is fiâlie prepared with faith and repentance to receiue and lodge so worthie a ghost Phil. The Sacrament is turned into the reall and naturall flesh of Christ and so are not we Theoph. If that were true when the Sacrament is turned by naturall digestion into the nourishment of our bodies the flesh and blood of Christ must likewise be conuerted into the substance of our bodies but that is so blasphemous and impious that you dare not abide it and therefore Christ entereth not our mouthes when he commeth vnder our roofe but possesseth our soules replenisheth them with his heauenlie presence power of grace and life neither must we saie to the Sacrament Lord I am not worthie since that is an earthlie and corruptible creature but to Christ himselfe who hath promised in his Gospell that he and his father wil come and dwel with vs and perfourmeth the same by the hearing of his worde and receiuing of his Sacraments by which meanes he commeth and dwelleth in our harts by faith as S. Paul affirmeth and not in our mouthes or bellies by anie local and reall comprehension as you imagine Phi. Wee doe not deny that Christ commeth by his worde vnto vs but the Sacraments haue a speciall presence of his which the worde hath not Theo. The sacraments take their force onely and wholy from the worde neither is the worde anie whit the stronger or better for the visible signes but our weaknes is staied and supported by them and they endued with power and vertue by the worde to sanctifie the receiuer where it is beleeued And therefore Christ commeth and dwelleth in vs as truely by his worde as by his sacraments and if you compare them more truely by his worde than by the signes and seales of his worde Phi. We eate his flesh and drink his blood in the sacrament in the word we do not Theo. We eate his flesh drinke his blood more truely in the word than in the Sacramental and mystical signes S. Hierom saith Ego corpus Iesu Euangelium puto quando dicit qui non commederit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum licet in mysterio possit intelligi tamen verius corpus Christi sanguis eius sermo Scripturarum est The body of Iesus I think to be the Gospel when he saith he that doth not eate my flesh and drinke my blood though this maie be vnderstood of the Sacrament yet the worde of the Scriptures is more truely the bodie and blood of Christ. S. Austen saith Beleeue and thou hast eaten to beleeue in him is to eate the liuelie bread and that he calleth of the twaine the truer kinde of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. For repeating these woordes of our sauiour he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him he saith Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera coâpus Christi manducare Christ sheweth what it is to eate his flesh not by way of a Sacrament but in deede or truely So that the flesh and blood of Christ are MORE TRVELY in the members and words of Christ than in the Sacraments and yet your selues teache no man to say to the Preacher or the Scriptures Lorde I am not woorthie Phi. Chrysostome in his Masse sayde the very same woordes to the Sacrament Theo. Howe knowe you what hee sayde that died so long before you Phi. You shall find them in his Liturgie Theo. Well we may hereafter when you haue put them in but as yet we find no such wordes at all in his Liturgie Phi. The Greeke exemplar hath them Theo. Not those which either Erasmus or Leo Thuscus had when they translated it into Latin if you haue gotten new copies contrarie to the olde reason is you publish them and prooue the credits of them before we regard them Phi. So we will Theo. And with all you must shew that hee speaketh these wordes to the Sacrament otherwise they conclude nothing for you no more than Origens words did in the like case when he taught men to say them to Christ at the sacred communion Phi. That is your euasion for both Origen and S. Chrysostome sayde it to the Sacrament Theo. That is your intrusion for neither Origen nor Chrysostom hath any such reference Phi. See the bookes Theo. Neuer appeale to the sight of the bookes but produce the wordes This is your cunning in your Rhemish Testament to bid vs often See the fathers and so the rest but wee haue seene them where you come in thickest with them and there finde nothing for your false and erroneous fansies And therefore either alleage their woordes when you vse their names or say you sawe them not wee lyst not at your bidding to goe seeke for oysters in the Ocean Philand You feare to bee confounded by them and that is the cause you will not See them Theoph. They bee not our but your allegations and did they make for you wee should soone haue tidings of you mary nowe their woordes comming short of your assertions to beare out the matter you send the reader to the names and workes of many Fathers where hee must picke out what hee can at his fingers endes and in the meane time not bee able to charge you with corrupting them since you bid him See them but tolde him not what hee shoulde finde in them This is a way to quote what authorities you list bee they neuer so impertinent and yet to amaze the simple with the number and wearie the learned with not expressing what wordes you take hold of and what they seeke for which in questions of fayth were very needefull Phi. They say wee tell you auoyde it how you can Theo. They say no such thing and though Origen as you haue hearde bee farre enough from it yet Chrysostom in the place which you cite is farther off I meane from directing his prayers to the sacrament Making his supplications to God after consecration hee sayth Ipse Domine caelitus respice ad seruos tuos inclinantes tibi capita sua Thou Lorde looke from heauen on thy seruants that bowe their neckes vnto thee And againe Attende Domine Iesu Christe Deus noster de sancto habitaculo tuo de throno gloriae regni tui veni ad sanctificandum nos qui in excelsis vna cum patre sedes hic nobiscum inuisibiliter ades Behold Lorde Iesu Christ our God FROM thy holy habitation and FROM the throne of the glory of thy kingdome and come to sanctifie vs who sittest in the heauens with thy father and art here with vs inuisibly Hee desireth the sonne of God to beholde his seruantes from heauen not from the sacrament and from thence hee looketh for sanctification not from the patent or Chalice Phi. Hee sayth that Christ is also present with vs
hoc It is a common question what is ment by the pronoune THIS whether bread or the body of Christ Not bread for that is not the body of Christ nor yet the body of Christ for it appeareth not that there is any transubstantiation till the wordes be all pronounced To this demaund I say that by the word THIS nothing is ment but it is there put materially without anie signification at all Thus you turned and tossed the wordes of Christ so long till you brought all that the Lord did and saide at his last supper to plaine NOTHING With such vnchristian toyes were your scholes fraughted and the worlde deceiued such monsters you hatched when once you left the direction of the Scriptures and Fathers and fell to broaching your owne gesses But you must either admit our explication this breade is my body for the right ordering and perfitting of Christes wordes or else dissent from the manifest Scriptures from al the catholike Fathers and with shame enough from your owne fellowes and fansies Phi. Wee sticke not so much at the filling vp of the wordes which Christ spake as at the constering and expounding of them You delude them with tropes and significations as if Christ had beene speaking parables and not ordaining sacramentes Wee say there must be a reall truth and actiue force in them to perfourme the letter as it lieth For in Scripture so long as the letter may possibly be true we may not fly to figures Theo. In that you say right We must imbrace the sense which is occurant in the letter before all others if it agree with faith and good maners but if it crosse either of them we must beware the letter lest it kill and seeke for an other and deeper sense which must needes be figuratiue That direction S. Augustine giueth to al men when they read the Scriptures Iste omnino modus est locutionis inueniendae propriáne an figurata sit vt quicquid in sermone diuino neque ad morum honestatem nec ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest figuratum esse cognoscas This is the perfect way to discerne whether a speech be proper or figuratiue that whatsoeuer in the word of God can not be properly referred either to integritie of maners or verity of faith thou resolue thy selfe it is figuratiue Phi. That prescription is very sound but it furthereth not your figuratiue sense For the letter of these wordes which we stand for is neither against faith nor good manners Theo. The literall acception of these words as they lie this bread is my body is first impossible by your owne confession next blasphemous by the plaine leuell of our Creede and lastly barbarous by the verie touch and instinct of mans nature Phi. Charge you Christ with so manie foule ouersightes in speaking the wordes Theo. The wordes which Christ spake be gratious and religious we know but where there may be brought a double construction of them a carnall or a spirituall a literall or a SacrameÌtall the literall construction which you will needes defend to deface the other is we say reproued as no part of our Sauiours meaning by those three barres which we proposed Phi. You propose much but you proue litle Theo. I should proue euen as much as you do if I should proue nothing but that which I proposed shall not want proofe The first your owne friendes will helpe me to proue Your Lawe saieth Hoc tamen est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi Yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Why striue you then for that which your selues grant is not possible to be true Why forsake you the mysticall interpretation which is possible what greater vanitie can you shewe than to cleaue to that sense which you see can not stande If it be bread how can it be Christ If it be Christ how can it be bread The second is as cleare For if breade in proper and precise speech bee the flesh of Christ ergo bread is also the feede of Dauid ergo breade was fastned to the crosse for our sinnes ergo bread was buried rose the third day from death and now sitteth in heauen at the right hand of God the Father nay no questioÌ if bread be Christ then is bread the Sonne of God and second person in the sacred Trinitie which how wel your stomaks can digest we know not in truth our harts tremble to heare an earthly dead and corruptible creature by your literall carnall deuotion aduaunced to the Lord of life grace the maker of heauen and earth yea the liuing and euerlasting God and yet if bread be truely and properly Christ these monsterous impieties you can not auoide Thirdly what could you deuise more iniurious and odious to christian mildnesse maners than the letter of these words eate you this is my flesh drinke you this is my blood Had you bin willed in as plain termes to cruciâie Christ as you bee willed to eate his fleshe you woulde not I trust haue presently banded your selues with the Iewes to put him to death but rather haue staggered at the letter and sought for some farther and other meaning Yee be now willed to eate his flesh drinke his blood which is a precept far more hainous horrible in christian behauiour and religion if you follow the letter as AusteÌ affirmeth It appeareth more horrible to eate mans flesh than to kill it to drinke mans blood than to shed it And againe The Capernites were more excusable that coulde not abide the wordes of Christ which they vnderstood not being in deede horrible in that they were spoken as a blessing not as a cursing They thought saith Cyrill Christ had inuited them to eate the raw flesh of a man and drinke blood which thinges be horrible to the verie eares Why then presse you the letter which is hainous forget that the speech can not be religious except it be figuratiue Uerily S. Austen concludeth the speech to be figuratiue for this only reason If the scripture seeme to coÌmand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue Except ye eate the fleshe of the son of man and drinke his blood you shall haue no life in you facinus velflagitium videtur iubere Christ seemeth to command a wicked sinfull act figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion sweetly profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified wouÌded for vs. If then the real eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes and actuall drinking of his blood with our lips be wicked and hainous why presse you the letter of these wordes eate you this is my body drinke you this is my blood against truth against faith against nature neither possibility nor christianity nor coÌmon honestie suffering your exposition to be good S.
on his flesh and that they might thenceforth learne that the flesh of which he spake was celestiall foode from heauen and spirituall nourishment which hee giueth Augustine Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy bellie BELEEVE AND THOV HAST EATEN To beleeue in him this is to eat the liuing bread HE THAT BELEEVETH EATETH He is inuisibly fedde because hee is inuisibly regenerated He is inwardly a babe inwardly new In what part he is renewed in that part is he nourished Bernard that in respect of antiquitie liued but yesterday can teach you the meaning of this place When they heard him say except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud they saide this is an hard speach and departed from him And what is to eate his flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and imitate that conuersation which he ledde here in flesh The text it selfe doth in sight conuince so much The Lord often times expoundeth his owne wordes purposly to this effect Worke not for the meate which perisheth but for the meate which dureth to eternall life and this is the worke of God that you beleeue in him whom he hath sent I am that bread of life he that commeth to me not by walking but by beleeuing shal not hunger he that beleeueth in me shal neuer thirst Hunger and thirst are no way quenched but with eating and drinking Then how can the beleeuer but still hunger and still thirst except we graunt that he which beleeueth both eateth and drinketh Verily verily I say vnto you except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you He then which hath life per consequence eateth the flesh of christ and drinketh his bloud but he that beleeueth hath eternall life as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place with no lesse vehemencie Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life ergo he that beleeueth eateth the flesh and drinketh the bloud of Christ. For if eating and drinking in this place were referred to the mouth and teeth how could Iudas or any other of the wicked that is once partaker of the Lordes table perish The wordes of Christ be plaine Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and are dead If any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life But the wicked notwithstanding the corporal chamming of this Sacrament die the death of sinners ergo they neither eat the âlesh of Christ nor drink his bloud not because their teeth or iawes faile them but by reason they want faith which is the right and proper instrument of spiritual eating Since then man beleeueth with his heart vnto righteousnes as Paul teacheth not with his iawes nor lippes ergo the soul of man which only beleeueth only doth eate the flesh of Christ and our bodies which haue no meanes to beleeue can neither eate nor drinke in that sort and sense that our Sauiour there speaketh of You cannot with honestie steppe from so manifest both Scriptures and Fathers as these bee that I haue brought or if you can dally with so good and graue witnesses in so weightie matters I trust the Godly will bee fully resolued that the manner of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloud which the Lord himselfe first proposed in the sixt of Iohn was not LITERALL NOR CORPORALL as the Capernites vnderstand him and were deceiued but ALLEGORICALL AND SPIRITVALL ALLEGORICALL in respect of the words which be not there precisely taken in their vsuall signification for grinding with the teeth and straining downe the throate but figuratiuely spoken and import as much as confessing imbracing with hart and inward affectioÌ SPIRITVAL because not our mouths but our minds not our bellies but our spirites are nourished with the flesh and bloud of Christ and that not by chewing or swallowing but by remembring and beleeuing that his bodie was wounded and his bloud shedde for our perfect and eternall redemption Now the Lords Supper is correspondent not contrarie to the first of Iohn as we saw before by the verdit of the fathers confession of your selues therefore the Lords table teacheth no literall nor carnal but a spirituall mysticall eating of the âlesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud which you cannot obserue so long as you presse the letter of these wordes Take eat this is my body For taking and eating in the Supper bee corporall actions euen as breaking the bread and deliuering the cup are Then if the wordes this is my bodie bee literall the consequent is ineuitable that the flesh of Christ is really taken with hands actually brused with teeth corporally lodged in the belly But this error the Lorde in his own person confuted and the Catholike fathers refell as impious irreligious and haynous ergo the wordes of the Supper this is my body bee not literall but rather aunswerable to the doctrine proposed in the sixt of Iohn which is nothing lesse than literal Phi. You make but a double manner of eating Christes flesh where you should make a triple A carnal spirituall and Sacramentall A carnal which the capernites dreampt of when they supposed they should haue eaten raw flesh to sight and tast as they did other meates A spirituall by faith and vnderstanding in which sort euery good man may eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud at any time without the mysteries A Sacramentall as when wee eate the flesh of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine though we neither see nor âast flesh or blood Of these three sortes the sixt of S. Iohns Gospell refelleth onely the carnall which the Capernites grossely fell to when they heard our Sauiour speake of the Sacrament Theo. I blame you not if you bee loath to be counted Capernites They were reproued by our Sauiour as grosse mistakers of his speach and lewde forsakers of his fellowship but would God you were as willing to leaue their error as you be to refuse their name Phi. Wee be farder than you from their opinion And you be rather Capernites that aske how can he giue vs his flesh to eate and will not beleeue any eating of Christes bodie with the mouth except your eyes and tongues maie first discerne and tast the same Theo. We aske not him how he can doe anie thing that he will but wee aske you how you know that both his will and his worde are changed since he rebuked the Capernites for their grossenes Phi. We doe not say that either his will or his word are chaunged Theo. Then the doctrine of eating his flesh and drinking his blood which he delâuered in the sixt of Iohn remaineth in the same force and strength that it did at first when he reuealed it to his disciples Philand It doth
mentio habetur In the said declaration of Pope Nicolas there is mention made of renouncing the proprietie only but none other right And so Ius aliud a proprietate habuisse potuerunt they might haue some other right besides the proprietie Phi. So they might Theo. As if Christ and his Apostles had been cunning in the ciuill Lawes to renounce the proprietie for a fashion and yet to reserue an interest in those thinges which they seemed to renounce so that they might both keepe and vse them at their willes This exposition that Christ taught men to renounce the proprietie of their goods and reserue the vse is as false and hereticall as the former assertion of Pope Nicolas that Christ and his Apostles renounced their right in al earthly things both in special and common and taught others to do the like Your gloze tumbleth a long while in the myre after he hath confessed the one to be expresly contrarie to the other at length submitteth himselfe to the Church of Rome though hee see not howe to loose the knot Nicolaus the second in a Councel of 114. Bishoppes appointed Berengarius to confesse that The very body of Christ is in trueth and sensually broken and brused in pieces with the teeth of the faithful this confession the Pope receiued allowed and sent to the Bishoppes of Italie Germanie and Fraunce as catholike which your owne gloze saith is a greater heresie than euer Berengarius held Phi. Hee saith it is vnlesse you vnderstand it soberly Lheo And that sober vnderstanding hee graunteth must bee cleane against the text For where the text affirmeth this of yâ very body of Christ excludeth the outward sacrament as the words declare your gloze sayth that vnlesse you vnderstand this of the outward formes of bread and wine and not of the bodie of Christ it is a greater heresie than that of Berengarius and so is it in deede a very palpable a brutish error and can no way bee salued except you take the woords cleane contrarie to themselues which conuinceth the Pope and his whole Councell of a monsterous error Phi. This was Berengarius fault in his confession but not the Popes iudgement or resolution Theo. You would faine wind out if the text it selfe did not hold you fast but there it is sayde that Pope Nicolas and the Synode deliuered this faith and assured it to be Apostolike and Euangelike And therefore if Berengarius erred in subscribing this fourme of confession the Pope his Councell erred in prescribing the same Phi. You take nice aduantages of words which men may soone misse Theo. The heresie of Arius differed but one letter from the truth and yet his doctrine waâ very blasphemous One word may containe a whole kingdome of impietie Phi. The best is you find not many such ouersightes in the Popes decrees Theo. You print and publish none but such as you thinke your selues able to defend suppressing the rest that might bee chalenged and then you aske vs howe wee prooue that euer the Bishoppe of Rome gaue definitiue sentence against the fayth in open Court or Councel which refuge of yours is very ridiculous For what hath Christes prayer for Peter to doe with definitiue sentences and open Consistories If the Pope may beleeue defende and preach an error what neede wee care whether his sentence bee conclusiue or perswasiue definitiue or interlocutorie And so for the place what skilleth it where and in whose presence the words be written or spoken if they be certainely his And where you thinke it maketh much for the Bishoppe of Rome that wee can not proue these errors of Popes to haue beene definitiuely pronounced in their publike Consistories if that were true as it is not you shew your selues to be but wranglers For wee can name an infinite number of Bishoppes and Churches that neuer erred in this speciall precise maner which you propose Howe prooue you that euer the Bishops of Yorke or Durham in England of Poycters or Lions in Fraunce of Valeria or Carduba in Spaine of Rauennas or Rhegium in Italie of Corinth or Athens in Greece of Miletus or Sardis in Asia gaue definitiue sentence against the faith in their publike consistories A thousande others I coulde obiect on whom that thing shall neuer bee fastened which you crake can not be proued by the Bishop of Rome Heretikes haue been euer conuinced by their confessions writings not by their definitiue sentences or iudiciall proceedings And therefore if Popes haue erred in writing and teaching they were as right heretikes as euer were Arius Sabellius Nestorius Eutiches and such like which neuer gaue definitiue senteÌce against the faith in Courts and Consistories but onely taught or wrate against the truth Phi. Though one or two Bishops of Rome were deceiued they erred not so often there as in other places Theo. Set Constantinople aside and in no one See did the bishops erre oftener than in Rome but this is not our marke If one or two haue erred why may not others Yea though none of them had erred heretofore yet that which is possible may happen hereafter and so long they can be no absolute iudges of trueth Phi. If they might erre they were no fit iudges of faith but because their Tribunall is the highest that is in the Church they must therfore be free from error Theo. You euer proue that which we doubt of by yâ which is more doubtful We denie the Popes Tribunal to bee the highest that is in the church Prouinciall and generall Councels by the Canons are aboue him And in matters of faith the highest Court that is in earth may misse therfore no man is bound to Pastor Prelate or councel farther than their decrees be cohereÌt agreeable with the faith For against God we owe neither audience nor obedience vnto the perswasions or precepts of any men Phi. No question we must as well in faith as in manners obey rather God than man and therefore if the iudgements of bishops and conclusions of Councels might be repugnant to the word of God duetie bindeth vs to preferre the preceptes of God before the pleasures of men but it is not possible that God should leaue his Church without direction and directed shee can not bee but by iudgement and in giuing iudgement the head must be highest and so the soundest left that peruert the rest and endanger the whole bodie Theo. The church of Christ neuer was nor euer shall bee without direction but that direction proceedeth from the word and spirit of Christ not from the courts and Consistories of Popes Assemblees of learned Bishoppes voyd of pride and strife are good helpes to trie the faith and moderate the discipline of the Church and the greater the better yet the direction of Gods holy Spirite and infallible determination of trueth is not annexed to any certaine places Persons or numbers
forefinger with twenty such nicefinities curiosities haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs action nor institution nor to his Apostles doctrine nor doings who knew their masters meaning and continued their masters example with words gestures reuerent sufficient to satisfie his heauenly will and precept for this matter Phi. You doe not so much as vse any words vpon the elements but let the bread and the wine stand aloofe as if you were afraid to touch them Theo. In déede we blesse with our hearts and voices not with our fingers and therefore we make our account that our praiers are as forceable and as effectuall at sixe féete length as at six haires bredth And to deal friendly with you that blessing with mouth taketh no place except the hand be also winding turning the patene and chalice after your maner we can not beléeue it afore we sée some reason for it sorcerers and coniurers haue such circumstances but we hope you be not of their Seminaries Phi. Did not Christ take the bread likewise the cup into his hands Theo. Yes verily He could not BREAK it with his hand vnles it were in his hand neither could he GIVE it out of his hand afore he TOOKE it into his hand Phil. Then Christ TOOKE the bread so the cup into his hands before he did consecrate so you do not Theo. You would say before he did distribute For breking giuing which wer the ends of his taking are parts of distributioÌ not of coÌsecration Phi. What blasphemy haue we heer did Christ distribute before he did coÌsecrate the bread Theo. You be so busie about blessing the host and the chalice that you charge the sonne of God in his doings and the euangelists in their writings with blasphemy Phi. Nay we charge you with blasphemie for saying that Christ gaue vnconsecrated bread and wine to his disciples Theoph. Doth not the Scripture say the same Iesus taking bread and giuing thanks brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and saide take ye eate ye this is my bodie And taking the cup and giuing thanks he gaue it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament c. He tooke bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples bidding them take it and eate it before he said this is my body Now if these words this is my bodie be the words of Consecration ergo distribution went before Consecration and when Christ did consecrate the bread was in his disciples and not in his owne hands Phil. But he blessed as we call it or as you terme it he gaue thanks before he brake it Theop. That thanksgiuing or benediction was not consecration as your selues confesse and would séem to prooue by an whole heape of fathers and therfore in spite of all that you do or can say Christ did consecrate by word of mouth wheÌ the disciples had the bread cup in their hands Phi. Would you haue the priest then not at al to touch the elements Theo. When we diuide them we cannot choose but touch them as Christ did Mary they may be sanctified by prayer and made Sacraments by repeating the words of Christ though at that instant we touch them not And therfore your vnsound quidities that Christ blessed the very element and vsed power actiue words vpon the bread and ouer the bread which we doe not but let the bread and wine stand a loofe and occupie the words of Christ by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed these nice and new found quddities I say be méere fooleries since the words of Consecration take their effect not from our fingers or gestures but from Christs mouth and commandement that we should do the like Phil. You neuer apply these words this is my body more than the whole narration of the institution nor recite the whole otherwise than in historical maner and for that cause you make it no Sacrament at al. Theo. Can you tell what you say Phil. Why doubt you that Theo. Because it is a wicked and blasphemous lie for the priest to say this is my bodie otherwise than by way of rehearsall what Christ said And therefore your braines be more than distempered if you would haue vs or any other Christian ministers to say it otherwise than by report what Christ saide and commanded vs to do in remembrance of him Phil. Doe you thinke we meane the priest should say of his owne person this is my bodie Theo. If you do meane it Bedlem is a fitter place for you than either Rhemes or Rome Phil. You may be sure we do not Theo. Why then reprooue you vs for repeating the words of Christ by way of rehearsall what he did and saide Phil. You should apply them to the matter proposed Theo. How By praier precedent and consequent or by glozing and interlacing Christs wordes with ours Phil. You should actiuely and presently apply them to the elements of bread and wine Theo. I must aske you the same question that I did before The wordes were spoken by Christ in his own person and cannot actiuely and presently be pronounced by any priest but by way of report what Christ saide without apparent and horrible blasphemie And therefore the application of them in our words must either go before them or after them and not exactly with them much lesse to be comprised in them Phil. We tell you you doe not apply them actiuely and presently Theo. We tell you you knowe not what you say The words of Christ this is my body this is my blood mauger all the diuels in hell must be pronounced in no mans person but only by way of repetition what Christ at his last supper said in his owne person and your Iesuitical nouelties of actiuely and presently be so far from the soundnes of faith and substance of truth that your selues are not able to expound what you speake Phil. Yes that we are Theo. So it should séeme by the readinesse of your answere What then is the present and actiue application which you striue for or which way is it made By word of mouth or intention of hart The Priest when he saith this is my body cannot iointly with those words vtter any other words of his owne to apply them Intention of heart cannot alter the sense of the spéech but only direct before God the purpose of the speaker And vnlesse the meaning of the Priest be to recite the words of Christ by way of repetition I sée not how you can excuse either the Priests hart or mouth from outragious and monstrous impietie Phil. We haue a present and actiue application of the words which you haue not Theo. What is it Phil. The Priest intendeth to doe as Christ did and therefore vttereth the words distinctly and aduisedly ouer the elements that are in his hands and vnder his eies
which you doe not Theo. What you list to do is no care of ours if you can shew vs any thing in Christs institution which we haue not we wil giue you the hearing otherwise to ad your ceremonies to his commandements we mind it not We knowe you crosse the creatures at benedixit and hold your noses âo néere the bread when you say hoc est corpus meum that the breath of your mouthes euen warmeth the host but our beliefe is that his mightie word not your vnpausing spéech or intentiue lookes performeth the Sacrament And therfore your blowing Christs words vpon the bread is rather a magicall incantation than any effectuall application of them to the elements and if you hold that his word is too weake to endue the visible signe with inuisible grace except it be backed by your blowing and crossing we say you be proud disciples no right appliers of his heauenly word and power Phil. We do not help his words as if they were of themselues weake but we apply them to the elements in this present and actiue maner which you do not for when you recite the words a man cannot tell whether you speake them to trie your memories or to coÌsecrate the mysteries you be so far from vsing any gestures or action that should import application Theop. The purpose of our hearts wel knowen vnto God and made open vnto men wheÌ we call them to the Lords table the praiers which we make before we come to the words of Christ directly and plainely tending to that end the placing of the bread and the cup in our and their sight the mentioning of Christes institution and commandement that we should follow his example and continue that remembrance of him the duetifull and reuerent rehearsing the words which he spake as the holy Ghost did penne them this demonstration and supplication that we receiuing THESE THY creatures of bread and wine according to thy Sonne our Sauiour Iesus Christes institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed bodie and blood vsed immediatly before we repeate the words of Christ the breaking and giuing of the bread and so likewise the cup immediatly after they be sanctified and offering them to each communicant in remembrance of Christes bodie that was broken and blood that was shed to purchase the remission of their sinnes thereby to preserue them body and soule to euerlasting life the praiers I say precedent the preparation euident the direction adherent the distribution consequent are signes enough to hym that hath but eares or eyes that we presently purposely publikely execute Christes institution and other hooking and haling of Christes words to the elements by crossing crouching gaping and blowing on them as your manner is we acknowledge none to be required or expressed in the Lords Supper Philand It is no Sacrament but as Saint Augustine saith when the words come that is to say actiuely and presently be applied to the elements Theoph. We know that to be most true which S. Augustine saith Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum when the word commeth to the element the Sacrament is perfite but what haue your termes actiuely and presently to do with Saint Austens speach yea what place could you choose more repugnant to your fansies than this which you bring The element without the word is a weake and corruptible creature put the word to it and then it becommeth a Sacrament Philand You marke not the force of the verbe Accedit which signifieth the word must come so néere that it must euen touch the element Theoph. Can you tell vs how words may touch elements Philand What else By actiue and present application Theoph. This is your old song which we would haue you turne to some plainer note What kind of application meane you with the breath of your mouths motion of your hands or cogitation of your hearts You may blowe vppon the bread and wyne but there is some difference betwéene the sounde of your voyce and the breath of your loongs if you looke a little but to Aristotles Predicamentes and therefore your breath may touche the elements your woords can not Much lesse can your fingers apply your speach either actiuely or presently to the elements you must runne to the inward intention of the mynd and that may direct your purpose in speaking as it dooth ours but not actiuely apply your spéech to come néerer the elements in your masse than in our communion And so the comming of the word to the element in Saint Austen to perfite a Sacrament helpeth you to prooue your reall and manuall application of Christs words in your Masse as much as chaulke doth to make chéese when curds are wanting Yea rather if you reade on but foure lines you shall find your follies flatly refuted by Saint Augustine and a cleare resolution for vs that not vttering but beleeuing the words of Christ giueth force to the Sacraments In the water of Baptisme saith he it is the word that clenseth Take away the word and what is water but water Then commeth that which you cite Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Put the word to the element and then is it a Sacrament Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat nisi faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Nam in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manens Whence hath the water this vertue to touch the body and wash the soule but by the power of the word not in that it is spoken but in that it is beleeued for in the word it selfe the sound passing is one thing and that little woorth the vertue remaining is another thing If the word of Christ do not worke in that it is spoken much lesse in that it is actiuely or exquisitely spoken with square conueiance and nimble gestures the lacke of which is the greatest fault you can find with our Sacraments Philand This is no small fault but yet not the greatest Theoph. You should haue laid foorth in writing what circumstances are required to your actiue application of Christes words and then you might haue béene answered with more perspicuitie Wheras now your obiecting vnto vs the breach of Christes institution in certaine metaphysicall and supermysticall termes neither opened by your selues nor vnderstood of others is but a Iesuiticall deuise to make a brable about words and to get the simple in the meane time to mistrust some-what in our doctrine and doings though they nor you sée no iust cause to mislike But to be short with you if the repelling of your actiue and slipper gestures and hauiours that we might embrace the will and commandement of the high and mightie God be a fault we haue committed many foule faults in this and all other parts of our profession otherwise in pride and presumption you
mingle your fansies with the precepts of Christ and when we reiect the one as we lawfully may you charge vs with contempt of the other which we exactly follow and this you vtter in such darke and doubtfull speach that it is harder for vs to vnderstand you than refute you Philand Do we not speake plaine enough when we say you imitate not Christ neither in vnleauened bread nor in mingling water with wine as he did Theoph. You deale now plainely if you dealt also truly but that you do not In what bread Christ ministred the Sacrament may perchance be coniectured but no such thing is expressed in the Gospell much lesse prescribed for vs to follow Since the Scripture saith he tooke bread and maketh no distinction what bread he tooke nor limiteth what bread we should take we be left at libertie so we take bread to take either leauened or vnleauened as occasion serueth vs. This conclusion Gregorie the first confesseth to be most true Tam azimum quà m fermentatum dum sumimus vnum corpus Domini saluatoris efficimur Whether it be leauened or vnleauened bread that we take we are made one body of our Lord and Sauiour The whole Church of Rome not yet an 150. yéeres ago coÌfessed as much in the councell of Florence Their words are Item in azimo siue fermeÌtato pane triticeo corpus Christi veraciter confici Sacerdotésque in altero ipsum Domini corpus conficere debere vnumquemque scilicet iuxta suae ecclesiae siue Occidentalis siue Orientalis consuetudinem We define the body of Christ to be truly consecrated in wheaten bread whether it be vnleauened or leauened and that the Priests are bound to consecrate the Lords bodie in either of the twaine euery man according to the custome of his Church be it West or East Phil. That custome you breake For where the west Church did alwaies consecrate in vnleauened bread and the East Church in leauened you renounce the order of the west Church in which you liue and to spite the supreme Pastor of the west parts yea rather of the whole world you follow the manner of that Church which is many thousand miles distant from you Theoph. We are reasoning of Christs institution not of customes or Churches and your holy Father himselfe affirmeth that to be no breach of Christs ordinance which you haue noted against vs in your Rhemish obseruations as a transgression of the first and originall institution of the Lords supper And so whiles you egarly and rashly persue vs to trippe vs in somewhat your owne Churches and Councels condemne you for wranglers Phil. In the other part of the Sacrament you contemne Christ and his Church much more impudently and damnably For Christ and all the Apostles and all Catholike churches in the world haue euer mixed their wine with water for great mysterie and signification specially for that water gushed togither with blood out of our Lords side This our Lord did saith S. Cyprian epist. 63. ad Cecilium nu 4.7 and none rightly offereth that followeth not him therein Thus Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. 1. Iustine Apol. 2. in fine and all the fathers testifie the Primatiue church did and in this sort it is done in all the Masses of the Greekes S. Iames S. Basils S. Chrysostomes and yet you pretending to reduce all to Christ will not do as he did and all the Apostles and churches that euer were Theo. Their faces must be well stéeled that are harder than yours the whore of Babylon that hatched both your frierly profession and religion hath taught you long since to leaue off blushing and fall to bragging We mingle not water with the wine which we consecrate this is impudently and damnably done say you You néede more water with your wine your toongs burne so hoat with your impudent lies and damnable lies that an whole streame will skant coole them Phi. Christ and all the apostles all catholike churches in the world haue euer mixed their wine with water you will not of very frowardnes do you not deserue to haue hoate words Theop. We forbid no man to temper his wine with water if he find either himselfe annoied with the vse of méere wine or the wine of it selfe to be headie and strong yea we rather wish all men if the wine prouided for the Lords table be hoat and fuming to delay it that it may be mild and temperate least that which is taken to sanctifie the soule happen to distemper and hurt the body and we greatly commend the wisedome of Christes Church in former ages where the wines were fierie and communions daily as in the noblest and chiefest partes of christendome in those daies for delaying her wine with water that the very element might serue for sobrietie as well as the word for increasing of sanctity But the Christ or his Apostles vsed water with the wine which they hallowed or commanded others to mingle both wine and water in this mysterie or that the Church of Christ euer taught it to be a necessary part of this Sacrament that we deny That if you proue we will acknowledge amend our error which as yet we take to be none by reason we find it a thing lawfull but not néedefull to be done and estéeme it in them as a matter rather of temperance than of conscience Phil. They did it for great mystery and signification as Cyprian in an whole epistle teacheth you and they tooke their paterne from Christ himselfe of whom Cyprian saith This our Lord did and none offereth rightly that followeth not him therein Theop. You peruert Cyprian as you do all things else that come through your hands Cyprian intendeth not in that epistle to prooue that Christ had water in the cup when he deliuered the same to his disciples but he refuteth the Aquarij that ministred the communion in water alone and against them he prooueth that Christ had wine and not water for the Sacrament of his blood and then inferreth to that effect which you alleadge This the Lord did that is he tooke wine to resemble his blood and none offereth rightly that followeth not him therein Phil. Nay Cyprian hath plaine words that Christ mingled wine and water both together His words are At enim non manè sed post coenam mixtum calicem obtulit Dominus Our Lord offered his chalice mingled with water and wine not in the morning but after supper And againe Qua in parte inuenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit By which part of Christes speech we find the chalice that our Lord offered was mingled with wine and water Theop. We doubt not that Cyprian calleth the cup which Christ offered mixtus calix but his meaning we say was to expresse that Christ had wine in the cup which he gaue and therefore if any man minister the Lords cup not mingled with wine he followeth not the Lords
precepts eate ye drinke ye but in al respects the cup was deliuered at the same time to the same persons when the bread was So that you must either exclude the people from both which I trust you dare not or admit them to both which is the very point that we presse you with Heare what a man of your side thinketh as well of this consequent as of your halfe communion There be some false catholikes that feare not to stop the reformation of the church what they can These spare no blasphemies least that other part of the Sacrament shoulde bee restoared to the lay people For say they Christ spake drinke ye all of this onely to the Apostles but the words of the Masse be these take and eate ye al of this Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles then must laymen abstaine likewise from the element of bread which to say is an heresie yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemie It is therefore consequeÌt that both these words eate ye drinke ye were spoken to the whole Church I will not take this aduantage that your owne fellow doth proclaime you for false Catholikes heretikes and horrible blasphemers God giue you grace to see whither you be fallen and whence This for your liues you cannot shifte but these two precepts eate ye drinke ye by the tenor of Christs institution must be referred to the same persons and so both or neither pertaine to the people Surely the wordes which our Sauiour vsed in deliuering the cup are more generall and effectiue than when he gaue the bread Drinke ye all of this and they all dranke of it take it diuide it among you This cup is the newe Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you Now the Lord shed not his blood for the Priest onely but also for the people neither was the new Testament established in the blood of Christ for the Priestes sake but as well for the redemption of the people Then as the fruites and effects of the blood of Christ are common to the people with the Priest so should the cup also which is the communion of his blood shed for the remission of the peoples sins be diuided indifferently betweene the Preist and people There is saieth Chrysostome where the Priest differeth nothing from the people as when wee must receiue the dreadfull mysteries For it is not here as it was in the olde Lawe where the Priest eate one part and the pleople an other neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those thinges which the Priest was but now it is not so but rather one bodie is proposed to all and one cup. Phil. The church then might like that the people shoulde haue the cup as the church after did mislike it for many and weightie causes but how proue you that Christes precept extendeth vnto the people Theo. Wee can haue no better interpreter of Christes speech than his Apostle that was best acquainted with the true meaning of our Sauiour Wee haue sayth he the minde of Christ and that which I deliuered you I receiued of the Lorde So that hee did not correct but onely report the Lordes ordinaunce and in deliuering both kindes to the whole church of Corinth priest and people without exceptioÌ the teacher of the gentiles did neither swarue froÌ the first institutioÌ nor right intentioÌ of Christ his master The cup of thaÌksgiuing which we blesse is it not the communion of Christes blood The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord the cup of diuels Ye can not be partakers of the Lordes table and of the table of diuels Can you frame vs a reason out of these wordes of Sainct Paul to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking such things as the Gentile there sacrificed to Idols not confesse that they dranke of the Lords cup It is not possible For this is Sainct Paules argument You can not drinke both the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels the cuppe of thankes giuing which wee blesse and you all drinke of is the communion of the Lordes blood therefore you maie not drinke of the cup of diuels YOV CANNOT DRINKE BOTH inferreth they did and should drinke one which was the Lordes cup not the cup of diuels els Paul should haue said you maie drinke neither not the cup of diuels for they might haue no fellowship with diuels neither the Lordes cup for that is reserued for the Priest by your doctrine but both saith Paul you cannot drinke ergo they must drinke one which was not the cup of diuels Againe the cup which they dranke not could to them be no Communion For nature teacheth vs that to be partaker of a cup is to drinke but the Lordes cup was to them the communion of his blood ergo they dranke of the Lordes cup. My collection is so cleare that the vulgar translation which you are tied to by the Councell of Trent putteth these verie woordes in the text Omnes de vno pane de vno calice participamus we all are partakers of one bread AND OF ONE CVP. Ambrose Hierom Bede Haymo and others found it so consequent to S. Pauls former woords and coherent with his maine reason that they sticke not to keepe this addition de vno calice in their verie terts on which they comment So that out of question Paul taught the Church of Corinth to distribute the Lordes supper to the Christians in both kindes and that as he saith he receiued of the Lorde And whoâ that hath anie shame or sense left reading the next Chapter that followeth where Christes institution is fullie proposed and largelie debated by S. Paul will or can doubt but the Lorde at his last Supper ordained both kindes for all the faithfull As often saith Paul to the whole Congregation as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this cup ye shewe the Lordes death till he come Whosoeuer shall eate this bread drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthilie shall be guiltie of the bodie and blood of the Lorde Let a man therefore not speaking of this or that man but of euerie man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. And least you should want a generall affirmatiue to iustifie this our exposition take these woordes of S. Paul and quiet your selfe By one spirit are we all Baptized into one bodie whether we be Iewes or Grecians bond or free and WE ALL HAVE DRVNKE into one spirit Can you looke for directer or plainer woordes All Iewes and Gentiles bond and free not onelie dranke but by drinking were made partakers of one and the same spirite uen as by baptisme they were grafted into one bodie Then if Christ himselfe deliuered both kindes at his last Supper
Christ then you giue them diuine honor as if they were Christ but if they be creatures still howe doth your false imagination excuse you from idolatrie Phi. Wee be sure they be not For Christ saide of them This is my bodie and this is my blood and therefore honoring that which the Priest holdeth in his hands and lifteth vp after consecration we be sure we honor Christ and not the creatures of bread and winâ Theo. So S. Paul said The rocke was Christ and yet to worship that visible rocke with diuine honor had beene idolatrie Phi. The speeches be nothing like Theo. Then tell vs the difference Phi. Christ spake the one actiuely and presently the other was but a collectioÌ of things past long before made by S. Paul And again the one is in the new Testament the other in the old Theo. You might haue added that the one was stone the other bread the one in the desert the other in the city Philand Keepe your trifling distinctions for your selues Theo. They wil no way but be ioyned cheek by cheek with yours Christ you say spake the one who spake the other in Paul but Christ Paul said of himselfe that Christ spake in him and Christ saieth of his Apostles It is not you that speak but the spirit of your father that speaketh in you And therefore you must receiue that which Paul spâke not as the word of men but as it is in deed the word of god that cannot went trueth because the word of God is truth Phi. We do not deny but he spake truth Theo. Then haue we plainer proofe that the stony rock in the desert waâ Christ than you haue that the bread on the Lords table is Christ. For Christ doth not say in precise terms that the bread was his body but only this is my body And as for the diuersitie of the two testaments that maketh nothing to this issue For if the rocke of the old test were Christ the bread of the new Test. can be no more and therfore diuine adoration was as due to the rocke then as it is to the bread now Phi. By no meanes For the rocke was not transubstantiated into Christ as the bread is The. If Pauls words be true without chaÌging the rock into Christ why may not the words of Christ be likewise true without turning the substaÌce of bread into the substance of his body Phi. We tell you the reason The one is substantially conuerted into Christs flesh and so was not the other Theo. This is your fansie to dreame of a difference where none is the affrmations be like why should not the adorations bee like And if you could not worship the rock without coÌmitting idolatrie though the rock were Christ how can you giue diuine honor to the bread and wine since they bee Christ euen after the same sort that the rock was Or if that comparison do not please you why do you worship the pixe wherein the bread is so the chalice wherein the wine is not the priest that by your doctrine doth create eate Christ Phi. We worship neither the pixe nor the chalice but Christ that is contained in them both Theo. And is not the same Christ that was contained in them both inclosed in the priests body when he eateth and drinketh your sacrifice Phi. Yeas Theo. And as really contained in his body as in your golden boxe or gilden chalice Phi. But yet we adore not the flesh of christ after it is once entered the mouth of man Theo. You do not I know but why should you not Why suffer you Christ in any place to be without the honor that is due vnto him Wil you serue him where please you ourskip him at your discretions Phi. Should we adore him when we know not where he is The. You be as sure he is in the Priest as in the pixe for you see him in neither Why then do you adore him in the one and not in the other Phi. I think you would not haue vs adore our sauiour The. I would not haue you adore him wheÌ where you only list much lesse to adore a peece of bread in his steed be first sure you haue him then adore him wheresoeuer you find him Phi. So we do Th. You do not You adore him not in the priest Phi. We see him not The. Wil you not adore him till you see him How then do you see him in the chalice or in the pixe Phi. There we be certaine he is Theo. You be as certaine of the other Phi. The fathers wil vs to adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries but not in other meÌs bodies The. Do they wil you to adore the mysteries themselues I mean the mystical sacramental signes Phi. Not the signes theÌselues they bee but accidents not to be adored but the sacrament it self they teach vs to adore The. With diuine honor Phi. With what els The. Adoration if it be attributed in any father to the mystical signes is that kind of reuerence which we yeeld to things that be sanctified for Gods vse not godly honor Phi. I smel a rat The. You were best then looke to your host for that of all others that is a most dangerous beast to your deuotion Phi. Why The. I wil tel you that anon in the mean time what was it that troubled your wits Phi. With a sly distinction of twofold adoration you think to slip the fathers which we will bring against you for the worshipping of the blessed sacrament The. Is that al your feare Phi. That is a way to wrangle to make the people beleeue our doctrine touching adoratioÌ of the sacrament is not catholik The. Set aside one father whom your selues shall not deny but that he speaketh of the substaÌce of bread wine in the rest which you bring we wil vse no such aduaÌtage Phi. What wil you not do The. We wil not choke you with that second acception of adoration shew that the fathers adored the sacrament or taught the people to so doe wee require no more Phi. That I will presently S. Austen saith ep 118. c. 3. that it is he that the Apostle saith shal be damned that doth not by singular veneration or adoration make a difference between this meat al others And again in Psa. 91. No man eateth it before he adore it And S. Ambro. li. 3 c. 12. de spi. sanct We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries S. Chrysost. hom 24. in 1. Cor. We adore him on the altar as the Sages did in the manger S. Nazianzene in Epitap Gorgon My sister called vpon him which is worshipped vpon the altar Theodoret Dial. 2. In coÌfes The mystical tokeÌs be adored S. Denys this Apostles scholer made solemne inuocation of the sacrament after consecration Eccl. Hierar ca. 3. part 3. in princip before the
here on earth though after an inuisible manner which wee take to bee vnder the formes of breade and wyne Theo. That Christ is present with vs here on earth wee firmely beleeue to our great comfort Where two or three sayth our Sauiour are gathered together in my name I am in the middest of them and againe Loâ I am alway with you vntill the ende of the worlde but that hee is corporally present vnder the formes of bread and wine that is neither auouched by Chrysostome nor admitted by vs it is your vaine and fruitlesse fansie Phi. How can his body bee present but bodily Theo. These woordes of Chrysostom inferre not that Christes body is present but that Christ is present And since Christ consisteth of two natures the diuine may bee present though the humane bee not Christ absent sayth Austen is also present For vnlesse hee were present hee coulde not bee helde of vs our selues But because it is true that hee saith Lo I am with you for euer vnto the end of the world hee is both departed and yet here Hee is returned whence hee came and hath not yet forsaken vs. For his body hee hath caried into heauen but his diuine maiestie hee hath not taken from the world Neither is his diuine power onely present with vs but also wee haue his humane nature many wayes with vs in this worlde Habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In praesenti per fidem in praesenti per signum Christi in praesenti per Baptismatis Sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum Thou hast Christ sayth Austen in this worlde and in the next In this world by faith in this worlde by the signe of Christ in this world by the Sacrament of baptisme in this world by the meate and drinke of the altar By these things wee haue him in this worlde not really locally or corporally but truely comfortably and effectually so as our bodies soules and spirites bee sanctiââed and preserued by him against the day of redemption when wee shall see him and enioye him face to face in that fulnesse and perfection which wee nowe are assured of by fayth and prepared for by cleanesse and meekenesse of the inward man The whole Church therefore neuer cried vppon the Sacrament Lorde I am not woorthy Lord beè mercifull to mee a sinner Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the worlde haue mercy on vs You doe sinnefully slaunder them they did exactly and precisely distinguish the corruptible creature from the eternal creator and taught all men to lift vp their hearts from the elements which were before their eyes to him that is in heauen and shall come from thence and from no place else to iudge the world Saint Austen wil haue the rude ones to be taught that the Sacraments are Signacula rerum diuinarâm visibilia sed res inuisibiles in eis honorari Visible scales of things diuine but the things visible to be honored in them And as if the case were so plaine that no man could well doubt thereof he saith Si ad ipsas res visibiles quibus Sacramenta tractantur animum conferamus quis nesciat eas esse corruptibiles Si autem ad id quod per illas agitur quis non videat non posse corrumpi If we looke to the visible things or elements by which the Sacraments are perfourmed who can be ignorant that they are corruptible But if we looke to that which is doone by them who doth not see that that can not bee corrupted Saint Ambrose saith Venisti ad Altare vidisti Sacramenta posita super Altare ipsam quidem miratus es creaturam Tamen creatura solemnis nota Thou camest to the Altar and sawest the Sacraments placed on the Altar and maruelledst at the very creature yet is it an vsuall and knowen creature Origen purposely creating what part of the Sacrament did sanctifie the receiuer saith Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur Nec materia panis sed super âllum sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino commedenti illum Haec de typico Symbolicoque corpore The meate which is sanctified at the Lords table by the word of God and praier as touching the materiall partes which it hath goeth into the belly and so forth by the priuie neither is the matter of bread it that profiteth the worthy receiuer but the worde rehearsed ouer it This I speake of the typicall and figuratiue body For this cause the great Councell of Nice directed the whole Church to lift vp their vnderstanding aboue the breade and wine which they sawe and by faith to conceiue the lambe of God slaine for the sinnes of men and proposed and exhibited on the Lordes table in those mysteries Their woordes bee ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Let vs not baselie bend our mindes on the bread and cup that are set before our eyes at the Lordes Supper but lifting vp our thoughtes let vs by faith beholde on or in the sacred table the Lambe of God taking awaie the sinne of the worlde Which admonition the Church euer after obserued by crying vpon the people to lift vp their hartes not to the Sacramentes which they saw but from them to him that liued and raigned in heauen whome they adored in equall degree with the father and the holie Ghost and whome they behelde and touched with the eyes and handes of their faith but not with their corporall limmes or senses Quomodo in caelum mittam manum vt ibi sedentem teneam Mitte fidem tenuisti Howe shall I sende vp my hande to heauen to reach Christ sitting there Sende thy fayth sayth Austen and THOV HOLDEST HIM fast enough Fide Christus tangitur fide Christus videtur non corpore tangitur non oculis comprehenditur By fayth sayth Ambrose Christ is touched by fayth Christ is seene hee is not touched with our body not viewed with our eyes And therefore Chrysostome saith Hee must flie not to the Sacrament but on hie that will come to this body euen to heauen it selfe or rather aboue the heauens for where the body is there also will the Eagles bee Phi. The councell of Nice sayth The Lambe of God is on the sacred table where then did they seeke him or made they prayers vnto him but on the Altar Theo. They lifted vp their heartes to him that sate in heauen and from heauen looke downe vppon them and their prayers before they could please God were directed to the same place and person that their heartes were You must therefore either fasten their hearts and faiths to the Sacrament or suffer their prayers together with their affections to ascend to heauen where Christ sitteth at the right hande of God
name than the body and blood of Christ not that in earthly matter or essence they be really conuerted into those diuine things as you falsely gather but for that remaining in their former vsual both nature and substance they haue in them cary with them the fruite effect and force of Christs flesh wounded blood shed for the remission of our sinnes And because the people shoulde regarde not the creatures which they see but the graces which they beleeue therefore the Fathers euery where without exception call the elements by the names of the inwarde and heauenly vertues that are annexed to them and conferred with them by the trueth of his word power of his spirit This is the first rule which you should haue obserued The next is that whensoeuer they teach and propose the dignitie proprietie or efficacie of the Sacrament they meane not the creatures which our eies and tasts doe better iudge of than their tongues or wittes can teach vs but that other diuine lyfe-giuing and soule-sauing part of the sacrament which our heartes by fayth take holde on and possesse more really and effectually than if it were chammed in our mouthes or buried in our stomackes as you grossely conceiue of those thinges which bee most high and heauenly These two Rules remembred a very meane scholer may soone discharge the burden of all your allegations For either you mistake the one part for the other supposing that to bee corporall which in deede is spirituall or else you vrge the name which the signe beareth for similitude as âarnâstily to all intents as ãâã were were the thing it selfe which causeth you to ãâã so many texâes and to straie so farre from trueth that no sound can recall you Phi. Away with your new found obseruations The catholike church hath the spirit of trueth promised for her direction and therefore the wil none of your wise inuentions to qualifie the fathers speeches Learne you rather at her handes to beleeue the wordes of Christ who first appointed this Sacrament and pronounced it to be himselfe without signe or figure when he saide this is my body and this is my blood not spirituall or metaphoricall but the same body which was broken and the same blood which was shed for remissioâ of sinnes and that I trust you will confesse was his naturall and locall hath body and blood Theo. The question is not whether that were his naturall body which suffered on the crosse but when hee saide of the bread this is my bodie whether he substantially changed the dead element into himselfe made the creature become the creator or whether he annexed his trueth to the signe and grace to the Sacrament which required both the word of Christ to make the promise and his power to perfourme the speech And therefore we beleeue and acknowledge the wordes of our Sauiour to bee very needeful in ordaining this Sacrament euen in such manner and order as they were spoken that the signes might haue the fruites and effectes of his body and blood But that hee chaunged substances with the bread and wine or deified the creatures that his speech doth not inferre and that as yet we doe not beleeue except you can shewe vs howe the fleshe of Christ which was first made of a woman is nowe become to be made of bread and a dead and senslesse creature exalted to bee the son of God Phi. We do not say the bread is substantially conuerted into Christ or made the sonne of God but the bread is abolished in the place thereof commeth the glorious flesh of our Lord and Sauiour who is the Sonne of God And in that sense we hold the creator is now where the creature was but the dead element is not made the Sonne of God you woulde faine catch vs at such an aduantage Theo. How you can auoide it I yet perceiue not for if the bread bee nowe Christ which before it was not ergo the bread is made Christ and by consequent a dead element is nowe become or made the Sonne of God which I thinke will hardly stand with the very first groundes of Christian religion Phi. You presse the letter against both reason and trueth For the one is sayd to be conuerted or chaunged into the other because the one displaceth and succeedeth the other so is it a chaunge rather of the one for the other than a conuersion of the one into the other if you take conuersion properly as the Philosophers do Theo. Christ dâeth not say where the bread was there is nowe my body but this bread is my body And since before consecration it was not his body and now by repeating the wordes is become his body the conclusion is euident that by your opinion the bread is made Christ and so become the sonne of God Phi. You thinke to snare vs with schoole-trickes but setting your sophismes aside we plainly beleeue the Sacrament is Christ. Theo. You must beleeue the bread is Christ which as yet the Articles of our Creede will not suffer vs to doe I meane not to thinke that a dead and dumbe creature may bee God Phi. Do we say the bread is God Theo. You must auerre it if you stick to the letter of Christs words for he said of the bread as you inforce it this is my selfe now he was God Phi. I thought I should be euen with you at Landes end Christ did not say this bread is my bodie but this is my bodie where now is the force of your argument Theo. Euen where it was Phi. Why Christ sayd this is not meaning bread or any other creature Theo. That this must be somwhat else nothing was the body of Christ so you loose not only the bread but also the body Phi. Nay he said this is and that must needs be somwhat it can not be nothing Theo. It is well you haue found it I said so before you Then this is my body What this Was it bread that he spake of or somthing else Phi. He spake of that which he had in his hands Theo. You meane not long before Phi. In deede you say he had at that present when he spake the wordes nothing in his handes and so you would haue nothing to be his body Theo. Hinder not our course with matter impertinent to this place The demonstratiue THIS noteth that which Christ then gaue to his Disciples as wel as that which you thinke he then held in his hands Choose whether you wil of force the thing must be all one For that which hee helde that he gaue and of that which he first helde and after gaue hee saide this is my body Phi. He did so Theo. What was it Phi. Somwhat it was whatsoeuer it was Theo. What somwhat do you say it was Phi. What if I cannot tell Theo. Then must you seeke farther for your chaunging of substances The words of
Christ if you know not whereof he spake proue no conuersion of the bread into his body For vnlesse THIS be taken to import the bread the bread by those wordes can not be changed and if not by these then surely by none Phi. I see your drift you fet about to force me to confesse that by the strict coherence of our Sauiours wordes the bread is Christ since that propositioÌ in precise speech is vntrue you would come in with your figures Theo. And your drift is as open that hauing deuised a reall and carnall presence to your selues by colour of Christes wordes and perceiuing the same to bee no way consequent to the letter which you pretend least you shoulde bee disproued to your faces you will not admit the perfect and plaine context of Christes wordes but stand houering about other sophisticall illusions which will not helpe you For we haue the ful confession of scriptures fathers against you that the pronoune THIS in Christes words must bee restrained to the bread and to nothing else The Lord tooke breade and when hee had giuen thankes he brake no doubt the bread that he tooke and gaue to the Disciples the selfesame that he brake saying take ye eate ye this that I giue you This is my bodie What THIS could our Sauiour mean but THIS that he gaue THIS that he brake THIS that he tooke which by the witnesse of the Scripture it selfe was bread If you suppose that he tooke bread but brake it not or brake it but gaue it not or gaue it his Disciples to eate but told them not this which he gaue them but some other thing besides that was his body you make the Lords supper a merry iest where the later end starteth from the beginning and the middle from the both The pronoune THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore except you name the bread which Christ pointed vnto when he spake these wordes you coÌfirme not the faithes but amase the wits of your followers S. Paul proposing the Lordes Supper to the church of Corinth expresseth that very word which we say the circumstances of the Gospel import As often as ye shall eate saith he This bread and drinke this cuppe you shew foorth the Lords death till he come The bread which he brake is it not the communion of Christs body Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cup for whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guilty of the body blood of the Lord. So that as wel by the cohereÌce of the former words in the description of the Lords supper as by the manifest adiectioÌ which S. Paul putteth to the demoÌstratiue we conclude our sauior pronouÌced of the bread that it was his body The referring of THIS to the bread all the catholik fathers that euer wrate with pen in the church of God acknowledge with one consent Iustinus Wee be taught that the sanctified foode which nourisheth our fleshe and our blood is the fleshe and blood of that Iesu. Tertullian So Christ taught vs calling bread his bodie and discussing the wordes of the supper Why saith he doth Christ there call bread his bodie Austen That which your faith requireth to be taught the bread is the body of Christ and the cup his blood Cyprian Our Lord at his table gaue to the Disciples with his own handes bread and wine on the crosse hee yeelded his body to the souldiers handes to be wounded that his Apostles might teach all Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood Ireneus How shall it appeare to them that the bread on which they giue thankes is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood if they graunt not Christ to be the sonne of the creator of the world How did the Lord rightly if an other were his father taking bread of this condition that is vsuall amongst vs confesse it to bee his body Hierom Let vs learn that the bread which the Lord brake gaue to his disciples is the Lords body himself saying to theÌ take ye eate ye this is my body Athan. or at lest the coÌmentary that is extaÌt in his name What is the bread the body of Christ. Epiphan Of that which is round in figure sensles in power the Lord would say by grace this is my body Cyrill Christ thus auoucheth and saith of the bread this is my body Theodorete In the verie giuing of the misteries he called bread his body And of all others your selues may not shrink from this resolution of Christs wordes the surest holde of your reall presence though it bee not much standeth onely on this settle For what wordes haue you besides thâse to proue that the breade is chaunged from his former substaunce Uerily none Then if in these wordes which should worke the change there be no mention at all of bread how can that which is no way comprised in them bee chaunged by them So miraculous a change can not be wrought by silence but rather if any such be by the power of Christes words and in those words must the thing at least be named that shall be changed Againe the demonstratiue THIS must needes note that which was there present on the Lordes table before the words of consecration were wholy repeated and the flesh of Christ coulde not be present vnder the likenesse of bread without or before Consecration ergo the pronoune inferreth not Christ but the bread which by your owne positions is not abolished but in vltimo instanti prolationis verboruÌ in the very last end instant of vttering these wordes And therefore remaine in his owne nature wheÌ the first word was pronounced Which some not the meanest men of your side foresaw very well howsoeuer you since haue taken other counsel and therefore they say Dicendum est quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panis We must behold saith Gerson that the pronoune THIS doeth demonstrate the substaunce of bread and Steuen Gardiner Christus ait euidenter hoc est corpus meum demonstrans panem Christ sayeth plainly this is my body pointing to the bread Notwithstanding afterward he changed his minde in this as in many other thinges came to Indiuiduum vagum as if Christ had saide THIS what is it I can not tell but it must needes be somwhat is my body Occam and other profound fellowes of your side bethinking themselues how your opinion might best agree with the wordes of Christ say the pronoune THIS must be referred to the bodie of Christ as if our Sauiour had said this my body is my body To make all cocksure the coronell of your scholmen I meane the gloze resolueth the doubt on this wife Solet quaeri quid demonstretur per pronomen
Austen in plaine termes concluding It is therfore a figure of speech Phi. Sir you bee misconstered all this while The verbe which coupleth both partes of the proposition togither doeth not here signifie this to bee simply that but this to be really changed in that as if our Lord had said THIS breade is now become my body that is substantially changed into my body Theo. Sir you shuffle the words of Christ to serue your dreames yet you scape not the rockes which you thought to shunne If the bread must be changed in substance that is become no bread afore it be the body of Christ ergo breade is not the body of Christ and so your construction is a plaine contradiction to the letter which you would interprete For Christ said this bread is my body that cannot be true say you vnlesse the bread loose first his substance and ceaâe in deede to be breade and so where Christ saide this bread is my body you expound his wordes in this sort that it must first be no bread afore it can be his body Besides in absurdity there is no difference whether you say bead is Christ or bread is made Christ changed into Christ. For that which is made Christ without all question is Christ so the same blasphemies are consequent to this exposition that were dependant on the former Phi. Well yet the bread may be abolished and Christs body succeede in the place where the bread was without any of these inconueniences Theo. Thither are you faine to flie when you be hardly pressed with the sequeles of the literall sense but in the meane time you forget that you be cleane gone from the wordes of Christ which you pretended to folow He said this is my body you to expouÌd his speach say THIS must first vanish away and then my body shall succeede in the same place and be couered with the same accidents though THIS neither in shew nor substance be my body Phi. This is sophistry which the catholike fathers were neuer acquainted with Theo. If it be any it is yours not ours you first forsooke the exposition of Christs words which the learned and godly fathers with one accord witnessed deliuered then stuÌbling at the letter you hatched your carnal local presence against Scriptures and fathers and when the wordes of Christ would not sit your fansies you racked wrenched them til you brought both them to nothing and your selues to a maze that you knew not what you said where as if you had continued their interpretation you had cleared the wordes of Christ from all perplexities inioyed the fruites of the Lords table without perill of Idolatrie or impietie eased your selues of those absurdities which you be now plunged in vp hard to the eares Phi. What interpretation meane you Theo. That which the Fathers generally beleeued publikly taught in the church of Christ. Phi. And what exposition was that but the same which we now vrge you resist The. Shew but one ancient father that euer affirmed the wordes of Christ at his last Supper were properly spoken or literally to be taken and wee will receiue your sense Phi. What you will not Theo. What neede you repeate it when you heare vs offer it Phi. Not a father that euer auouched these words of Christ this is my body to be properly spoken or literally taken Theo. Not a father that is ancient Phi. How would you lie if you might be let alone I can name you presently a good number of them that in exquisite termes shal affirme the words of Christ to be literall Theo. Shal they be auncient Phi. I can not tel what you mean by auncient you would haue them belike before Christ was borne Theo. As though there were not difference both in the ages and credites of those writers that haue gone before vs in the church of Christ. Phi. They shall bee auncient Theo. Damascene perhaps Theophilact Phi. Yea Epiphanius Euthymius and many others The. Many others is a note aboue ela These foure affirme that Christ did not say this is the image or figure of my body but this is my body which we confesse was needefull for the first ordayner and institutor of the Sacrament to say Mary by those wordes our Sauiour did not meane to abolish the substance of breade or wine but to vnite the force and fruite of his flesh crucified and blood shed for our sinnes to the elementes that receiuing the one we might through faith bee partakers of the other by the working of his spirite and power of the word which he then spake much lesse did these later writers the eldest of them being more thaÌ 700 yeres after Christ intend to gainesay the fathers that were before them of greater iudgement and deeper knowledge howsoeuer in shew they seeme loth that Christes wordes should be recalled to a bare and naked figure which for our parts we do not Phi. A bare figure nay they will haue no figure in the wordes of Christ to that ende they vrge the very letter as excluding all tropes figures which you now take vp in a spleene to frustrate our proofes Theo. Did the Fathers meane to frustrate your proofes when they tooke vppe this doctrine many hundrethes before you or your reall presence were hearde of Philand Do they teache the wordes of Christ eate this is my bodie to bee figuratiue Theo. I haue shewed you causes sufficient to fray the godly from the letter which doth rather kill than quicken the carnal interpreters yet am I content to forgo them all if in expounding the wordes of Christ figuratiuely the catholike and ancient fathers do not make expressely with vs and against you directly Tertullian The bread which was taken and giuen to the Disciples Christ made his body by saying this is my body that is the figure of my bodie Why doth Christ call bread his bodie Marcion vnderstandeth not this was an old figure of the body of Christ speaking by Ieremie they laide their handes togither against mee saying come let vs cast wood on his bread that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightner of antiquities in calling the bread his bodie fully declared what he would then at his last Supper haue the bread to signifie Augustine discussing the wordes of Moses the soule of all flesh is his blood The thing saith he that doth signifie commonly taketh the name of the thing that is thereby signified as it is written the seuen eares of corne which Pharao dreampt of bee seuen yeres he said not they signifie seuen yeres the seuen kine be seuen yeres many such speeches So was it saide by Paul the rocke was Christ hee sayde not the rocke did signifie Christ but as if it had beene the selfesame thing which by substance it was not but by signification Euen so the blood because it signifieth the soule is
after the manner of Sacramentes called the soule I can interprete this precept to consist of a signe or figure for the Lord did not sticke to say this is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie And speaking in Christes person he sayeth This bodie which you see you shal not eate neither shal you drinke the blood which they that crucifie me shall shed I haue commended a Sacrament vnto you that Sacrament spiritually vnderstood shal quicken you It is therefore as you hearde before out of the same Father a figure of speech commaunding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion For the Lord at his supper saith he commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood CypriaÌ The Lord at his last supper gaue bread and wine with his own hands on the crosse he gaue his body to be wounded by the souldiers handes that syncere truth secretly printed in his Apostles might teach the Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood and how the causes agreed with their effectes and different names and kindes might be reduced to one essence and the signes signifieng and the thinges signified might be called by the same names Origen There is in the very Gospell a letter that doth kill not onely in the old Testament is there a deadly letter found but in the new Testament there is a letter that doth kill him which doeth not spiritually conceiue the thinges that be spoken For if you take this saying except yee eate my flesh and drinke my blood according to the letter this letter killeth And againe Not the matter of bread but the word recited ouer it doth profit the worthy receiuer This I speake of the typical and figuratiue body Ambrose It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried this therefore is the Sacrament of that true fleshe The Lord Iesus himselfe sayth this is my body Before the blessing of these heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing after consecration the body of Christ is thereby signified In eating and drinking at the Lords table We signifie the body and blood of Christ that were offered for vs. The new Testament is confirmed by blood in a figure of which blood We reciue the mysticall cup. The priest in the church seruice faith Make this oblation ascribed reasonable and acceptable for vs which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Hierom When the Pascal lambe was eaten Iesus taketh bread which strengthneth the heart of man and goeth to the true sacrament of the passouer that as Melchisedec had done offering bread wine in a profiguratioÌ of him so he likewise might represent the truth of his body blood For Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it transfiguring his body into the breade Chrysostom This table hath he prepared for his seruants that hee might euery day for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ shew foorth in a SacrameÌt vnto vs bread and wine after the maner of Meschisedec Before it be sanctified we cal it bread but the diuine grace once sanctifieng the same by the ministerie of the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread couÌted worthy to be called the Lordes body though the nature of bread continew there still So that in the sanctified vessel there is not the true body of Christ but a mystery of his body is there contained Nazianzene Let vs bee partakers of the passeouer figuratiuely notwithstanding as yet though this Passeouer bee more manifest than the former Theodoret. Our Sauiour in deed changed the names called his bodie by the name of the signe and the signe by the name of his body The reason whereof is manifest to those that are acquainted with the diuine mysteries He would haue the receiuers of these heauenly mysteries not looke to the nature of the things which are seen but hearing the alteration of names beleeue the chaÌge which is there made by grace For he that called his natural body wheat bread named himself a vine the same Lord honored the signes elements of bread wine which we see with the name of his body blood not changing the nature of the signes but casting grace vnto nature Prosper The diuine breade which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the body of Christ being in deed but the sacrameÌt of Christs bodie Which words your own law thus expoundeth The diuine bread which truly representeth the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly wherfore it is said after a sort which is non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in exactnes of truth but in a mysterie of signification So that this is the meaning it is called the body of Christ that is the body of Christ is thereby signified Bede The solemnities of the old Passeouer being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the church is desirous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in steede of the flesh and blood of a lamb he substituting the sacrament or sacred signe of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to be the same to whome the Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedec Druthmarus The Lord gaue his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sinnes that being mindfull of his deede they might alwaies in a figure do that which he was to do for theÌ not forget his loue This is my body that is in a sacrament Wine maketh glad increaseth blood and for that cause the blood of Chirst is aptly figured thereby Bertram That bread wine is figuratiuely the body and blood of christ the maner thereof is in a figure representation in mysterio non veritate in a mysterie not in truth plaine speech Phi. You thinke to winne the spurres but you may chance to loose bootes and all These places which you bring haue a shew before the simple but there is no pith nor substance in them and with one puffe wee can blowe them all away Theo. It must be such a puffe then as wherwith you first blew away christ and his gospel and brought in your own decrees to ouerrule both God and man with the breath of your mouthes Phi. You scoffe my meaning is that I can crosse them all with one answere Theo. If they were sprites you might driue them away with crossing but being ancient and godly fathers they will tell on their tales to your reproofe crosse you what you will or can in their wayes Phi. I will not crosse it in their way but in yours Theo. When you will wherefore serue my feete but to tosse it out of the way or at lest to step ouer it that it hinder not
my way Phi. Al these fathers affirme the bread to be a signe figure of Christs body This we grant and thereto adde that it is both a figure and the trueth it selfe You may be gone you haue your errand Did I not tell you I would soone dispatch you Theo. You be very pleasureable whatsoeuer the matter be but had you no better skill to dispatch men of their liues than you haue to defeate vs of ouâ authorities many a thowsand should now liue that you haue slaine Philan. You would runne to by-quarrels but I must hold you to the stake Theo. In deede that was alwayes the surest answere that you gaue vs. The rest was nothing no more is this For first it is apparently false that in Sacraments the signe the truth may be all one thing Next if that might be yet doth it not disappoint any one of these testimonies For they do not only witnes that the bread is a sign of christs bodie but also that christes wordes were figuratiue and that in deliuering the mysteries he called the bread his body by way of signification similitude representation after the maner of Sacramentes in a signe not according to the letter but in a spirituall and mysticall vnderstanding and if you respect the precise speech improperly and figuratiuely And though the signe might happily be one thing with the truth it self as you affirm wtout al truth yet may not a figuratiue speech be properly takeÌ nor the letter vrged against the spirituall meaning least that which was spoken to quicken the inward man subuert the faith and indanger the soul which in mistaking a figure of speech must needs insue as S. Augustine sheweth In principio cauendum est ne siguratam locutionem ad literam accipias Ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait Apostolus litera occidit spiritus autem viuificat Cum enim figurate dictum sic accipitur tanquam proprie dictum sit carnaliter sapitur Neque vllamors animae congruentius appellatur The first thing that you must beware is this that you take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter To that belongeth the Apostles admonition the letter killeth the spirite quickneth For when wee take that which is figuratiuely spoken as if it were properly spoken it is a carnall sense Neither is there any thing more rightly called the death of the soule In vaine then doe you thinke to shift off the matter with this foolish conceite that one and the same thing may be both a trueth and a figure For were that so yet can not a figuratiue speech bee literally taken without killing the soule and the Fathers which I produced affirme the minde and speech of our Sauiour in calling the bread his body was spirituall figuratiue and mysticall by way of signification such as is vsed in Sacramentes not literall nor carnall according to the strict sâund and order of the wordes Marie now your answere besides that it is altogether idle is vtterly false For in this sacrament as in al others there is great difference betwixt the signes and the things theÌselues and the distinct properties of ech are so sensible that if your wits be not laid vp for holy daies you can not but perceiue theÌ The signes are visible the things inuisible the signes are earthly the things heaueÌly the signes corruptible the thinges immortall the signes corporall the thinges spirituall The signes are one thing the trueth is not the same but an other thing and euen by plaine Arythmetike they be two things and not one The Eucharist as Ireneus teacheth Consisteth of two things an earthly an heauenly This is it that wee say this is it that we seeke by all meanes saith Austen to approue to wit that the sacrifice of the church is made of two and consisteth of two thinges sacramento re sacramenti of the sacred signe and the thing it selfe For sacramentes are signa rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia signes of truthes being one thing in themselues and signifieng an other It were no figure saith Chrysostome if all thinges incident to the truth were to be found in it much lesse if it were the truth it selfe Sacraments haue a certaine similitude but no identitie with the thinges whose signes they be If therefore To take the signes for the thinges bee a miserable seruitude of the soule as Austen noteth what is it to affirme the signes to be the things themselues but a wilfull blindnesse of heart choosing rather to rush into any brake with daunger both of credit and conscience than to acknowledge the truth once disdayned and refused Phi. I haue yet an other answere in stoare Theo. If that be no better than this your stoare is little worth Phi. The most part of the Fathers which you bring speake not of Christes wordes when hee did institute the Sacrament but declare his meaning in the sixth of Sainct Iohns Gospell when the Capernites stumbled at his doctrine Theo. You may keepe this still in stoare for the goodnes of it Tertullian Austen Cyprian Ambrose Hierom Chrysostom Theodorete Prosper Bede Bertram Druthmarus and your own law speake directly of the sacrament and so doth Origen when he calleth the bread on the Lords table the typicall and figuratiue body onely that place of his mentioneth the sixt of Iohn where he saith If you take this saying according to the letter this letter killeth Phi. Mary Sir that place is the chiefest how closely you could conuey it in amongest the rest to make men beleeue he spake that of the sacrament which is nothing so Theo. Why doth not the 6. of S. Iohn foretel and declare the same kinde of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloode which was after perfourmed by Christ at his last supper wheÌ he said This is my body this is my blood Phi. Doth it say you Theo. I do not say Christ speaketh in the sixth of Iohn of the materiall elementes of bread and wine which were then first ordained to bee pledges of his inuisible graces when the Supper was first instituted and therefore not spoken of before that time but this is it which I affirme and in this the learned and auncient Fathers agree with mee that where this mystery consisteth of two partes an earthlie matter and an heauenly vertue the sixth of Sainct Iohn treateth not of the signes but of the thinges them-selues not of the figures representing but of the trueth represented not of that which is corporally proposed but of that which is Ghostly receiued in the Lordes supper which is the better and diuiner part of this Sacrament and that the Disciples there learned in what sort themselues and all the faithfull after them should eate the Lords flesh and drinke the Lords blood at his table to be thereby quickned norished and incorporated with him as members of his mysticall body So that if any
of this this is my blood and as for the men of your side they run all to this issue that the sixt of Iohn not only treateth of the sacrament but also strongly concludeth your reall presence and externall eating of Christs flesh with bodily partes as with teeth throte and such like in so much that if you goe that way which you were about you goe alone Your friende Master Harding with a present courage as his manner is saith We can not finde where our Lord perfourmed the promise which he made in the first chapter of Iohn the breade which I will giue is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the world but only in his last supper Steuen Gardiner his Master vttered euen the very same wordes before him Promisit Dominus se daturum nobis in pane carnem suam dicens panis quâm ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Sed quod promisit Christus noÌ legimus cum praestitisse nisi in coena The Lord promised that he would giue vs his flesh in bread when he said the bread that I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world But that which Christ promised wee doe not read that he perfourmed except it were in the Supper And though they both ouerlash when they say he performed it only in the supper yet in this you may not vary froÌ them that he performed that promise of his verified that doctrine of his in the supper For so the fathers said before them as I haue proued and so your late Testament vpon the sixt of S. Iohn saith of al their side The catholikes teach these wordes to be spoken of the sacrament Phi. We do so The. Then what exposition the learned ancient fathers made of Christs words in the 6. of Iohn the same they inteÌded referred to the words of the supper But the words of christ teaching vs in the 6. of Iohn that we must eate his flesh drinke his blood before we can haue my life in vs are by the coÌmon consent of all the fathers Allegoricall mysticall figuratiue ergo the figuratiue interpretatioÌ of Christs words in the supper is catholike Phi. Think you we are so foolish as to beleeu that the fathers were the autors of your figures Th. Chuse whether you wil beleeue vs or no we speak no more thaÌ we mean to proue Clemens Alexan. The Lord in the gospel of Iohn when he said eate ye my flesh drink ye my blood he called that by an alegory meat drink which is euideÌtly meÌt of our faith his promise Tertul. He pronounced his flesh to be that heaueÌly bread vrging theÌ al along that dicourse with an allegory of needefull foodes to remember their fathers that preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt before the diuine vocation Origen Our Lord and Sauiour saith except you eate my flesh and drinke my blood you shall not haue life in you My flesh is truely meate my blood is truly drinke He that can no skill of these things may perhaps turn his eare from them as they did which said how can he giue vs his flesh to eat who can heare it they departed froÌ him But you if you be the children of the church if you acquainted with mysteries Sacraments of the Gospell acknowledge the thinges that wee say they be the Lords Acknowlege that there be figures in the diuine books therefore examine theÌ as spirituall men not as carnall vnderstand what is said If you conster these thinges as carnall men they hurt you they doe not nourish you Chrysostom The words that I speak to you are spirite that is spirituall hauing nothing that is carnall in them If a man should carnally take them he should gaine nothing What is carnally to vnderstand theÌ Simply as they be spoken neither to seek any farther For the things that we see must not so be iudged of but all mysteries Sacraments must be considered with the inward eyes that is spiritually Phi. Spiritually we grant we must vnderstand them but not figuratiuely Theo. What is spiritually but figuratiuely Eating and drinking are corporall actions not spirituall and properly perfourmed with the partes of our bodies not with the powers of our soules Since then by the constant confession of all the fathers the Lord throughout this chapter did not refer eating drinking to the bodies of his Disciples but vnto their soules and ment their faith not their teeth it is apparant that the wordes of our Sauiour are allegoricall and figuratiue I meane translated and deriued by an allegorie from the body to the mind from chamming to beleeuing from swallowing to remembring to be short from the flesh of his Disciples to their spirites and in that respect called spirituall The manner of eating there specified is spirituall the wordes there vsed are mysticall to wit not literall but allegoricall and so the Fathers mainly teach Basil Tast see how sweete the Lord is We haue often marked that the powers of the soul are called by the same names by which the members of the body are Because then our Lord is the true bread his flesh is meate indeede it must be that the sweetnes of that delicious bread be felt of vs by meanes of spirituall tast There is a certaine mouth of the minde and âoule within man which is nourished by the word of life the bread I mean which came from heauen Origen To euery part or power of the soule Christ becommeth euerything Therefore he is called the true light that the eyes of the soule may haue wherewith to be lightned therfore the word that the eares of the soule may haue what to heare therefore the bread of life that the tast of the soule may haue what to relesse Tertullian The wordes that I haue spoken to you be spirit and life Making his word to quicken by reason his word is spirite and life hee called the same word his flesh because the word was made flesh and so for the procuring of life was to bee desired yea TO BE DEVOVRED WITH HEARING CHEWED WITH VNDERSTANDING AND DIGESTED WITH BELEEVING Cyprian The master of this ordinance and feast saide that except we did eate his flesh and drinke his blood we should haue no life in vs directing vs with a spirituall instruction and opening our wittes for the conceiuing of so great a matter thereby to let vs vnderstaÌd that our abiding in him is eating our drinking is as it were an incorporating with him in that mutual seruices are yeelded wils ioyned and affections vnited The eating therefore of this flesh is a certaine coueting and desiring to abide in him Athanasius Therefore doth he mention his ascending into heauen to pull from them their corporall cogitations and thinking
by their own words to teach more than idle signes or ONLY figures in the Lords supper because together with the name goe the vertâes and effects of Christes flesh bloud vnited in manner of a Sacrament to the visible signes And this their assertion neither troubleth our Doctrine nor strengthneth your error Againe these writers may very well say the Sacraments of the Gospell BE NO FIGVRES but TRVETH IT SELFE in that respect as figures bee taken for samplers of things to come Such were the figures of the law which did premonstrat the coÌming of christ in flesh ceased at his coÌming And so the mysteries of the Lords table were not figures of things expected but euidences of the truth there sitting in persoÌ the next day to be nailed to the crosse therby to fulfil abolish al figures our sacrameÌts are now not signes of farther promises but memorials of his mercies alredy performed Do this saith christ not in figure of an other truth to come but in remeÌbrance of me which am come for memorie you know stretcheth only to things past and doone and in this sense the letter may bee safely pressed and your carnall conueyance nothing relieued I find a third cause that might induce them to force the letter in this sort yet no way confirming your grosse supposall which is this When the Greeke church fell at variance for Images they which held that Christ ought not to be figured after the likenes of our bodies amongest other reasons alleadged this for one that the Lord at his Supper for a true and effectuall Image of his incarnation chose the whole substance of bread not any way like the proportion of a man lest it should occasion Idolatry The defenders of Images whose side Damascene tooke pressed with this obiection durst not flee to your annihilation of the substance of bread and adoration of the Sacrament with diuine honour which no doubt they would haue doone with great triumph had those two points of your Doctrine beene then counted catholike but yeelding and by their silence confessing that the substance of bread remayned in the supper and was not adored for so the contrarie part opposed at length for very pure neede came to this shift that the mysticall bread was not ordained to resemble and figure Christs humane nature nor so called by christ at his maundie who said not this is a figure of my body but my body nor a figure of my bloud but my bloud and when Basil and Eustathius were produced affirming the bread and wine to be figures and resemblances of Christs flesh and bloud the Patrones of Images replied that was spoken alwaies before neuer after consecration Wherefore Damascene first beganne this myncing and straining the wordes of Christ not to build on them any reall or corporall conuersion of the bread into the flesh of christ but in fauour of his artifical pictures and Images he could by no meanes abide that the mysteries should after consecration be called Images and figures of Christs bodie The next that traced this path after Damascene was Epiphanius not that auncient and learned Bishoppe of Cyprus but a pratling Deacon in the bastard Councell of Nice whose furious and fanaticall answer to the Councel of Constantinople that made this obiection declareth more tongue than witte more face than learning Christ did not say take ye eat ye the Image of my bodie Reade whiles thou wilt saith hee thou shalt neuer find that either the Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers called that vnbloudie Sacrifice which the Priest offereth AN IMAGE Thus doth he braie foorth defiance to the whole worlde without trueth without shame For Chrysostome saith If Iesus were not once dead whose image and signe is this Sacrifice This Sacrifice is an image and samplar of that Sacrifice And Gelasius Surely the IMAGE and resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries We must therefore so thinke of the Lord Christ himselfe as we professe and obserue in his IMAGE And likewise Theodoret. Ortho. The mysticall signes which are offered to god by his Priests whereof doest thou call them signes Eranist Of the body blood of the Lord. Ortho It is very well saide Conferre then the image with the paterne and thou shalt see the likenes Dionysius calleth it both an image and a figuratiue sacrifice Nazianzene excusing himselfe How should I saith he presume to offer vnto God that externall sacrifice the image of the great mysteries Clemens Offer you in your churches the image of the royall body of Christ. Macarius In the Church are offered breade and wine the images of his flesh and blood The ãâã âaâhers keepe the same word the same sense Ambrose In the law was a shadow in the Gospel is an image in heauen is the trueth Before was offered a lambe or a calf now Christ is offred here in an image there in truth where he intreateth his father as an aduocate for vs. AusteÌ Christ gaue an image of his burnt offering to be celebrated in the church for a remembrance of his passion The rest say the like but what neede we farther refutation of so ridiculous and vnshamefast a bragge such causes such councels such poppets such Proctors The very children in the church of God knowe that the diuine mysteries by the generall definition of a Sacrament be visible signes of inuisible graces and as Augustine interpreteth the word Sacramentum id est sacrum signum a Sacrament that is a sacred signe So that vnlesse they be signes they can possibly be no sacraments neither sacraments nor signes can they be without or before coÌsecration which this stout champion had not yet learned therfore his verdict in matters of religion except his cunning were greater may be wel refused As Damasene and your prating Epiphanius were more than 700. yeares after Christ so Theophilact and Euthymius are farre younger The first of them was Bishoppe of the Bulgarians who were conuerted to the faâeth 868. yeares after Christ the second your owne chronologie placeth after Gracian and Lombard 1100. yeares short of Christ. Were then these later Grecians wholy with you what gaine you by them If you woulde oppose them to Tertullian Origen Cyprian Austen Gelasius Thedorete others of purer times and sounder iudgements you could winne nothing by that bargaine the choice were soone made which to take which to leaue but in deede you do them wrong to returne them for transsubstantiators they neuer knew what it ment They say the mysteries of the Lords table be not only figures but haue the truth annexed No figures of grace differed but seales of mercy perfourmed in Christ and inioyed of vs no called figures or images of Christes flesh after consecration but bearing as well the names as the fruits and effects of the things themselues whose
sacraments they bee This maketh nothing for your locall inclosing of Christ vnder accidentes neither for your corporal mingling of his flesh with your flesh which are the two points that we chiefely detest in your reall presence Thus the greatest storme from which you thought no roose could rescue vs is halfe ouerpast and no hurt done if the rest fal as faire besides vs it wil be high time for your to leaue disputing and fall to practising as the rest of your fellowes do which bee lurking at home to infuse a rebellion or stirring abroad to boile it vp to his highth Your kingdom will neuer reflorish by pen and paper you must lay more plots and make new mariages Your time is short your rage great Phi. When you be confuted by reason then beginne you to charge vs with treason but answere the places which we bring you or I will leaue you I haue somewhat else to doing Theo. I thinke it bee the truest word you spake this moneth but an answere if that be all you looke for you shall not lackâ The fathers whom you alleage for eating the real naturall flesh of Christ drinking his blood with your mouthes throates are fowly abused their words ignorantly misconstered if not purposely peruerted Phi. Are you there at host I see by your winding you wil run to their meaning Theo. What wroÌg is that if by their own rules I recal you to the right conceiuing of their wordâ Phi. If you may make rules for religion we shall haue some wise worke of it I dare vndertake Theo. If themselues made rules to direct their hearers least their words should happily be mistaken you shew both your religion wisedom in refusing the same Phi. We refuse theÌ not if they be theirs Theo. If they be not you may the sooner repel theÌ Phi. Wel then what are they The. There shal not be many of them one will serue this turne Phi. That one then what is it The. The signes haue the names of the things themselues therfore out of the places which you haue brought you may not conclude that the naturall flesh of Christ is actually eaten with teeth or his blood really drunk with your lips but rather that the visible signes elements which are corporally receiued into your mouthes stomackes haue the vertues of those thinges whose names thây beare after consecration Phi. I thought we should haue some such shift but trust me this of all others is the fondest absurdest that you could make For what ground of faith shal persist vnshaken if you giue men this scope to confesse the nâmâs but not the thinges So the Iew may reply when Christ is proued to be the true Mâssias that he is so called but not so in deede So any heretâk may delude the whole scriptures if words shal stand as empty sounds without their sense See to what miserie you be driuen whiles you withstand the blessed Sacrament how far better were you to adore the same with vs catholâks than to run into such hereticall briers The. Your sumptuous exhortatioÌ is but a ridiculous Iudification of your selues others We do not say that in matters of doctrine words may be receiued without their natural due signification but in Sacramentes we say the signes remaining in their former substance are called by the names of the thinges themselues therfore you must take good heed that you do not rashly conclude that of the one which was spokeÌ of the other least you fall into that seruitude sicknes of the soule which S. Austen warned you of before Phi. Would you appoint wheÌ the fathers words shal be consâered of the signes wâen of the things The. Neither we nor you themselues are the âittest men to limit what they spake of the signes what of the things Phi. And do they say they spake this which I alleage of the signes The. They do Phi. âf I should stay here til that be proued I should neuer go hence Theo. The matter is not so hard to be proued as you make it For if they mainly teach that Christs flesh is not eaten with teeth not swalowed with iawes not receiued into the coÌpasse of the belly they must eithâr contradict theÌselues which they do not or those speeches which you bring must be vnderstood of the signes called by the names of Christs flesh blood though in truth they be not those things but sacraments of them as they by their own cautions wil instruct you Phi. I can not abide this going about the bush Theo. Indeed madmeÌ wil through the midst though they tear their flesh to the boanes for their labor Phi. Do you think vs mad The. It is greater madnes to sâea your own soules with the rigor of other mens phrases when they giue you warning to the contrary than to wound your owne bodies with the sharpnes of any thornes Phi. We presse not their speeches against their prescriptions you rather would frustrate their meaning with your figures The. Let them tell their owne tales what they teach concerning the parts of this Sacrament then it will soone be seene whether you or we peruert them There be three thinges in the bread by like proportion in the wine that may be douted of the name the substance the power operation When we see which of these three be changed and which vnchaunged the myst of error will soonâ be scattered The name we prooue to be chaunged by the generall confession of all the fathers Our Sauiour saiâh Theodoret changed the names and called the signe by the name of his bodie Christ called bread his bodie saieth Tertullian The signifying elementes and the thinges signified are called by the same names saith Cyprian Before the wordes of Christ saith Ambrose that which is offered is called bread when once the words of Christ be rehearsed it is now called not bread but his bodie The bread saith Prosper is called the bodie of Christ being in trueth the Sacrament that is the sacred signe of Christes bodie Chrysostom After sanctification it is discharged from the name of bread and counted worthie to beare the name of the Lords bodie notwithstanding the nature of brâad still remaine Rabanus Because bread strengthneth our bodies therefore is it âitly termed the bodie of Christ. Bertram The signes be called the Lords body blood by reason they take the name of that thing whose sacraments they be The general rule is plainely set downe by the famous Clarke S. Austen in these wordes If Sacraments had not a certaine likenes and resemblance to the things whose sacraments they are they should be no sacraments at all And for his similitude they commonly beare the names of the things themselues As therefore the Sacrament of christs body is after a sort the bodie of christ and the sacrament of christes blood
the thinges themselues whose signes those are Philand It were Theophil Why then since corporall eating serueth only for corporall nourishing and hath a continuall and naturall coherence with it doe you confesse the trueth in the later and not as well in the former part of that action why doe you not expound them both alike Philand To say the immortall fleshe of Christ is conuerted and turned into the quantitie and substaunce of our mortall flesh is an horrible heresie Theophil And so say that his fleshe is eaten with our mouthes and âawes lââth in our stomacks is the verie pathway right introduction to that heresie or at least to as brutish and grosse an erour as that is Philand The Fathers affirme that his body is eaten with our mouthes Theophil And so they affirme that his bodie and blood doe increase and augment the substaunce of our mortall and sinnefull bodies Philand But that can not bee Theophil No more can the other Philand Howe shall our bodies rise at the last day if Christes body bee not in them Theophil Our resurrection dependeth not on the act of eating his flesh but of nourishing our fleshe with his as Ireneus telleth vs and the thinges which wee eate are not the causes but as the great Nicene councell admonisheth the pledges of our resurrection Their words be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we must beleeue these to bee the signes or pledges of our resurrection Philand S. Chrysostom earnestly inforceth the eating of Christs flesh And sayth wee doe not onely eate it but euen * fasten our teeth in his fleshe Theo. In deede hee saith so but if you did not auert both your eyes and eares from the trueth you would perceiue by that verie sentence both the maner of his other Fathers speeches of that Sacrament and the right intent of their Doctrine in those cases His wordes are Non se tantum videri permittens desiderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desiderio sui omnes impleri Christ suffering himselfe not only to bee seene of those that are desirous but to bee touched and eaten and our teeth to bee fastned in his flesh and all to be satisfied of their longing after him Phi. Lord me thinketh these words be verie plain words He suffereth our teeth to bee fastned in his fleshe Theo. Uerie plaine they bee but very false also vnlesse you either take the flesh of Christ for the signe called by that name or else referre teeth and biting to the soule and faith of the ââward man aâ wel as you do the eyes hands wherewith we see him touch him Phi. Look what an âââsion you haue since gotten Theo. Nay looke what a subuersion of all truth and saith you be since fallen to Phi. Doth not this Father say wee fasten our teeth in his flesh Theo. Doeth hee not also say We see him with our eyes touch him with our handes Phi. That is referred to our faith as S. Ambrose teacheth Fide Christus videtur side Christus tangitur By faith Christ is seene by fayth Christ is touched Theoph. And why shall not the next which is more vnlikely to bee true bee referred to faith as well as the former Sainct Ambrose likewise saying Comedat te cor meuÌ panis sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee O holy bread O liuing bread O pure-bread come into my heart enter into my soule and Cyprian calling it the proper norishment of the spirite besides infinite others that for a thowsande yeares taught that doctrine in the church of God not your gutturall eating of Christ with teeth and iawes Phi. Was your maner of eating Christes fleshe which you defende in the sacrament taught in the church for a thowsande yeares Theop. Euen ours was and when yours came first to be proposed your schoolemen ran euery man his way fighting and scratching one an other âho should fal fastest and farthest from the truth Philand Blush you not to auouch two such monsterous lies Theop. A lyar will easily suspect any man as knowing him-selfe to delight in lies but GOD bee thanked that lyes with you bee truethes with vs and with all that haue any knowlegde of GOD or care of his truth The things which I affirmed be manifest truethes and such as you will blush at for verie shame if you be not sworne to your holie Father against Christ as well as you bee against your Prince Origen commenting vppon these wordes of the Supper this is my bodie this is my blood this breade sayeth hee which Christ confesseth to bee his bodie is the worde that nourisheth our soules and this drinke which hee confesseth to bee his blood is the worde that moysteneth and passinglie cheereth the heartes of such as drinke it Thou which art come vnto Christ sticke not in the blood of his fleshe but rather learne the blood of his worde and heare him saying to thee this is my blood which shall bee shedde for the remission of your sinnes Hee that is partaker of the mysteries knoweth the flesh and blood of the worde of God For the bread is the word of righteousnesse which our soules eating are nourished with and the drink is the worde of the knowledge of Christ according to the mysterie of his birth and death The blood of the Testament is poured into our heartes for the remission of our sinnes Athanasius Howe fewe men woulde his bodie haue sufficed that this shoulde bee the foode of the whole worlde Yea therefore doeth bee warne them of his ascension into heauen that he might drawe him from thinking on his bodie and they thereby learne that the flesh which he spake of was celestiall meate from aboue and spirituall nourishment to bee giuen by him The wordes which I spake to you are spirite and life which is as much as if hee had sayde this bodie which is in your sight and delyuered to death for the worlde shall bee giuen you for meate that it may bee spiritually distributed in euery one of you and be an assuraunce and preseruatiue to raise you to eternall life Cyprian writing of the Lordes Supper Eating and drinking saieth hee bee referred to the one and same end with the which as the substance of our bodies is increased and preserued so the life of the spirite is maintained with his proper nourishment What foode is to the fleshe that faith is to the soule what meate is to the body that the worde is to the spirite working euerlastingly with a more excellent vertue that which bodily meates doe for a time and vntill a season Ambrose approaching to the sacred communion which you intitle a prayer preparing to Masse amongest other thinges speaketh thus to Christ himselfe Thou Lord saydst with thine holy and blessed mouth the bread
Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera manducare corpus Christi eius sanguinem bibere The Lord sheweth what it is to eate the flesh of christ drinke his bloud not by way of a sacrament but in deede As if he had said hee that remaineth not in me and in whom I doe not likewise remaine let him neuer say nor thinke that he eateth my flesh or drinketh my bloud That which here he calleth Sacramento tènus before in the same Chapter hee called solo Sacramento opposing against it reuera maÌnducare prouing that neither heretikes nor wicked Christians do in deede eate the bodie of Christ but only the Sacrament that is the sacred signe of his bodie They rightly vnderstand that he must not be said to eate the bodie of christ which is not in the body of christ as heretikes be not and of wicked liuers though they keepe in the Church he saith Nec isti dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quia nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Neither are these that liue wickedly to bee saide to eate the bodie of christ since they must not be counted the members of Christ. Phi. Not spiritually but Sacramentally they do eate the bodie of Christ though they be wicked and so Sainct Augustine teacheth Theo. Keepe the wordes and sense which S. Augustine hath you shall be free from this error which now you are in He that remaineth not in Christ and in whom Christ abideth not without all doubt doth not spiritually eate his fleshe nor drinke his bloud though carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie and bloud Sacramentall eating is the carnall and visible pressing with teeth the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud it is not the reall eating of Christ himselfe Phi. The Sacrament is Christ we say Theo. But so said not Sainct Augustine He diligently distinguisheth Sacramentum rem Sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing which is the other part of the Sacrament interpreting the Sacrament to be Sacrum Signum a sacred Signe and the thing it selfe to be the bodie of Christ. The Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two parts Sacramentâ re Sacramenti id est corpore Christi of the sacrament the thing of the Sacrament which is the bodie of Christ. There is therefore the Sacrament the thing of the Sacrament to witte the body of Christ. Of the Sacrament he saith It is receiued at the Lordes table of some to life of some to destruction Res vero ipsa cuius Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit But the thing it selfe whereof that is a Sacrament is receiued of all men to life and of none to death whosoeuer is partaker of it The rest ioyne with him in that assertion Heretikes saith Hierom doe not eate his fleshe whose fleshe is the meate of the faithfull Whosoeuer saith Ambrose eateth this bread he shall not die for euer and it is the bodie of Christ. None is partaker of this lambe saith Cyprian that is not a right Israelite The worde saith Origen was made fleshe and true meate the which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer Quem nullus malus potest edere whom no wicked person can eate The Sacraments that is the sacred signes of Christes bodie and bloude the wicked doe eate Christ him-selfe they doe not And why The Sacraments are carnally pressed with teeth which they are partakers of as well as the Godlie but Christ him-selfe is not eaten with teeth and therefore the wicked wanting both spirite and faith by which he is receiued cannot possibly eate his fleshe or drinke his bloud though they come to his table neuer so often Phi. If Christ be really contained in the visible Sacrament how can they receiue it but they must receiue him also Theo. If hee were locally and substantially there inclosed it could not be auoided but receiuing the one into their mouthes they must needs also receiue the other into the same passage but because neither he is eaten with teeth nor entereth the bodies of the wicked as where hee abydeth not therefore wee rightly conclude that hee is not corporally couered with the accidentes of bread and wine as you grossely conceiue Phi. The lambe of God lieth on the Altar by the very profession of the first Nicene Councel we aske you now where and how if not vnder the forms of bread and wine Theo. The best handfast you haue in fathers or Councels for this cause is a few speeches wrested and forced from the inward man to the outward from the soul which they ment to the bodie which you vrge thereby to settle your reall and bodily presence but all in vaine For as we doubt not that Christ is alwaies present on his table in trueth grace vertue and effect if we open the eyes of our faith to beholde him and mouth of our spirites to receiue him so the local and corporal hiding of his humane substance vnder the shewes of breade and wine was neuer taught by any Catholike father or councel least of al by the first Nicen Synode exhorting vs in those mysteries or on that sacred table by faith to consider the lambe of God that tooke away the sinnes of the world Whâch if any doe not both professe and perfourme he is not worthie to be counted a Christian. Phi. How saith S. Chrysost wilt thou stand before the tribunal of Christ which inuadest euen his own bodie with wicked hands and lippes Theo. This is not the way to seeke for trueth but to shadowe the same with phrases of speeches And yet in these and al other your allegations out of Chrysostom and others you coÌmit these two grosse ouersightes You vnderstand that of the sensible creatures in the sacrament which was spoken of the insensible grace you refer that to the visible parts of our bodies which was inteÌded to the inuisible powers of the mynd with these false fouÌdations you run along the fathers peruerting euerie place that you quote as a meane diuine may soone perceiue Phi. These be your shifts to auoide the fathers which we bring because you will not acknowledge the real corporal presence of christ in the sacrament Theo. First proue that Christ is really and corporally present vnder the forms of bread and wine then reproue vs if we do not âcknowledge it Phi. Doubt you that Theo. Can you proue that Phi. What That Christ is present in the sacrament Theo. Is that the thing which we deny Phi. For ought that I see you graunt not so much The. God forbid we should deny that the flesh bloud of christ are truly present truely receiued of the faithfull at the Lords table It is the doctrine that we âeach others and comfort our selues with Wee neuer
to say is hereticall And therefore they ioyne both in this that the bodie of Christ may not only be eaten of a Mouse but also it may be vomited vppe by the mouth and purged downe by the draught say Bonauenture what he will or can in detestation of their folke These be their words Igitur corpus Christi sanguis tam diu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu species manet Et si specieâ incorruptae euomuâtur illa autem qâandoque non corrùpta emâttuâtur vt in habentibus fluxum ibi est vere corpus Christi Therefore the bodie and bloud of Christ remaine in the bellie anâ stomacke or in vomite and in whatsoeuer course of nature so long as the shewes of bread and wine remaine And if they be vomited or purged before they be altered as sometimes in those that are troubled with the fluxe euen there is the true bodie of Christ. O filthie mouthes and vncleane spirites What Capernite what heretike what Infidel was euer I say not so carnall and grosse but so barbarous and brutish Is this the reuerence you giue to the sacred and glorious flesh of Christ Is this the corporal presence that you striue for Shal Mice Dogges and Swine haue eternall life that you bring them to eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of our Sauiour The rest of your sluttish diuinitie no religious hart can repeate no Christian eares can abide let your neerest frindes be iudges whether this kinde of eating doe not match not only the Capernites but also the Canibals This vile and wicked assertion you will beare men in hand you did euer detest and so think to discharge your selues but you cannot scape so The church of Rome whose factours and attournies you be must answere to God and the worlde for suffering admitting and strengthning this sacrilegious blasphemie For when these things were first broched what did she Did she controle the doers and condemne the filthines of their error Did she so much as note the men or mislike the matter No Philander she proposed the question in her sentences Quid igitur sumit mus vel quid manducat What then doth the mouse take or what doth he eate And with her colde and indifferent answer Deus nouit God knoweth she set the schoole men on work she laid vp the ashes of those mice next her altars for reliques she fauored aduanced and canonized the spredders of it Thomas of Aquin was her only Paramour Hugh of Cluince who commended a Priest for eating the sacrament which a leaper had cast vp Cum vilissimo sputo was Saincted of her she made Antonius no worse man than an Archbishoppe What Call you this the quenching or kindling the suppressing or increasing of heresies No maruaile if you recken Rebels for Martyrs your holy mother the Church of Rome hath the cunning to make saints of blasphemers Returne returne for shame to grauitie trueth and antiquitie Learne to distinguishe that which is seene in this Sacrament from that which is beleeued I meane the visible creature from the grace which is not visible HADST THOV BEENE saith Chrysostome WITHOVT A BODIE Christ WOVLD HAVE GEEVEN THEE HIS INCORPORALL GVIFTS NAKEDLY that is without any coniunction of corporall creatures BVT NOW BECAVSE THY SOVL IS COVPLED WITH A BODIE THEREFORE IN THINGS THAT BE SENSIBLE THINGS INTELLIGIBLE ARE DELIVERED THEE AS BREAD saith Cyril of this sacrament SERVETH FOR THE BODIE SO THE WORD SERVETH FOR THE SOVL. It is neither nouâltie nor absurditie to say that the bread of the Lorde as touching the material substance may bee deuoured of beasts digested of men and will of it selfe in continuance mould and putrifie Such is the condition of all creatures that serue to nourish our bodies and this is a creature well knowen and familiar to our senses But the word of God which is added to the corporall elements the grace which is annexed to the visible signes and the flesh of Christ which quickneth the soul of man by faith these thinges I say be free from all violent and vndecenâ abuses and iniuries For they be no corporall mortall nor earthlie creatures but spirituall eternall and heauenly blessings and therefore in no case subiect to the greedines of beasts vncleanes of men or weaknes of nature The element is one thing saith Ambrose the operation is an other thing That which is seene in all Sacraments is temporall that which is not seene is eternall If wee looke to the very visible thinges wherein Sacraments are ministred who is ignorant saith Austen that they be corruptible But if wee consider that which is wrought by them who doth not see that that cannot suffer any corruption Of the Lordes Supper Origen affirmeth that the bread as touching the matter or materiall partes thereof goeth into the bellie and forth by the draught but the praier and blessing which is added doeth lighten the soule according to the portion of faith The sacrament that is the sacred element is one thing saieth Rabanusâ the power of the Sacrament is an other thing The Sacrament is receiued in at the mouth with the vertue of the Sacrament the inwarde man is filled the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the bodie by the vertue of the Sacrament wee attaine eternall life This doâtrine your schoolemen either wilfullie reiected or foolishly peruerted to make Christ substantiallie present in your Masses and for that onely cause felâ thây to the locall shutting of him within the formes of bread and the corporall eating his flesh with their teeth Which grossenes once preuailing in your Church of Rome Thomas Alexander Antonius and the greatest Clarkes of your side were by the consequent of your reall presence forced to conââsse that the flâsh of Christ might be subiect to the teeth and iawes as well of beastes as of vnbeleeuers For wickednes is worse than sluttishnes and the bodies of sinnefull men God more detesteth than he doth the bowels of vnreasonable creatures Since then by the generall consent of your Church Christ doeth not refuse the bellies and intralles of faithlesse persons why say they should he not be verily contained in the capacities and inwardes of brute beastes if by mischaunce they deuoure the Sacrament This hold fast your gloze layeth hands on Si dicatur quodmus sumat corpus Christi non est magnum inconueniâns cum homines sceleratissimi illud sumant If it be said that a mouse taketh the bodie of Christ it is no great inconuenience seeing most wicked men doe receiue the same and this Bonauenture setteth downe for the chiefest motiue to that vile assertion Phi. To tel you truth I like not that position Theo. So long as you defend Christs humane substance to be locally present in your host you cannot for your hart auoide it but either by mocking your sâlues and deluding your senses or
wil thinke you madde if you fall to these positions that Christ in the host hath an humane shape and yet the host which couereth him fully round that he is there in the iust length and breadth of a man and yet exactly enclosed in euery cromme of the bread drappe of the wine that he is * circumscribed with place and yet contained in no place that he * consisteth of skinne fleshe and bones and yet breaketh in shiuers and is poured out like liquor these with infinite other such outragious and enourmous absurdities and contrarieties will declare rather the weakenes of your braines than the maner of his presence You shall do well therefore either to shew vs what father euer taught these things before you or els keepe this confusion of al religion learning for those that list to ieopard their souls vpon such iests The Realme of England is not yet minded to admitte thâse monsters into their Creede Phi. We teache not these things without good grounds and such as the Catholike Fathers before vs embraced and allowed Theo. If you follow their steppes then shew vs their writings for that you affirme Phi. Can wee not thinke you Theo. What you can doe I care not you do not I see Phi. What one thing defend we which we haue not their witnes and warrant for Theo. You haue not one father for this whole question Phi. Not for the real presence Theo. You may runne on with some misconstructions of the Fathers which are as soone answered by vs as obiected by you but an euident testimonie for any of the partes which I haue proposed you haue none Phi. What partes Theo. Your head is wandring that you haue since forgotten them That Christ spake not of the bread when he said this is my body or that the sense of his wordes was literall or that the substance of bread ceaseth after consecration so as nothing remaineth of the former elements but accidents or that the corporall eating with the mouth of which the Fathers speak must be meant of the things themselues and not of the signes called by those names and hauing those vertues after sanctification or that the material substance of Christs natural body may be present in many places at one time or that it is no heresie to defend the body of Christ after his ascension may lack circumscription extension or shape For any of these bring vs but one sufficient and auncient authoritie we will omit the rest and admit your Masse Phi. Will you stand to that worde Theo. If you will vndertake the proofe Philand I will Theo. And what if you performe it not will you bethinke your selfe how lewdly you seduce the people of this land vnder a pretence of pietie and resist the annoincted of God vnder a colour of blind deuotion and zeale to your holie Father the worker of al this wickednes though the founder of your two Celledges Phi. If I perform not that I will do any thing marie prouided alwaies you shall not cauill at the Fathers workes when I cite them and say they be forged Theo. Prouided also that you produce the Fathers workes themselues and not the bare reportes of your fellowes that haue falsely conueied many thinges in the Fathers names Philand You shall haue their owne workes Theoph. Then keepe on your owne course Phi. The rest of the points which you propose I am alreadie past only traÌsubstanâiation which you most impugne I kept to the last to giue you the list But if I proue it so as you shall not deny it will you be as good as your promise and become a catholike Theo. A Catholike if I were not I would bee with a good will but not of your making For if you cannot shew me one Father that euer taught your Transubstantiation wel you may call your selues catholiks and christes own fellowes if you will but all that be Godly and wise will take you for deceitful if noâ for desperate heretikes But why spend you time with triâling thus It were better your fathers were on foot at lest if you haue them Phi. Haue them Such as shall amaze you when you heare them Theo. Your vaine is in A stourdie preface doth ill become an hungrie Oratour Phi. Marke the end Theo. I would see the man that I might marke him Phi. S. Austen shal be the man Theo. Was he a Transubstantiator Phi. Fairly flatly fully Th. So was the moone first made of green cheese Phi. You wil not beleeue him til you heare him Theo. He is not long in comming âhath he not yet learned his lesson or are you scant resolued whether it be he or not Phi. It is euen he and these be his wordes Non dubitare debet alâquis cum panis vinum consecrantur in veram substantiam Christi ita vt non remaneat substantia panis vel vini cum multa alia etiam in operibus Dei non minus miranda videmus Hominem enim substantialiter mutat Deus in lapidem vt vxorem Loth in paruo artificio hominis faenum filicem in vitrum Nec credendum est quod substantia panis velvini remaneat sed panis in corpus Christi vinuÌ in sanguinem conuertitur solummodo qualitatibus panis vini remanentibus No man ought to doubt when bread wine are consecrated into the trew substance of christ so as the substance of bread wine doth not remaine whereas we see manie things in the works of God no lesse maruelous than this A man God changeth substantially into a stone as Loths wife in the small workmanship of man hay ferne into glasse Neither must we beleeue that the substance of bread or wine remaineth but the bread is turned into the bodie of Christ the wine into his bloud the qualities or accidents of bread wyne only remaining What say you to this check is it mate or no Theo. The words are sufficient if the writer be ancient Phi. Then are you gone for the author is S. Austen Theo. He seemeth to haue beene some glassâmaker rather than S Austen for he saith the working of glasse is as wounderful a feate as the turning of bread into Christs bodie Phi. You would disgrace the writer but he will not so be put out of countenance Theo. I think he will not for had he or you any shame left he would haue blushed al his while to beare S Austens name which was none of his you would haue had some remorce to deceiue the worlde with such apparent euident treacheries Phi. I thought where we should haue you Now you cannot shifte the wordes you ãâã the place for a forgerie but this is against the first prouiso which I made with you Theophi Then shew vp where you find it in his workes for that was the second prouiso which you agreed to Phi. I assure my selfe these
earthly cogitations of the mysticall elements and to stir them rather to marke in this Sacrament the wonderfull power and effects of Gods spirit and grace than the base condition and naturall digestion of bread and wine Phi. Would S. Chrysostom haue vs thinke the mysteries to bee consumed vnlesse in deede they were consumed Theo. His directing our cogitations for religion and reuerence rather to the inward force than outward appearance of the mysteries doeth not chaunge the sensible qualities of bread and wine whereof hee spake much lesse the substance alone whereof he spake not but draweth the receiuers from that which their eyes behold to that which by faith they beleeue to the secreter and diuiner part of the Sacrament not abolishing the one but preferring the other as more worthy to be considered and desired by the commers to the Lordes table And in this sense he willeth the people not to thinke that the Priest is a man in the verie next wordes that followe without line or letter betwixt Wherefore approaching to the Lordes table doe not thinke that you receiue the diuine body at the handes of a man but that you take a fierie coale by the Seraphims tongues which Esay sawe in his vision Can this be Chrysostoms meaning that in act and verie deede the Priest is changed into a Seraphim his hand into a paire of tongs the body of Christ into a coale of fire Except you be past your fiue wits you wil say no yet Chrysostom in the same place perswadeth the coÌmunicants so to think as he did before that the mysteries were consumed by the substance or presence of Christs body Then if the latter wordes inferre no such chaunge why should the former If you be not so foolish as to mistake the second part of this sentence why be you so wilfull as to peruert the first vttered at the same time to the same purpose with the verie same phrase of speach Chrysostomes intent is no more to transsubstantiate the bread than the priest or the bodie of Christ but with vehement amplifications as his manner is he perswadeth the people to come to the Lordes table with no lesse reuerence than if they were to receiue a fierie coale as Esay did in his vision from one of the glorious Seraphims And to this end also doth he kendle them what he can not to be basely minded and affected toward the mysteries as if they were onely bread and wine in that sort to passe through the bellie with other meates but to prepare their hartes and to lift them vp to God as they promised to doe when the Priest saide lift vp your minds and harts they made answere we lift them vp vnto the Lord. These wordes therefore force no reall mutation in the thinges receiued but leade the receiuers from thinking on the weake creatures which they see to the mighty power of Gods graces which they see not and this is done with a religious coÌsideration not with any monsterous transubstantiation or annihilation of the sacred mysteries Phi. S. Cyrill of Ierusalem saith Know you for a suerty that this bread which is seene of vs is not bread though the tast find it to be bread but the body of Christ. And so Theophilact It appeareth to bee bread but it is fleshe Theo. The first authors of this speach were late writers as Theophilact or lately set foorth by your fellowes not without great suspition as Cyrill of Ierusalem and the speech it selfe doth somwhat vary from the stile both of the Scriptures and fathers which acknowledge this mysterie to be bread wine The bread which we breake saith Paul is it not the communion of Christes body We all are partakers of one bread As often as you eate of this bread drink of this cup you shew the Lords death til he come Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drink of this cup. And our Sauiour in the Gospell speaking of the cup I will not drinke hencefoorth of this fruit of the vine Tertul. Christ hath not euen at this day reiected the water of the creator by which he doth wash his nor the bread by the which hee doth represent his verie body Clemens Alexandrinus This is my blood eueÌ the blood of the grape Cyprian We find it was wine which the Lord called his blood The Lord called his body bread kneaded togither of many cornes and his blood wine pressed out of many clusters of grapes Origen The Lords bread according to the materiall partes thereof goeth into the belly and so foorth by the draught Austen As the men of God before vs did expound this the Lord commended his body blood in those things which are made one of many For the first is kneaded of many cornes into one lumpe the other is pressed of many clusters into one liquour That then which you saw is bread which also your eyes can tell you Cyrill of Alexandria To the beleeuing Disciples Christ gaue peeces of breade saying take eate this is my body Hesychius Hee meaneth that mystery which is both breade and fleshe The phrase it selfe therefore It is not bread sauoreth of later ages and writers and crosseth that course of speeche which both Scriptures and Fathers obserued and yet if you suffer them to declare their owne mindes they may soone be reconciled to the rest Theophilact expressing the same point in other wordes saieth Speciem quidem panis vini seruat in virtutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat Christ keepeth the shape or kind of bread and wine but changeth theÌ into the vertue of his body and blood Cyrill openeth his owne saying more at large The bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost is nowe no more common bread but the bodie of Christ. In the new Law the heauenly bread and cup of saluation sanctifie both soule and bodie As the bread serueth for the bodie so doth the word for the soule Thinke not therefore of the Sacrament as of bare bread and bare wine it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lordes owne wordes And although sense tell thee this that is bare bread and wine yet let faith confirme thee neither iudge them by tast but rather by faith assure thy selfe without all doubt that the body and blood of Christ are giuen vnto thee This assertion we grant is right and good and this intent had hee when hee said the bread which is seene is no bread meaning no common no bare bread In which assertion other ancient Fathers concurre with him Iustinus Wee receiue not these thinges as a common vsual bread or accustomed drink but we be taught that the food blessed by praier of the worde receiued from him is the fleshe and blood of that Iesus which tooke fleshe for our sakes Ireneus
specie visibili they dranke one thing we drink an other thing but in visible kinde Ibi Petra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est To them the Rock was Christ to vs that is Christ which is set on the altar of God If you looke to the visible kinde it is an other thing than that they dranke In these places you can not interprete species a shewe without substance vnlesse you wil transubstantiate Manna which the children of Israel did eate the rocke which they dranke of the hatchet which Elizeus made swâm the bread that is in common vse without before consecration for these things Austen and Ambrose comparing them with this Sacrament do call visibiles species visibles kindes as they do the bread and wine proposed to the faithfull at the Lordes table And were you so peruerse that against the meaning of the Fatherâ ând signification of the word you would needes haue species to bee taken for your miraculous and mysticall accidences I can tell you they are like to shrinke in this change as well as the substaunce For Ambrose saith Sermo Christi mutat species elementorum the word of Christ changeth by your interpretation the shewes of the elementes which is so apparantly false that your selues dare not abide it And therefore species must stand not for the outward formes and shewes but for the thinges themselues As Sainct Augustine speaking of the Sacramentall bread sayth vt sit visibilis species panis multa grana in vnum consperguntur Manie cornes are kneaded togither to make not the shew but the visible kinde or creature of bread By which it is euident that species with auncient writers in their discourses of this Sacrament is not a shewe without a substaunce as you vainly suppose but a kinde or creature which is far from accidentes hanging in the ayre you know not how by miraculous geometrie Philand Wee ground not our selues so much on the bare name of species as on the change of the bread and wine made by vertue of consecration as all the Fathers witnesse Theo. It is a verie simple foundation to builde on a bare word which hath many significations besides that and any signification rather than that which you conceiue and yet that is one of the best foundations you haue for your newe founde shewes without substaunce and as for the chaunge of the sacred elementes made by the wordes of Christ and mentioned in the Fathers if you did not vrge your fansies on their phrases but examine their doctrine you should soone spie your error which nowe you will not you bee so wedded to the preiudice of your owne opinion Phi. Doe not all the Fathers with one voice confesse a change to bee made in the elementes by the words of Consecration Theo. Doe not we acknowledge the same How could vsuall bread taken of the fruites of the earth and seruing only to feede the bodie become a Sacrament instrument of heauenly grace and life to quicken and strengthen the soule of man but by some great and maruelous chaunge Phi. Such as none coulde perfourme but the mighty finger of God himselfe For so S. Ambrose and others to perswade this chaunge haue recourse to Christes eternall power and trueth Theo. Yea verily Phi. That confession is suffâcient to confute the doctrine which you defend Theo. I see not how Phi. If the bread were not changed from his former substance it could neither bee miraculous nor neede the omnipotent power of Christ. For figures similitudes men may make but this mutation is wrought by the mightie power of the holy Ghost and the manner is vnsearchable Theo. Greater power truth are required for the finishing of one Sacrament than for the working of many miracles Miracles not only the godly but also the wicked haue diuerse times wrought The Sorcerers of Egypt did some wonders Antichrist hath his miracles and those not a few But Sacramentes no Sainct no not the chosen and elect Angels of heauen can institute For who dare promise who can performe the spirituall and celestiall graces of God to bee annexed to the visible signes but only God How could water regenerate the soule if the worde were not God How could bread and wine norish to life euerlasting vnlesse the same God had likewise spoken the word We must in al sacraments be fully persuaded of Christs infallible truth alsufficient power before we can either beleeue or inioy the promises If his word might lack truth or want power then should our faith vanish these outward elements perish without profiting vs but with him is no changing neither can any thing defeate his wil therefore when wee bee taught to looke not on the weaknes of the creatures which be corruptible but on the perfection of his heauenly word which is puissant predominaÌt ouer al things what doth this helpe your real corporal coÌuersion of bread into Christ What maketh this for TraÌsubstantiation God is wonderfull in this and all other his sacramentes not by casting away substances and leauing accidences but by working that in our hearts by the mightie power of his spirit aboue nature which the visible signes import to our senses and this is more maruelous in any wise mans eye than your accidentall shewes without a subiect Phi. God is maruelous in all his workes but in this more than in any other because the substance of the bread wine is changed where the qualities are not Theo. That change you dreame of but who auoucheth it besides your selues or what ancient father euer mentioned any such Phi. They all confesse the change which we speake of Theo. You bee so deepe in your empty shewes that wee take your all to bee as much as none Phi. Thinke you as you list wee knowe what wee haue Theo. If your stoare bee so great why make you such curtsie to name vs one Phi. You will quarell with him when I bring him Theo. Your selfe mistrust him before you offer him Phi. I mistrust your carping not his writing Theo. If mine answere bee not sound wherefore serue you but to refute it Phi. Wel then Eusebius Emissenus hath an euident testimony for this matter Recedat omne infidelitatis ambiguum quandoquidem qui author est muneris ipse est etiam testis veritatis Nam inuisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis sui verbo secreta potestate conuertit ita dicens Accipite comedite hoc est corpus meuÌ Et sanctificatione repetita accipite bibite ait Hic est sanguis meus Ergo sicut ad nutum praecipientis Domini repente ex nihilo substiterunt excelsa caelorum profunda fluctuum vasta terrarum ita pari potestate in spiritualibus Sacramentis vbi praecipit virtus seruit effectus Let all doubt of infidelitie
you suffer the father him-selfe to tell out his owne tale and bee content to heare as well the ending as the entring of it Hee saieth the bread is chaunged in nature into the flesh of Christ by the almightie power of the woorde expressing in what into what and by what the bread is chaunged moe parts you cannot make Phi. Wee need not Theo. And yet all these notwithstanding he meaneth no materiall nor corporall change of the bread or wine but that as in the person of Christ there were two distinct perfect substances vnited and ioyned the one his manhood that was seene the other his godhead that was hid euen so to the visible Sacrament persisting in his former substance doth the diuine essence infunde it selfe after a secret and vnsearchable manner proouing the presence of an heauenly vertue to bee there by the inuisible efficience Philand If you will haue the bread keepe his proper and perfect both nature and substance what change is there made in the bread Theoph. This chaunge is not the casting awaie of any thing that was in the bread either nature or substance but the casting vnto it of an heauenly and inuisible grace and so Theoâorete expresseth the mutation that is in this sacrament Non naturam ipsam transmutans sed naturae adiiciens gratiam Not changing or casting away nature it selfe but adding grace vnto nature And that is S. Ambrose his meaning when hee saieth Sunt quae erant in aliud commutantur The bread and wine are the verie same that they were both in nature and substance and are changed into an other thing Philand How can this be that they should be changed and yet continue the same but as wee expound it that in substance they be chaunged and yet in shew continue as they were before Theoph. This is your fansie wee know but the learned fathers by their change meane no such thing they teach not any detraction or diminution of that which was but an adiection and apposition of that which was not And therefore they witnes both as well the permanence of the elements in their former nature as their change into an other Chrysostome said as you heard before The bread sanctified is counted worthie to be called the Lordes bodie etsi natura panis in ipso permansit though the nature of bread remaine there still and Theodoret Neque enim signa illa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à sua natura those mysticall signes doe not by Consecration depart from their nature And Gelasius Non tamen desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini and yet the substance or nature of bread wine doth not cease or perish And to this verie sacrament S. Austen applâeth this Rule Omnis res naturam veritatem illarum rerum in se continet ex quibus conficitur Euerie thing containeth or keepeth the nature truth of those things of which it consisteth Phi. You refuââ Cyprian you doe not expound him He saith the nature of the bread is changed you prooue it remaineth be not these contrarie Theo. Bâ your exposition they are by ours they are not For the nature of bread wee say remaineth and is in nothing diminished but encreased with an heauenly vertue that is added to it And this though it be a chaunge to that which it was not yet is it no change from that which it was Philand That is properly chaunged which is altered from that it was Theo. And that is as properly saied to be chaunged which is increased with that it was not though it be not altered in substance from that it was The soule of man is often chaunged but neuer in substance The bodie from the cradle to the graue hath many increases and changes but in substance persisteth the same that it was before it came into the worlde Euerie thing that groweth keepeth that it had atchiueth that it had not and yet is that a change But what neede we other examples since the fathers themselues doe both by their words similitudes shew what changes they ment A childe is changed by baptisme not in loosing or altering the substance of bodie or soul which hee had but in attaining the grace blessing of God which he had not The Lorde himselfe is changed in person by his ascension not that the trueth shape or circumscription of his flesh are abolished but endued with immortall glory So shall he alter our vile bodies not by spoiling them of their substance but by imparting to them of his brightnes and as S. Paul writeth We shall not all sleepe but we shall be changed Phi. S. Pauls wordes are nothing to the Sacrament Theo. They are somwhat to the vse of the word which I proposed and yet Ireneus doth not sticke to resemble the change in the Sacrament to the verie hope and assurance which our bodies now haue of that glorie before they be changed or haue cast off their mortal and earthly corruption As saith he the bread which is of the earth receiuing the inuocation of god is now no common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthlie an heauenlie so our bodies receiuing the Eucharist be now not corruptible that is not wholly destinated to corruption as hauing hope of resurrection Phi. But S. Ambrose repeateth examples of corporall and substantial changes when he would proue that blessing in this sacrament ouerbeareth nature Theo. S. Ambrose doth not say that the bread is changed after the same manner but meaning to shew that praier and benediction worketh where nature cannot yea many times altereth nature hee bringeth seauen examples whereof fiue are no substantial changes in the end concludeth that if the praiers speech of meÌ could turn alter things aboue against nature much more can the word of christ bring to passe that the elements shal bee that they were yet be changed into that they were not and which by nature they are not Phi. He hath no such wordes in that chapter Theo. His conclusion there is this Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant The worde of Christ who could of nothing make that which was not can hee not change those things which are into that which before they were not And in the next booke intitled De Sacramentis assuming the same matter and producing almost all the same examples and arguments he resolueth in these wordes Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu vt inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur If there bee such force in the worde of the Lord Iesu that the things which were not at his worde beganne to be how much
more can it worke this that they shal be the same they were yet be changed into an other thing And to shew vs an example how a thing may be that it was yet be changed he forthwith addeth Tu ipse eras sed eraâ vetus creatura posteae quam consecratuâ es noua creatura esse caepisti Vis scire quam nouae creatura Omnis inquit in Christo nouae creatura Accipâ ergo quemadinoduÌ sermo Christi creaturam omnem mutare consueuerit mutat quando vult instituta naturae Thou thy selfe wast but thou wast an oulde creature after when thou wast Baptised thou begannest to be a new creature Wilt thou know how true it is that thou art a new creature Euery one saith the Apostle is in Christ a new creature Learn then how the word of Christ is accustomed to chaunge euery creature and when he will he altereth the course of nature â keeping the same similitude of Baptisme for the explication of himselfe that the rest do thereby declaring he meaneth nothing lesse than that the matter and substance of the bread and wine should be changed For he that is baptised suffereth no materiall substantiall nor corporall chaunge though hee bee borne a fresh and putte on Christ and euen so the sacred elements are turned into the fleshe of our Sauiour without abolishing their former nature or substance Phi. If these places of S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose conclude not for vs certainly they conclude nothing against vs and therefore you cannot refell our assertion by them Theo. I doe not I shew the places which you take most hold of haue no such sequel as you surmise so your transubstantiation is your late and priuate imagination without all antiquite Phi. Call you that late or priuate which hath beene the generall and constant confession of all Christendome for these fifteene hundereth yeres Theo. It doth you good to crake though there be neither trueth nor sense in that you say Hath al christendom for these fifteene hundereth yeres confessed the substance of bread and wine at the Lords table to be changed into the reall natural body bloud of Christ Phi. It hath Theo. How shal we know that Phi. You may find it in their writings Theo. How chanceth then you can not shew one that for 800 yeares made that confession Phi. We can Theo. You do not as yet Phi. Yeas we haue done it S. Augustine told you plainly the substance of breade and wine did not remaine but only the qualities and venerable Bede said there was the shew but not the substance of bread Be not these direct and faire proofes Theo. Fairely forged they be but otherwise the writers themselues were neuer of that opinion Phi. I haue proued by S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril that it is no bread Theo. No bare nor common bread as our sense doth iudge but yet the nature of bread still remaineth though endued with a more diuine and mightie grace Phi. The bread is chaunged as S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose teache Theo. Not by loosing that it had but by annexing that it had not Phi. It is conuerted into the substance of Christ. Theo. But by no materal nor corporall chaunge of the former substance Phi. This is your deluding of fathers The. That is your abusing of them Phi. You recal their wordes to your liking Theo. And you inforce theÌ against their meaning Phi. Who shall iudge of that Theo. Not you Phi. Nor you Theo. Let their owne mouthes be trusted Phi. I am well contented Theo. Then are you condemned For where their wordes beare our exposition as wel as yours you vrge a corporal and substantial change on their speaches in euery place which they in plaine wordes protest to be no part of their faith Phi. Where find you that protestation Theo. Is your memorie so short that I must now make a new repetition Phi. You went about to prooue that the substance of bread remained The. And that which I professed I performed you may turne back view the words The substance of bread doth not cease to be the signes remaine in their former substance As touching the substances of the creatures they are the same after Consecration that they were before And that was Cyprians meaning when he said Corporalis substantiae retinens speciem retaining their kind of corporall substance as also this substantiall bread This is warrant sufficient in any Christian mans iudgement for vs so to interpret the fathers words as we do not abolish the substance of bread which they confesse remaineth Phi. Had that beene their doctrine would their after-commers thinke you haue so soone swarued from their faith Theo. They did not That verie confession that the substance of bread remained after consecration dured almost a thousand yeares in most parts of the West Church and namely in this realme Omit Bertram that liued 830. after Christ whose booke is extant purposely and largely treating of this matter Walafridus an other of that time giueth flat euidence against your chaunging of substances in the sacrament when hee saith In caena quam ante traditionem suam vltimam cum Discipulis Christus habuit post Paschae veteris solemnia corporis sanguinis sui sacramenta in panis vini substantia eisdem Discipulis tradidit In the supper which Christ had with his Disciples last before hee was betraied after the solemnities of the olde Passeouer he deliuered to the same disciples the sacraments of his bodie and blood in the substance of bread and wine And so doeth Druthmarus reporting our Sauiours act at his last supper in these words Transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus suum vinum in sanguinem Christ chaunging the bread into his bodie and the wine into his bloode spirituallie And so Paschasius though you haue here there enterlaced that book to help your selues and printed it vnder the name of Rabanus as well as of Paschasius Panis confirmat cor hominis vinum letificat c. propter quod in eadem substantia iure celebratur hoc mysterium salutis Bread confirmeth and wine cheereth the hart c. wherefore in that substance is this mysterie of our saluation worthily celebrated Waleramus Bishop of Medburg a thousand yeares after Christ continued the same doctrine though some Italians then beganne to fortifie their new conceits of shewes without substance His wordes are Materiae vel substantia Sacrificij non simpla est sicut nec pontifex solius diuinae vel-humanae solius substantiae est Est ergo tam in Pontifice quaÌ in sacrificio diuina substaÌtia est terrena Terrena in vtroque est illud quod corporaliter vel localiter videri potest diuina in vtroque verbum inuisibile quod in principio erat Deus apud Deum The matter or substance of the sacrifice is not single as also the high priest
sacrifice 693 The Iesuits heape vp fathers for a shew though they make nothing for them 694 The Sacrifices of the new Testament be spirituall 695 What sacrifice it is that Malachie speaketh of 696 The Lords Supper is a sacrifice for diâers respects 699 The Priests act can not applie the death of Christ 700 The Iesuits sacrifice 701 The word Sacrifice is not vsed by the holy Ghost 702 S. Paul maketh nothing for the sacrifiâe of the Masse 703 Adoration of the sacrament 705 The Sacrament must not bee adored 706 The Iesuits proofes for adoration of the Sacrament 707 No Father teacheth the adoratioÌ of the sacrament 708 S. Austen was far froÌ adoring the sacrament 709 Christ adored in the misteries 710 Chrysostome did not adore the sacrament 712 Nazianzene doth not say that his sister adored the sacrament 713 Dionysius made no inuocation of the Sacrament 714 Dionys. corrupted by the Ies. 715 The whole church slaundered by the Iesuites 716 Origen Chrysâst lengthned by the Iesuits to serue the adoratioÌ of the Sacrament 718 Origens words ãâã 719 Christ ãâã our roote 719 Christ dwelleth in vs more truely than in the Sacrament 719 The Church directed her prayers to Christ in heauen 722 The Sacrament is a corruptible creature 722 We must not basely beÌd our minds on the visible creatures 723 The mystical signes must be reuerenced but not adored with Godlike honour 724 The signes remaine in their former Substance 725 The Real presence 726 Why the Iesuites mistake the fathers in this matter 728 The bread is made God by the Iesuites constructions of Christs wordes 729 Christ said of the bread this is my bodie 730 The Papistes say THIS in the words of Christ is taken for nothing 732 The causes why the wordes of Christ at his last Supper were not literal 733 For what cause S. Austen concludeth the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue 734 The Iesuits caÌnot tel how to make the letter agree with ther opinion 735 The figuratiue sense of Christes words auouched by the fathers 736 The signe in the Sacrament caÌnot be the trueth 739 The 6. of S. Iohn expoundeth the words of the supper 740 The fathers refer the 6. of Iohn to the Lordes supper 741 The fathers themselues refer the 6. of Iohn to the sacrament 742 The words in the 6. of Iohn are figuratiue because the actioÌs are spirituall 744 To eate christ is to beleeue and abide in Christ. 745 In S. Iohn the manner of eating is spiritual the manner of speaking is allegorical 746 What the Capernits error was 746 How the Ies. differ from the Capernites 748 What fathers the Iesuits haue for their literall sense corporall eating 750 What the late Grecians ment by pressing the letter 751 The Sacrament is a signe of christ on the crosse 753 In sacraments the signes haue the names of the thinges theÌselues 754 The signes remain in their former substance 756 The power and operation of tââ signe is changed 75â The substance of christs flesh doth not enter our mouthes 759 Christ is not eaten with teeth 759 The Iesuites narrowly driuen wheÌ they must take substance for accidents 761 Christ is not eaten with teeth or iawes 762 The refutation of Eutiches error ouerthroweth traÌsubstantiatioÌ 764. Eutiches error is not refuted but confirmed by the real presence 766. Leoes words do not import the reall presence 767 The iesuits make the fathers contradict themselues 769 That body which entereth our mouths increaseth the substaÌce of our flesh 770 What manner of eating Christ in the Sacrament the Church taught for a 1000. yeares 772 The spirituall eating of Christ in the Sacrament excludeth the corporall 776 What the Sacramentall eating of Christ is 778 The wicked do not eat Christ. 779 The Church of Rome is not yet resolued of her corporal eating of Christs flesh 780 The first Authors of their corporal eating condemne ech others opinion for heresie 680 The grossenes of Papistes worse than carnal oâ capernitical 782 The ElemeÌts may putrify the flesh of Christ cannot 783 Their sluttish diuinity is a necessiry sequele to their real preseÌce 783 We must ascend to heauen where Christ sitteth in his glorie 384 Our harts must be lifted vp to heauen not âo the heââ 785 The true flesh of Christ is in heaueÌ and absent from the earth 786 The manhoodâ of Christ is not in many places at once 788 The substaunce of Christes bodie must be coÌtained in one place 790. Christes manhoode is not euery where by the verie principles of our faith 792 How one the same christ is euerywhere present 792 The power of God doth neuer crosse his will 793 Contradictions bee as impossible as falshoods be 796 The Iesuites haue not one father for their transubstantiatioÌ 797 S. Austen horribly forged by frier walden 798 Bede vsed in the same sort by the same frier 799 In what sense Chrysostome saide the mysteries are coÌsumed 800 How the Sacrament may be saide to be no bread 801 Species doth not signifie shewes without substaunce 803 The Persons of men cannot preiudice the truth of God 817 The happines of our times is gods goodnes not our worthines 818 The Iesuites religion is like their subiection 819 The Iesuites positions bee both trayterous and hereticall 820. Faultes escaped The first number noteth the page the second the line m. margent c. correction Page 9. line 18. safely read falsly p. 20. l. 25. mercy The breath r. mercy the breach p. 25. l. 30. Anastasius r. Athanasius p. 37. l. 38. Tiberius r Liberius p. 63. l. 33 cunning r. cumming p. 64. l. 30. you can r. Phi. You can p. 66. l. 14. Seneca r. Semeca p. 72. l. 9. Athanasius r. Anastasius p. 82. m. 4000. r. 1000. p. 93. l. 12. Burdeaus r. Burges p. 97. l. 24. cattels r. chattels p. 120 l 41. coÌuert r. coÌtriue p. 128. l. 32. and if r Theo. And if p. 149. l. 34. Maximus r. Mariaus p. 173. l. 23. do you not r Phil Do you not p. 180. l. 38. whâch spoken r. which is spokeÌ p. 201. l. 1. adiudge to haue r. theÌ to haue p. 204. l 41. they do r. they may do p. 228. m. whether the Pope r. while the Pope p. 229. l. 38. nec ipse nec alteruÌ r. nec ipse possit alteruÌ p. 240. l. 13. goodline r godlines p. 259. l. 8 dare r you dare p. 270. l. 23 Protopius r Procopius 276 12. sound r. found 280. l. 3. resist r. sist. 26 r. Theo. Sure p. 301. l 3. there r. three 303. 3 your r our 35. l. 28. writing r. vttering 318. l. 2. reasonable r. treasonable 333. l. 31. perceiue r. â perceiue 32. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã r. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 39 shaken r. not shakeÌ p. 337. l. 1. you do r. you not do p. 339. l. 28. the defence r. you defend 350. l. 19. maintaining r. maiming p 364. l. 42. christian princes r. christians
word as by his sacrameÌts * Hier. in Psal. 147. The flesh of Christ is eateÌ more truely in his worde than in the sacraments * De Cons. dist 2. § vt quid paras August de ciui ãâã 21. ca. 25. No such words are found in Chrysostoms Liturgie The woordes may be there yet not spoken to the sacrament a Pag. 21. l. n. 12 pag. 463. lin 11. b Pa. 452. li. 30. The Iesuites bid vs see the fathers but they doe not tell vs what we shall finde there It is not enough to will vs to see the fathers they must saie to what end they alledge them Chrysostome praieth to Christ in heauen not to the sacrameÌt * Liturg Chrys. Ibidem He woulde haue Christ behold the people from heauen not from the sacrament Mat. 18. Mat. 28. How Christ is present with vs. August in Iohan tract 50. His diuinitie is present with vs. Idem Ibidem His humanity present with vs manie waies though not in substance The Rhe. test pag. 453. The auncient Church did exactlie distinguish the sacrament from Christ. a De Catech. rudibus cap. 26. b De Baptis lib. 3. cap. 10. c Ambr. de Sacrament li. 4. cap. 3. d Orig. in 15. Matt. The whole Church cried on the people to lift vp their harts e Concil Nice * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth in as well as on f August in Iohan tract 50. Christ is both seene and touched by faith g Ambr. in Luc. li. 6. ca. 8. de filia princ Synag vesiââci h Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. * Ibidem Christ is on the table because his death is solemnized in the mysteries on the table i Colos. 3. k Phil. 3. Theod. dial 2. Not one of the fathers which they bring speaketh of the externall sacrament saue onelie Theodoret The mysticall signes must be adored but not with diuine honor These men caÌ plaie with shadowes verie pretilie The mysticall tokens remaining in their former substance must be adored Theod. Dial. 2. If they will adore the substance of breade Theodorets wordes will helpe them forward but not otherwise Adored is sometimes as much as âeueâenced De cons. dist 3. § venerabiles in glossa ¶ cultu The Iesuits authorities for adoration of the Sacrament prooue no such thingâ The reall presence This is my bodie doth not infer the reall presence Not the words but the exposition of the wordes is the thing that we striue for The Iesuites maie soone bring a thousand authorities for this point and not one to the purpose The papists in this question thinke to conquere with number if not with strength of places The papists beap vp places for their reall presence by hundreths not one to the purpose It were more wisdome for them to vndeâstaÌd what they alledge than to alledge they know not what We striue not for Christs presence in the mysteries but for the manner of his presence The presence which the Iesuits hold the fathers neuer heaâd of Garetius Vernierus and the rest if a father do but name the body of Christ bring him in by and by for a witnes on their side and then they muster them by hundreths * You turne all fââm the thing themselues to the signes that is the cause of your error a Psalm 64. b Ierem. 18. Wisd. 1. These âwo rules must be obserued in reading the fathers touching this matter els we shall infinitely erre To mistake the signes for the thinges themselues must needes bread a monsterous error Aâl their allegaââns are answered with theâe two obseruations The literall prâssing of those wordes is the gâound of alâ their error Christ did make the bread a God but added grace to the signe that it might becom a sacrament If bread be not made the sonne oâ God then sure the bread is not made Christ. If the breade be Christ it must needs be made Christ for before it was not Christ. Christ doth not saie this is chaunged for or with my bodie but this is my bodie If the breade be Christ ergo it is God for he is God THIS in Christs words must needes note somewhat This must bee this somwhat and not this nothing The Iesuits be loath to tell vs what is meÌt by this in the wordes of Christ. This indeede is the right literall sense of our sauiours wordes and since that is apparently false the figuratiue sense must take place Matth. 26. The connexion of the gospell reâerreth THIS to the bread in the wordes of Christ. THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore must be guided by the circumstances of the text a 1. Cor. 11. b 1. Cor. 10. a 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul in plaine speach ioynethâ THIS to the bread Al the fathers referre THIS to the bread c Iust. Apol. 2. d Tertul. aduer Iedaeos e Idem li. 4. contra MarcioneÌ f De cons. dist 2. § qui maÌducas g Cypr. de vnctio Chrismat h Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. i Idem li. 4. c. 57 k Hier. ad Hedibiam quaest 2. l Athan in 1. Cor. cap. 11. m Epiph. in Anchorato n Cyril catechis mystag 4. o Theod. âial â The Iesuites loose all hope of their transsubstaÌtiatioÌ if THIS in the wordes of Christ do not note the bread p De canâ disâ 2. § ante benedictioâeâ Glâssa ibidem q Gerson contr Floretum li. 4. r Gard. contra diabolic sophist s In his Marc. Antoni Consr. t Occam in 4. sântent dist 13. u De cons. dist 2. § timârem Glossa ibidem Then haue the Iesuits small hold in the literall sense of Christs words for their transsubstantiatioÌ That this is the right purport of Christs words it cannot be doubted So long as the letter is true we maie not flie to figures but if that be false we kill our soules except we âlie to figures * Aug. de dââtr Christiana lib. 3 cap. 10. When the speach must be figuratiue The literall coherence of these wordes this bread is my bodie is impossible blasphemous and barbarous To reprooue the misconsterer is to reuerence the speaker z De cons. dist 2. § panis est in Altari Glossa ibidem Not possible by their owne confession that breade should be the bodie of Christ. To saie that bread is christ in proper speach is horrible blasphemie To eate flesh in proper speach is against nature and far from all pietie a August contra aduers. legis Propheta lib. 2. cap. 9. b Idem contra eundem lib. 1. cap. 14. c Cyril in Iohan. lib. 4. cap. 22. d August de doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. To eate flesh is an hainous act ergo Christs words are figuratiue This is S. Austens reason if the Iesuites can reâure him let them Where Christ said this bread is my bodie the Iesuits say this must be no bread before it can be my bodie It is as great blasphemie for the bread to be turned into Christ as to be Christ.
The Iesuits would faine shift to haue the letter stand true but it will not be The Iesuites vrging the letter stâppe fardest from the letter It is a world to see their Schoolemen tosse the woordes of Christ from post to pilloâ and at length to leaue them as men in a Maze Not one of the auncient fathers euer affirmed the woordes of Christ to be literall Those later grecians that preâle the letter doe it to far other purpâses than the Iesuits doe Whie Christ was to saie this is my bodie and not this is the figure of my bodie All the auncient fathers with one consent affirme the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue a Tertul. lib. 4. contr Marc. b Aug. in Leuit. quaest 57. Idem contra Adimant cap. 12. The manner of SacrameÌts is to haue figuratiue speaches d Idem in psal 98. e Idem de doctr Christ. li. 3. c. 16 f Idem in psa 3. g Cypr. de vnctio Chrismaâ The Lorde taught his disciples at his last supper howe the signes and the things might haue the same names h Orig. in Leuit. homââ 7. i Idem in cap. 15 Matth. k Ambros. de iis qui initiaÌtur mysteriiâ cap. 9. l Idem in 1. Cor. 11. m Idem de Sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 5. n Hyer in 26. Matth. o Idem in 14. Marci p Chrysost in psal 22. q Idem ad Caesarium Monachum r Author operit imperfect in Mat. homil 11. s Nazianz. in oratio de pasch Theod. dial 1. Our Sauiour at hâs last supper chaunged the names not the substances of the elements theÌ must needes the speach be figuratiue u De consecrat dist 2. § hoc est Prosper Glossa IbideÌ y Beda in LucaÌ cap. 22. z Christ. Druthmar in Mat. a Bertram de corp sang Dom. Though the Iesuites haue not one ancient father for their literall sense yet they will help the matter with bragging The Iesuits will haue the figure the trueth to be al one Though the figure might be also the trueth as it cannot yet a figuratiue speach can no waie be proper Will it please the Iesuits to learne that the speach is figuratiue ârgo not proper b De doct Christiana li. 3. ca. 5. To take a figuratiue speach according to the letter killeth the soul. The signe in no sacrament can be the thing it selfe The signe the trueth must be two things c Ire li. 4. ca. 34. d De cons. dist 2. § hoc est e August contra Maximinum li. 3. ca. 22. f Chryso in Genes hom 35. g Aug. epist. 23. h De doct Christiana lib. 3. cap. 5. The sixt of S. Iohns Gospell directeth the wordes of Christ at his last supper The 6. of S. Iohn doth not teach the eating of the signes at the Lordes table but the eating of the thinges themselues The thinges themselues that are proposed and receiued at the Lords table were fully declared by our Sauiour in the 6. of S. Iohn The fathers are all of that opinion i Chrysost. hom 83. in Mat. The same matter before debated k Cypr. de caenae Domini The same speach handled in the 6. of Iohn l Cyril in Iohan. lib. 4. cap. 14. m August contra aduers. legis Prophet lib. 1. cap. 24. If the flesh of Christ be âaten in the Lordes supper as he taught it should be in the 6. of Iohn then must the wordes of the supper be expounded by the 6. of Iohn and the one being figuratâiue the other cannot be literall The breade must be eaten corporallie at the Lordes table though the flesh of Christ cannot be eaten there or elsewhere but onlie spirituallie The bread must be eaten corporallie the flesh of Christ spirituallie ergo the bread is not his bodie but by a figure of speach vsuall to this other sacraments The Lordes Supper addeth Seales and assurances to the promise made in the sixt of Iohn but altereth not the doctrine You must needes haue it so except you will dissent from all your fellowes and from the fathers Ioan. 6. The Papistes verie greedily tie the 6. of Iohn to the sacrament little thinking it would ouerthrow their real presence o Artic. 5. diuis 2. contra episcop Sarunt p Part. 3. obiect 1. In Marco Constantio That Christ perfourmed this promise ONLIE in the supper is as false as it is true that he did there perfourme it The Rhe. test fol. 236. nu 53. you shall haue no life If the 6. of Iohn be figuratiue then the wordes of the supper are also figuratiue but the 6. of Iohn is figuratiue ergo Clemens Alex. ãâã lib. cap. 6 Teâtulaââ resuârectis carnis Orig. in Leuit. hom 7. The figuratiue sense is the spirituall sense the literall is carnall Chrysost. in Iâhan homil 46. To vnderstaÌd the woordes simplie as they lie is to vnderstand them carnallie The woordes in S. Iohn are figuratiue because eating and drinking are referred not to the bodies but to the soules of the faithfull u Basil. in psal 33. The inwarde man eateth the flesh of Christ. x Orig. in cantica canticorum homil 2. The soul must relesse the bread of life y Tertul. de resâârect carnis This waie Christ is eaten and not with teeth iawes x Cypr. de caenâ Domini What it is to eate Christ. a Athan. in hec quicunque dexerit verbum in âilium hominis b August tract in Iohan. 25. c Ibidem tract 26. d Bernard in psal qui habitat sermo 3. The verie text confirmeth the fathers speaches Iohannis sexto e vers 27. f vers 29. g vers 35. Non ambulando sed credendo ad Christum currimus August tract 26. in Iohan. h vers 53. Beleeuing prooued to be eating i vers 47. k vers 51. l vers 54. The wicked doe not eate though they grind with their teeth swallowe with their iawes neuer so fast m Rom. 10. The manner of eating Christes flesh is spirituall by faith and vnderstanding the wordes expressing it be allegoricall If the Supper be correspondent to the doctrine of our Sauiour in the 6. of Iohn the maner of eating Christes flesh must be spirituall by faith not corporall with teeth the wordes this is my body figuratiue This is a poore shift for sacramentall eating is no more but eating the sacred signe of that heauenlie foode The Iesuits would faine gât from the Capernites if they coulde tell how What Christ spake of the soul the Capernites vnderstood of the body let the Iesuits therefore dresse and hide the âlesh of Christ how they can from their âight and tast so long as they will eate it with teeth iawes they shal be Capernites It skilleth not how Christes flesh be couered but with what part it is eaten soul or bodie Man hath but two kindes of eating as him selfe consisteth of two parts for ech part one n Iohn 6. Which of those twaine will the Iesuits choose but they must either
to attend on his person Phi. And they be seruants as well as others Theo. It may be so neither do I denie that Princes must serue but whom Phi. The church so saith S. Hierom The nations kings that will not serue the church shall perish with that destruction which is prepared for the wicked Theo. You should shew that Princes which will not serue the Pope must loose their crownes Phi. Grant that Princes must serue the church for the rest we will do well enough Theo. First grant you that Popes were subiects seruants to christiaÌ Princes 850. yeares after Christ which I haue proued you haue not answered and for seruice to be done by Princes to the church of Christ I will not long dissent Phi. Howe can they serue the church not serue the Pope which is head of the church Theo. To whom were these wordes spoken The kingdome that will not serue thee shall perish Phi. To the church Theo. To the whole church or to some speciall members of the church Phi. To the whole Theo. Then may the poorest member of Christs church euery Parish-priest chalenge to be the master of Princes to be serued at their hands as well as the Pope That which is spoken to all must be common to all Againe your owne answere ouerthroweth your own assertioÌ for this was spoken you say to the church but the Pope is not the church ergo this was not spoken to the Pope Phi. You go too far It was spoken to the whole but not ment of the whole Theo. Of whom then was it meÌt Phi. Of the head which is a part of the whole The members of Christs church are not bound to serue one an other but all to serue the head In respect of their head they be seruants in respect of themselues they be brethren Theo. Is the head a part of the bodie Phi. Though the head can not properly be called a member of the bodie but the head yet in the whole are contained both the head and the members as in an Armie sometimes the Captaine and Souldiers and a kingdom compriseth both the king and his subiects Theo. Then where Esaie saith to Ierusalem kingdoms shall serue thee that is not euery member of thee but the chiefest and noblest part of thee which is the head that all the members serue Phi. And that head is the Pope Theo. When you proue the Pope to bee head of the church then call for Princes to doe him seruice In the meane time let Princes heare what Dauid saith Bee wise yee kinges serue the Lord and what our Sauiour alleadgeth Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onelie shalt thou serue At the name of Iesus euerie knee shall bowe of thinges in heauen and of thinges on earth Yea let not onely Princes but all the Angels of God worship him hee is the head to the church which is his bodie Your holy father must staie for his seruice till his headship may be found in some better records than in your bare supposals Phi. You infer this vpon my confession which I may change vppon better aduisement The nation kingdom that wil not serue thee shall perish No doubt these words bind Princes to do seruice to the church if not to the Pope Theo. You bound them before to serue the head and not the bodie now you wil haue them serue the bodie and not the head Well since there is no more hold in your word I will take surer hold of Esaies wordes The text which you bring is allegorical as the whole chap. besides is therefore you may draw no literal conclusion from these words no more than from wals gates brasse yron gold siluer Sunne Moone milk teats camels rammes firre trees pine-trees which also be reckned and promised to Ierusalem in this place Phi. Run you to allegories Theo. You cannot run from them vnlesse you run from this chapter read it ouer and see whether I faine or no. Phi. Shall then the promises of God be frustrate because the speaches bee figuratiue Theo. Did I saie they should No they bee greater and richer than mans tongue can expresse But if you presse the letter they bee false and absurde For example All the sheepe of Kedar shall bee gathered vnto thee the rammes of Nabaioth shall serue thee For brasse will I bring golde and for yron siluer for wood brasse and for stones yron Thou shalt haue no more Sunne to shine by daie neither shall the brightnesse of the Moone shine vnto thee These thinges bee not literally true Phi. I know they be not Theo. The whole chapter goeth after the same sort expressing by temporal and terrestrial things the blessings of God vpoÌ his church which be celestial and eternal Phi. I mislike not this Theo. Euen so the seruice which kinges must do to the church is not corporall nor external such as seruing-men yeeld to their masters or subiectes to their superiours but an inward deuotion and an humble submission to the graces and mercies of God proposed offered in his church In effect kings must become religious faithful members of the church to serue God in holines righteousnes al the daies of their life To beleeue the word that is preached to frequent the sacraments that be ministred to fear the Lord that is honored in al aboue al this is the seruice which the church of Christ hartily wisheth earnestly seeketh at al mens haÌds other solemnities with cap and knee shee neither liketh nor looketh for Phi. Kinges in respect of their calling must serue the church I meane with their princely power Theo. You say somwhat In deed kings in that they be kings haue to serue the Lord so as none caÌ do which are not kings For their power ought so to serue the Lord that by their power they which refuse to be subiect to the wil of God should be punished but this seruice you will not haue theÌ to busie with if happily they command against your liking you not only discharge theÌ of their seruice but of their kingdoms also Phi. Not if they serue the church as Esaie saith they should Theo. The seruice that is done to Christ the church imbraceth as done to hir self because she requireth no more but that Christ her Lord master be serued and yet the seruice which I nowe speake of namely to preserue subiects in godlines quietnes with wholsome lawes to fraie men from vices heresies is done to Christ not in respect of himselfe but of his church concerneth the profit welfare of the whole church euery meÌber thereof Phi. This is not to serue but to rule the church Theo. Kings as kings that is as publike Magistrates can not serue the church but by defending her members repressing her enemies this is better seruice to God his church than that which
Father or Councell for 800. yeares that proueth the Pope superiour to the Prince Bring somwhat to that end or else say you can not and I am answered Phi. I proue the church superior to the Prince which is enough to confute the supreme power that you giue to Princes Theo. And what for the Pope Shall he be superiour to Princes or no Phi. We wil talke of that an other time we be now reasoning of the church which I trust you will grant to be superiour to Princes God saide to the Church The nation and kingdom that will not serue thee shall perish And kinges shall serue thee Theo. This is right the trade of your Apologie to pretende the church and meane the Pope You sawe you were neuer able to proue the Popes vsurped power ouer Princes and therefore you thought it best to put a visarde of the Church vppon the Popes face and to bring him in that sort disguised to the stage to deceiue the simple with the sounde and shewe of the Church And for that cause your fourth chapter neuer nameth the Pope but stil vrgeth The regiment of the church The iudgement of the church The churches tribunall conuerted kingdomes must serue the church and euerie where the church the church and when the Church is confessed to bee superiour to Princes you set vppe the Pope as heade of the Church to take from her all the superioritie power and authoritie which before you claymed for her and so you make the Church but a cloke-bagge to carrie the Popes titles after him but staie your wisedomes the Church may bee superiour and yet the Pope subiect to Princes Kinges may serue the Church and yet commaund your holie father and his gymmoes the parish Priestes of Rome for their turning winding euery way iustly called Cardinals Phi. Can Princes bee supreme and the church their superiour Theo. Why not Phi. If any thing bee superiour Princes bee not supreme Theo. That I denie The Scriptures bee superiour to Princes and yet they supreme the Sacramentes bee likewise aboue them and yet that hindereth not their supremacie Truth Grace Faith Prayer and other Ghostlie vertues bee higher than all earthly states and all this notwithstanding Princes may bee supreme gouernours of their kingdomes and Countries Phi. You cauill nowe you shoulde compare persons with persons and not thinges with persons there may bee thinges aboue Princes and yet they supreme but if anie persons bee superiour then can they not bee supreme Theo. No The Sainctes in heauen and Angels of God bee persons superiour to Princes and yet may Princes bee supreme Phi. Why Theophilus these bee wrangling quiddities for shame leaue them The Sainctes bee superiour in perfection and dignitie but not in externall vocation and authoritie Theo. I like that you saie but if you looke backe you shall see Philander that you giue iudgement against your selfe Phi. Against my selfe Why so Theo. The Church is superiour to Princes for those very respectes which I nowe repeated First because the Saincts in heauen which are part of the church in happines perfection and dignitie bee many degrees aboue worldely states Secondly though the members of the Church bee subiect and obedient to Princes yet the thinges contayned in the Church and bestowed on the Church by God him-selfe I meane the light of his worde the working of his Sacramentes the giftes of his grace and fruites of his spirite bee farre superiour to all Princes Nowe view your consequent The Church in respect of her members in heauen and graces on earth is aboue the Prince ergo the Prince is not supreme but subiect to the Pope This is worse than wrangling You confound things and persons heauen and earth God and man to beare out the Popes pride Phi. You stretch the name of the church whither you list Theo. I may better stretch it to these thinges which I specifie than you restraine it to one onelie man as you doe But why doe I stretch the church farther than I should The Sainctes in heauen bee they not members of the church Phi. They bee membees of the church which is in heauen Theo. And the church in heauen is it an other church from this on earth or the same with it Phi. I thinke it bee the same Theo. You must not goe by thoughtes Sainct Paul saith You are of the same citie with the Sainctes and Ierusalem which is aboue is no straunger to vs but the mother of vs all Cum ipsis Angelis sumus vna ciuitas Dei cuius pars in nobis peregrinatur pars in illis opitulatur Wee saith Austen are one and the same citie of God with the Angels whereof part wandereth on earth in vs part in them assisteth vs. And againe The true Sion and true Ierusalem is euerlasting in heauen which is the mother of vs all She hath begotten vs shee hath nurced vs in part a stranger on earth in a greater part remaining in heauen For the soules of the godly that be dead be not seuered from the church which euen now is the kingdome of Christ. Certaynely Christ hath but one bodie which is his church and of that body since the Sainctes be the greater and worthier part they must bee counted of the same Church with vs. Phi. I stick not at that so much as at the next where you make the word and Sacramentes togither with their effectes and fruites to be parts of the church Theo. I do not say they be members of the Church but thinges required in the church without the which we can neither become nor continue the members of Christ. In a naturall bodie the spirits and faculties be no members yet without them the members haue neither life motion sense nor action So in the mysticall bodie of Christ the members be men but the meanes and helpes to make vs and keepe vs the members of Christ are the word and Sacraments without the which we can neither be planted quickned nor nourished in Christ. For the members be dead if they liue not by faith if they grow not by grace if they cleaue not by loue to their heade and moue at his will by obedience And therefore these thinges though they bee not members yet they bee ioyntes and sinewes vaines and vessels that giue life groeth strength and state to the bodie of Christ which is his church and may iustly bee called the principall powers or partes of his bodie Phi. Powers if you will but not partes Theo. As though the powers of the soule were not partes of the soule Phi. Not properly partes but powers and faculties Theo. What call you partes Phi. Whereof the whole consisteth Theo. And since without these there can be no Church ergo these be partes of the church Phi. You take partes very largely Theo. No larger than I should The foundation of the house is it not a part of the house Phi. Yes a chiefe
How els should we cal her Phi. Not Gouernour but Prince or ruler For Bishops be Gouernours in their kind as well as Princes Theo. As though these words were not subiect to the same cauils with the former Bishops be Princes and Rulers in their kind as well as gouernours Your selues proue them to be rulers by S. Paul Obey your Rulers and againe The holy Ghost hath set you to rule the Church And where you say Rulers in S. Paul S. Hierom saith Parete Principibus vestris Obey you Princes And elswhere A Bishop must be irreproueable or he shall be no Prince of the Church Yea Gregorie doubteth not to call them Kings The holy preachers of the Church saith he be Kings And S. Hierom ventereth to call them Queenes The Kings and Queenes that nource the Church be plainly the Apostles and Apostolike men So that if we were disposed to play with wordes as you be we coulde driue you to seeke newe names not only for Kings Princes but also for Priests and Bishops S. Iohn saith of himselfe and of al the faithfull Christ hath made vs Kings and Priests vnto god his father and S. Peter confirmeth the same You are a Roiall Priesthood Eusebius writeth of Constantine that He called the seruants of God to Synods as a coÌmon Bishop appointed by God and sate among them and made himselfe partaker of their consultations and that in his hearing the Prince Named himselfe a Bishop with these wordes You are Bishops of things within the Church I am appointed by God a Bishop of those things that are without the Church And this he might well doe For ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a Bishoppe is in Greeke nothing else but an ouerseer or a superintendent which woord Hierom vseth and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã whence our English woorde Priest seemeth to be deriued he sayth is nomen aetatis a name of age and signifieth an Elder and nothing in the Scriptures more common than to call Princes and rulers ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Elders as the seuentie Elders all the tribes of Israel and their Elders Princes and iudges the Princes and Elders of Sucoth the Elders of Bethulia and infinite other places where the woord ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is vsed of the Septuagint Phi. We know you may confound all things if you list to dally with equiuocatioÌs but S. Paul hath expresly prohibited al good teachers strife of words Theo. You say well and since al your absurdities haue none other ground but the carping at our words or rather the manifest abusing and perâerting of the same what are your labours to requite you with Saint Paul but vaine brables of men corrupted in mind and depriued of trueth If the word gouernour were common to Bishops with Princes as you would haue it yet are their offices and regiments many wayes distinguished The gouernment of Princes is publike of Bishops is priuate of Princes is compulsiue of Bishops is persuasiue of Princes is Lordly with Rule of Bishops is brotherly with seruice of Princes is externall and ordereth the actions of the bodie of Bishops is internall and guideth the motions of the mind to bee short Princes haue the sworde with lawfull authoritie from GOD in his name to commaunde and prohibite rewarde and reuenge that which hee prescribeth and appointeth Bishoppes haue the woorde and Sacramentes committed to their charge with fidelitie and sinceritie to diuide and dispence the same in his Church according to his will And therefore though Bishoppes may bee called Gouernours in respect of the soule yet onely Princes bee Gouernours of Realmes Pastours haue flockes and Bishoppes haue Diocesses Realmes Dominions and Countries none haue but Princes and Magistrates and so the stile Gouernour of this Realme belongeth onely to the Prince and not to the Priest and importeth a publike and Princely regiment with the sworde which no Bishoppe by Gods Lawe may claime or vse Phi. Wee coulde graunt you with a good will that the Prince is the only Gouernour of this Realm but you adde as well in all spirituall or ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall which is most absurde and direct against your owne distinction For if the Prince be the only Gouernour of all spirituall things and causes Ergo Bishops bee no Gouernours of the word nor Sacramentes rites nor ceremonies praiers nor preachings of the Church but all must bee as please the Prince and so you fall into that shameful error againe from the which you seeke to cleare your selues Theo. Is it for weakenes of witte that you cannot or for rustines of hart that you will not see the defect of your argument Phi. The reason to my thinking is very sure For if only Princes be Gouernours in those cases Ergo not Priests Theo. A childish sophisme Your antecedent hath a special acception of the word Gouernour and your conclusion a generall Princes only bee Gouernours in things and causes ecclesiastical that is with the sword For so their vocation inferreth and your assertion witnesseth and so must you limite your antecedent before it will be good or agreeable to the Doctrine which wee teach oth which we take Then if you conclude Ergo Bishops be no gouernors in those things with the sword your illation is sound and sufficient for in all things and causes ecclesiasticall and spirituall Princes beare the sworde and not Bishops But if you inferre Ergo Bishops bee no Gouernours in those things meaning thereby no dispencers guiders nor directors of those things your conclusion is larger than your antecedent which neuer maketh good consequent Phi. I see your meaning you will haue Princes only to be Gouernours of their Realmes dominions that is to beare the sworde within their Realmes and dominions in all thinges as well spirituall as temporall Theo. You see what wee say peruert it no more but confute it if you can Phi. That Princes and none els shoulde beare the sworde within their Dominions I meane not to confute I confesse it as well as you But what hath the temporall sword to do with ecclesiasticall thinges and causes Princes should meddle with common wealth matters and not busie themselues with Church causes Theo. Runne you backe againe to this issue that Princes may not meddle with causes ecclesiasticall Haue you forgotten how largely that is prooued before and sealed with your owne consent as irreuocable Phi. Meddle they may with some spirituall thinges and causes but when and as they shall bee required by the Priest Theo. Wee are not at this present to heare what you can imagine but to see what you can impugne in our othe as absurd And thus farre you agree with vs that Princes bee the onely Gouernours of their Realmes and dominions taking Gouernours for Magistrates which beare the sworde in Gods behalfe with publike power to compell or punish Phi. And what of this Theo. Thus much that if onely Princes beare the sworde and no man else by
flesh in so much that the flesh is heere called the soule Such a man when the church casteth from her shee keepeth the spirit safe to wit the holie spirite of God which is the guider of the church For if they suffer any such one to bee amongest them hee defileth all and the holie spirite departeth Phi. S. Hierom taketh it otherwise To deliuer him vnto Satan for the destruction of the flesh saith he vt arripiendi illum corporaliter habeat potestatem that the diuell may haue power corporally to possesse him so Saint Chrysostom For the destruction of the flesh that the diuell may strike him with some grieuous sore or other disease Theo. This I told you before was a doubtfull speech and therefore woulde yeelde you no certaine conclusion For besides Sainct Augustine and Sainct Ambrose Sainct Hierom in those bookes which are assuredly his vseth these wordes To deliuer vnto Satan to the destruction of the fleshe for a perpetuall consequent to excommunication in all ages and not for corporall vexation permitted onely to the Apostles Illi si peccauero licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis vt spiritus saluus sit A clergie man sayth hee may deliuer mee to Satan if I sinne for the destruction of the fleshe that the spirite may bee safe And inueighing against Vigilantius I maruaile sayth hee the Bishop vnder whome hee is doeth not crush this vnprofitable vessell with the Apostolike rodde euen a rodde of yron and deliuer him into the destruction of the fleshe that the spirite may bee safe Noting by these wordes the right force of excommunication which doeth and shall indure to the ende not any corporall punishment or plague wherewith God sometimes touched such as would not otherwise be reformed A thirde interpretation of these wordes you shall finde in Sainct Augustine writing against Parmenian What did the Apostle sayth hee but prouide for the health of the soule by the destruction of the fleshe whether it were by some corporall punishment or death as in Ananias and his wife which fell down at Peters feete or else that the partie by repentance because he was giuen ouer vnto Satan should kil in himself the wicked concupiscence of the fleshe This later exposition cutteth off cleane your bodilie punishmentes and sheweth the ende of Apostolike excommunication to be this that the offendour by repentaunce should destroy the lustes of his flesh and not that an euill spirit should corporally correct and molest him which you conclude out of these wordes with as great confidence as if it were some maine principle of faith Phi. S. Augustine repeateth both expositions disliketh neither Theo. His accepting of both dischargeth your illation which is wholy grounded on the first But admit that also which Chrysostom seemeth to follow what shall your conclusion be Phi. That the Apostles punished the bodies of such as were christians Theo. Did they lay violent handes on them or vse any externall meanes Phi. They needed not the diuell did it at their word Theo. And because the diuell will not doe the like for you you will supplie the diuels roome and intermedle with his office Are you not wise Diuines that to chalenge the correction of other mens bodies make your selues the Diuels substitutes Phi. Wee make our selues the Apostles substitutes Theo. Then deliuer them to the Diuell as they did and offer them no farther violence nor torment with your owne handes and see what power you haue to chastise the bodies of such as you reiect from the church for so did the Apostles Mary if you content not your selues with speaking the word as they did but because the Diuell fayleth you you take helpe of your handes to punish the bodies of men beware least you be now not Pauls associats in deliuering but Satans in tormenting the carkasses of offendors Phi. Is euerie one that punisheth the bodie Satans associate Theo. They that beare the sworde with lawfull power from God to represse the wicked if cause require to kill the bodie they bee Gods ministers seruing for that intent but they that without this sworde claime to bee the correctors and punishers of mens bodies by violent meanes are the Diuels vicegerentes and not Gods For they bee murderers and the right members of Satan Phi. But wee appoint the Magistrate to doe it Theo. Doe you appoint Magistrates to lay violent handes on themselues Phi. No but on others Theo. And we be disputing of Princes whether they may bee defeated of their crowns and chastised in their bodies vpon your excommunications Phi. Excommunicate persons may bee corporally chastised whosoeuer bee the deede doer and that S. Chrysostoms exposition fully proueth For if it were lawfull then whiles the Apostles did excommunicate why not as well after and in other ages Theo. But if you relent from this that your selues may bee the deed doers then you misse the marke which you shot at The Magistrate wee knowe may corporally punish these and all other offendours but what is that to your position which hold that spirituall Pastors may punish the bodies of the faithful And therfore look to your footing least you faile in your leaping and backe with this legge that a meere spirituall officer may touch the liues and take the goods of heretiks and other excommunicate persons It is a wicked intrusion of Antichrist seeking indirectly and as you call it by accident that is by hooke or by crooke to bring the world and worldly things in subiection to his appetite The Apostles did nothing but separate sinners from the church and house of God because in those dayes there were no christian Princes with ordinarie power to reuenge the disorders committed in and against the church of Christ it pleased God that whom the Apostles and their after-commers for a season cast out of the church as intangled with great and haynous offences the Diuell shoulde afflict them vnto death or otherwise with some grieuous disease as the fault deserued that the rest might feare and not bee bolde to sinne because there was no magistrate to punish them yea many times God visited the sinnes of hypocrites and such as remained in the church in like maner as Paul himselfe testifieth to those of Corinth For this cause many amongest you are stroken with infirmities and diseases and many are dead For if we would iudge our selues we should not bee iudged but when wee are iudged we are chastened of the Lord that wee should not bee condemned with the world And Chrysostom alleadging this place Many such things fall out in the church at this day Because the priest knoweth them not that loden with sinne receiue the reuerend mysteries vnworthily therefore God himselfe often times culleth them out and deliuereth them to Satan And that the Apostles did nothing but cast them out of the church when they deliuered anie to Satan the same Father will teach
depriue Princes of their Crownes and take their Scepters from them because the Apostle willed the christians to be tried rather by their brethreÌ than by their enemies which were Infidels Phi. In all which there is no difference betwixt kinges that bee faithfull and other Christian men who all in that they haue submitted themselues and their Scepters to the sweete yoke of Christ are subiect to discipline and to their Pastors authority no lesse than other sheepe of his fold Theo. In beleeuing the word receiuing the Sacraments and obeying the Lawes of God there is no difference betweene the Ruler and the Subiect but the temporall states and possessions of priuate men you may not meddle with by no color of ecclesiastical power or discipline much lesse may you touch the bodies or take the Crownes of Princes into your handes by your accidentall indirect authoritie which is nothing else but a sillie shift of yours to crosse the commaundements of God Phi. Though the state regiment policie and power temporall be in it selfe alwaies of distinct nature qualitie and condition from the gouernment ecclesiasticall and spirituall common wealth called the church or bodie mysticall of Christ and the Magistrate spirituall and ciuill diuerse and distinct and sometimes so farre that the one hath no dependance of the other nor subalteration to the other in respect of themselues as it is in the Churches of God residing in heathen kingdoms and was in the Apostles times vnder the Pagan Emperours yet now where the lawes of Christ are receiued and the bodies politike and mysticall the Church and ciuill state the Mâgistrate Ecclesiasticall and Temporall concurre in their kinds togither though euer of distinct regimentes natures and endes there is such a concurrence and subalternation betwixt both that the inferiour of the two which is the ciuill state must needs in matters pertayning any way either directly or indirectly to the honor of God and benefit of the soule be subiect to the spirituall and take direction from the same Theo. This is tossing of termes as men doe tenez-balles to make pastime with The state regiment policie and power temporall is in it selfe you saie alwaies of distinct nature qualitie and condition from the gouernment ecclesiasticall and spirituall Common-wealth called the Church or bodie mysticall of Christ. You seeke to confound that which you would seeme to distinguish and when you haue spent much breath to no ende you conclude that though the church and the Common-wealth be distinct states as you can not denie yet you will rule both by reason the Common-wealth as the inferiour of the two dependeth on the Church and hath subalternation to the church as to the superiour But Sir in plaine termes and more trueth to the Sonne of God ruling in his Church by the might of his worde and spirite all kingdomes and Princes must be subiect their swordes Scepters soules and bodies mary to the Pope attyring himselfe with the spoiles of Christ and his church no such thing is due The watch-men and sheepeheardes that serue Christ in his church haue their kinde of regiment distinct from the temporall power and state but that regiment of theirs is by counsell and perswasion not by terrour or compulsion and reacheth neither to the goods nor to the bodies of any men much lesse to the crownes and liues of Princes and therefore your shifting of wordes and shrinking from the Popes Consistorie to the Church the spirituall Common wealth the mysticall bodie of Christ and such like houering and vncertaine speaches is but a trade that you haue gotten to make the Reader beleeue wee derogate from Christ and would haue Princes superiours to the worde and Sacramentes which Christ hath left to gather and gouerne the church withall Howbeit this course is so common with you that now it doth but shame you A christian king must take direction not from the Popes person or pleasure but from the Lawes and commaundementes of Christ to whome alone hee oweth subiection And as for the Bishoppes and Pastours of his Realme whome you falsly call the spirituall Common-wealth and the mysticall bodie of Christ because they bee but partes thereof and not so much except withall they bee teachers of truth those he must and should consult in respect they be Gods messengers sent to him and his people but with great care to trie them and free libertie to refuse them if they be found not faithfull And when the Prince learning by their instruction what is acceptable to God in doctrine and discipline shall receiue and publish the same the Bishoppes themselues are bounde to obey and if they will not the Magistrate may lawfully see the rigour of his lawes executed vpon them On the other side if the Prince wil not submit himselfe to the rules and preceptes of Christ but wilfully maintaine heresie and open impietie the Bishops are without flatterie to reproue and admonish the Prince of the daunger that is imminent from God and if he persist they must cease to communicate with him in diuine prayers and mysteries but still they must serue him honour him and pray for him teaching the people to doe the like and with meekenesse induring what the wrath of the Prince shal lay on them without annoying his person resisting his power discharging his subiectes or remouing him from his throne which is your maner of censuring Princes Phi. The ciuill Gouernour is SVBIECT to the spirituall amongest christians Theo. I haue often tolde you howe The ciuill Gouernour must heare beleeue and obey the meanest seruaunt that God sendeth if hee speake no more than his Masters will That subiection Princes owe to the sender and not to the speaker But were they simplie subiect to the messengers of God as they are not will you reason thus Princes should obey the Preachers of God ergo if they doe not they may bee deposed This is the argument which wee so often haue denied why then labour you so much about the antecedent when we denie the consequent That Princes shoulde obey God and his worde is a clearer case than that they shoulde obey the Pope For of that no man doubteth and this wee not onely doubt but denie Take therefore that which is confessed on both sides and set your conclusion to it that the force of your reason may the better appeare Princes without all question are bounde to obey God ergo if they doe not their dueties to God they may be deposed by Priestes This is the sequele which we alwaies denied and this is the point which you first assumed to proue Phi. The condition of these two powers as S. Gregorie Nazianzen most excellently resâmbleth it is like vnto the distinct state of the same spirit and body or flesh in a man where either of them hauing their proper and peculiar operations endes and obiectes which in other natures may be seuered as in Brutes where flesh is not spirit in Angels
where spirit is but not flesh are yet in man conioyned in person and neuerthelesse so distinct in faculties and operations that the flesh hath her actions peculiar and the soule hers but not without all subalteration or dependaunce Where we see euidently that in case the operations of the bodie be contrarie to the ende weale and iust desires of the soule the spirite may and must commaunde ouerrule and chastice the bodie and as superiour appointeth fasting and other aâflictions though with some detriment to the flesh commaunding the eyes not to see the tongue not to speake and so foorth So likewise the power politicall hath her Princes Lawes Tribunalles and the spiritual her Prelats Canons Councels iudgements and these when the Princes are Pagans wholy separate but in christian Common-wealthes ioyned though not confounded nor yet the spirituall turned into the temporall or subiect by peruerse order as it is now in England to the same but the ciuil which in deede is the inferiour subordinate and in some cases subiect to the ecclesiasticall though so long as the temporall State is no hinderaunce to eternall felicitie and the glorie of Christs kingdome the other intermedleth not with her actions but alloweth defendeth honoureth and in particular Common-wealthes obeyeth the same Theo. For you to flie soaring about with comparisons and applications of your owne making is to small purpose Similitudes haue no force farther than the Author that first vsed them doth direct them and vrge them S. Gregorie Bishop of Nazianzun hauing occasion in a Sermon that hee made before the Emperour to intreate the Prince to pardon a fault committed by the people after hee had taught the subiectes their duetie to the Magistrate turned his speech to the Prince with these wordes amongest other Will you admit then my free speech The law of Christ hath committed or subiected you to my power and to my pulpit for we rule also and that which is a more excellent and perfect regiment Or should the spirit in perfection and excellencie giue place to the flesh and heauenly thinges to earthly You will I know take my freedom of speech in good part You are a sheepe of my fould a lambe or weanling of the great sheepheardes Nazianzene maketh not your comparison that the Priest hath the same power ouer the prince which the soule hath ouer the body It is your owne it is not his hee calleth the things which are committed to the Preachers charge spirituall and heauenly and consequently more excellent and perfect than the bodilie earthly things which Princes haue in their power farther he vrgeth not this comparison and this we confesse to be most true Phi. But S. Gregorie sayth to the Emperour The law of Christ hath subiected you to my power and to my Tribunall Theo. I might refuse that translation the wordes are ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã doeth signifie not onely to subiect but also to commit as a pledge to bee kept by an other man and in that respect I might well defende this to bee the right interpretation of S. Gregories wordes The lawe of Christ hath committed you to my charge but because the worde hath both significations I receiue either and affirme neither to make for your corporall correcting of Princes Sainct Gregorie doeth plainely lay foorth his owne meaning first by the finall intent for the which hee vsed all this preface next by the rest of the wordes which he addeth to expounde and expresse his minde His requeste to the Emperour was ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to beare with the bouldnesse of his speeche in making requeste for his brethren And to shewe the Emperour that heerein hee didde no more than Christ hadde licenced euerie Preacher to doe hee bringeth this reason The Lawe of Christ hath bounde Princes bee they neuer so great to heare the Preacher and to submit them-selues to this place where I stand which was the pulpitte and not the Consistorie For ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the Church did precisely signifie the place where the Preacher stoode when he taught And to that ende hee addeth ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã You are a sheepe of my flocke that is sacred and so are you and a weanling of the great sheepheards and therefore bound to heare my voyce whom the great shepheard hath charged with the feeding of his flocke And so he proceedeth very fatherly and pithily not to commaund or require but to perswade and intreat the Prince to be gratious to his subiects and to imitate the example of God the greatest and mightiest Prince that is These be Christian directions and lawfull meanes to put Princes in minde of their dueties which we allow and receiue Your deposing them and arming their subiects vnder a colour of your Episcopall authoritie to rebel against theÌ and to take their scepters from them was farre from Nazianzenes mynde and mouth you doe but abuse his eloquent similitudes to beautifie your pestilent conspiracies and that you may see by the very wordes following where he saith to the Emperour Thou raignest together with Christ thou rulest together with him thy sword is from him thou art the image of God Hee that confessed the Prince to hold his sworde from Christ and with Christ neuer craked as you conceiue that hee had power to take the Princes sword from him yea rather hee acknowledged himselfe amongst the rest to bee subiect to the Prince though he were a Bishoppe Let vs sayth he submit our selues to God to eche other and to the Rulers of the earth To God in all thinges eche to other in brotherly loue to Princes for the conseruation of good order For this is one of the Lawes amongs vs that be Christians and the same prayse worthie and most excellently ordered by the holy Ghost that as seruaunts obey their masters and women their husbands and the Church Christ and the Disciples their Pastors and Teachers so wee should bee subiect to all superiour Powers not onely for feare of wrath but also for conscience sake Phi. You will not denie but S. Gregorie sayth Wee haue a greater and perfecter regiment than yours speaking euen to the Prince himselfe Theo. So Preachers haue They gouerne the soules of men and dispence the mysteries of God where as Princes are set to rule the bodies of their subiects and to dispose the things of this life And therefore if the fruites and effects of their callings be compared the Preachers passeth the Princes by many degrees of perfection and excellencie God giuing earthly foode and peace by the prince but heauenly grace and life by the woorde and sacraments which wee receiue from the mouthes and handes of his messengers Mary if you compare their persons or powers to commaunde and compell by corporall punishments of which wee dispute Preachers are seruants to their brethren Princes are Lordes ouer them Preachers may reprooue and threaten Princes may sease the goods
three admonitions and the last publike after the which if that take not place we shal be excused before God if we no longer accept him that did vs wrong in the number of our brethren Let him be to thee as an Ethnike and a Publicane that is sayth S. Augustine Noli illum deputare iam in numero fratrum tuorum nec ideo tamen salus eius negligenda Do not accompt him in the number of thy brethren and yet his saluation must not bee neglected For the Ethnikes themselues that is heathen men and Pagans wee doe not recken to bee our brethren and yet we seeke to saue them By this you may doe well to erect a Court where euery subiect may sewe his Prince for priuate iniuries and to make your selues Iudges of all such matters that if the Prince refuse your order you may take his Crowne from him Is not this thinke you good diuinitie for a Christian Common-wealth Phi. If hee that will not heare the Church in priuate offences betweene man and man must bee taken and vsed as an heathen how much more he that will not heare nor obey the Church in publike and haynous sinnes against God Theo. Take the place howe you will of priuate or publike iniuries or sinnes against man or against God no such thing is consequent as you would seeme to inferre If hee heare not the Church whosoeuer whensoeuer in what cause soeuer graunt all this that your antecedent may bee the freer from checke or chaunce what will you conclude Phi. He must bee to vs as an heathen Theo. And what then must heathen Princes bee depriued of their Crownes and Scepters Was not Caesar an heathen when our Sauiour willed all men to giue to Caesar the thinges which were Caesars Was hee not an heathen Magistrate before whome Christ stoode when hee sayde Thou couldest haue no power ouer mee vnlesse it were giuen thee from aboue Were they not heathen Princes to whome Peter and Paul required and charged all Christian Princes to bee subiect without all resistance Did not the Church of Christ taught by them so to doe submit her selfe for the space of three hundered yeeres to heathen Princes and those terrible and most bloudie tyrants Phi. We deny not this Theo. You can not If then disobayers of the Church must be vsed no worse than heathens and publicanes ergo they must neither bee spoiled of their goodes nor afflicted in their bodies nor remoued from their seates if they be Princes For these things by Gods Law the Church might not offer to Pagans nor Publicans Phi. This that Christ saith if he heare not the Church let him be to thee as an Ethnicke and a Publicane is by the iudgement of S. Augustine more grieuous than if he were slaine with the sword consumed with fier or torne with wilde beastes Theo. And why because the iudgement of God to the which he is reserued shall bee more heauie to him than any humane torments can be And this maketh rather against you than with you For if the neglecter of the Church shal be so grieuously punished at Gods hands why doe you challenge to your selues the corporal correcting and chastising of such as disobay the Church And so Saint Augustine expoundeth himselfe It is by and by added saith he by our Sauiour Amen I say vnto you What you bind on earth shall bee bound in heauen that we should vnderstand how grieuous a punishment it is to bee left vnpunished by man and to be reserued to the iudgement of God Phi. The Church hath decreed that heretikes shall not beare rule ouer Catholikes and this voice of the Church all men are bound to heare vnlesse they will be counted for Pagans and Infidels Theo. First the Church can make no such decree next the Church of Christ neuer made any such Decree Phi. May not the Church make that Decree Theo. Shee may not Her power concerneth the soules of men and not their bodies and neuer goeth beyond the word and Sacraments Shee may not intermeddle with the temporal states and inheritances of Priuate men against their willes much lesse with the thrones and swords of Princes The Church cannot giue leaue that children shall disobay their Parents nor seruants their Masters nor weomen their husbandes because God hath already commanded they shall obay whose precepts the Church is with al reuerence to receiue and with all diligence to obserue and not to frustrate or hinder the least iote of his heauenly will and Testament If any particular places or persons attempt the contrarie they cease to be the Church of GOD in that they wilfully reiect and change the worde of God S. Augustine saith well Non debet ecclesia se Christo praeponere The Church may not preferre her selfe before Christ. Neither may we beleeue the true Churches them selues vnlesse they say and doe those things that are consonant to the Scriptures Yea we must accurse the Angels in heauen if they should do otherwise The whole Church oweth the same dutie to all and euery the precepts of God that ech priuate person doth And therfore shee may not dissolue nor disappoint the least of them Now the Church her selfe is commanded by the mouth of Christ and his Apostles to honor and obay Princes For these precepts be general touch the whole church Giue to Caesar the things that be Caesars Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Submit your selues to the king as the chiefest For so is the will of God neither Monke Priest Prelate Pope Euangelist or Apostle exempted as in the place where I haue already shewed Ergo shee hath no right to dishonour or depose Princes nor to licence their subiects to resist them at her will and on her warrant which is the grounde that you build on Phi. They be but flatterers of Princes that so say or heretikes that so thinke that the ministers of Christes most deare spouse of his very mysticall bodie his kingdome house on earth whom at his dâparture hence he did indowe with most ample commissioÌ and sent foorth with that authoritie that his father before gaue vnto him haue no power ouer Princes to denounce or declare them to be violators of Gods and the Churches Lawes nor to punish them either spiritually or temporally not to excommunicate them nor to discharge the people of their oth and obedience towards such as neither by Gods Law nor mans a true Christian may obay Theo. If we knewe not your accustomed brauerie you might somwhat trouble vs with your insolent vanities but now we haue so good experience of your fierce lookes and faint harts that we neede not feare your force Bring somwhat besides your own conceit that the Pope may depose Princes and then call vs flatterers and heretikes at your pleasure If not take heede you proue not presumpteous and stately rebels against God and man I winne you be the
their eyes which all the godly beleeue with their heartes If oyle bee wanting they bee perfect Magistrates notwithstanding and Gods annointed as well as if they were inoyled And so for the person of the Bishoppe that doeth annoynt them It is fittest it be done by the highest but yet if they can not or will not any Bishoppe may perfourme it Authoritie to condition with Princes at the tyme of their coronation the Bishoppe hath none hee is faythfully to declare what GOD requireth at the handes of Princes not in religion onely but in rewarding vertue reuenging sinne relieuing the poore and innocent repressing the violent procuring peace and doing iustice throughout their Realmes and that if they faile in any of these God will not faile seuerely to visite the breach of his Lawe and contempt of their callings but yet hee hath no commission to denounce them depriued if they misse in some or all of these dueties much lesse to drawe Indentures betweene God and Princes conteyning the forfeiture of their crownes with a clause for the Pope and no man else to reenter if they keepe not couenants Phi. You graunt they bee bounde to God to defend the Church and true Religion Theo. Euen so bee they bound to doe those other thinges which I before rehearsed The couenaunt which God made with the Prince of his people was to feare the Lorde his God and to keepe not some but all the wordes of his Law The othe which the Kinges of Englande take hath many thinges besides the defence of the fayth and the Church The King shall feare God and loue him aboue all things and keepe gods precepts through his whole kingdome Hee shall aduance good Lawes and approoued customes and banish all euill Lawes from his kingdome Hee shal doe right iudgement in his realme and maintaine iustice by the counsell of his Nobles with many other points there specified All these thinges the King in his owne person shall sweare beholding and touching the holy Gospel in the presence of the people the Priestes and the Clergie before hee bee crowned by the Archbishoppes and Bishoppes of his Realme Shal a king bee deposed if hee reuolt as you call it from his promise and othe in any of these points Phi. Heresie and infidelitie tend directly to the perdition of the common-wealth and the soules of their subiects and notoriously to the annoyance of the Church true Religion Theoph. Wee compare not vices but discusse the vitiousnes of your conclusion Kinges you say couenant with GOD at their annointing That othe and promise if they breake with God the people you adde may and by order of Christs supreme minister their chiefe Pastor in earth must needes breake with them If by BREAKING you ment not obeying them in those particular cases which tend to the defacing of Gods trueth your illation were not much amisse for in all things wee must obey God rather than man but by BREAKING you vnderstand an vtter refusing of obedience in all other cases and a violent remoouing them from their crownes which we say is not lawfull for Pastor nor people to atteÌpt against princes though they answere not their duties to God in euerie point They couenant at the same time and with the same oth the keeping and obseruing of the whole lawe of God and yet was there neuer any man so brainsicke as to defend that Princes for euerie neglect and offence against the Law should be deposed Phi. Heresie is one of the greatest breaches of Gods Law Theo. To hold the truth of God in manifest and knowen vnrighteousnes without repentance is a greater impietie than ignorantly to be deceiued in some points of religion but we stand not on the degrees of sinnes which God will reuenge from the greatest to the smallest as much as on the person which may do it and the warrant whereby it must be done We deny that Princes haue any superiour and ordinarie Iudge to heare and determine the right of their Crownes Wee deny that God hath licenced any man to depose them and pronounce them no Princes The sonne cannot desherit his father nor the seruant countermaund his master by the lawes of God and nature be the father and master neuer so wicked Princes haue farre greater honour and power ouer subiects than any man can haue ouer sonnes and seruantes They haue power ouer goods lands bodies and liues which no priuat man may chalenge They be fathers of our Countries to the which we be nearer bound by the very confession of Ethnikes than to the fathers of our flesh Howe then by Gods law should subiects depose their Princes to whom in most euident woords they must bee subiect for conscience sake though they bee tyrauntes and Infidels And if the subiects them-selues haue no such power what haue strangers to meddle or make with their Crownes Phi. Doe you count the Pope a straunger to Christian Princes Theo. Would God he were not woorse euen a mortall and cruell enimie to al that bee Godlie He was a subiect vnder them eight hundreth yeares and vpwarde he after by sedition and vsurpation grewe to bee a sâate amongest them a Superiour ouer them in causes concerning their Crownes and states you shall neuer prooue him to bee For a thousand yeares he durst offer no such thing these last fiue hundreth hee often assayed it and was as often repelled from it by factions conspiracies excommunications and rebellions hee molested and grieued some of them as I haue shewed but from the ascention of our Lorde and Sauiour to this present day neuer Prince Christian did yeeld and acknowledge any such power in the Pope and those that seemed in their neighbours harmes somewhat to regard his doings for an aduauntage when the case concerned them-selues most boldlie reiected his iudgements Phi. By the fall of the King from the faith the danger is so euident and ineuitable that GOD had not sufficientlie prouided for our saluation and the preseruation of his Church and holie Lawes if there were no way to depriue or restraine Apostata Princes Theo. You make vs many worthy reasons for the depriuation of Princes but of all others this is the cheifest If there were no way to depriue Princes God hath not say you sufficiently prouided for our saluation and the preseruation of his Church Euen so one of your owne fellowes saide before you of the verie same poinâe Non viderâtur Dominus discretus fuisse vt cum reuerentia âius loquar c. The Lorde by his leaue should haue seemed scant discreete except hee had left one such Vicar behind him as might doe all things to witte depose Emperours and all other Princes Unlesse your rebellious humours may take place you stick not to charge the sonne of God with lack of discretion negligence but looke better about you ye blasphemous mouths you shall see that the Church of God is purest when
followeth after sheweth in what sense he tooke the word supreme At this day sayth he where Poperie continueth howe many are there which lode the king with all the right and power they can that there should be no disputing of religion but this authoritie should rest in the king alone to appoint at his pleasure what hee list and that to stande good without contradiction They that first so highly aduanced king Henry of England were inconsiderate they gaue him supreme power of all thinges and that was it which alway wounded me Then succeede your wordes and withall a particular exemplication howe Steuen Gardiner alleaged and constred the Kings stile in Germanie That Iuggler which after was Chauncelour I meane the Bishop of Winchester when hee was at Rentzburge neither would stande to reason the matter nor greatly cared for any testimonies of the scriptures but said it was at the kinges discretion to abrogate that which was in vse appoint new He said the king might forbid priests mariage the king might barre the people from the cup in the Lordes supper the king might determine this or that in his kingdome And why Forsooth the king had supreme power This sacrilege hath taken hold on vs in Germanie whiles Princes think they cannot raign except they abolish al the authoritie of the church be theÌselues supreme Iudges as wel in doctrin as in al spirituall regiment This was the sense which Caluin affirmed to bee sacrilegious and blasphemous for Princes to professe them-selues supreme Iudges of Doctrine and discipline and in deede it is the blasphemie which all godly heartes reiect and abomine in the Bishoppe of Rome Neither did King Henry take any such thing on him for ought that wee can learne But this was Gardiners Stratageme to conuey the reproche and shame of the sixe articles from himselfe and his fellowes that were the authors of them and to cast it on the kings supreme power Had Caluin been told that supreme was first receiued to declare the Prince to be superior to the Prelats which exempted themselues from the Kings authoritie by their Church liberties and immunities as well as to the Lay men of this realme and not to bee subiect to the Pope who claymed a iurisdiction ouer all Princes and Countries the woorde woulde neuer haue offended him but as this wylye foxe framed his answere when the Germanes communed with him about the matter wee blame not Caluin for mistaking but the Bishop of Winchester for peruerting the kings stile wresting it to that sense which all good men abhorre Phi. Do not you at this day make the Queene supreme Gouernour of al ecclesiasticall doctrine and discipline And what discrepance I pray you between Iudge and Gouernour Theo. You may be Steuen Gardiners scholer you bee so wel trained in his methode and maximes Wee told you long since and often enough if that will serue the prince by her stile doth not chalenge neither do we by our othe giue her highnes power to debate decide or determine any point of fayth or matter of religion much lesse to bee supreme iudge or gouernour of all doctrine and discipline But if in her realme you will haue the assistance of the magistrates swoord to settle the trueth and prohibite error and by wholesome punishments to preuent the disorders of all degrees that authoritie lieth neither in Prelate nor Pope but onely in the Prince and therefore in her Dominions you can neither establish doctrine nor discipline by publike Lawes without her consent This neither Caluin nor the compilers of the Centuries nor any other of sound religion euer did or iustly can mislike onely Iesuites their adherents would faine reserue this power to the Pope in al Christian realmes because they be sure he will allowe and suffer no religion but his owne and so long their profession shall not miscarie Phi. The Centurists say Princes may not bee heads of the Church that primacie is not fit for them Theo. That word if they mislike wee stand not for it The holy Ghost hath inuested the sonne of God with it and therefore reason princes euen for reuerence to him should forbeare the stile which hee first vsed most esteemeth And though some defence might be brought for the word as that which Samuel said to Saul When thou wast litle in thine own sight wast thou not made HEAD of the tribes of Israel For the Lorde annoynted thee king ouer Israel and that which Dauid sayth of himself Thou hast made me HEAD of the heathen and that which Esai saith of the king of Syria THE HEAD of Aram is Damascus and the HEAD of Damascus is Rezni and again the honorable maÌ he is the HEAD as also S. Paul the man is the womans HEAD Chrysostom not sticking to call certaine women that laboured in the Gospel HEAD OF THE CHVRCH at Philippi and saying of Theodosius the Emperor Summitas caput omnium super terram hominum SVPREME AND HEAD of all mortall men Though these and many like places might bee brought to auouche the worde HEAD yet because that title HEAD OF THE CHVRCH rightly and properly belongeth onely to Christ not to Princes without many mitigations and cautions and head as it is applied to Princes is al one with Supreme for it importeth but the chiefest or highest person of the Church on earth and with the regiment of the Church whereof Christ is head I meane his mysticall bodie Princes haue nothing to doe yea many times they be scant members of it and the Church in each countrie may stand without Princes as in persecution it doth and yet they not headlesse we thinke not good to contend with our brethren for wordes and to greeue their eares with titles first abused by the pope and first reproued in him so long as in matter and meaning there is no discord betwixt vs. Phi. Will you make vs beleeue they mislike nothing but the wordes head of the Church Theo. Yeas they mislike that Princes should mingle trueth with falsehood and temper religion with corruption as their priuate fancies lead them which we mislike no lesse than they This is the scope of our speach say they that it is not lawful for ciuill Magistrates to deuise formes of religion in destruction of the truth and so to reconcile truth and error that they may both be lulled asleepe They may not prescribe religions alone they must not ingender new articles of the faith they must not strangle the trueth with errors and shackle it when it is reueiled that they may let loose the bridle to corruption These be the points which they dislike and we be as farre from approuing any such thing in Princes as you or they Phi. If the Prince establish any religion whatsoeuer it be you must by your oth obey it Theo. We must not rebel and take armes against the prince
Phi. If we may not bow to holy images as vnto thinges that be superiour and better than man yet we may imbrace and loue them as thinges which we like and that both by the vse of the Greeke tongue and speech of the scripture is called adoration as Tharasius the Patriarke of Constantinople in his epistle to Irene the Empresse and her sonne doth largely confirme Theo. You put me in minde what cunning was vsed in the second Nicene councell to saue your poppets vpright and to set a colour on their vngodly decree that images should be worshipped When they saw themselues not able to proue by Scripture or father that images should be reuerenced and adored and they had pronounced him accursed that doubted of the adoration of images your wise worthy Bishops thought it safest to shroude their wicked resolution vnder the doubtfull equiuocate sense of the word adoration because ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in greeke did signifie not onely to bowe for deuotion and religion but also to imbrace for loue and affection as friendes and familyars when they happen to meete So Tharasius and the whole Synod defend the conclusion which they made in that councel For shewing whose images they would haue to be receiued they adde Sunt hae adorandae etiam id est exosculandae amandae Idem enim haec significant iuxta antiquam Graeciae dialecton Nam ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã significat quod quis ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã id etiam ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã quod ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã id omnino ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã These images of Christ and his Sainctes are also to bee adored that is to kissed and loued These wordes are all of one force To adore doth signifie both to imbrace to loue For that which a man loueth that he adoreth that which he adoreth that he earnestly loueth The naturall affection and loue which wee beare toward our friendes doe witnes this For so two friendes when they meete embrace salute ech other And ââing some places of the scripture where adoration is taken for a reuerent and louely salutation as when Iacob bowed himselfe before Esau and Abraham before the people of Heth Dauid before Ionathan and the Pharisees were noted by our Sauiour for * louing such magistrall obeisance they inferre Has quoque adorandas salutandas putamus We thinke images are in like maner to be adored and saluted pretending it to be a matter of faith christian pietie to adore images and when they come to the vpshot concluding nothing but an externall and ciuill kinde of imbracing or kissing such as a man may giue to the coate which he weareth to the meat which he eateth to euery thing that he loueth without respect of religion or thought of deuotion Phi. Then you should the sooner graunt that images may be adored since they mean that kind of adoration which is without al danger of idolatry Theo. Then you be wise diuines to make adoration of images a point of catholike doctrine since the Bishops of Nice whose actes you would seeme to follow interprete adoration to be but a familiar and friendly kissing or saluting such as men might yeeld to the manger where Christ laye swathed to the howsen which he entered to the waters on which hee walked to the hilles deserts highwayes and cities where he prayed preached iournied or suffered the adoration of which things and places I trust you will not make a part of the Catholike faith Phi. Compare you an image with a manger Theo. It is the comparison of your owne councell in the very same epistle alleadging these words of Gregory the diuine iustifie their adoration of images Worshippe Bethleem adore the manger If the stable manger where Christ lay must haue the same adoration that images haue yea that the crosse hath whereon Christ died howe shamefully is your church fallen not onely from God but euen from her owne councels in allowing the very same honor to images that is due to Christ himselfe Phi. The crosse they did flatly adore as their own words witnes which presently insue Crucem tuam adoramus Domine We adore thy crosse O Lord. And that as it should seeme was a part of the church seruice For they say CuÌvinificam crucem salutamus conuenienter canimus when we salute the crosse that procured vs life we doe well to sing thy crosse Lord do we adore Theo. So did they the speare which pearced his side The next wordes are The speare which opened thy sacred and lifegiuing side wee adore But what they ment by that adoratioÌ they straightway expound which adoration is nothing else but a salutation or an imbracing if you so rather like to cal it as is hereby declared for that we touch those things with our lips Phi. Yet this is a kinde of adoration Theo. But not such as your church and schooles afterward defended and yeelded vnto material images crosses For you in plaine words require ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is diuine honor for the wodden crosse and image of Christ whereas the second Nicene councel in this epistle doth wholy renounce that as a manifest and wicked errour And therfore you do nothing lesse than accord with that Councell which is so much in your mouthes they decreeing but a reuerent salutation and you giuing diuine adoration to the image crosse of Christ which be doctrines mightily repugning ech to other if you note them well though the word adoration be vsed in both And did you consent with theÌ as you do not neither their resolution nor yours is catholike they ventering farther than either scriptures or fathers before did lead them and that vpon the doubtfull accepcion of the word adoring and blind presumption that external reuerence which they ment therby might be giuen for loue feare fauor or curtesie without impairing the honour due to God and you being deceiued by the heat of their speech and taking adoration for a religious and deuoute submission of body and soule such as belonged to the person himselfe represented by the image and that in our Sauiour is diuine and heauenly honor Phi. Should not the crosse of Christ haue diuine honour Theo. The crosse being taken for his death and passion as the scriptures vse the word must bee adored as the true and onely meane of our redemption and saluation but the wood on which hee hung may not much lesse the signe of it as you nowe abuse it You hearde Sainct Ambrose say that to adore the wood on which the Lorde died was an heathenish errour and vanitie of the wicked And before him Arnobius made this answere for all Christians Cruces nec columus nec optamus vos plane qui ligneos Deos consecratis cruces ligneas
as it is for the precept is not written though the causes and consequents may bee iustified by that which is written And this is not straunge with Saint Austen to call that an vnwritten Tradition which him-selfe confesseth may be warranted by the scriptures Phi. What haue wee here One and the same Tradition confessed by saint Augustine to bee both written and vnwritten Theoph. One and the same Tradition I say confessed to bee written and yet warranted by the Scriptures Phi. That were newes Theo. None at all Goe no farther than your second example of rebaptizing and you shall see it to be true S. Augustine calleth it an vnwritten Tradition or Custome of the church in many places Hee sayth expressely of it Quam consuetudinem credo ex Apostolica Traditione venientem sicut multa non inueniuntur in Literis eorum c. Which custome I think came from the apostles as many other things that are not found in their writings And againe of the very same Apostoli nihil quidem exinde praeceperunt The Apostles in deede commaunded nothing in that case as also there bee many thinges which the whole Church obserueth though they be not found written Phi. That we knowe to be true neuer spend more time about it but let vs heare where S. Austen saith this Custome is also warranted by the scriptures Theo. You can not misse it if you read the very same bookes where the other is witnessed Now saith he lest I seeme to dispute this matter by humane reasons because the darkenes of this question draue great men and men endued with great charitie the bishops that were in former ages of the church before the schisme of Donatus to doubt and striue but without breach of vnitie ex euangelio profero certa Documenta quibus Domino adiuuante demonstro Out of the Gospel I bring sure groundes by Gods helpe to make proofe thereof And hauing disputed it a while We follow that saith he which the custome of the church hath alwaies obserued a plenarie councel coÌfirmed And the reasons and testimonies of scriptures on both sides being throughly weighed I may say we follow that which trueth hath declared And repeating the euidence of his side he saith it may be vnderstood by the former custome of the Church by the strength of a generall councell that followed by so many so weightie testimonies of the holy scriptures by manifolde instructions out of Cyprians owne workes and very plaine arguments of trueth And therefore drawing to an end he saith It might perhaps suffice that our reasons being so oft repeated and diuersly debated and handled in disputing and the Documents of the holy Scriptures being added and so many testimonies of Cyprian him-selfe concurring iam etiam corde tardiores quantum existimo intelligunt by this time the weaker and duller sort of men as I thinke vnderstande that the baptisme of Christ can not bee violated by no peruersenesse of the partie that giueth it or taketh it and therefore must not bee iterated Thus in one and the selfesame worke you see S. Austen auouching it to be a Tradition not written and yet confirmed by manifest scriptures Phi. I heare him say so but I see not how it can be Theo. You will not for feare you shoulde see your selues conuinced of an error it is otherwise plaine enough The thing it selfe is not written but receiued by Tradition mary the grounds of it be so layd in the scriptures that it may thence bee rightly concluded The like we say for the baptisme of infants the precept it selfe is not written nor any example of it in the scriptures but it was deliuered vnto the church by tradition from the Apostles mary it so dependeth on those principles of faith which bee written that it may bee fairely deduced from them and fully proued by them Phi. By Tradition onely hee and other condemned Heluidius the heretike for denying the perpetual virginitie of our Lady Theo. Your stoare fayleth you when you flee from fayth and hope in GOD to examine Ioseph and Marie that you may picke out somewhat betweene them to impeache the perfection of the Scriptures That Christ was borne of a virgine vndefiled is an high point of fayth and plainely testified in the Scriptures That after the birth of her Sonne she was not knowen of her husband is a reuerend and seemely truth preserued in the Church by witnesses woorthie to bee trusted but no part of fayth needefull to bee recorded in the Scriptures Phi. Saint Augustine sayth it is Integra fide credendum est With an vpright fayth we must beleeue that blessed Mary the mother of God and Christ was a virgin in conceiuing a virgin when she was deliuered and remained a virgin after the birth of her sonne And we must beware the blasphemie of Heluidius which sayde shee was a virgin before but not after the birth of Christ. Theo. Grate not on these thinges which were better to bee honoured with silence than discussed with diligence The booke which you bring is not S. Augustines It was found vnder Tertullians name as wel as vnder Augustines though Tertullian himselfe bee twise there noted for an heretike and chalenged the first time for that very error which S. Augustine in his true booke of heresies doeth acquite him from And yet these wordes Credendum est Mariam virginem concepisse virginem genuisse post partum virginem permansisse Wee must beleeue that the mother of Christ was a pure virgin when she conceiued when shee brought forth his sonne and after she was deliuered do not touch your question as they are defended by S. Augustine in his vndoubted woorkes to bee part of our fayth but onely that shee was a pure virgin after his birth notwithstanding his birth And therefore hee sayth Quisi velper nascentem corrumperetur eius integritas iam non ille de virgine nasceretur If Christes birth euen when hee was borne shoulde haue violated the virginitie of his mother then had hee not beene borne of a virgin So that as shee conceiued the Lorde and was still a virgin so shee was deliuered of him and her selfe yet a virgin that is not onely without the knowledge of man but also without all hurt of her body she remaining after shee was deliuered of her childe as perfect a virgin in body as shee was before she conceiued him And this to be the right meaning of those wordes Post partum virgo permansit shee remayned a virgin after the birth of her child when her virginitie must bee vrged for a poynt of fayth the sermons extant vnder the name of S. Augustine do clearly confesse Nec dubites Mariam virginem mansisse post partum quia qualiter hoc factum sit non humanus sermo neque sensus potest comprehendere Neuer doubt but Marie remained a virgin after the birth of her childe although
corporis quod monemus in ore cum loquimur signa vtique rerum dantur non res ipsae proferuntur propterea translato verbo linguam appellauit quaÌlibet signorum prolationem priusquaÌ intelligantur Because by the toung I mean that part of the body which we moue in our mouthes when we speak the signes of things are deliuered not the things themselues therefore the Apostle to the Corinthes by a kind of translation calleth any vttering of signes or words before they be vnderstood a toungue Phi. In deed S. Paul speaketh of tongues not vnderstood when he saith they neither profite nor edifie but hee that thinketh S. Paul speaking of edification of mans mind or vnderstanding meaneth the vnderstanding of the words onely is fouly deceiued For what is a child of fiue or six yeres old edified or increased in knowledge by his Pater noster in english It is the sense therefore which euery man can not haue neither in English nor latin the knowledge whereof properly and rightly edifieth to instruction and the knowledge of the words only often edifieth neuer a whit somtimes buildeth to error destructioÌ as it is plain in al heretikes many curious peâsons besides Phi. As we should shewe our selues to be mad if we should say that English prayers doe edifie children before they come to the yeares of discretion or that the very hearing of their mother tongue doth sufficiently instruct English men though the sense of that which is spoken be neuer so darke obscure parabolicall and mysticall for then we shoulde crosse the very Principles of nature and the whole discourse of the Apostle who mainely teacheth that no man is edified except he vnderstande and meaneth by vnderstanding both the knoweledge of the words that enter our eares of the sense that affecteth our hearts so are you woorse than mad to defend that men may be edified by speach whereof they vnderstand not so much as one word to confute so shamefull an absurditie we neede neither Scriptures nor Fathers Children of sixe yeares old wil tell you they bee no whit the better for all your paines if they vnderstand not your wordes What will you not say that wil say this And when you that be masters in Israel are so blinde how great must the blindnesse of others be that take their light from you You resist not onely God and his trueth but you force your owne tongues to speake against your owne heartes For say your selues if a man speake Welch or Irish to you that vnderstand it not what will it profit you or which way can you be edified by it Phi. Welch or Irish would do vs no good but Greeke or Hebrewe would Theo. What difference between Hebrew and Irish to him that vnderstandeth a word of neither When the heart conceiueth not the sense of the words nor so much as distinguisheth the tongue whether it be Hebrewe or Irish for lack of knowledge howe can the Hebrewe or greeke tongue though the one bee sacred and the other learned instruct the hearer or helpe his vnderstanding more than Welch or Irish can The Apostles Rule If I come to you speaking with tongues not vnderstood what shall I profit you âs generally true of all tongues Nemo edificatur audiendo quod non intelligit No man saith Augustine is edified with hearing that which he vnderstandeth not Linguas loquens seipsum edificat quod quideÌ fieri non potest nisi quae loquatur norit He that speaketh with tongues edifieth himselfe which is not possible except he knowe what hee saith as Chrysostome noteth And Ambrose Si vtique ad edificandum Ecclesiam conuenitis ea dici debent quae intelligant audientes If you come together to edifie the Church those thinges must bee spoken which the hearers may vnderstand If then there bee no edification where nothing is vnderstood a strange tongue bee it Hebrewe Greeke Welche or Irish cannot edifie the hearer that is ignorant of them by reason the heart perceiueth not the words much lesse the sense of that which is spoken Phi. We say the simple people and many one that thinke themselues some body vnderstand as litle of the sense of diuers Psalmes lessons and Oraisons in the vulgar toung as if they were in Latine Theo. And we say you do nothing now but cauill which in matters of trueth is not tolerable For what if the vulgar sort vnderstand not the perfect sense of euery verse or worde that is read in the Church will you thence inferre that the diuine seruice in a knowen tongue doth not edifiâ Your selues steppe out the prowdest of you vnderstand not euery line letter that is written in the old New Testament Do the Scriptures therefore not edifie or blame you the holy Ghost for writing them because you doe not euery where reach to the depth of them What teacher can be so plaine but in debating matters of faith and saluation he shall be many times forced to passe the capacity of rude ignorant men Wil you therefore conclude against S. Paul that neither Prophets nor Preachers edifie In the epistles and so no doubt sermons of Paul himselfe there are and were some things hard to be vnderstoode Were the Preachings and writings therefore oâ the Apostle vnprofitable Phi. We reason against your seruice not against the Scriptures Theo. As though the Psalmes and lessons in our seruice were not partes of the sacred Scriptures If therfore our diuine seruice do not edifie in respect of the psalms and lessons there song and read then the Scriptures themselues do not edifie and consequently S. Paul was ouershot when hee saide whatsoeuer things are written were written for our instruction and the Holy Ghost deceiued when he witnessed that the whole Scripture is profitable to teach correct and instruct Or if the spirite of God be trueth as there is no question he is then are you voide both of his spirite and of trueth also to say that diuers psalms and lessons do not edifie Phi. You be very snappish we speak of your praiers as well as of the Psalmes and lessons Neither doe we say the Psalmes and lessons do not edifie but yâ the simple vnderstand not diuers of them no more than if they were in Latine Theo. They must be very simple that vnderstand not our praiers They containe nothing besides the confession of our sinnes to god the rendring of thankes for his graces and mercies bestowed on vs in Christ his sonne and the asking of such things at his hands as his wisedome seeth to be needfull and his goodnesse thinketh expedient for vs and all mankind And these things if any man vnderstand not being distinctly and daily pronounced in his mother tongue you may begge him for a naturall and doe him no wrong As for the Psalmes and Lessons since they be Gods not ours the question must not
be occupied and therefore howsoeuer the simple people be deluded by the rehearsall of the same words which Christ vsed yet consecration benediction or sanctification of bread and wine you professe you make none at all Theoph. Christ you say tooke bread into his hands and did blesse the very element What meane you by blessing Philand He vsed power and actiue words vpon it as he did ouer the bread and fishes which he multiplied Theoph. Why walke you thus in cloudes Blessing with vs is the giuing of thanks vnto God with you it is the making of a crosse in the aire with your two forefingers Which of these twaine do you meane Philand That Christ blessed the bread we be very sure that he gaue thanks to the bread you dare not say Theo. Thanks he gaue to God and not to the bread Phil. But he blessed the bread and therefore blessing is not taken in Christes institution for thankes-giuing as you misconster it Theoph. If a man should put you to the new Testament in Gréeke can you spell it Philand Yea Sir and conster it as well as you Theoph. Then I trust your cunning will serue you to know ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which word the holy Ghost vseth to expresse the Lords action and benediction at his last Supper doth inferre that our Sauiour gaue thanks to God and made no crosse with his hand ouer the bread Philand But S. Marke saith that our Lord brake the bread ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã hauing first blessed it and Saint Paul doeth not sticke to referre that word to the cup it selfe and not to God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the chalice of benediction which we blesse is it not the communication of the blood of Christ Theo. Do you think S. Marke reproueth S. Luke S. Matthew or that S. Paul is contrarie to himselfe Phil. No I thinke the one expoundeth the other and all their reportes méete full in one congruence Theoph. And otherwise to say or thinke is apparent blasphemie against the spirit of God who neuer halteth in his tale nor dissenteth from him-selfe in any thing much lesse in a matter of so weightie moment as this is Philand He can be no Christian that doubteth thereof Theop. Then ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is all one with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã since children in Grammer schooles do know that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is to giue thanks with words and not to crosse with fingers we conclude that this is a childish error of yours to thinke that Christ gaue not thanks to God but blessed the very element Yea no word plainer conuinceth your puerilitie than that which you haue brought to relieue your selfe For ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã doth more euidently refell your crossing with fingers than ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as being compounded of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which in Gréeke importeth speach vttered by month and by no meanes drawing or crossing the fingers Phil. Let the word signifie what you will that which Christ did were it with hand or mouth he did it ouer the bread and vpon the bread and so do not you but let the bread and cup stand aloofe and occupie Christs words by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed to be occupied Theop. This is the right behauiour of your Rhemish translatours to wrangle and trifle about phrases and ambiguities as if they were the precepts and commandements of God Our Sauiour you affirme blessed the very element that is vsed power and actiue words vpon it or ouer it Blessing is a word that is diuersly vsed in the scriptures To blesse God is to praise him and to giue honor to his name and for that cause you shall find both those words ioyned together as words of like force as wheÌ S. Luke saith the disciples continued in the temple praising and blessing God To blesse men if it be done by men for of their blessings we speake and not of Gods is to pray for them and to beséech God that he will blesse them that is defend them prosper them and be mercifull vnto them So Isaac blessed Iacob and Iacob the sonnes of Ioseph and so were the Priests appointed by God himselfe to blesse the children of Israel and a forme of praier for that purpose prescribed them We may also blesse the time place and meanes in which or by which God sheweth his fauour towards vs that is we may pronounce them blessed for our sakes and our selues bound to blesse God for them So Dauid sayd to Abigail Blessed be God that sent thee this day to meete me Blessed be thy speach or counsell and blessed be thou which hast kept me this day from going to shed blood where he blesseth God as the author the woman as the meanes her words as the perswasions and occasions that kept him from vsing the bloody reuenge which he determined against Nabal and his familie And so said Salomon blessed is the tree whereby righteousnes commeth So on the contrary Iob and Ieremie cursed the dayes wherein they were borne would not haue them to be blessed We must likewise blesse the meates which we eate the things which we vse for the maintenance of this mortall life that is praier must be made vnto God that they may be healthfull for vs we thankfull for them by which meanes our food al other succors of this life are sanctified to his pleasure our comfort Since then the Scriptures not onely permit but also command that we should blesse one another and so the creatures which nourish our bodies we make no doubt but it is both lawfull néedfull for vs to blesse the sacraments which are the seales of Gods euerlasting promises therfore we readily receiue S. Pauls adiection when he saith the cup of blessing WHICH WE BLESSE is it not the coÌmunion of Christs blood Mary blessing in that place we take not for crossing or charming the cup with a set number order of signs profers as you vse at your masse but for the making of our ernest huÌble praiers to God that our vnworthines do not hinder the working of his sacraments but that by his goodnes mercy they may take their due effects in vs according âo his sonnes institutioÌ for the pardoning of our sins the incresing of his grace our faith the quikning of our inward man preseruing both body soul to eternal life And this the force of the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the maner of blessing all other things persons directed by the scriptures the very principles of praier pietie do approue coÌfirm wheras your houering blowing ouer the Chalice your crossing hiding it your rubbing of fingers for feare of crums your first thwarting and then lifting of armes your ioining and vnioining of thumbe and
in them all others to do what he did taught them that his actions were essentiall to his Supper as well as words He did not wil them to say this but to doe this in remembrance of him Phi. Do you not thinke the repeating and vsing of his words to be necessarie in the celebration of the Sacrament Theo. Yeas but I adde that his actions are as necessary Phi. There is difference betweene the making of a medicine or the substance and ingredience of it and the taking of it Theo. There is but wheÌ the medicine is neuer so well made if it be not ministred to the patient the making of it is vtterly vaine Phi. Yet the making of it is not the ministring of it Theo. The one is the end of the other and therfore without the ministring the making is superfluous Phi. Then taking and eating is not the substance or being or making of the sacrament or sacrifice of Christs body and blood but it is the vse application to the receiuer of the things that were made offered to God before Theo. Neither did I say that eating and drinking were the substantial partes of the sacrament but of the Lords institution Phi. As though the sacrament were not our Lords institution Theo. Christes institution containeth as well the vse as the matter or forme that must be vsed A supper is not only the meate prouided but also the act of eating that which is prouided so the Lords institution or Supper imploieth the vse and action as well as the word and elements Phi. The vse of it is to be a sacrifice as well as a sacrament and in a sacrifice offering is rather required than eating Theo. That is the way to correct the son of God who saide not take this and offer it but take this and eate it Eating which Chrâst commaunded you neglect offering which âe did not commaunde you esteeme and yet you would bee followers of Christ. Phi. Did not Christ say to his Disciples Do this Theo. You knowe we presse you with that saying of his Phâ Doe this that is offer this Theo. So you say but where saith Christ so Phi. Doubt you whether this bee a sacrifice Theo. We talke not what names the Lordes supper may be called by but what wordes Christ vsed Phi. Hâ sâide Doe this Theo. To wit that which he did before for so the demonstratiue bindetâ the sense Phi. And what if Christ sacrificed himselfe as he sate at table Theo. ãâã must come to that issue or else your sacrificing is cleane without Christs commaunding Phi. Christ himselâe seemeth to mention some such thing when hee sayeth This is my body which is not which shal be broken for you And this is my blood which is shed not which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes If this were not a sacrifice wâat was it Theo. It was the foreteâling of that which was then at hand presently to ensue Phi. Christ vsed the present and not the future tense Theo. And yet the suffering which hee specified by the breaking of his body and shedding of his blood was not present but the next day on the crosse If you teach that Christs blood was really shed at the table for remâssion of sinnes you must put him twise to death make the later death which was on the crosse to be vtterly idle For where remission of sin is there needeth no more sacrifice for sin If theÌ remissioÌ of sins were obtained by the actual shedding of Christs blood at his last supper his death crosse the next day were superfluous If forgiuenes were not obtained ouer night but that the Lord the next day was to shed his blood for our sinnes then spake he before hand of that which the next day should follow his speech in the present tense noteth nothing but that hee had euen then giuen him-selfe ouer to death for our sakes which immâdâatly they should beheld No act of Christes therefore at his last supper importeth any reall sacrifice that he then made but he did institute a Sacrament of thankesgiuing and coâmaunded vs by eating and drinking to bee partakers of his bodie that was wounded and bloode that was shedde the next daie for the remitting and pardoning of our sinnes So that you must either retayne eating and drinking at the Lordes table or else renounce both the beneâit of his passion and memoriall of his death with an open neglect of his last Will and Testament Phi. Wee do retaine it and as you know by our canons we bind all priests that consecrate to communicate in both kindes Theo. Let the decrees of men alone do you bind them to it by the words of Christ Phi. We do though the punishment bee expressed in the canons and not in the Scriptures Theo. It in punishment enough to bee guiltie of the body and bloode of Christ a greater you can not impose make your canons as seuere as you will Phil. Yet you see we binde them to communicate Theophil You should breake Christes institution if you shoulde doe otherwise Philand And therefore wee doe that which I tell you Theophil Then eating and drinking are necessary partes of Christes institution Philand Of his action they are partes but not of the Sacrament Theophil Neither doe I say that they are partes of his bodie blood but of his example and ordinance Philand Wee graunt Theo. And the neglecting of those actions which Christ in his person perfourmed before vs is a breach of his institution as well as the changing or omitting of his wordes Philand In the Priest it is Theo. Of the Priest wee speake for Christ charged him and not women or lay-men to doe as he did Phi. Then wee agree to your last position that if the Priest do not obserue Christes actions as well as Christes wordes he transgresseth Christes institution Theoph. Then your Priestes are all guiltie of violating Christes institution Phi. Doe they not eate and drinke at the Altar as hee did Phi. That Christ himselfe did eate and drinke at the ministration of the Sacrament is not expressed in any part of his institution though some wordes that followe after declare he dranke of the same fruite of the vyne which the rest did but the whole course of his actions speeches stood in deliuering the mysteries vnto others He tooke bread that hee might breake it hee brake it that hee might giue it he gaue it that they should eate and so his wordes declare which are both plurall and spoken to others take ye eate ye not singular or to himselfe Though therefore your Priest take and eate for his part yet since Christ brake the bread that it might bee diuided among others bid them take and eate it is certaine your Priestes neither doe as Christ did nor as hee commaunded his Apostles to do nor as the very wordes of Christ which he repeateth do
with a strait and generall charge for the cup drinke yee all of this and Paul receiuing his instructions from Christ his master proposed the same to the Lay men of Corinth no lesse than to the ministers excepting none Iewes nor Gentiles bond nor free from this precept how dare you Philander and your late Conuents restraine the people from drinking of it The Lordes cup is the new couenant which he hath made with all beleeuers do none beleeue but Priests For the remission of sinnes are laie men no sinners as a memoriall of his death maie the people loose that remembrance It is saith Paul THE COMMVNION OF HIS BLOOD and the partaking of his spirite haue the people no right to the blood of Christ that was shed for them or will you claime his spirite as peculiar to Priestes which is common to all the children of God Philand The Church I warraunt you did ponder and consider these reasons when shee tooke this order and finding them vnsufficient shee decreed with vs that the cuppe was not necessarie for the Laie people Theoph. What Church I praie you The primatiue and auncient Church of Christ where catholicisme should beginne Wee can assure you no. They ministred in both kindes to Priest and people men and women without exception DIONYSIVS The breade that was whole being broken into manie partes and ONE CVP DIVIDED AMONG ALL the Bishoppe in these twaine perfiteth the holie Sacrifice The sacred Communion of one and the same breade AND COMMON CVP bindeth Christians to diuine concorde and likenesse of manners as being nourced vp together IGNATIVS There is but one flesh of the Lord Iesu and one blood that was shed for vs there is also but one bread that is broken for all and ONE CVP THAT IS DIVIDED AMONG ALL. ATHANASIVS If those be his expositions which you haue set forth in his name The dreadfull cup was deliuered by the Lorde TO ALL MEN ALIKE CYPRIAN How doe we prepare the people for the cup of martyrdome if we doe not first admit them in the Church to DRINKE THE LORDES CVP BY RIGHT OF COMMVNION AVGVSTINE Not onelie no man is forbidden but rather ALL MEN that seeke for life ARE ENCOVRAGED TO DRINKE And againe speaking to the people simul bibimus quia simul viuimus WE DRINKE TOGETHER at the Lordes table because we liue together CHRYSOSTOME as before One bodie is proposed to al and one cup. GREGORIE The blood of Christ is now not powred into the hands of vnbeleeuers but into the mouthes of the faithfull THEOPHILACT How happeneth thou drinkest alone whereas this dreadfull cup was deliuered to all men indifferentlie HAYMO The cup is called a communion by Paul because all men are partakers of it PASCHASIVS Christ gaue the cup and said Drinke ye all of this as well the Ministers as the rest of the beleeuers Infinite are the places which might be brought to make faith that for a thousand yeares in the Church of God the people were not depriued of the Lordes cup. The master of your sentences who liued verie neare twelue hundred after Christ knewe not this maiming and paring of Christes institution which now raigneth in your churches Therefore is the Sacrament saith he celebrated in two kinds that in Christ the taking of soul and flesh and in vs the redeeming of them both might be signified For the flesh of Christ is offered for our flesh and his soul for our soules It is taken vnder both kindes which profiteth both partes If it shoulde be receiued in one kinde onely that would declare that it auayled for the safegard of one part onely soule or body not for both ioyntly The gloze that followed an hundred yeeres after resteth him-selfe on the same reason with the same wordes and shrinketh not from the communion in both kinds but in the danger of sicknes or point of necessitie Insirmus vel sanus in necessitate potest sumere corpus sine vino a sicke man whome the drinking of wyne might hurt or an whole man in case of necessitie where hee can not choose may receiue the body without the wyne Then in the Church where prouision might soone bee made for all and no necessitie coulde bee pretended it was not as yet counted lawefull for the people to receiue the Sacrament in one kinde Philand But if the Church after vppon good deliberation sawe sufficient cause to chaunge that order who made you controllers of Christes spouse Theoph. That vnshamefast harlot which foureteene hundred yeeres after Christes ascention woulde both alter her husbandes will and defraude his children of that portion which their Lorde and Sauiour had allotted them did prostitute her selfe and bastardize her ofspring as much as lay in her and is no way woorthie to haue the honour of a mother or name of a spouse though shee paint her selfe neuer so freshly with youthfull colours And the reasons which mooued her so to doe were as ridiculous as the fact was impious Durandus sayth Non esset decens tantum sanguinem conficere nec calix capax inueniretur It woulde not bee decent to consecrate so much blood as must serue the people neither can there so bigge a chalice bee gotten Gerson beateth his braines to iustifie that which the councell of Constance did in taking the Lordes cup wholy from the people not yet nyne score yeeres agoe and when hee hath all doone hee commeth in with these toyes THE length of Laymens beardes the lothsomnes to drinke after others the costlynes of so much wyne the difficulties first of getting then of keeping wyne from sowring freezing and breeding of flies the burden in bearing and daunger in spilling it last of all the peoples vnwoorthynes to match Messere magnifico the Priest in the receite of this Sacrament Bee not these valiant inducements for you to chaunge the last Will and Testament of Christ Iesus and abrogate that which was orderly kept in the church for a thousande yeeres and vpward And yet these were the grauest and profoundest considerations that your friendes had to leade them to this attempt and these you knowe bee verie miserable Gerson I graunt shifteth what hee can to bring other proofes that both kindes are not simply needfull but why the councell of Constance tooke the cup cleane from the people which violence before was neuer offered them of this I say Gerson a chiefe agent in that councell labouring purposely to shewe the reason of their doings neither doeth nor could yeelde any better or weightier occasions than these which I nowe repeated and the reader shall find blazed with great confidence in the second part of the foresaid treatise O deintie fathers and sleeke diuines which for long beardes and vnsweete breathes for a litle paynes and no great charges for frostes in winter and flies in sommer thought best to correct Christes institution and not onely to forsake the
is the liuely sacrifice whereof it is written Offer to God the sacrifice of praise your couÌtinances hang as did that homicides which slue his brother Phi. This nothing infringeth our assertion Theo. But this declareth the meaning of Malachie Phi. Our oblation is a sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing Theo. Had you kept your selues there and not runne farther to fansies of your owne framing and Uictimes as you call them of your own presuming you might haue offered that cleane sacrifice foretolde by Malachie which nowe you doe not Phi. You will not haue his wordes pertaine to the Eucharist Theo. You will neuer speake trueth so long as you may shift with facing Phi. Confesse you theÌ that Malachie spake of the Eucharist The. With all our hearts Phi. You bee nowe ouer the shooes in your owne cestern The. But it doeth me no hurt for I feele no wet Phi. You graunt the Eucharist to be a sacrifice which your fellowes will be angrie with you for Theo. Neither they nor I euer denied the Eucharist to be a sacrifice The verie name inforceth it to be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing which is the true and liuely sacrifice of the new Testament Phi. I thought you woulde backe againe Theo. I am nowe as farfoorth as euer I was or as any of these ancient fathers are which haue expounded the wordes of Malachie Phi. Then you must affirme it to be a sacrifice Theo. Leaue this foolish repeating and often inculcating that which neither benefiteth you nor annoyeth vs. The Lordes table in respect of his graces mercies there proposed to vs is an heauenly banquet which we must eate not sacrifice but the duties which he requireth at our handes when wee approch to his table are sacrifices not sacramentes as namely to offer him thankes and praise faith and obedience yea our bodies and soules to bee liuing holy and acceptable sacrifices vnto him which is our reasonable seruing of him Phi. This must bee doone when wee receiue the sacrament but this is no part of the Sacrament Theoph. These bee the conditions without which God will not haue vs come to his Table and for these respects the Eucharist hath his name thereby to put vs in minde of our duties Phi. Wee do not deny these sacrifices to bee good and holy and then most requisite when wee drawe neerest vnto God as at his table but we adde that the very sacrament it selfe is a sacrifice and the celebration thereof is a continuance of that oblation which Christ made in his owne person on the Altar of the crosse Theo. This wee graunt to bee most true in that sense which Sainct Augustine and other auncient and Catholike Fathers doe auouch it that is because Sacramentes haue the names of those thinges whose Sacramentes they are And since this is the Sacrament of the Lords death and a passion we do not sticke to say that Christ is dayly crucified and sacrificed for the sinnes of the world mary not really or corporally but by way of a mysterie that is his crosse and bloodshedding are proclaymed and confirmed in the eyes of all the faithfull by these signes of his death and seales of his truth by which hee first witnessed that his bodie should bee broken and his blood shed for the remission of our sinnes Philand Why then refuse you the fathers expressing their opinion of this sacrifice Theo. Nay why doe you abuse their wordes to support your errors and wheresoeuer you find the names of sacrifice and oblation in them referred to the Lordes supper why alleadge you the places with such confidence as if the fathers were at your commaundement to meane nothing but your reall sacrificing the sonne of God vnder the formes of bread and wine Phi. What other meaning could they haue Theo. I haue already shewed you by their owne writinges what other meaning they had Phi. You say they call it a sacrifice because it is a signe and memoriall of his death on the crosse Theo. That is sufficient to shew their meaning Phi. But their words are so weightie that a cold and naked signification doth not answere the force of them The Lambe of God laide vpon the table conc Nice The quickning holy sacrifice the vnbloody host and victime Cyril Alex. in conc Ephes. Anath 11. The onely inconsumptible victime without which there is no religion Cypr. de caen Dom. nu 2. Chrys. hom 17 ad Heb. The sacrifice of our price Aug. confess lib. 9. cap. 13. Theo. What a patching you keepe to no purpose Phi. Dare you attribute these speeches to the creatures of bread and wine Theo. Dare you attribute them to the Priestes externall gestures Is his act the lambe of God or the price of our ransome or the holy and quickning sacrifice Phi. No but the fleshe and blood of Christ are which the Priest offereth as wee say to God for the sinnes of the people Theo. To what ende then alleadge you these places for the Priests act which shewe the worthinesse of Christes sacrifice and the power of his death Phil. Our sacrifice worketh those effectes Theo. And so doth ours Phi. Then you bee of our opinion Theo. As though we did resist you touching the thing that is offered and not touching the manner of offering That Christ is the lamb of God laid on the Lordes table before the eyes of our mindes that his flesh wounded and bloud shed for our sinnes are an holy quickning and euer during sacrifice and the most sufficient price of our redemption we vrge this against you you neede not vrge it against vs wee fully and faithfully teach it The question betweene vs is howe this sacrifice once made on the Crosse is daily renued in our mysteries You will haue a reall corporall and local profering of Christs fleshe to God the father vnder the formes of bread and wine made by the Priestes externall actions and gestures for the sinnes of such as he lift this is we say a wicked and blasphemous mockerie His passion is the true oblation of the church his flesh wounded and blood shedde are the only sacrifices for sinne which oblation that it might be alwayes in our hearts and sights he hath commaunded vs to continue in his church by a memoriall of his owne erecting and to applie the same to our selues by a stedfast hope in his mercies humble prayer vnto his holynes as often as wee approach to his table to bee partakes of his death merites And therefore the Priestes act can no way bee auailable for those that stand by looke on and neither communicate with him in praier or in the participation of the mysteries And your alleadging four and twentie places of the fathers for this kinde of sacrifice of which they neuer thought sheweth what fidelitie and sinceritie you haue vsed in the rest of your Rhemish obseruations which you sent ouer but to occupy mens
Ea demum est miserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipere nec supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad âauriendum aeternum lumen leuare non posse That is a miserable bondage of the soule to take the signes or Sacramentes as you doe for the thinges themselues and not to be able to lift vp the eye of the mind aboue the corporal creature to perceiue the eternall brightnesse Of adoration he saith Rectè scribitur hominem ab angelo prohibitum ne se aedoraret sed vnum Deum sub quo esset ei ille conseruus It is very wel recorded in the Scriptures that a man was prohibited by an angel to adore him but only God vnder whom he himself was a fellow seruant vnto God And therefore he saith Ecce vnum Deum colo Behold I worship adore none but God and thence he deriueth the name of religion Quod ei vni religet animas nostras Because it relieth our soules on him alone So that veneration you may giue to sacramentes adoration you may not and yet you finely conuey the one into S. Augustines text iointly with the other as if they were both fouÌd in his words which they are not Phi. He saith singular veneration Theo. You say so but he sayeth not so His words are Veneratione singulariter debita with that veneration which is due onely or singularly to this Sacrament Phi. And what is that but adoration Theo. If you might be iudges it should be nothing else but S. Augustine sayth Not to be contemned is the veneration due vnto it Contemptum solum non vult cibus ille that meate misliketh onele contempt that is either to bee dayly receiued without regard or to be still refused vpon pretence of vnworthynesse And that being the case of which S. Augustine disputeth your cunning serueth you in steede of examining theÌselues before they receiue it which S. Augustine meaneth to set the people not at all to receiue it but to fall downe and adore it with diuine honour in Christes place which is as wilfull a contempt of his ordinaunce and as shamefull an abuse of his sacramentes as can be committed Phi. The same father in an other place saieth of the Sacrament No man eateth it before he adore it Theo. Are you not desperatly set thât to defile your selues with open idolatrie will force the Fathers to fit your âumours against their owne speeches S. Augustine saith of Christes fleshe which hee tooke of the virgine Marie Nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit No man eateth that fleshe of Christ vnlesse hee first adore it you make no more bones at the matter but strike THE FLESH of Christ out of Sainct Augustines wordes and referre adoration to the corporall creature which the Priest holdeth in his fingers Is not this trowe you sounde dealing in the greatest mysteries of our saluation and imminent peril of your damnation purposely to shut your eyes least you shoulde see the truth or agnise the rashnesse of your newe founde adoration What haue Sainct Augustines wordes to doe with your adoring the mysticall signes when hee directly nameth the flesh of Christ which is both eaten with the spirite and adored in the spirite yea the very eating of it is the adoring of it since it is not eaten but by beleeuing hoping and reioycing in it which are the chiefe branches of Gods diuine honor Phi. As though the fleshe of Christ were not really closed in the forme of bread and corporally eaten with the mouth of man Theo. One errour must needes drawe on an other or rather your reall and carnall presence is the groundworke of all your errors and abuses in the Masse Phi. The deniall of it is the high way to all your heresies and blasphemies against the doctrine of the church and for our partes till you leaue that wee looke for no better at your hands Theo. Looke to your own feete least whiles you watch our hands your legges slip into the pit of destruction Phi. Wee bee past all feare of that Theo. And so be those that are past all recouery but yet for the sauing of other mens soules if not of yours we will first weigh the proofes of your adoration after not sticke to suruay the partes of your Transubstantiation Go on therefore with your former authorities Phi. S. Ambrose saieth We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries Theo. Uerily and so doe wee but the mysteries and sacramentes themselues wee doe not adore neither did Sainct Ambrose euer teach any man to adore them Phi. I see you mistake vs. You thinke we adore the formes of bread and wine where in deede we doe not but rather we adore Christ the sonne of the lyuing God and second person in Trinitie in those mysteries as Saint Ambrose sayeth or as wee speake more vsually vnder those formes of breade and wine Theo. I mistake you not I knowe you adore that which is locally and really inclosed within the compasse of your host and chalice supposing it in matter and substance to bee the glorious body of Christ apparelled with accidents of bread and wine as whitenesse roundnesse sweetenesse moystnesse and such like proprieties of bread and wine but your foundation wee say is false and therefore your building must needes bee ruinous Christ is present in the mysteries not by the materiall substaunce of his body closed within the formes of bread and wine but by a diuine and spirituall vertue and efficience not mixing ãâ¦ã but entering the hârtâ of the faithâull and nourishing them with his spirit and grace to eternall life the elementes abiding in their proper and former essence and substance And therefore when you adore them as if they were Christ in nature and substaunce which in trueth they are not you worship not Christ but giue his honour to creatures and in steede of washing your sins away by the death and blood of Christ you kindle the wrath of God against you by mystaking his sonne and adoring the elementes with diuine honor in lue of Christ. Phi. Tush we regard not these wordes of yours we haue assurance from Christ himselfe that it is his body and so long wee passe not for any thing that you can alleadge or obiect against vs. Theophil But if you misconster his wordes to make a deade and corruptible creature to bee the seconde person in Trinitie and giue it that honour which is due to the glorious and immortall God what assuraunce can you haue that Christ Iesus will put vp this reproach at your handes and not auenge himselfe on you as on proud idolateâs Phi. Are you well in your wits to vrge vs so often with open Idolatrie where as wee shewe you so plaine proofes of our defence Theo. Plaine quoth you In good faith they bee such as no meane Scholer woulde stumble at Christ you proue
is adored in the mysteries and on the Altar Why shoulde hee not bee adored in all places and in all his giftes and for all the monumentes of his grace and mercie bequeathed vs in this life that he may prepare vs for the next And if this rule bee generall howe great cause haue wee to adâre him in the water where hee clenseth vs from our sinnes and at the table where hee feedeth and strengthneth our soules and spirites with their proper nourishment which is the precious ransome that was paide to recouer vs from death and hell and to bring vs to his immortall light and blisse What Christian heart recounting his aboundant goodnesse and fatherly readynesse with his owne stripes to heale vs with his owne bloode to washe vs with his owne death to quicken vs will not bee resolued into prayers and teares to yeelde all honour and adoration to him that doeth offer vs these treasures at and on his table Phi. These bee goodly words to bleare mens eyes where in deede you denie him to bee present eyther at or on the Altar Theo. Wee confesse him to bee there present with all his giftes and blessinges to him that will beholde him with the eye of faith and reach out the hand of his soule to apprehende him in greater might and maiestie than you doe when you shroude him with your formes of breade and wine and pale him rounde with a pixe as it were with a sepulchre Mary locall dimension or inclusion within the compasse of the host or chalice wee appoint him none His trueth is annexed to the Sacramentes and his power vnited to the creatures after a wonderfull and inspeakeable manner by the mighty working of the holy ghost but yet wee must not direct his diuine honour and seruice to anie part of the Altar or circumference of the visible creatures wee must rather Lyft vp our hearts as the faithfull were alwayes admonished in this sacrament and take heede that wee doe not basely bende our eyes on the bread or wine to seeke Christ in them and vnderneath them much lesse worshippe them in steede of him which is the next way to dishonor him and deifie them against the very rules and Principles of our faith Phi. But S. Chrysostom saith We adore him on the altar as the Sages did in the manger and S. Nazianzene saith of his sister Gorgonia she called on him which is worshipped on the Altar Theo. What wordes soeuer Chrysostom and Nazianzene vse to expresse the place where Christ is serued and adored yet this is euident that they attribute adoration not to the visible element or sacrament but vnto Christ who may well be saide to be worshipped on the Table or altar for so much as there is the fruite force and eâfect of his heauenly grace and trueth proposed vnto all and from thence the prayers and thankes of all are offered vnto him by the religious heart and voice of the Pastor that standeth at the Lordes table to bee the mouth of al and yet you deale vntruely with both those fathers as you do almost with al the rest of the writers that passe your pen. Chrysostomes wordes are Tu non in praecepe id sed in Altarivides Thou seest his bodie not in a manger but on the Altar Now betweene seeing adoring there is good difference if you bee not so blinde that you can see nothing Phi. He speaketh it to that ende that we should adore it as the Sages did when they found him in a manger Theo. He hath some wordes tending to this ende that we should adore the body of Christ since the wicked and barbarous Magi did yeelde him that honour but he ioyneth no such wordes togither as you cite he saith not we adore him on the altar but let vs that be citizens of heauen at least imitate those Barbarians Phi. That is in adoring Christ. Theo. As if we doubted of that But where is on the altar which you haue added of your owne without your authors consent Phi. He sayeth thou seest him on the Altar Theo. But neither with corporall eyes nor vnder the formes of bread and wine And that well appeareth in the very same place when he saith Ascende igitur ad coeli portas tunc quod dicimus intueberis Climbe vp to the gates of heauen and then thou shalt see that which we now say To which end he told them before that becomming Eagles in this life they must fly vppe to heauen it selfe or rather aboue the heauens For where the carcas is saith Christ there wil the Eagles be The Lordes body is the carkas in respect of the death which hee suffered Eagles Christ calleth vs to shew vs that he must flie on high which will come to this body euer mount vpward haue the eye of his mind most bright to behold the sonne of righteousnes He that teacheth you to ascend to the highest heauens there to adore Christ neuer ment you should adore the hâst in the Priestes handes in steede of Christ and as hee neuer ment it so he neuer spake it though you haue plaied some ligier de main to make his wordes sound to that sense Phi. Nazianzenes sister called on him that is worshipped vpon the altar Theo. She did so but when she made her prayers to Christ there was neither Priest by nor pixe there that you should dreame shee made her prayers to the host Nazianzene saith shee went to the Church ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the dark of the night kneeling close to yâ altar she did inuocate ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã him that is honoured thereon not meaning the host which at that instant was not on the Altar but Christ who is truly said to be honoured on the altar or Table because his mercies are there layde foorth in the mysteries and the prayers and supplications of all the faythfull offered chiefely from that place vnto him though hee sit in heauen according to the materiall substance of his humane bodie Phi. He is honored on the Altar that is say you the Altar is the place whence honour is giuen vnto him what sleights you haue to auoyd the fathers Theo. Haue you no worse to enforce them and you shal do them lesse wrong than you doe When the woman of Samaria sayd to Christ Our fathers worshipped God in this hill did she meane that God was in the hill or that the worshippe was there dâne vnto him When it was said to Moses Ye shal serue God vpon this mountaine was that mountaine before hand allotted to God or to his seruice So Christ is honoured on earth though hee bee in heauen because the earth is the place where hee is honored and serued And yet wee doubt not but Christ himselfe is also present euen in the mysteries and on the Altar or Table of the Lorde albeit not in that corporall and carnall manner which you conceiue
and from whence we looke for our Sauiour euen the Lord Iesus Christ. Phi. All the places which are yet alleaged against you you haue shyfted off by referring the speaches to Christ him-selfe sitting in heauen and as you say not in the sacrament But Theodorets woordes are so cleare that no shift will âerue Hee speaketh of the very mysticall signes and Sacraments which are seene with eyes and touched with handes and of them hee sayth Intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt quae illâ sint quae creduntuâ The Sacraments are vnderstood to be the things which they are made are beleeued and ADORED as being the same which they are beleeued Theo. Onely Theodoret of all the fathers that euer mentioned adoration spake of the Sacrament it selfe The rest direct their words to Christ raigning in glory not to the host or Chalice in the Priestes hande Hee in deede speaketh of the mysticall signes which the rest did not Philand Then yet there is one Father for the adoration of the Sacrament you sayde wee had none Theo. Woulde you prooue so high a point of Religion as this is to bee Catholike by one onely Father and such an one as you thinke not worthy to bee called a Saint Phi. These exceptions are but dilatorie and quite besides the matter Doe you graunt that hee sayth the mysticall signes must bee adored Theo. Hee sayth so Philand And such vpstarts as you are woulde bee credited against him when you say the Sacrament is not to bee adored Theoph. Wee reason not about our credite but about your conclusion Philand That is too plaine for your stoare Theo. Why doe you then conceale it so long Phi. You shall soone heare it and haue your belly full of it The mystical tokens bee adored sayth that auncient Father Theodorete Marke nowe howe nimbly we come within you ouerthrow you in plain field If you deny it we haue here antiquitie for it If you grant it then are you worse than miscreants for holding all this while against it Theo. With such weapons I thinke Alexander the great did conquere the worlde Phi. When you come to a non plus then you fall to idle talke But leaue digressing and giue vs a short and direct answere which wee knowe for your heartes you can not Theo. You knowe much but if you knewe your selues and your owne weakenes it were better Phi. Did I not tell you this place would ouerthrowe you Theo. Because hee sayth the substance of bread and wyne must be adored Phi. Hee sayth no such thing but the mysticall tokens must be adored And what are the mysticall tokens but the mysteries themselues which are all one with the Sacrament Theo. Can you take the top and the tayle and leaue out the myddle so cunningly Phi. Wee leaue out nothing Theo. Theodorets wordes are Neque enim sigra mystica post sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura Manent enâm in priore substantia figura forma videri taâgi possunt sicut prius Intelliguntur antem ea esse quae facta sunt creduâtur adorantur vt quae illa sint quae creduntur The mysticall signes after consecration doe not depart from their owne nature For they remaine in their former substaunce and figure and forme and may bee seene and touched as they were before but they are vnderstoode to bee those thinges which they are made and are beleeued AND ADORED as being the things which they are beleeued The mysticall signes not departing from their owne nature but remayning in their former substance are adored By this you may prooue if you bee so disposed that the creatures of bread and wyne must bee adoren which perhaps in your Church is no fault because it is so often But the Church of Christ abhorreth it as a wicked impietie to adore any dead or dumbe creature And therefore you must bee driuen as well as we to seeke for an other and farther meaning in Theodorete otherwise you will shake the foundation of your owne fayth with your owne antiquitie more than you shall doe ours Our answere is easie The mysticall signes hee sayth are adored but not with diuine honour and adoration with the Grecians as also with the Scriptures when it is applied to mortal men or creatures signifieth onely a reuerent regard of their places or vses Your owne Lawe sayth In hoc sensu possumus quamlibet rem sacram adorare id est reuerentiam exhibere In this sense wee may adore any sacred thing whatsoeuer that is giue it due reuerence So that you vtterly ouerthrowe both your adoration and your Transubstantiation when you brought Theodorete to tell vs that the substance of bread is adored that is reuerenced and yet remayneth after Consecration For if it remaine what adore you but the substance of a dead creature And that if you doe howe many steppes are you from open Idolatrie Thus though wee crake not of our conquests as you doe wee returne your authorities for adoring the sacrament as either impertinent or insufficient giue vs cause to consider that your worshipping it with diuine honour is no catholike or ancient veritie but a pernicious and wicked noueltie Phil. Is it wickednes to worship Christ Theop. You defile the name of Christ spoile him of his worship by giuing them both to senseles creatures Phi. How often shall we beate this into your dull heades that we giue this honour to the Sacrament and not to senseles creatures Theo. And howe often shall wee ring this into your deaffe eares that the Sacrament in corporall matter and substance is a senseles and corruptible creature Phi. Did not Christ saie this is my bodie Theo. You must prooue the speach to be literall as well as the wordes to be his Phi. Is not the letter plaine this is my bodie Theo. The letter is so plaine that it killeth the carnall interpreter and hath driuen you whiles you would needs refuse the figuratiue and spirituall constructions of Christs words to these absurdities and enormities which haue euen ouerwhelmed your Church Phi. Can you wish for plainer wordes than these this is my bodie Theo. I could wish that in expounding these wordes you did relie rather on the catholike fathers than on your vncatholike fansies Phi. All the fathers with one voice toyne with vs in this doctrine Theoph. You doe but dreame of a drie Summer Not one of the auncient fathers euer spake of your reall presence or the literall sense of these wordes on which you buyld the rest Phi. Will you haue a thousand places for that purpose or if varietie of writers do rather content you wil you haue three or four hundreth seuerall fathers all auncient and catholike in diuers ages and countries that shall depose for our doctrine in this point Theo. I can enter a course to saue you
doubt arise not touching the creatures of breade and wine but touching the fleshe and blood of Christ which are the Principall partes of this mystery the solution and explication of euery such doubt must be fet from the place where the Lord first reuealed this secret rebuked the Capernites for the misconstruction of his words and taught his Disciples how they should be both fruitfull partakers of his flesh rightful interpreters of his speech Phi. You woulde faine haue it so but wee meane to barre you that chaâce Theo. You cannot bar vs but you must bar Chrysostom Cyprian Cyrill Austen and others that confesse the same trueth before vs. How chanced saieth Chrysostome the Disciples were not troubled when they heard this take eate this is my body Because their master had debated the same matter largely and profoundly before For at first when he spake of these thinges many were offended at the very words So Cyprian To the sonnes of Abraham doing the workes of Abraham the high Priest bringeth foorth bread and wine saying this is my body There arose before this as we reade in the Gospell of Iohn a question touching the nouelty of this speech and at the doctrine of this mysterie the hearers were amazed So Cyrill The Capernites before they beleeue question busily with him Therefore the Lord did not tell them how that might be but exhorteth them to seeke for it with faith mary to the beleeuing disciples he gaue peeces of breade saying take yee eate ye this is my body Likewise the cuppe hee deliuered round saying drinke yee all of this Thou seest that to those which asked without faith hee did not open the maner of this mysterie but to those which beleeued yea when they did not aske hee declared the same And Augustine When Christ spake of the Sacrament of his body and bloode they saide this speech is hard Who can heare it You see by the constant opinion of these Fathers that our Sauiour in the sixt of Iohn taught his Disciples what manner of eating his flesh and drinking his blood they should expect at his last Supper and that they therefore started not at these words this is my body because they learned of him before what to looke for and well remembred his interpretation of himselfe when the Capernites staggered at the like speech Then perforce what sense the wordes of Christ in the sixt of Iohn doe beare the same must the wordes of the supper retaine but there Christ teacheth the spirituall eating of his fleshe by faith his wordes bee figuratiue ergo the Lordes supper doeth not import any corporal eating of his flesh nor literall exposition of his wordes And why The performance may no way differ from the promise The promise made by Christ in the sixt of Iohn the bread which I will giue is my flesh was figuratiue The wordes then of the Supper THIS which I now giue is my body perfourming the same must likewise be figuratiue For Seales doe not alter or infringe but strengthen and confirme that which was promised The creatures of bread and wine Christ ordained at his last Supper to bee Sacramentes and Seales of his former promises vttered in the sixth of Iohn ergo they change not his meaning expressed before That was spiritual figuratiue therefore the wordes of the Supper can not be corporall nor literall And the wordes of Origen expounding the sixt of Iohn are a iust proofe that if in the wordes of the Supper you follow the letter that letter killeth Phi. This can not be Christ in the sixth of Iohn you say teacheth a spirituall and figuratiue kinde of eating his fleshe and in deliuering the Sacrament we be sure he spake of a corporall not of a spirituall eating his body For when our Lord saide take eate this is my body did hee not meane they should take it with their handes and eate it with their mouthes And therefore either the one place doth not serue to expound the other or else in both places is prescribed a reall and corporall eating the flesh of Christ drinking his blood which we rather imbrace as the likeliest Theo. In those wordes take and eate spoken at the last Supper hee ment no doubt the corporall taking and eating of that creature which hee gaue them and when hee added this is my body which hee tolde them before they must eate if they would haue any life in them he recalled to their mindes as Chrysostom noteth the doctrine hee had taught them of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in which because they were wel instructed by the Capernites error and their masters declaration of himselfe that the wordes which he spake were spirite and life they neither started nor stumbled at his speech but presently perceiued the Lord was ordayning a Sacrament to confirme their faith and not hiding his fleshe vnder accidentes or any other couerts to enter their mouthes for which grossenes the Capernits were before reproued Christes exposition therefore in the sixt of Iohn was purposely made to confute the carnal Iewes who when they heard of eating mans flesh and drinking blood dreampt of no kind of eating and drinking but with their bodily iawes lips and for that cause murmured as if they had beene inuited to some barbarous brutish act next to teach the disciples that indured his words in what sort they should looke for a diuiner purer kind of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood by beleeuing hoping and reioycing in his fleshe that was wounded and blood that was shed for their sinnes This he assured and ratified vnto them by ordaining afterward a Sacrament which they shoulde visibly see but inuisibly vnderstand corporally receiue but spiritually interprete in beleeuing the same by the power of his worde and spirit to haue in it cary with it the fulnes of his trueth mercy openly sealed with those pledges of his promises instruments of his grace lest their faith should faint by reason of his departure absence from theÌ or their harts faile them as if they were destitute of his protection fauor amidst so many troubles as should inclose them Phi. If you will needes haue the sixt of S. Iohn to pertaine to the Sacrament then is there say we a reall corporall kind of eating established in that chapter For Christ in plaine speech saith my flesh is meate in deede and my blood is drinke in deede Theo. It is well that you bethinke your selfe at last you were about to dissent both froÌ the fathers from your own felowes For the fathers as I haue shewed you confesse that the Disciples were by the words of Christ in this place instructed how they should eate his flesh drinke his blood euen in the sacrament that made theÌ vnderstand him when he said take eate this is my body drink ye al
mysterie that Christ is eaten vnder the formes of bread and wine Theo. None at all if you set your teeth and iawes on worke to eate him as the Capernites thought they should when they peruerted the wordes of Christ. Phi. They supposed they should haue seene and tasted mans flesh which is horrible Theo. Eating as I haue shewed you doth consist not in seeing or tasting but in chamming and swallowing since you therein consent with the Capernites though you could alleadge twentie diuersities betweene their maner of eating yours yet both are corporal and contrary to that doctrine which Christ deliuered in the sixt of Iohn â For that as I haue proued was intended and referred to the soules and spirits of men not to their throats or entrals and therefore well in couering the body of Christ and deluding your senses you may differ from the Capernites but in preparing your teeth and iawes for the flesh of Christ and in drawing his wordes from their mystical and figuratiue sense you ioyne with the Capernites against all the Catholike Fathers that euer wrate in the Church of Christ. Phi. Haue we thinke you no fathers with vs as well for the literall construction of Christs wordes as for the corporal eating of his flesh in the Sacrament Corporall I call it not because we see it or tast it as we doe other meates but because we be sure it entereth our mouthes when we receiue our rightes and is really contained in our bodies Theo. You may abuse some fathers to make a shew but otherwise you haue no ground in them either of your literall vnderstanding Christs speach or corporal eating of christs âlesh Phi. Haue we not S. Damascen S. Epiphanius Theophilact Euthymius and others earnestly presse the literal construction of christs words against your signes and figures and as for eating the flesh of Christ with our very mouthes S. Austen S. Chrysostom S. Leo S. Gregorie S. Cyril Tertullian others are resolute whoÌ I trust you wil not condemn for Capernites By this way the simple learne what to looke for at your hands that wil out-face so plaine a trueth Theo. He that will be good at outfacing let him studie your Testament and hee neede none other teacher but what trueth is it that we outface Phi. Neuer father you said auouched the literal sense of Christes wordes Theo. I said no ancient father of which number I do not account these late Grecians to be And therefore if they did contradict that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others did teach long before them wee would not regard them but as yet I seeâ no such thing proued by them Phi. The proofe is easie S. Damascene rehearsing the wordes of Christ This is my body immediately addeth not a figure of my body but my body not a figure of my bloud but my bloud S. Epiphanius likewise Christ said take eate this is my body Hee saide not take eate the Image of my body And Theophilact Bread is the very bodie of our Lord and not a figure correspondent For he said not this is a figure but this is my body And so Euthymius Christ said not these are signes of my body but these are my body These be manifest places and yet such is your impudencie that you affirme no father euer vrged the literall force of Christes words And so for the corporall eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes S. Augustine saith It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in the honour of so great a Sacrament our Lordes bodie should enter into the mouth before other meates And S. Chrysostome Our mouth hath gotten no small honour receiuing our Lordes bodie And S. Gregorie The bloud of the lambe is sucked not only by the mouth of the heart but also by the mouth of the body And S. Leo That is receiued by the mouth which is beleeued by the heart And Tertullian Our flesh doth feede on the bodie and bloud of our Lord And S. Cyril It was needfull that this rude and earthly body should be recouered to immortalitie by touch tast and foode of the same kind with it selfe You aske for fathers here they be both many in number and auncient in time to discharge vs that we be no Capernites and to refell your foolish vaunt that all antiquitie were of the verie same mind that you are now It may bee you neuer heard the places before If you did not I will pardon your ignorance so you repent your rashâes Theo. Yeas sir I haue seene them and ââ may bee weighed them better than euer you did And notwithstanding your magnificence it will appeare you be not free from ignorance whatsoeuer you be from impudencie Phil. I will burne my cloathes to my shirt if euer you answere them Theo. But saue your skinne from the fire though you spare not other mens blood nor bones Phi. We vse you but as heretikes should be vsed Theo. If it be heresie for vs to serue god according to the Gospel of his sonne what is it for you to serue him with your own medlees Phi. You would flie the fielde rather than your life but I must keepe you to it Theo. You runne so fast from God and your Prince that you may soone ouer-goe vs if we would flie but as yet I see no cause Damascene Theophilact and Euthymius presse the letter of christes speach not to deriue thence your carnal and guâtural eating of christs flesh nor to controll that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others men of farre greater learning and authoritie than these taught long before them in the church of God but to shew that bread and wine be not only tokens and bare signes of christes fleshe and bloud but also cary with them and in them the vertue power and effect of his death and passâon Euthymius Christ said not these be the signes of my body and bloud but these are my bodie and bloud We must therefore NOT LOOKE TO THE NATVRE of the giftes which are proposed BVT TO THE VERTVE Against them which defend that this Sacrament doth only figure not offer signifie not exhibite grace the letter may wel be forced to proue the diuine power and operation of the mysticall elemenets Against vs which hold the visible signes in substance to bee creatures in signification mysteries in operation and vertue the things themselues whose names they bearâ this illation concludeth nothing Yet for the better explication of him selfe and others vsing the like kind of speach Theophilact addeth this worde ONLY Marke that the bread which is eaten of vs in the mysteries Non est TANTVM figuratio quaedam carnis Domini is not an only figuring of the Lords flesh but the Lords very flesh For he saide not the bread which I will giue is a figure of my flesh but is my flesh Their meaning was as we see
of a corporal substaÌce for your shewes without substance were not yet known but by secret efficiencie prouing the presence of the diuine vertue This common bread chaunged into flesh and blood procureth life and groweth to our bodies so by the vsuall course of these things the weakenes of our faith is succoured and âaught by a sensible argument that the effects of eternal life is in the visible SacrameÌts that we be vnitââ to Christ noâ so much by a corporal as by a spiritual transitioÌ Ambrose Perhaps tâou wilt say I âee the likenes I see not the truth of blood But it hath a resemblaÌce For as thou tookest a resemblance of his death so doest thou drink a resemblance of his precious blood to this end that there should be no horror of blood and yet it might worke the price of our saluation and the grace of our redemption might remaine Therfore for a similitude thou receauest the Sacrament sed ver ae naturae gratiaÌ virtuteÌque consequeris but thou obtainest therby the grace vertue of the true nature Gelasius By the sacraments which we receiue wee be made partakers of the diuine nature they truely represent to vs the vertues and effects of that Principal mysterie Hilarius These things tasted taken bring this to passe that Christ remaineth in vs this is The vertue of that table to quicken the receiuers Leo In that mystical distribution of the spirituall nourishment that is giuen this is taken that receiuing the vertue of the heauenly meate we may be chaunged into his flesh who was made flesh for vs. Chrysostom Let vs come to the spirituall dugge of this chalice and suck thence the grace of the spirit Austen The Sacrament is one thing the vertue of the Sacrament is an other thing Euery man receiueth his part whereby grace itselfe is called parts and where the Sacraments were common to all grace was not common to all which is the vertue of the Sacraments And againe The Capernites thought he would haue giuen them his body but he told them hee would ascend to heauen no doubt hee ment whole When you shall see the sonne of man ascendingâ where hee was before surely then shal you see that he doth not giue his body that way which you imagine surely then shal you perceiue that his grace is not consumed with biting Euthymius He doth change these things vnspeakably into his very body that quickneth and into his very precious blood and into the grace of them bothâ We must therfore not looke to the nature of the things proposed at the Lords table but vnto the vertue of them Wherefore Theodoretes wordes are most true The signes which are seene Christ did honor with the names of his body and blood not chaunging the nature or substance of them but casting grace vnto nature And so did Ambrose meane when hee sayde If there bee so great strength in the word of the Lord Iesu that all thinges beganne to bee when they were not howe much more shall it bee of force that the mysticall elementes should be the same they were before and yet bee chaunged into an other thing The same in earthly matter and substaunce which they were before chaunged in vertue power and working whereby wee see they beare not onely the names but also the fruites and effectes of those thinges whose Sacraments they bee This is their doctrine touching the visible part of this Sacrament which is seene with eyes felt with handes and ârused with teeth of that there is no doubt but it entereth our mouthes and resteth in our bowels and that for the causes which I before rehearsed aââer consecration is euâry where called by thâm the Lordes body but that the naturall fleshe of Christ which is thâ other and inwarde part of the Sacrament entereth the mouth or abideth the teeth or passeth downe the throate or loâgeth in the stomack this is a position wholy repugnant both to Fathers and Scriptures Doe you not know sayth Christ that whatsoeuer thing from without entereth into a man can not defile him because it entereth not into his heart but into the beâlie Then by the iudgement of our Sauiour nothing can enter âoth the hâaât the bâlly but the flesh of Chrisâ entereth into the hâart ergo ãâ¦ã The bellie saieth Paul is for meates meates for the bellie and God will destroy both it and them the bodie of Chrâst Gâd wâll not destroy it is therefore no meate for the bellie If not for the ââlliâ then not for the mouth because eueâie thing that entereth the mouth goeth into the bellie and so foorth to the âraught But so basely to thânk of the flâsh of Christ is apparent and ãâã wickednesse eâgo the fleshe of Christ neither fillâth our bellies nor ântârâth ouâ moââââ For nothing that entereth the mouth can either defile or sanctifie Meatâs saith Paul whiâh passe by the mouth doe not commend vs vnto âod neither doeth the kingâom of God which is our sanctificationâ conâââ of mâats and drinkes but Christ with his blood doeth sanctifie the people and hee that âatâth my flâsh drinketh my blood saith âe remaineth in mee and I in him and hath eternall life ergo neâther his fleshe nor ââs blood enter ouâ mâutheâ To be short Christ dwelleth not in bellies by locall comprehension but in our hearts by faith his flâhe seedeth not âur bodies for a tiâe but our soules for euer his wordes were spoken not of our mouthes which beâleâue not âut of our spirites which haue no fleshe nor boanes and consequently neither teeth to grinde nor iawes to swallow but onely âaith and vnderstanding Lette all this bee âââde if the learned and auncient Fathers doe not conclude the same Chrysostome Care not for the nourishment of the bodie but of the spirit Christ is the bread which âeeââth not the bodie but the soule and filleth not the belly but the minde Ambrose Christ is in that sacrament because it is the bodie of Christ. It is therefore no bodily but Ghostly meate NOT THIS BREAD which entereth into the bodie but the bread of eternall life is it that vpholdeth the substaunce of our soule Cyprian As often as we doe this wee wheâ not our teeth to bite but we breake the sanctified bread with a sincere faith Cyril Let vs therefore as our Sauiour saith labour not for the meate which goeth into the bellie but for the spirituall foode which confirmeth our harts and leadeth vs to eternall life Austen It is not lawfull to deuoure Christ with teeth Prepare not your iawes but your harts We take but a morsel our hart is replenished Therfore not that which is seen but that which is beleued doth feed Why prouidest thou thy teeth thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten BeâtraÌ At
the Lords table we look not on that which is brokeÌ in peeces which is pressed with teeth which feedeth the body but onely that which is taken spiritually by faith Doth the meate which the faithful receiue in the church as touching that which is corporally taken that which is chammed with teeth that which is swallowed with iawes that which is closed in the compasse of the belly put vs in assurance of eternall life This way no question it feedeth our flesh which shall dy neither yeeldeth vs any kind of incorruption For this which the body receiueth is corruptible that which fayth beholdeth feedeth the soule and perfourmeth vs euerlasting life If these fathers be not able to remoue you from the corporal eating of christs flesh with teeth iawes heare in how plaine termes your own Law doth check this grossenes of yours The flesh of Christ is not incorporated with vs descendeth not into the stomacke passeth not into the nourishment of the body for it is the food of the soule not of the body And where Pope Nicholas draue Berengarius in his recantation to say that the flesh of Christ was truely chaÌmed between the teeth of the faithful Your Gloze could forebear no longer but cried out Nisi sanè intelligas except thou take good heede to these words thou shalt fal into a greater heresie than euer Berengarius held Then blame not vs Philander for saying this your assertion is not catholike the Prouost Mareschall of your owne side not long since sayde it was hereticall Phi. Haue you done Theo. I haue if you list to begin Phi. What a stirre is here to bring beggers to the stockes al not worth a straw Theo. In deede Friers are the neerest kinsmen that beggers haue they both liue by shifting gaine by dissembling saue that Friers are alwaies within doores when beggars are without But what is it that doth so much offend you in my speech Philan. You runne along with Scriptures and Fathers as if all were yours Theophil I shew you a trueth confirmed by the Scriptures auouched by the Fathers and confessed by your owne fellowes If that displease you your mouth is out of tast Philand Haue you the trueth so hath the Diuell for you bee his members in that you bee Heretikes Theo. This is but a iades tricke when you feele the spurres to fling out behind The more you reason the more you finde that you haue runne the race of your owne deuises without the fathers and now you can not resist you fall to reuiling and cursed speaking Phi. We can with one lifte lay all your authorities in the miâe Theoph. Your can is great but your liquor small I dare promise for you that you will struggle what you can to bee rid of the burden Phi. With three bare words I wil answere your three parts and all your proofes Theo. They may be so bare they will doe you no good but at aduenture what are they Phi. That the signes after consecration carie the names and effectes of the things themselues I graunt it to be very true but it answereth not the places which I did obiect And as for the substance of bread remaining which sâme Fathers seeme to affirme wee say substance is there takân not for the very substance it selfe which is really changed into the body of Christ but for some other thing Theo. What other thing Phi. Not for that which you meane Theo. Let my meaning alone and speake you to their assertion that say the breade and wine remaine after Consecration in their former and proper nature and substance Phi. Substance is there taken for nature Theo. Nature is so general that it compriseth both the substance accidents of euery thing If then the signes remaine in their former nature they must retaine both their former substance and their former accidents Phi. Their substance they doe not their qualities they doe as sight tast bignes and such like properties Theo. But the places which I cite affirme they retaine both and namely their proper and former substance Phi. That is their former qualities Theo. Doth substance signifie qualities Phi. In these places it doth Theo. Why more in these than in others Substance in all learning is diuided against accidents how then commeth substance by your learning to be taken for accidents Phi. It is so For otherwise those sayings were all one with heresie if substance should be taken in his proper signification Theo. Yea marie now you come to your right colours If the fathers words should not be violently wrested from their perpetual naturall signification you cannot possibly auoide but they taught âhat doctrine for Catholike which you now reiect for heresie Phi. They neuer taught it The. Themselues be dead and do not speake their words in which they spake whiles they liued make as directly for vs as we can spake any vnlesse you turne all that euer they said the vpside downe and take figures for truths substance for accidents creatures for shewes teeth for faith heauen for earth Which priuilege of interpreting scriptures and fathers cleane contrarie to the sense if you can procure or iustifie I will be your suretie all the Protestants in Christendome shal neuer touch the least haire of your heads in all the follies which you defend Phi. We doe not force them against their meaning Then shew your exposition to be true by other points of their doctrine and partes of their writings which must infallibly force you to that construction Phi. So we doe Theo. With places as shamefully abused as these Phi. No by inumerable and ineuitable authorities Theo. Bring but one father that shall say the substance of bread and wine is ceased or abolished by consecration and you shall haue free leaue to doe what you will with all the rest Phi. We can bring infinite Theo. You may the sooner choose out one Philan. You would put vs to bring other proofes before you haue answered those that are alreadie produced I brought you sir fathers affirming the flâshe and bloud of Christ were receiued with our mouthes you would leape to new matter and shake them off at your fingers end but I will none of that First make euen with the old scores before you enter on a new reckoning Theophi You were the cause of that digression and not I. You replied to my proofes and persued not your owne And yet you neede not say your places are vnanswered your selfe haue confessed the weakenes of your owne authorities yeelded them as vnsufficient to beare the weight of your conclusion what other answere would you haue Phi. Haue I dissabled mine owne proofes Theo. Your owne conclusion you haue Phi. Would you make me so madde Theo. I thinke you were more sober then than now For then you agâised a trueth and now you resist it againe Phi. What did I agnise Doe you thinke I was a sleepe that I
would conâuâe my selâe Theo. No the clearenes of trueth was such that you could not shadowe the beames of it and therefore in a brauerie you did admit it though now you would to your owlelight againe Phi. This is counsell to me I know not what you mean Theo. Dâd you not confesse it to bee very true thât in this sacrament the signes after consecration did carie the names and effects of the things themselues Phi. Yeas I did Theo. Recaât you that Phi. I doe not Theo. Then are the places which you brought for the reâl eating of Christs fleshe with your mouthes and teeth returned backe without your conclusiân For the signes which are called after consecration by the names of âhrists bodie and blood do enter our mouthes and passe our throates the true flâsh bloud of christ do not but âre eaten at the Lords table only of the inward maÌ by faithful deuâtion and affâctiân preparing the hart that Christ may lodge there dwâll there where hee dâlightâth and not in the mouthes and âawes of men which is no place for him that sitâeth in heauân whither we must flie with the spirituall wings of our soules and spirites before we can be paâtakers of him Phi. You shall not so delâde me The Rule â granted was veây true but how proue you that these speeches muât be so constââed In other cases it may be true though not in this Theo. If the Rule which I laide downe be very true then your places can inâerre nothing âor so much as the wordes which you brought may be spoken as well of the signes as of the things themselues and in that case the promises receiuing a double consââuction by your own confessâon how can your conclusion stand goâd importing that sense which is not only most doubted and least proued but âlaâly denied by the same fathers in other places as I haue shewed Phi. Tutâe I will not be mocked wiâh such iâstes you shall answer thâm place by place as I cite them or els I wil not speake one word more Theo. You importune mee to spende time which nowe waxeth short but it will be the worse for your selfe your egernes without trueth will be your owne discredit and the more paâticularly the more plainly it will appeare Phi. I haue aduantages in their wordes against your euasion which I will not omit Theo. In Augustine Chrysostome and Tertullian you haue vtterly none Austen saith that in honour of so great a Sacrament as this is it hath pleased the holie Ghost that the sacred and sanctified bread which after a sort is called the Lords bodie though indeed it be the signe Sacrament of his bodieâ should enter the mouth before other meats that sââue onely to feed nourish ouâ fleshâ Chrysostome saith It is no small honour that our mouth hath gotten by receiuing the sanctified bread after consecration countâd worthy to be called the Lords body though the nature of bread still remainâ And indeed so is it no small both comfort and honour that God hath vouâsaâed to confirme and âeale his mercies vnto vs with these elements that are cânuerted into our fââsh to shew vs that we are as reallie inuâsted strengthned with his grace and ârueth as our bodies are nourisâed and encreased with the sâgnâs and Sacraments of his grace And to that end Tertullian saith Our flâsh seedeth on the bread which Christ called his bodie and hath in it the âffâcts of his body that our soules might be replenished with God Phi. These be your corrections oâ their speaches they be not their intentions Theo. Looke better to them and you shall finde that I haue added no wordes but such as them selues in other places haue delâuered to declare their owne both meaning and speaking Phi. The rest doe make for vs. Theo. Cyril saith nothing but that as the soul hath faith and grace to clense it and prepare it to eternall life so it was needfull that our rude and âarthlie bodie should be brought to immortalitie by corporal and earthlie food that our bodies touching tasting and feeding on creatures like themselues might take them as pledges of our resurrection Gregorie comparing the two Passeouers the Iewes and ours and alluding to the storie of theirs âaith The blood of our Passeouer is sprinckled on both Posts when it is drunke not onelie with the mouth of the bodie as the cup is which after the manner of Sacramentes is the Communion of Christes bloode but also with the mouth of the hart which is the true drinking of Christes blood Phi. We will none of that by your leaue you must graunt that in strict and precise speach according to the woordes the blood of Christ is drunke by the mouth of the bodie as well as by the mouth of the soule Theophil Hath the soule a mouth in strict and precise speach or hath shee lips to drinke according to the letter Phi. Would you make me such a foole as so to thinke Theo. Then if one part of the sentence be figuratiue why not the other If that which hee doth most vrge be not literall why shal the letter be eracted in the harder and vnlikelier part of the comparison If the whole be but an allusion whie eract you that strictnes and precisenes of the speach in either part It is not possible that one and the same thing should be reallie drunke by the mouth of the bodie and the mouth of the soul. If it be corporall how can it enter the soul If it be spirituall how can it enter the mouth And if those be Gregories wordes which your ownâ Lawe assigneth to him in the verie same homilie his exposition shaketh your real presence more than all the authorities you can bring shall settle it Quidam non improbabiliter exponunt hoc loco carnis sanguinis veritatem ipsam eorundem efficientiam id est peccatorum remissionem Some not amisse doe expound the trueth of Christes flesh and blood in this place to be the verie efficience of the same things that is the remission of sins Take this construction with you bring out of Greg. or Leo what you can it wil not help the tight of a barely corne Phi. S. Leo saith You ought so to communicate at the sacred table that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the bodie and blood of christ Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur For that is receiued with the mouth which is beleeued by our faith and in vaine doe they answer Amen which dispute against the thing that themselues receiue O noble Lion and such as all the heretikes in Europe will neuer encounter Theo. You speake like a Lion but the spite is your eares are too long to be taken for a beast of that metal You foolishly
peruert the meaning of Leo and if you did but vnderstand the right course of his reason you would suppresse both his voice and your vaunt for verie shame Phi. He that will trust your sayings shall haue manie false fiers when he should not Theo. And he that will credit your doings shall feele manie quick flames when he would not Phi. You be better at quipping than at answering Theo. You are lothe we should encroch on your common But returne to Leo. Can you tell against whome he wrote Phi. Against such as you are that denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Were they men without names or names without men Phi. Mock not they were your auncetours Theo. They say it is a wise childe that knoweth his owne father Doe you But in sadnes whome did Leo traduce in that sermon Phil. Mary Eutiches and such like heretikes Theoph. You saie well for Leo nameth him but a litle before in that sermon and against his opinion he reasoneth Philand I am content with that Theoph. What was his error Phi. He denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Who told you so Phi. I gather it by those that refute him Theo. By them you shall learne his error but this it was not Philan. What was it say you Theo. Eutiches affirmed that Christes humane nature and substance was not onely glorified by his ascension but consumed and turned into the nature immensitie of his Godhead Against him wrate Theodorete Gelasius and others and one of the cheefest argumentes which they bring against him is that which Leo here toucheth in a woorde or two Phi. That argument cleane confoundeth your sacramentarie Sect. Theo. Yours or ours it must needes confound for this it is As the bread and wine after consecration are changed and altered into the bodie and bloud of Christ so is the humane nature of Christ conuerted into his diuine after his resurrection ascension but the bread and wine are not changed neither in substance nor forme nor figure nor naturall proprieties but only in grace and working ergo Christs humane nature is not changed into his diuine EITHER IN SVBSTANCE circumscription or forme but only endewed with glory and immortalitie Phi. This is no Catholike reason but sauoreth altogether of your hereticall poison Theo. They which first framed and vrged this reason against Eutiches in your opinion were they heretikes Phi. No father euer vsed it Theo. If they did must not they be doubbed for heretikes as the first proposers of that reason or at least you for affirming now the quite contrarie For you reiect both their assumption conclusion against Eutiches as starke false and whose ancetour then is Eutiches but yours Phi. They do not vse it as you report it Theo. Looke you offspring of Eutiches whether Gelasius Theodoret and Augustine do not vrge it in those verie pointes and wordes which I repeate Thus Gelasius framed his reason against Eutiches An image or similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is therefore apparant and euident enough that we must holde the same opinion of Christ the Lord which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image That as those signes by the working of the holy Ghost passe into the diuine substance and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature Euen so that verie principall mysterie it selfe whose force truth that Image assuredly representeth doth demonstrate one whole and true Christ to continue the two natures of which he consisteth properlie remaining And lest you should not vnderstand what he ment by this The signes still abide in the proprietie of their owne nature he expoundeth himselfe an saith Non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not or perisheth not When Theodoret had made an entrance to the very same reason by laying this foundation Oportet archetypum Imaginis esse exemplar the Originall must be answerable to the Image the heretike caught the words out of his mouth and said It hapned in good time that you did mention the diuine mysteries for euen thereby will I prooue the Lordes bodie to be chaunged into an other nature As then the signes of the Lordes bodie and blood are other thinges before the inuocation of the Priest but after they are chaunged and become other than that they were so the Lords bodie after his assumption is chaunged into his diuine substance The maior being good such as Gelasius and Theoderet did both auouch that as the signes were changed after consecration so was Christes humanitie after his assumption if your opinion had then beene taught in the church that the substance of bread and wine were changed by consecration the conclusion had beene infallible for Eutiches error that the substance of Christes humanitie had beene changed by his ascention into his diuinitie and not only both these Fathers had had their mouthes stopped but Eutiches error had beene inâolâble as beeing grounded on a Maior that was a confessed and famous trueth and on a Minor that was as you thinke the vndoubted saith of the Church Mary the Minor in deed was apparantly false though you now defend it for Catholike Doctrine and with the plaine deniall of that as a manifest vntrueth Theodoret inferreth the contrarye that because neither the Substance nor naturall proprieties of the bread and wine are chaunged by consecration as the whole Church then beleeued and confessed therefore neither the substance nor shape nor circumscription of Chrisâes humane nature were changed by his ascention but his body remaineth in the âame substance quantitie and forme that he rose from death and ascended vp withall and with the very same forme and substance of flesh shall come to iudge the worlde These are his wordes Thou art caught saith Theodoret to the heretike with the same nets that thou laiedst for others The mysticall signes after sanctification doe not depart from their own nature For they remanie in their former substance and figure and forme c. Conferre then the Image with the originall and thou shalt see the likenes betweene them For the figure must be like to the trueth That body therefore of christ in heauen hath his former shape and figure circumscription to speake al at once his former substance Lay all your heades together aâd graunting the Maior which the whole Church held auoide the conclusion of Eutiches withâut the denying the Minor as Theodoret did which yet is your faith and beleefe at this day and we wil grant you to be Catholiks and our selues heretikes If you cannot see how far you be falleÌ from the doctrine of Christs church and that in no lesse point than the greatest and chieâesâ Sacrament on which you haue wickedly founded your adoration oblation halfe communion priuate masse and barbarous prayers without
doubted but the trueth was present with the signe the spirite with the sacrameÌt as Cyprian saith We knew there could not follow an operation if there went not a presence before Set a side your carnal imaginations of Christ couered with accidences his flesh chammed betweene your teeth and say what you will either of his inuiââble presence by power and grace or of the spiritual and effectuall participation of his flesh and bloud offered and receiued of the faith-full by this Sacrament for the quickening and preseruing of their soules and bodies to eternall life we ioyne with you no wordes shal displease vs that any way declare the trueth or force of this mysterie Your locall compassing of Christ with the shewes and fantasticall appearances of bread wine your reall grinding of his flesh with your iawes these be the points that we deny to be Catholike these doe the fathers refute as erroneous and in these your owne fellowes be not yet resolued what to say or what to hold Phi. Be not we resolued what to hold of Christes reall being in the Sacrament and the corporall eating his flesh with our mouthes Theo. How you be secretly resolued I know not your iudgementes laid downe to the world in writing are cleane contrarie Phi. Ours Theo. Whose said I but yours Phi. Howsouer in other thinges we retaine the libertie of the Schooles to dispute pro con yet in this you shall finde vs all together Theo. Together by the eares as dogges for bones Omit your contentions what the pronowne H O C supposeth what the verbe E S T âignifieth when and how the bread is abolished whether by conuersion or annihilation what bodie succeedeth and whether with distinction of parts and extension of quantity or without what subiect the accidents haue to hang on whether the aire or the body of Christ what it is that soureth and putrifieth in the formes of bread and wine whether it be the same bodie that sitteth in heauen and if it be how so many contradictions may be verified of one the same thing Omit I say these with infinite other like contentions the corporall eating of christ with your mouthes are you all agreed about it Philan. We are Theo. Your two Seminaries are perhaps because they hearken rather for sedition in the realme than for Religion in the Schooles But the great Rabbins of your side are they in one opinion concerning this matter Phi. Great and small consent togither against you Theo. Against trueth they doe but in their owne fantasticall error they doe not The cheefest Pillours of your church when they come to that point which is now in handling wander in the desert of their owne deuises as men forsaking and forsaken of trueth Your Gloze is content if a man gape wide that the body of christ shall enter his mouth but he holdeth it for an heresie that the teeth should touch the same and therefore when the iawes beginne to close he dispatcheth away the body of christ in post towards heauen Certum est It is no coniecture but certaine that as soone as the formes of bread be pressed with the teeth tam cito presently the bodie of christ is caught vp into heauen Durandus is more fauourable to the teeth and will haue christ present in the mouth chamme he that list till his âawes ake but hee is as strait laced against the stomack as the glozer is against the teeth and wil by no meanes haue the bodie of christ to passe thither building himselfe on these wordes of Hugo Christ is corporally present in visu in sapore whiles wee see or tast the sacrament As long as our bodily senses are affected so long his corporall presence is not remooued but when once the senses of our bodie beginne to faile that we neither see nor tast the formes then must wee seeke no longer for a corporall presence but retaine the spirituall because christ passeth from the mouth neither to heauen as the Gloze said nor to the stomack as the rest affirme but to the hart And better it is that he goe straight to the mind than descend to the stomacke Others is whome Bonauenture more inclineth will no way but Christ must take vp his lodging as wel in the stomacke as in the mouth maây thence they suffer him not to wagge neither vpward nor downward whatsoeuer become of the accidentâl forms of bread and wine And lest it should be âhought as Durand and Hugo say that the bodie of Christ goeth to the hart he repâieâh that Quantum ad substantiam corporis certum est quod non vadit in meâtem sed vtrum sic vadât in ventrâm dubium est propter diuersitatem opinionum as touching the substance of his bodie it is cleare that he passeth not to the mind but whether he so come that is in the substance of his bodie from the mouth to the belliâ this is yet in doubt by reason of the diueâsitie of opinions in so great varietie what to hold is haâd to iudge Yet he liketh not that Aut mus in ventrem traijceret aut in cloacam descenderet the bodie of Christ shuld goe into the bellie of a mouse or be cast foorth by the draught because the eares of well disposed persons would abhorre that sidiceremus haeretici infideles deriderent nos irriderent and if we should defend that the heretiks and infidels would iest at vs and laugh vs to scorne This notwithstanding Alexander de Hales in spiâe of al heretikes and infidels âentereth on it If a dog or an hogge saith he should eat the whole consecrated host I see no cause but the Lords bodie should goe therewithall into the bellie of that dog or hog Thomas of Aquine sharpely reprouâth them which thinke otherwise Some haue saide that as soone as the Sacrament is taken of a mouse or a dog streight way the bodie and bloud of Christ cease to be there but this is a derogation to the trueth of this Sacrament In âauour of Thomas Petrus de Palude Ioannes de Burgo Nicolaus de Oâbellis with the whole sect of Thomists neither few in number nor mean in credite with the church of Rome defend the same yea where the master of the sentences seemed to shrinke from this loathsome position It may wel be said that the bodie of Christ is not receined of brute beasts the facultie of diuines in Paris with full consent gaue him this check here the master is refused And for feare lest the field should be wonne without him in steppeth Antonius Archbishoppe of Florence and recompenseth his late comming with his lewd writing First hee telleth how Petrus de Palude dressed the Glâze for saying that Christ is caught vp to heauen as soone as the formes of the sacrament are pressed with our teeth Quod dicere est haereticum which
but the poyson of Dragons vnhappily with Iudas Therefore sayth Paul sauor you those things which are aboue not the things which are on earth For this cup of the new Testament is not any where receiued but aboue in heauen Where the carkaââe is thither will the Eagles resort that is saith Austen into heauen whither froÌ hence Christ caried with him the body which hee tooke in the nature of man Had we no better ground to refuse that your corporal cating reall presence this were sufficient For where without question the flesh of Christ must bee locally present in your host before it can bee really pressed with teeth the sacred scriptures catholik fathers affirm that the true flesh of Christ is absent from earth verily present in heauen whither we must and may send our harts and faithes to be partakers of him our hands mouthes we can not sende therefore your late deuised doctrine must needes be dissident from the scriptures and vnknowen to the former purer church of christ I see saith Stâuen the heauens open and the sonne of man standing at the right hand of God whom the heaueÌs saith Peter must contain vntil the time that al things be restored Phi. As though he might not also be in earth Theo. Being ascended into heauen he is no more in earth if that be true which the Angels said to his Disciples This Iesus which is taken vp from you into heauen shall so come as you haue seene him go into heauen ergo when he ascended into heauen he was taken vp from them and not left with them and so the Lord himselfe before had taught them I came foorth from the father and came into the world now contrariwise I leaue the world and go to the father So that his ascending to the father was the leauing of the world and his abiding with the father imployeth his absence from the world The poore you alwaies haue with you but me sayth hee you shall not alwayes haue Nowe am I no more in the world but come to thee holy father ergo now Chriât being with his father is no more in the world but remaineth in heauenâ and as touching his humane nature is absent from the earth which not onely the scriptures pronounce but also the fathers with one voice professe Tertullian In the very palace of heauen to this day sitteth Iesus at the right hand of his father man though also God fleshe and blood though purer than ours neuerthelesse the very same in substaunce and forme in which he ascended Augustine Let vs shew the Iewes at this day where Christ is would God they would heare and take hold of him Hee was slaine of their fathers he was buried he rose againe and was knowen of his Disciples and before their eyes ascended into heauen and there now sitteth at the right hand of the father Let them heare this and lay hold on him Perhaps he will say whom shall I take holde of him that is absent howe shall I reach my hand vp to heauen to take hold on him sitting there Send thy faith and thou hast hold of him Thy father 's held him in the flesh hold thou him in thine heart Hee is both departeâ and present he is returnâd whence he came and hath not left vs. His body hath hee caried to heauen his maiestie hath hee not withdrawen from the world Mee shall you not alwayes haue He spake this of the presence of his body For touching his maiesty prouidence inspeakeable and inuâsible grace it is true that he said I am alwayes with you to the end of the world But as touching the fleshe which the word took touching that by the which he was born of the virgin fastned to the crosse laide in the graue you shall not alwayes haue me with you And why because he is ascended into heauen and is not here there hee sitteth at the right hand of the father Cyrill Wee must here diligeÌtly marke that albeit hee haue withdrawen from hence the presence of his bodie yet in the maiestie of his Godhead hee is alwayes with vs euen as himselfe readie to depart from his Disciples promised behold I am with you at all tymes vnto the end of the world For the faithfull must beleeue though hee be absent from vs in body yet in his diuine vertue he is euer present with all that loue him with whome hee euer hath beene and will be present though not in bodie yet in the vertue of his Deitie Hee coulde not bee conuersant with his Apostles in fleshe after hee was once ascended to his Father yet for so much as Christ is truely God and man they should haue vnderstood that in the vnspeakeable power of his Godhead hee meant to bee alwayes with them though in fleshe hee were absent and by that onely meanes notwithstanding hee bee absent in fleshe hee is able to saue his Origen according to his diuine nature hee is not absent from vs but hee is absent according to the dispensation of his bodie which hee tooke As a man shall hee bee absent from vs who is euerie where in his diuine nature For it is not the manhood of Christ that is there wheresoeuer two or three bee gathered togither in his name neither is it his manhood that is with vs at all times vntill the ende of the worlde neither is his manhood present in euerie congregation of the faithfull but the diuine vertue that was in Iesu. Ambrose Steuen amiddest the Iewes saw thee O Lord absent Marie among the Angels sawe thee not being present Steuen sought not for thee on earth who sawe thee standing at the right hand of God Marie which sought thee in earth could not touch thee Steuen touched thee because he sought thee in heauen Therefore neither on the earth nor in the earth nor after the flesh ought wee to seeke thee if we wil find thee Gregory Christ is not here by the presence of his flesh which yet is nowhere absent by the presence of his maiesty The word incarnat both remaineth departeth He departeth from his in bodie and remaineth with his in diuinitie Wee must therefore brethren follow him thither in hart whither we beleeue him to be ascended in body If the fleshe of Christ bee not in earth nor on earth as these learned Fathers teach vs howe can it be locally closed in your massing waters If his humane nature be placed in heauen at the right hand of God there to remaine till the time that all thinges be restored and from thence not from any place els shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead howe vainely doe you suppose him to bee corporally present in your pâxes and really lodged in your bellies Phi. His bodie wee say may be present in many places at one time Theoph. This you
say but what ancient Father euer said so before you yea rather why forget you that this is often refuted by them as a leude and hereticall fansie Doeth not Sainct Augustine of purpose debate the matter and in euident termes giue this flat resolution against you Doubt not saieth hee the man Christ Iesus to bee nowe there whence he shall come to iudgement but keepe in minde and holde assured the christian confession that he rose from the dead ascended into heauen sitteth now at the right hand of his Father and from thence from no place else shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead And so shall he come by the very witnesse of Angels as he was seene to goe into heauen that is in the verie same forme substance of his fleshe the whâch hee hath endued with immortalitie not bereaued of the former nature According to this forme of his manhood wee must not thinke him to bee diffunded in euerie place For we must beware that wee doe not so defende the God-head of a man that wee take from him the trueth of his body It is no good consequent that which is in God should bee euerie where as God himselfe is One person is both God and man and one Christ Iesus is both these euerie where as he is God in heauen as he is man Dout not I say that Christ our Lord is euerie where present as God but in some one place of heauen by the meanes of his true bodie And againe Let vs giue the same eare to the holy Gospell that we would to the Lord himselfe if he were present The Lord is aboue in heauen but the trueth is here which also the Lord is The body in which hee rose β can be but in one place â his trueth is euery where dispersed Doeth not Vigilius a blessed Martyr and Bishoppe of Trident vpholde the verie same point against Eutyches and his accursed companions The fleshe of Christ sayeth hee WHEN IT WAS IN EARTH SVRELY WAS NOT IN HEAVEN AND NOWE BECAVSE IT IS IN HEAVEN CERTAINLIE IT IS NOT IN EARTH yea so farre it is from being in earth that wee looke for Christ after the flesh to come from heauen whom as hee is God the word we beleeue to be with vs in earth Then by your opinion either the worde is comprised in a place as well as the flesh of Christ or the flesh of Christ is euery where togither with the worde seeing one nature doeth not receiue in it selfe any different and contrary state Now to be contained in a place and to be present in euerie place be thinges diuerse and verie dislike and for so much as the word is euery where and the fleshe of Christ not euery where it is cleare that one and the same Christ is of both natures that is euerie where according to the nature of his diuinitie contained in a place according to the nature of his humanity This is the catholike faith and confession which the Apostles deliuered the Martyrs confirmed and the faithful persist in to this day Doth not Fulgentius handle the same question and precisely trace the steps of Sainct Augustine and Vigilius One and the same sonne of God hauing in him the trueth of the diuine and humane nature lost not the proprieties of the true Godhead and tooke also the proprieties of the true manhead one and the selfesame locall by that he tooke of man and infinite by that he had of his Father one and the verie same according to his humane substaunce absent from heauen when hee was in earth and forsaking the earth when hee ascended to heauen but according to his diuine and infinite substaunce neither leauing heauen when hee came downe from heauen neither departing from earth when hee ascended to heauen The which may bee gathered by the most certaine wordes of the Lord himselfe I ascend to my Father and your Father Howe coulde he ascende but as a locall and true man or howe can hee bee present with the faithfull but as an infinite and true God not as if the humane substance of Christ might bee euery where diffunded but because one and the same Sonne of God albeit according to the trueth of his manhead hee were then locally placed on earth yet according to his Godhead which in no wise is concluded in any place hee filled heauen and earth This true manhead of Christ which is locall as also his true Godhead which is alwayes infinite wee see taught by the Doctrine Apostolicall For that Paul might shewe the bodie of Christ as of verie man to bee contayned in a place he sayeth to the Thessalonians You turned to God from idolles to serue the liuing and true God and to looke for his Sonne from heauen declaring that hee surely shoulde corporally come from heauen whom he knewe to bee corporally raysed from the dead His conclusion is this Whereas then the fleshe of Christ is proued without question to bee contained in a place yet his Godhead is at all times euerie where by the witnesse of Paul c. These bee no wrested or maymed allegations but graue and aduised authorities of learned and auncient Fathers plainely concluding with vs against you that the fleshe of Christ is not absent onely from earth and nowe sitteth aboue at the right hande of GOD but also locally contayned in some one place of heauen by reason of the trueth of his bodie and therefore not dispersed in many places or present in euerie place as you would nowe make the world beleeue it is in your Masses Philand This was spoken of the shape but not of the substance of Christs bodie For Sainct Augustine sayeth Secundum hanc formam non est putandus vbique diffusus according to this externall shape and forme we must not thinke him euerie where diffused and yet the trueth and substaunce of his bodie may bee in many places at one time Theop. You forget that the rest say nature and substaunce as Vigilius Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae Christ is circumscribed with place by the nature of his flesh and Fulgentius Secundum humanam substantiam derelinquens terram cum ascendisset in coelum according to his humane substaunce leauing the earth when hee ascended into heauen and againe Non quia humana Christi substantia fuisset vbique diffusa not as if the humane substaunce of Christ should bee euerie where diffunded By the which it is cleare that neither the forme nor substaunce of Christes bodie can be present in many places at one time And what doeth Sainct Augustine meane by the word forme but the perfection and trueth of mans nature as Ambrose Leo Chrysostome others doe What is sayeth Ambrose in the forme of God in the nature of God I demaund sayeth Leo what is ment by this taking the
forme of a seruaunt Doubtlesse the perfection of mans nature The forme of a seruaunt is out of question the nature of a seruaunt sayeth Chrysostome Therefore Augustine him-selfe addeth this reason why Christ must not bee thought to bee euerie where present ne veritatem corporis auferamus Least wee take from him the trueth of his bodie concluding that Christ is euerie where per id quod Deus est by that nature which is God in coelo autem per id quod homo in heauen by that nature which is man Where these wordes that which is man interprete what he meane by the former speech wheÌ hee saide according to this forme Christ is not euerie where present But let the worde bee taken in your sense yet doth it fully confirme our assertion For humane forme and shape is inseparably ioyned to the substaunce of Christes bodie and Christes humane forme by your confession can not bee present in many places at one time ergo neither his humane substance These âwaine shape and substaunce can not bee seuered hee is no man that hath not the shape of man Now choose whether that bodie which as you say your hosts containe shall keepe the forme and shape of man or loose the nature and substaunce of Christ. For the Lord Iesus as man must haue not onely the substaunce but also the shape of a man So shall hee come as you haue seene him go to heauen that is saith Austen in the very same shape and substance of his flesh Our vile bodie saith Paul shall he change to bee fashioned like to his glorious bodie but our bodies shall then haue distinction of partes proportion of shape circumscription of place ergo the glorified body of Christ hath and must haue these very proprieties of our nature So that if his bodily shape can be but in one place his bodily substance can be in no moe Therefore saith Fulgentius Quod siverum est corpus Christi loco potest vtique contineri if Christ haue a true bodie that no doubt may be concluded in a place And Theodoret Illud enim corpus habet priorem formam figuram circumscriptionem vt semel dicam corporis substantiam that bodie which Christ caried to heauen with him hath the same forme figure circumscription at one word the same substance of a bodie which it had before Phi. S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose affirme the contrary Theo. What affirme they Phi. That one and the some bodie of Christ is euerie where present Their words are Quoniâm multis in locis offertur multi Christi sunt âequaquaÌ sed vnus vbique est Christus hic plenus existens illic plenus vnum corpus Because we offer in many places are there many Christs no by no meanes but one Christ is euery where here whole and there whole one body And S. Chrysostom exceedingly wondring at so miraculous a presence crieth out O the strangenes of the thing O the goodnes of our God! He that sitteth aboue with his Father in heauen at the verie moment of time is handled with the fingers of all men Theo. Make you Chrysostom and Ambrose the disciples of Eutyches Phi. Make you no worse reckoning of them than I do and they shall haue their due honor Theo. I thinke them to be farre from Eutyches errour Phi. And so doe I. The. Why then alleadge you their words for that erronious position which was condemned in Eutyches Phi. I alleadge them for the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament Theo. Your reall presence and vbiquitie if you will haue Christs humane substance dispersed in many places without shape or circumscription are the verie bowels and inwardes of Eutyches heresie Phi. No Sir S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose were no heretikes Theo. In deede they were not and therefore you doe them the more wrong to wrest their speeches to make for his madnes Philand We produce them to confirme a trueth Theophil The very same trueth that the church of Christ abhorred in Eutyches Phi. What did the church abhorre Theo. Euen this which you would proue by the words of Ambrose Chrysostom âhat the flesh of Christ after his ascension was not locall nor circumscribed within any certaine place Phi. We grant the manhood of Christ in heauen is locall and circumscribed with place that setteth vs free from Eutyches errour Theo. It doeth if you constantly keepe that point of faith and contradict it not by an other deuise Phi. We verilie beleeue and publikely professe that Christes humane nature in heauen hath quantity shape distinction of parts circumscription and all other conditions of a naturall and true body what would you more Theo. We would no more but if you fall from that are you not within the compasse of Eutyches furie Phi. We fal not from it The. Then how can Christs body in the sacrament waÌt all these which christiaÌ religion affirmeth to bee permanent perpetual in the maÌhood of Christ or why would you collect out of Amb. or Chry. against the very principles of faith that Christes humane fleshe is vncircumscribed and euerie where diffused Philand Wee meane that of Christes fleshe in the Sacrament not of his manhood in heauen Theophil Bee there many Christes Philand Who sayth there are you heard that euen now reproued by S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose as a wicked absurditie to say that there were many Christes And therefore they concluded there was but one Christ euerie where Theo. That one Christ hath hee many naturall and substantiall bodies Philand Why aske you those questions of vs we bee not infected with any such frensie Theo. You may the sooner answere Hath Christ two reall and naturall bodies the one in heauen the other in the Sacrament Phi. No this is all one with that Theo. That by the rules of your creede is locall and circumscribed if this bee the same howe can this bee without quantitie shape and circumscription Phi. Beleeue you not Christ when hee sayde this is my bodie Theop. Yeas veryly but you so expound his words that you subuert the whole frame of his truth and our common faith with your reall and locall presence Phi. Do we subuert the common faith with our opinion Theo. Our Christian faith is this Wee must beleeue sayeth Augustine the Sonne of God according to the substance of his Deitie to be inuisible incorporall and vncircumscribed but according to his humane nature to be visible corporall and locall You heard Vigilius the martyr say For so much as the word is euery where and the fleshe of Christ not euery where it is cleare that one and the same Christ is of two natures eueriwhere according to the nature of his Diuinity and contained in a place according to the nature of his humanitie and this sayeth hee is the catholike fayth confession which the Apostles deliuered the Martyrs confirmed
the faithfull stand in to this day This faith and confession if you infringe of violate you ioyne handes with Eutyches against the church of God and against the groundes of our common creede and this you must needes impugne if you defend the naturall body of Christ to be euery where present as you would gather out of Ambroses and Chrysostomes wordes Philand Wee say not euerie where but in the Sacrament Theoph. But their wordes are euerie where Vnus vbique est Christus one Christ is euerie where Philand That is in the Sacrament Theophil That is your additament They say generally one Christ is euerie where Phil. To say that his humane nature is euerie where without any restraint were in deede a braunch of Eutyches errour Theophil And since they say so you must either vnderstande it of his diuine nature which is rightly and truely sayde to bee euerie where present without addition or else of the spirituall and effectuall presence of his bodie which entereth the soules and strengthneth the hearts of all the faythfull by the power of his grace and trueth of his promise And either of these wayes their wordes are verie sound your locall presence no part of their speech Phi. S. Chrysostom saith Omnium manibus pertractatur he is eueÌ handled with al men fingers Theo. You do that father very much wrong to wrest his eloquent and figuratiue speeces to your carnall and grosse surmises The verie tenor of his wordes wil declare that hee meaneth nothing lesse than your corporal and locall touching With our bodily hands wee neither can nor doe touch Christ. S. Ambrose saith Non Corporali tactu ChristuÌ sed fide tangimus We touch not Christ with our fingers but with our faith And so S. Austen Ipsum iam in caelo sedentem manu contrectare non possimus sed fide contingere We cannot handle Christ with our fingers sitting now in heauen but with our faith we may In this sense Chrysostomes wordes are very true but nothing to your corporall vbiquitie of Christs flesh Phi. How shall wee know that this was his meaning finding no words of his to direct vs to that sense Theo. His speech is otherwise so false that none but Iesuits would make any doubt of it And yet the very next wordes before these are a plain admonition to the hearers what to conceiue of this such like places Annon euestigio in caelos transferris annon carnis cogitationem omnem abijâiens nudo animo mente pura circumspicis quae in caelo sunt Art thou not presently caried vppe to heauen Doest thou not casting all cogitation of thy fleshe aside with a pure mind and soul seuered from the bodie looke round on the things which are in heauen In this spirituall and yet hyperbolicall vehemencie he goeth on amplifieng euery poinct saying that Christ is handled with al their fingers and that in the open sight of all that stoode about concluding no corporall or locall comprehension of Christ in the Sacrament by any of these mysticall and figuratiue speaches whereof he is ful but only that grace flowing into the Sacrifice should inflame all their hearts and make them cleaner than siluer purged and tried in the fier This is the presence of Christ which Chrysostome auoucheth euen the influence of his heauenly grace that spiritual force and grace as Gregorie saith may very wel be constered to be the trueth of his bodie and bloud in the mysteries So that the same christ is euery where present not by local or corporal diffusion but by mysticall operation and one bodie is proposed to all not to âill their mouthes but to clense their hearts and to giue them assurance of eternall life Phi. May not the body of Christ in the sacrament bee such as wee defend though his bodie in heauen be not Theo. If the body of Christ in the sacrament be the very same that is in heauen how can it so much differ from it If it be an other how can it be his since he hath but one naturall bodie and that by no meanes capeable of such contrarieties as you imagine Phi. Is not Christ omnipotent Theo. Almightie hee is in working his will not in changing his nature Phi. Wil you limite his might Theo. The christian faith is not repugnant to his might but agreeable to his trueth which you may not subuert with a pretence of his power at your pleasures Tertullian saith very wel If in our owne presumption we abruptly vse this reasoâ nothing is hard to God wee may faine what we list of God as though he had doone it because he could do it We must not because he can doe all things therefore beleeue he hath doone that which he hath not But we must search whether he hath doone it or no. For this respect some things may be hard vnto God himselfe to witte that which he hath not doone not because he could not doe it but because he would not Phi. Can not the power of Christ alter the nature of his manhoode Theo. Were it possible that the manhoode of Christ might be changed and altered in his essentiall proprieties which assertion the Church yet alwayes reiected as hereticall why stand you so much on this what Christ can doe when you plainly perceiue by your Creed what Christ will doe Shal his power ouerthwarte his will Or his arme disappoint his mouth We neede not dispute whether it be possible or no this sufficeth vs that the Lorde himselfe saith he will leaue the world and be no more in the worlde Whatsoeuer he can doe this we be sure he will doe his worde is trueth and his will knowen against that if you stand and oppose his power to make him a lyar assure your selues hee hath power enough to be reuenged on your obstinacie for vrging his power which is no part of your care against his wil which he hath commanded you to beleeue and obay Phi. It is you that neither beleeue his wil nor agnise his power we build our selues on both Theo. His wordes by which you gather his will you ârame and inuert to your owne purposes and when we would reduce you from the misconstruction of his speach by the very tenor of the Christian faith you pleade his power to delude his trueth and ouerflorish a lewd heresie with a shew of his omnipotencie Phi. We do not pretend that power of God for any vntrueth Theo. If the Christian faith bee trueth you vrge his power against his trueth Phi. Go we against the Christian faith Theo. Confesse you the distinction of two natures in Christ after his ascension Phi. We do Theo. And the proprieties of either to remaine without confusion conuersion or alteration Philand What els Theophil This then is the Christian faith that hâth natures in Christ now doe and euer shall keepe and continue their seuerall and different proprieties without
depart because he that is the author of the gift is also the witnesse of the trueth For the inuisible priest turned the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie and bloud with his word and secret power saying take eate this is my body and repeating the sanctification he saide take drinke this is my bloud Therefore as at the Lordes becke commaunding the high heauens the deepe waters the wide earth were made on the suddaine of nothing so with like force in the spiritual Sacraments when his power commandeth the effect followeth These words be plaine enough if either truth or authority can content you The. Either shal content me if I may be sure of either Phi. Here you find both Theo. Who wrate this sermon which you cite Phi. Eusebius Emissenus Theo. When liued he Phi. Why doe you aske Theo. Reason we knowe his age before we receiue his testimonie Phi. His age I can tell you is as ancient as his doctrine Theo. I thinke both of one antiquity For neither the maÌ nor the matter were knowen in the church of Christ for 900. yeares and vpward Phi. How you be deceiued S. Hierom maketh mention of Eusebius Emissenus that wrate short homilies vpon the Gospels somewhat before his time Theo. And that made your fellowes put his name to certaine latine homilies that were none of his and to beare men in hand he was a frenchman but when he liued they can not tell Phi. Yes S. Hierom saieth hee died vnder Constantius more than twelue hundred yeares ago Theo. Eusebius Emissenus then wrate and then died but who wrate these latine homilies that were extant in his name Phi. Himselfe Theo. What countriman was he Phi. I thinke a Frenchman Theo. So Canisius both your collegue and the compiler of your huge chaos or catechisme sayeth marie when he liued that hee could not tell and therefore of his owne authoritie placeth him 200. yeres after S. Hierom with a perchaunce least if we should aske him for his proofe he might be taken with a lie His wordes are Eusebius Emissenus Gallus cuius habentur homiliae hoc fortè tempore claruit Eusebius Emissenus of Fraunce whose homilies wee haue extant perhaps liued at this time that is 500. yeres after Christ. Phi. And so it may be The. But this is not he that S. Hierom speaketh of For he died vnder CoÌstantâus whose raign and life ended 343. after Christ. Phi. The elder hee was the better his credit for this question Theo. But the worst is that Eusebius Emissenus was a Bishop in Syria wrate in greeke and therefore to assigne him latine homilies and to suppose him to bee a frenchman was a very grosse corruption and such as children will deride Phi. Might there not be an other of that name Theo. Ye as in that place but in Fraunce there could bee none Phi. Why not Theo. Because Emesenus doth signifie Bishop of Emesa in Syria where this Eusebius liued and as S. Hierom writeth was buried at Antioch the chiefe Metropolis of Syria Phi. But this is Eusebius Emissenus which Gratian alleadgeth Theo. It is not the first word by fiue hundred that Gratian hath altered For Eusebius Emesenus Sainct Hieroms certificate is verie good for Eusebius Emissenus the first record that we finde is in Gratian where by the verie stile periods casures members and agnominations you may perceiue him to be a latinist as Canisius addetâ a Frenchman Now in what age he liued in what place he preached we require some proofe before we can or will admit these things to be his which you haue forged in his name Emissenus must be a deriuatiue from some place shew any such place in Europe and then you saie somewhat for the likelyhood though not enough for the certainty of this writer Philand What if we can not Theophil Then hee that hath but halfe an eye may soone discerne ãâã treacherie Your Monks Friers seeking to colour their fained holines late sprong faith with the reuereâd titles of aâcient fathers prâfered the names of Austen Ambrose HieroÌ Cyprian Isidore others before diuerse of their own dââ feâ ãâ¦ã finding in S. Hierom Eusebius Emesenus to be an old writer gaue him a new liuerie with the rest and ascribed certaine latin homilies such as they had vnto him whom themselues or Gratian that first lighted on this old new writer corruptly called Eusebius Emissenus And because the forgerie did hardly hang together the right Eusebius beeing a Gretian and of great antiquity Canisius the generall Atturnie for your religion hath deuised twoe more of that name one a french-man that perchance he saith florished in the fift Centurie and an other that wrate after Gregory the great and expounded the ghospels but when either of them liued or where they taught neither he nor you can bring vs any proofe besides your bare and vaine supposals Phi. Wil you not trust the inscription of the worke it selfe Theo. That were the way to let euery frier and forgerer create new fathers at his pleasure It is as easie for them that copie out other mens workes to make false as true inscriptions and so haue your Monkes plaied with euery father that was ancient as the most partiall of your owne side doe confesse and in this is too apparent For how many mens names thinke you did this homilie beare which you alleadge not yet two hundreth yeres ago Phi. What can I tel Theo. Then I can Looke in Walden and in one Chapter you shal find this very sermon beare three mens names Phi. Is that possible Theo. The lesse possible the thing the more palpable your forging In the 67 chapter his aduersarie alleaged the woordes which you bring out of Isidore in his sermon beginning with Magnitudo caelestium That Walden doth not much impugne but very often so calleth him and yet at length remembring himselfe he or some man for him yeeldeth to the decrees and calleth that writer Eusebius Emisenus by Gratians authority marie with a single s where now a double is gotten both into the worde and into Gratian and yet in the 68 chapter forgetting what he him selfe or others for him had done he citeth an other part of the same sermon vnder Anselmus name Ratificat eandem coÌparationem in sermone sâpe dicto qui incipit Magnitudo caelestiuÌ Anselmus dicens This comparison Anselmus doth ratifie in his sermon often spoken of which beginneth Magnitudo caelestium though afterward in the same chapter he returne againe to his former staggering and call the writer of your wordes Isidore or rather Eusebius Phi. Let him be Isidore or Eusebius we care not whether Theo. Since the Sermon is not his whose name it beareth we may not suffer you to choppe names as you list neither neede we so much as regard the words before wee know the author lest we reuerence lewd and late
Friers vnder the names of ancient and learnââ Fathers Phi. Whatsoeuer he was ancient he was and taught the same doctrine without all question which we doe Theo. His antiquitie you know not and his doctrine you vnderstand not For though we like not your shuffling and exchanging of names with the fathers and broaching your fancies and heresies vnder their ãâ¦ã this whâle sermon we can and doe admitte as hauing nothing either dissident from true antiquitie or repugnant to that which we teach Phi. Will you say that doctrine of his is not repugnant to yours Theo. Why should I not Phi. Wil you confesse that the visible creatures are turned into the substance of christs flesh by the secret power of his word The. His words I say make nothing for your abolishing the substance of bread and wine and leauing the accidents Phi. He saith the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud Theo. But he saith not the substance of the visible creatures is turned into the substance of christs flesh Phi. How can one creature bee turned into the substance of an other but by loosing his former substance Theo. In natural mutations it is so but this is nothing lesse than natural Phi. It is diuine and supernaturall Theo. And so is it likewise spirituall and mysticall not really changing the matter and substance of the elements but casting grace vnto nature Phi. Nay he saith the substance of the creatures is changed Theo. Where saith he so Phi. He saith which is al one that the visible creatures are changed into the substance of christs body The. But by no material nor corporal change Phi. How can the creatures be turned into christs substaÌce but by a material corporal change Theo. That is your error not your authors addition Phi. It is not possible to be otherwise Theo. What if your own writer in this very case and place reproue you for a liar Phi. That earthly creatures shoulde be turned into Christs substance without a materiall and substantiall change Neuer say it it cannot be Theo. Will you looke but two lines farther and you shall see this great impossibilitie auouched by your own author Quomodo tibi nouum impossibile esse non debeat quod in Christi substantiam terrena mortalia conuertuntur te ipsum qui in Christo es regeneratus interroga How this to thee should neither be strange nor impossible that mortal earthly creatures are turned into Christs substance aske thy selfe which art regenerated in Christ. Somtimes since thou wast farre from life excluded from mercie and banished from the path of saluation as being inwardly dead suddenly initiated by the lawes of christ renued by the healthfull mysteries thou didst passe into the body of the church not by sight but by faith thou which wert the sonne of perdition obtainedst to be made the adopted child of god by a secret puritie remaining in the same visible measure thou grewest inuisibly without increase of quantitie being thy self the very same that thou wast before in processe of faith thou becamest another in the outward man nothing was added al changed in the inward Taking this spiritual immaterial change of euery christiaÌ in baptism to shew in what sort how he ment that mortal earthly creatures by consââration are conuerted into the substance of christ which is far froÌ a corporal substantial change such as you would vrge by preteÌce of his words in yâ creatures of bread wine Phi. This construction cannot stand that creatures should be turned into an other substance and yet remaine in their owne and former substance For then how are they chaunged Theo. In your physical conceits it cannot but if you consult those Fathers that were the first introducers of this speeche you shall finde it may Gelasius ioyneth them both together in one sentence the one to expound the other In diuinam transeunt spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae The sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ passe into a diuine substance by the working of the holie Ghost and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature And lest you shoulde cauell that they kept their former qualities and not their substance in expresse woordes he saith tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini and yet for all they passe into a diuine substance the former substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not nor is abolished no more than the manhood of Christ was chaunged from his former substance when after his ascension it was replenished with diuine glorie Phi. You frustrate the sayings of the fathers with your comparisons Theo. They be their owne comparisons principal intentions in those places where they speake these wordes and therefore if you will rack the one to your length and not respect the other you may soone force some phrases to feede your fansies But this is not the safest way for you to walke in matters of faith nor the rightest course for you to take to come by their meaning You must looke how far they presse their own words what they would conclude not what you lâst to conceiue or imagine of their speaches Howsoeuer they mention a change of the bread into the diuine essence substance no father auoucheth any corporal material or substantial change of the elements into the bodie blood of Christ but a spirituall mystical and effectual annexing vniting the one to the other either paât retaining the trueth of his former and proper nature and substance This is apparent by those very places sentences which you bring to prooue a chaunge the fathers teach not the one without the other as you saw for eâample in Gelasius and your Eusebius and so in Cyprian Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread which the Lord gaue to his disciples chaunged not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh and lest you should dreame of any materiall or substantiall chaunge as your manner is the verie next wordes in the same sentence are Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essentia and as in the person of Christ his humanitie was seene his diuinitie was hidde and secret so in the visible sacrament the diuine essence doth infuse it selfe after an vnspeakeable manner Phi. Did you bring this place for vs or against vs you could not haue lighted on a fitter for our purpose if you shuld haue sought these seuen yeares The. I knowe it is one of your best authorities as you make your account and yet it is no way preiudiciall to vs if
meaning is plainer as shall appeare when we come to the drift of their conclusion Neuer Catholike father saide the substance of bread was abolished by consecration as the Iesuits saie If the signes bâaâe tâe nâmes of the things themseluââ âhen the leâââs authâââties are vnâuâficient to conâlude thât Chââst is eaten wiâh our teeth We must ascând to heauân before we eate Christ which with our mouthes we cannot If the fathers of ââne that Christ is not eaten wâth teeth as they do âhen these plââes must be ânderstood of âhe signes and noâ of the thââgs themsâlâes As many as theâe be âââes in the ball of myne eye ãâ¦ã â18 b ãâ¦ã 23. ãâã a âdimant cap. 12. d ãâ¦ã 29. ãâã 2 Cor. e Idââ aâ Câsar Mânach f g Idââ contra ãâã lâb 4. The Iesuââs hâue no hold in these âathers but only because they call theÌ signes by the names of the thingâ which is as commoÌ with them as sand with the Sea h Cyriâl lib 4. cap. 14. in Iâh By cognato tactiâ ãâ¦ã ciâo Cyâil meaneth the suâstance of bread and wine nât of Christs bodie i De censâârât âist § 2. quid sit * As ââough in strict and ãâ¦ã any thing could be druÌk both by the soule and the bodie k De cons. dist 2. ¶ species in hom Pascha l âeo de ieiunio 7. mensis sermo 6. * Leoes wordes examined * But Eutiches against whome Leo spake imagined that Christes body had neither shape quantitie nor circumscription and so doe the Iesuites dreame of Christ in the Sacrament If Leo refel Eutiches he must also refel the Iesuits for they spoile Christ of the naturall conditions of a bodie as Eutiches did By this argument it is euident in what sense Theodoret Gelasius vse the word substaÌce when they saie the substance of bread remaineth The Iesuites reiect the maior minor conclusion of the auncient fathers against Euâiches be they not then quarter masters in his shippe Gelas. contra Eutich If Christ consist of two substances diuine and humane the sacrament likewise coÌsisteth of two substaÌces an heauenlie and an earthly Theod. dialog 2. If the sacrament be traÌssubstantiated so must the humanitie of Christ be likeâwise changed Theodorets conclusion against Eutâches Theod. dial 2. If Christs humane nature in heaueÌ keep his former substance so doth the bread which is an Image of that mystery Both their Seminaries cannot answâre this aâgumeÌt but by condemning Gelasâus and Theodoret foâ hereâikes or at least themselues De consecrat distinct 2. hoc est quod dico Therâ must be two different substancâs in the Sacrament as there are in the peâson of Christ. Leoes words wârâ intended against the Eutichians Hoc doth not signifie the selfe same bodie but the selfesame pointeâ of âaith or propoâtion of the image and the original The real presence had beene the next way to help Eutiches error The substaÌce of it you affirme in wordes but you spoile ât of all naturall shape quantitie and circumscription Christs bodie in the Sacrament is euen such a bodie as Eutiches did imagine Leo doth not saie that Christs bodie was enclosed in the host but they ought to beleeue that of Christs bodie in heauen which they saw in the elements receiued with their moutheâ to wit the perfect continuance of their former substance We doe not interpret the fathers as pleaseth vs but we take heede that we subuert not their maine doctrine by some of their phrases which by their owne rules maie be reuoked to a good sense * If this be not lawfull in expounding the fathers I maruell what is You are angry because the fathers doe not serue your follies no better It cannot be now mistaâiâg they have so often beene tolde of thâir error they still deferâd it as they did before Vide supra fol. 760. This is spoken of the thinges theÌsâlues ergo the Iesuitâs places must be ment of thâ signes called by âhe names of Chrâsts bodie and blood âr elâe there is a maniââst contradiction in the fathers Weâe we not wisely occupied to followe the Iesuits in this pointâ Eating is in vaine without nourishing If then Christes flesh doe enter our mouthes it must nourish our bodies * We would not haue it so but if you vnderstand the fathers when they say the one why doe you peruert them in the other a Iust. Apol. 2. b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. c Idem lib. 5. d Ibidem * So Cyprian saith panis in carnem sanguineâ mutatus ãâã vitam increâentum corporiâââ A man would thinke this were plaine enough for farre yonger scholers than the Iesuites would seeme to be Our resurrection doth not depend vpon the touching of Christes flesh with teeth for then the wicked should âise to eternal life Concil Nicen. 1. c Hom. 45. in Iohannem f Chrysost. hom 45. in Iohan. As Christ is seene touched so is he eaten and digested Both these speaches the flesh of Christ entereth our mouthes and increaseth the substance oâ our flesh haue oâe and the selâesame construction Ambros. in 9. Lucae li. 6. § ãâã vir cui nomen Iairus h Idem in precatiâ praeparaÌt ad Mâssaââ i Cypr. de caena Domini That eating of Christ in the SacrameÌt which wee teach the Church helde for a 1000. yeares theirs is not yet agreed on amongst themselues What manner of eating Christ in the Sacrament the fathers taught k Origen tract 35. in 26. Mat. l Idem in Leuit. hom 9. m Idem tract 35. in 26. Mat. n Athana in illud quicunque dixerit verbuÌ * Not corporally lodged in the stomacks but spiritually distributed to your soules o Cypr. de caena Domini This nourishment is proper to the spirit ergo not common to the bodie p Ambros. in oratio praeparan ad Missam 1. How hapned S. Ambrose had quite forgotten his mouth and his iawes in all this long praier before his approching to the mysteries q Aug. in psal 103. * Not the stomack nor the bellie r Idem tract 26. in Iohan. * The bodie is not regenerated the body therefore is not fed with the true flesh of Christ. s Idem in serm de corp saâguine Domini Ciââtur à Beda in 1. Cor ca. 10. t Aâst in serm de verbis Euangelij Citatur à Beda ibidem Idem in Euang Luc. serm 33. x Macar ho. 27. Euseb. Emissenus de cons. dist 2. ¶ quia corpus * Not with the hand of thy bodie * What shall the mouth haue if the inward man must swallowe the whole a Bertram de corpor sang Domini * Not accidents without a subiect b Ibidem c Ibidem d Ibidem e Ibidem The flesh of Christ then is neither pressed with teeth nor broken in peeces Ibidem g Paschas de corp sang Domini ca. 9. h Cap. 11. i Cap. 12. k Cap. 14. * Doe the Angels eat flesh
carnis t August in Euang Iohan. tract 50. What means we haue to take hold of Christ now absent in heauen u Ibidem How Christ is prâsent with vs and howe he is absent from vs. * There not here x Cyril in Ioan. lib. 6. cap. 14. Christ absent in flesh a Lib. 9. cap. 21. b Lib. 9. cap. 22. c Lib. 11. cap. 3. d Lib. 11. ca. 21. e Lib. 11. ca. 22. f Orig. tract in Matth. 33. His bodie absent from vs. His manhood is neither in all places nor at all times with vs. g Ambr. li. 10. super âucae cap. 24. de hora Dominicae resurrectionis christ is not to besought neither on earth nor in earth h Gregor in Euang homil 2â i Ibidem homil 30. k Ibidem hom 29. The fathers themselues teach both partes of this consequentâ Christ is in heauen ergo not in earth l August epist. 57. ad Dardanum That the substaunce of Christs bodie maie be in manie places at one time is a condemned heresie m August epist. ad Daâdanum 57. * Nec aliunde quam inde * In eadem carnis forma atque substantia * If Christes manhood be in euerie place he looseth the truth of his bodie n In eadem epi. ad finem * In aliquâ loco coeli o August in Iohan tract 30. He speaketh of the trueth of the gospel not of the truth of the bodie of Christ. * β Vno loco esse poâest p Vigilius contra Eutych lib. â cap. 4. * That the flesh of Christ should be euery where was a sequâlâ of Eutyches heresie * Christ maÌhood conâained in a place * From this the Iesuits be vtterly fallen q Fulgent ad Thrasimundum Regem lib. 2. cap. 5. * Christs humane substance is not both in heauen earth at one time * If Christ be not locall he is no true man The body of Christ contained in one ãâã place not diffunded in manie * This without question is the Christian faith and not the Iesuits vbiquitie or multilocitie This is a bare shift of the Iesuits yet this is all the refuge they haue r Aug. epist. 57. s Vigil contra Eutych li. 4. cap. 4. t Fulgent lib. 2. cap. 5. ad Thrasimundum regeÌ u Ibidem Fourme is all one with truth and perfection a Ambros. lib. 7. epist. 47. b Leo epist 97. c Chryso in cap. 2. epist. ad Phil. sermâ 6. d Aug. epist. 57. e Ibidem Per id quod homo is substaÌce as well as shape Christ can haue no humane substance without humane shape f Aug. epist. 57. g Phili. cap. 3. h Fulgent ad Thrasimundââ regâm lib. 2. cap. 5. i Theod. dial 2. It is no humane bodie that hath not shape as well as substance k Ambro. in 10. cap. ad Heb. Chrys. hom 17. in eadem epist. l Chrysost. de Sacerdotio li. 3. Chrysostome and Ambrose could not gainesay the rest and be Catholikes The Iesuites would drawe Chrysostome and Ambrose to be of Eutyches opinion These conditions of a true bodie the manhead of Christ maie haue wheresoeuer it be There is but one Christ that one Christ hath but one body which is not euery where m Aug. de essentia diuinitatis n Vigil contra Eutych lib. 4. cap. 4. The words of Ambrose and Chrysostome as the Iesuites conster them are against the verie grounds of our common faith How Chrysostome Ambrose must be vnderstood o Chrys. de Sacerdot lib. 3. Chrysostoms figuratiue vehement âpeaches much abused by the Iesuits p Ambros. lib. 10. in 24. Luc. q August epist. Iohan tract 1. Chrysostome himselfe excludeth the corporall vnderstanding of his words r Chryso de Sacerdot lib. 3. s Ibidem t Chrys. Ibidem The power of God must neuer be alleadged against his wil nor our faith which he hath commaunded vs to beleeue u Tertul. aduers Praxeam Gods omnipotencie a common refuge with heretikes When wee produce gods power for our fansies against his trueth wee make him a lyar and in subiection to our willes The Iesuits pretend god-power against the christian faith * Or if you do not see your selues condeÌned in the great councel of ChalcedoÌ Act. 5. definitio 2. as heâeâiâs for not beleeuing it * A very witty excâption Then you beleeue the Christian faith to be true euerie where sauing in the Sacrament and what is that but wilfullie and openlie to denie the faith where you list Whatsoeuer he can doe you bee heretikes in the meane time for contradicting the christian faith * Tertul. aduer Praeâeam The Iesuites incurre not onelie Impieties but impossibilities a August conâra âaustum li. 20. cap. 11. b Cyril in Ioan. lib. 15. cap. 3. These fathers were not afraide to saie Christ coulde not be in manie places at one time The Iesuits whiles they would shunne Eutyches error runne headlong into contradictions yet stick in the same mire that Eutyches did c 2. Tim. 2. d Hebr. 6. e Aug. de ciuit Dei lib. 5. c. 10. f Ambr. lib. 6. epist. 37. g Ibidem What thingâ are impossible to God and why Of contradictions one part is euer false and all falshood impossible to God A lie in worke is as bad as a lie in word as contrarie to the nature of God This is right Iesuitical skill to saie the bodie of Christ is and is not contained in a place * These bee worse than the Poets chimers The best gâounds you haue for these thinges are dreames and miracles of your owne making * For none of these pointes haue the Iesuits so much as one auncient father * For none of these pointes haue the Iesuits so much as one auncient father * For none of these pointes haue the Iesuits so much as one auncient father * For none of these pointes haue the Iesuits so much as one auncient father * For none of these pointes haue the Iesuits so much as one auncient father * You be good at vndertaking but naught at perfourming It is enough for the Iesuââs to call themselues Catholiâes though they cannot shâw one writer for a thousand yeares that taught theâr transubstantiation * Which will say neuer a word for your purpose This is cited out of S. Austen by frier Walden tomo 2. de Sacramentis cap. 83 a diuine worke in D. Allens iudgement lib. 1. de Euch. sacâ pa. 34â This forgery with others was iudicially allowed by Pope Martin the fifth and his Cardinals in their Consistorie * This young Austen lacked not onely learning and trueth but Latine and witte * Had you not beene ashamed of your occupation you would haue printed iâ The woordes did so plainly betray thâmselues that they haue since suppressed the booke for verâe shame Bede likewise forged by Walden * Citatura The. Walden tomo 2. vt supra cap. 82. * He neuer wrate anie such booke The credite of both these places lieth onely on frier Walden who
The bread hauing the inuocation of God is nowe no common bread but an Eucharist or thankesgiuing consisting of two things a terrestriall a celestiall So Ambrose The Sacrament is not that which nature hath framed but that which blessing hath halowed They do not auouch the Sacrament to bee simply no bread they teach it to bee no naturall nor vsuall bread because the vertue power and force of Christes flesh is vnited to it and receiued with it though to sight and taââ it keepe the shewe of nothing else but bread Phi. What is species panis which the Fathers speake of but the vtter appearance of bread when the substaunce is altered Theo. Doeth species signifie a âhape without substaunce Philand It signifieth the shape and not the substaunce Theo. Euerie creature hath his substaunce ioyned with his sensible shape and forme and therefore though the one doe not signifie the other yet the one inferreth the other by the verie necessitie of nature neyther hath GOD giuen vs any perfecter triall of substaunce than by sight and sense which is sure enough because shewes without substaunce are no creatures Philand But this in the Sacrament is miraculous and that is the reason why species in the Fathers doeth signifie a shewe without substaunce or as our Schooles rather like to say for perspicuities sake accidentes without a subiect Theophil Your Schooles were perspicuous as the Lande of Aegypt was light-some when it was couered with palpable darkenesse but where doeth any Father speaking of the Saârament take species for a shewe without substaunce Philand That is âuerie where the meaning of the word when they applie it to the Sacrament Theo. How proue you that Phi. It needeth no proofe the very word doeth âo signifie Theophil The worde species doeth no more exclude the subâtaunce of breade and wine in the Sacrament than species humana the shew shape and forme of a man which you haue doth take from you the âubstance truth of mans nature Which if you thinke it doeth looke what answere you will make to him that shall aske what lieth vnder the shape of a man in you it must be the substance of a man or some worse thing And if you can keepe both the shape and substaunce of man why may not the bread and wine do the like for all the word species which is verified of men and other creatures aswel as of the bread and wine in the mysteries Phi. The comparison is not like For the bread is changed and so am not I. Theophil Doe you not often change both the inward and outward man I meane the state of body and soule Phi. I change as others doe Theo. You can be no christian if you be not changed from the state in which you were born You were born the child of Gods wrath and seruant of sinne if you be renewed and freed from that then are you wholy changed Phi. This is no substantiall change such as we affirme to be in the bread Theo. If you would proue that which you affirme you might happen to conclude that which now you can not Phi. That is soone prooued Theo. I maruell then you stay long before you doe it and faint so often when you begin it You auouch that the word species in the Fathers signifieth your shewes without substance and accidents without subiect and when the very shew of men which you beare about you conuinceth that follie you presume a substantiall change to be in the bread to helpe foorth the vse of the word which you imagine against all learning reason was their meaning For the worde species though it bee diuersely vsed among the Fathers and often iterated in this matter of the Sacrament yet shall you neuer bring vs any one place where it is taken for a shew without substance and therefore by that worde you can hardly inferre the bread to be changed in substaunce and nothing to be left besides the accidentes Sainct Ambrose sayeth it importeth as much as an euident sight and trueth Speciem pro veritate accipiendam legimus Specie inuentus vt homo Wee read this word species to bee taken for the verie trueth of a thing As Christ was found not in shew but in trueth like a man And of the Lordes cuppe Perhaps thou wilt say speciem sanguinis non video sed habet similitudinem I see not the trueth of blood but it hath the resemblance Which obiection Ambrose repeateth shortly after in these words Similitudinem video non video sanguinis veritatem I see the resemblance I see not the truth of blood Where note that species is not onely contrary to the onely likenesse and appearance of any thing but equiualent with the trueth and nature of euery thing Then are shewes without substaunce your fansies without iudgement you neuer receiued any such doctrine from the Catholike Fathers your selues haue deuised it of late since barbarisme preuailed in your Schooles and Antichrist was exalted in your churches Philand So species is nowe and then vsed but doeth that inferre that this is the generall signification of the word wheresoeuer we finde it Theo. This sufficeth to exclude your shewes without substaunce vnlesse you can bring some better inforcement than the very word which you can not And yet Sainct Ambrose giueth an other vse of the worde and that treating of the Sacramentes which vtterly subuerteth your accidental shewes Creaturae non potest esse veritas sed species quae facile soluitur at que mutatur No creature can bee said to be a trueth but a shew or appearance which is soone dissolued and abolished In this sense species is all one with any creature or substaunce which soone decaieth as euerie mortall thing doth and the learned Fathers writing of the Sacrament continually vse the worde to signifie the nature and kinde of euerie creature and not the naked shewes or accidentes Sainct Ambrose Ante benedictionem alia species nominatur before it be blessed it is called an other not shewe but kinde Grauior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The kinde or nature of Iron not the shewe of yron is weightier than the liquor of water If the word of Elias were able to fet fire from heauen non valebit Christi sermo vt species mutet elementorum shall not the word of Christ be of strength to change the kindes not the shapes of these elementes So doeth Augustine likewise Non sic habendam esse speciem benedictione consecratam quemadmodum habetur in vsu quolibet the kinde or element consecrated with blessing must not be so reckoned of as it is in common vse Idem cibus illorum qui noster sed significatione idem non specie the Fathers of the old Testament had the same food which we haue but the same in signification not in external kinde Aliud illi aliud nos sed