrought For hee that called that that by Nature is his Body wheate and bread and againe named himselfe a Vine he honoured the Symboles and Signes that we see with the appellation of his Body and Blood not changing Nature but to Nature adding Grace And at length the Orthodoxe Diuine thus concludeth It is cleere that that holy Foode is a Symbole and a Signe of Christs body and blood the name whereof it beareth For our Lord when he had taken the Symbole or Signe said not This is my Deitie But This is my Bodie and againe This is my Blood and else where The bread that I will giue is my Flesh that I will giue for the life of the world You haue heard Theodoret at large It remaineth now to consider how he ouerthroweth that which I produce him for to wit that the bread wine in the Sacrament remaine for substance still the same and that the Bread is called Christs body figuratiuely as his body is else-where called Bread and the wine his blood figuratiuely as himselfe is tearmed a Vine Or to consider rather if you please because that any one at the first sight may see how fitly this mans explication of Theodoret agreeth with
Theodorets owne words By Sacramentall Signes saith he Theodoret meaneth not the Substance of Bread and Wine 1. He vnderstandeth by the mysticall Signes that that is offered to God by Gods Priests And doth the Priest then offer nothing to God but accidents onely Indeed they tell vs that Melchisedech offred bread and wine and that their Priests are Priests after the order of Melchisedech and so offer such offerings as he did And the auncient Fathers alluding to that story by them allegorised say that Bread and Wine are offred to God in the Eucaarist But in the Popish Masse according to their opinion of it no such thing can be offred because no such thing is there present 2. More particularly explaining himselfe he saith that by the one signe he meaneth the food that of certaine graine is made and by the other the fruite of the Vine And is there any such foode or fruit at all that is no physicall substance or that consisteth of meere accidents He deserueth to be fed till he starue with such food that would feede or infect rather mens soules with such draffy stuffe as this is Yea in precise tearmes he saith that Christ called Bread not the accidents of bread his Body as he called his Body else-where bread 3. The very maine drift and scope euidently manifesteth his meaning which is to shew that the Lords Body though it be not a common body but hath glorious endowments yet remaineth a true body still as the Sacramentall bread though it be not common bread yet retaineth still it former nature and substance and is true bread still 4. If wee aske Theodoret himselfe what hee meaneth here by Substance and whether hee take the word in such sense as it is vsually taken hee telleth vs himselfe a little before he entreth into this discourse that by Substance he vnderstandeth a body and by Accidents which hee opposeth to Substance such things as betide bodies and yet may depart from them And they may as well say that by Substance Theodoret meant Accidents when hee saith that Christs body retaineth still the same bodily substance as they may say hee so meaneth when of the bread which hee compareth therewith hee saith the very same But what take I so much paines to set vp a light when the Sun shines the proofe is so plaine and his meaning so perspicuous that it may seem written as Tertullian speaketh with a beame of the Sunne saue to lay open a little this mans shamelesse carriage and senslesse shifts who yet with a confident face telleth his Reader that his Aduersarie both heere and else-where sheweth how learned and iudicious hee is in the choice of his authorities as if this allegation made wholly for them and against vs were it read all out or were nothing pertinent at least to the purpose § 5. In conclusion for Gratians Glosse acknowledging the truth by vs maintained that our Sauiours wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood and Cardinall Caietan confessing that they may well beare that sense hauing nothing and that is maruell for he dare say any thing to except against either hee excuseth himselfe that hee hath not the bookes by him as if they were not commonly in Pauls Church-yard to be had if hee had listed to looke after them A bad excuse as we say is better then none at all with him Onely hee addeth that they are both of small account with them Caietan especially In regard whereof hee wondereth that I should so much magnifie him as if he were the Oracle of their Church c. For the former none can be ignorant what Authority among their Canonists the Glosses haue and in the place cited the rather because hee buildeth vpon Augustines owne wordes For the latter I cite him onely by the name of Cardinall Caietan nor had they many Cardinals in his time for learning his equals one of our Aduersaries that is all my magnifying of him But mine Adversaries lips must need ouer-runne Yet of what repute and esteeme Caietan was for both kinds of learning as well Philosophy as Diuinity to omit the titles commonly giuen him in the Inscriptions of his workes by those that set out some of them stiling him the most eminent Doctour and professor of diuinity his Commentaries on Thomas whence this testimony is taken most luculent and euen diuine Commentaries his smaller Treatises golden workes I may referre you to the workes themselues so many so learned so elaborate and to the storie of his life written by Antonius Fonseca and set out with some of them It is apparent and it is enough that a prime Cardinall of the Sea of Rome confesseth ingenuously that the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body may be siguratiuely taken for ought in the text were it not that their Church that is the Pope will haue them otherwise expounded Diuision 5. HE concludeth his first Discourse thus page 5. Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacrament of Christs body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine Which Corollarium of his plainely so delivered may make any man see the Protestanticall Communion truely anathomized and plainely shewed to haue nothing holy heauenly and diuinely as the Fathers speake therein contained but bare bread and wine which any man may eate when and where hee pleaseth remembring withall our Sauiours passion Neuer Caietan neuer Bellarmine neuer Gratian neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine of our Church beleeued or taught this grosse and sacrilegious doctrine as my Aduersarie in his wordes They and Wee falsely pretendeth Neither doth Caluine or any other noted Diuine of their Church speake at least whatsoeuer they thinke so poorely and grossely of this Sacrament but they endeauour with Epithets and wordes to couer the bready nakednesse thereof making it seeme mysterious at least if not miraculous Blessed Saint Dennis great Scholler of Saint Paul himselfe I will heere presume to aske thee If the Sacrament of the Altar bee but bare bread and wine why doest thou so absurdly speake and blasphemously praey vnto it in this manner O most diuine and holy Sacrament vouchsafe to open those signifying signes and appeare perspicuously vnto vs and replenish the spirituall eyes of our soule with the singular and cleere splendor of thy light c. Why likewise thou holy Martyr and great Doctor of Christs Church Saint Itaeneus liuing so neere the Apostles times as to know great Polycarpus S. Iohns disciple and deeply seene in the knowledge of heauenly verities doest thou deny this bread after consecration to bee any more accounted common bread but the Eucharist cōsisting of two things heauenly and earthly that being receiued into our bodies they may bee no more corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection If no more then bare bread and wine be in this Communion as my Aduersarie affirmeth why did yee noble Confessors of