bread and wine saith the Answerer And how now They subsist now by the power of God saith he and haue their being by themselues But that cannot be for they must abide in their former subsistence and that was in the natures of bread and wine Therefore there must still be bread and wine wherin these formes and mysticall signes must subsist And yet further if these words of Theodoret do not import the remaining of the very substance of bread wine the hereticke is not at al caught as Theodoret telleth him that he is For he hath to reply would haue replied if Transubstantiation had bene then beléeued As it is in the mysticall signes which are the image so must it be in the truth which is the body of Christ The mysticall signes loose their substance after consecration Therfore the body of Christ looseth his substance after his ascension But indéede the argument standeth firme against the hereticke with Theodoret as it did with Gelasius As it is in the mysticall signes so it must be in yâ— body of Christ The mysticall signes kéepe their substance after consecratioÌ„ Therfore Christs body remaineth the same substance after his ascension And thus the wordes goe currant both against Eutyches his confusion and popish transsubstantiation Now I cannot but maruel how the Answerer making Theodoret to speake so nicely and precisely of those Laterane subtilties of formes subsisting by themselues of naturall properties and figures and shapes remaining without any substance doth imagine that Theodoret being so long before the Laterane definition should be so throughly acquainted with these matters and so perfectly set them downe which yet as it is plainly confessed in the d Index Expurgat in censu Bertra quae subtilissimè verissimè posterior aetas addidit Index Expurgatorius haue bene since added in latter times and indéed were neuer knowne to the auncient Fathers Without doubt Theodoret was some Prophet and had some speciall reuelation to this purpose to know what should be agreed vpon in the Laterane Councell and maruell it is that for this cause he was not sainted in the Roman Calender But a liar they say should beare a braine and the Answ and his fellowes should remember that if these things were added since in later times as they themselues confesse then Theodoret had neuer any intelligence of them as indéed he had not To leaue this and to go forward he now entereth further into the words of Theodoret and openeth that which I concealed weigheth euery word at large and when all is done Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus Theodoret as he saith hauing set down one part of the Sacrament which he calleth yâ— formes of bread and wine commeth to set downe the other to be the reall bodie and blood of Christ and that in these wordes The mysticall signes are vnderstood to be the same that they are made are so beleeued and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now hereof he gathereth that they are vnderstood to be the bodie blood of Christ and it may not be a false vnderstanding therfore they are so indéede and so they are beléeued to be and adored not as being signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but as being the same indéed How pretily this man plaieth with a shadow and solaceth himselfe with a large description of his idle fancie Who told him I maruell that this was Theodorets meaning Surely he tooke it out of some of his learned Treatises and beléeued it as an Oracle Ex tripode But let me demaund of him are the formes of bread and wine vnderstood to be to be I say yâ— bodie blood of Christ are they beléeued to be so are they adored as being not signes but verily indeed the bodie and blood of Christ What new stuffe is this that formes of bread and wine be indéed Christs bodie and blood and must be adored with godly honor as the Answ meaneth adoratioÌ„ Is Christs bodie now become formes of bread and must we adore and worship formes of bread That is idolatry euen by the confession of his own side But he will except and tell me that not the formes but the bodie conteined vnder them is adored Yea but he hath told me alreadie and Theodorets words as he expoundeth them import no other that the formes are the bodie of Christ are adored as being so indéed Cleare it is that Theodoret referreth that adoration which he speaketh of to the mysticall signes So that the Answ must either make himselfe an idolater and must turne the bodie and blood of Christ into formes of bread and wine or else he must séeke a new construction of Theodorets words The meaning is plain The mystical signes before consecration are not mystical signes but méerly bread and wine By consecration they are made symbola mystica corporis sanguinis domini mysticall signes of the bodie and blood of Christ And notwithstanding that after consecration they continue in their former substance yet are they vnderstood and beléeued to be not only that which they are in substance but the same that they are made that is signes of the bodie and blood of Christ and are honoured and reuerenced as being translated from common vse to be as they are made mystical signes of Christs body and blood And this to be the plaine meaning of Theodoret it appeareth by that which he addeth immediatly for hauing thus set downe the mysticall signes though in substance bread and wine as they were before yet vnderstood to be the signes of Christs bodie and blood he addeth Confer then the image with the paterne or principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be agreeable or answerable to the truth Where we sée that he calleth the mysticall signes which he hath spoken of the image and figure not for that which they are in substance but for that which they are vnderstood to be made and on the other side the bodie of Christ wherof they are the image and figure he calleth the patterne the principal the truth and inferreth hereof that as these signes though they be thus highly honoured to be the images the signes the figures of the bodie blood of Christ yet are in substance and nature the same still so the bodie of Christ thoughâ—t be now become immortall and not subiect to any corruption or weaknesse and be set at the right hand of God and worshipped of all creatures yet is stil a true bodie retaining the same forme figure circumscriptioÌ„ and substance that it had before Thus Theodoret will in no wise yéeld to be made a Patrone either of real presence or of Transubstantiation His iudgement is so cleare in these points that he sheweth but a naughtie and leaud minde whosoeuer shall go about to father any of these matters vpon him In the former Dialogue he saith plainly that Christ in the deliuerie of the mysteries called bread his
of bread is called by the name of flesh and the visible forme of wine by the name of blood Now it is called the inuisible and intelligible flesh of Christ because according to that forme flesh is not seene but vnderstoode and so the bloud Therefore the inuisible flesh is said to be a sacrament of the visible flesh because the forme of bread according to which that flesh is not seen is a sacrament of the visible flesh because by the inuisible flesh that that is by the forme according to which the flesh of Christ appeapeareth not flesh is signified the body of Christ which is visible and may be felt where it appeareth in his forme To this he addeth out of the other wordes of Austen that the bread is called the body being indeed the sacrament of the body of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so maketh S. Austen to expound that which before he sayth he had obscurely spoken Thus the Answ owne doctors though otherwise friendes to transubstantiation yet doe iustifie my exposition of this place and make it manifest that though the place be obscure at first sight yet by the common groundes of diuinitie it connot be construed so as that transubstantiation may necessarily be proued thereby Therefore I say still with Austen that the sacrament of the body of Christ is onely after a certaine maner the body of Christ namely not properly not in the trueth of the thing as the Answerer auoucheth but onely in a signifying mysterie betokening the same P. Spence Sect. 14. FOr your place of Chrysostome The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body c. For as for the place of S. Cypr. lib. 2. Epis 6. is such as deserueth no answer a CypriaÌ„ saith that Christ called the bread made of manie grains his body c. It is very bread therfore which is called the bodie only telling you that the bread wherof the sacrament was made was compact of many graines and the wine pressed foorth of many grapes which no baker nor vintner will denie which is smally to this purpose the place I say of Chrysost only flattereth you with these wordes b The wordes which I alleaged are thus The bread is vouchâ—afed the name 〈◊〉 the â—ody oâ— christ The nature of bread remaineth Why sir who denieth that the naturall properties of colour shape tast and feeding remaine no Catholique I am sure so that you see your testimonie out of him maketh not against vs nor auayleth you anie more then the painted fire warmed the old woman But the places of Chrysostome prouing the reall presence are so infinite that infinite madnesse it were M. Abbot and farre surmounting your Athenians madnesse to hazard my soule vpon such a testimonie as saith nothing against me R. Abbot 14. IN the places which I alleaged of Cyprian Chrysostome and Theodoret the Answ heart without doubt failed him For hée sawe it plainly euicted and proued by them and that so as that hee knew there was nothing for him to answere directly to the wordes that it is bread which in the sacrament is called the bodie of Christ and wine which is called his bloud Yet being vowed and sworne to his owne errour he will rather do or say any thing then yéeld vnto the trueth The places of Theodoret hée leaueth out quite who affirmeth that Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud that hée made exchange of names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body To the places of Cyprian and Chrysostome he writeth somewhat but answereth nothing He taketh that which was not vrged and that which was to the point in question he slippeth by Let him remember what S. Austen saith a Aug. quaest ex yet â—â—st q. 14. He which concealeth the wordes of the matter in question is either an ignorant person or a wrangler studying rather for cauillinges then for doctrine The words of Cyprian are thus b Cypri lib. 1. Epist 6. Our Lord calleth bread made by the vniting of many cornes his body and wine pressed out of manie clusters and grapes he calleth his bloud To this hée saith childishly and vainly that it onely proueth that bread is made of many cornes and wine of many grapes shewing plainly that he made no conscience of his answere but was desirous to credite himselfe by writing somewhat howsoeuer But let Cyprian be further asked what is it that Christ calleth his bodie He saith it is bread What is it that Christ calleth his bloud It is wine Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud Now if there be neither bread nor wine in the sacrament as the Answ and his fellowes teach then Christ cannot call the bread his body nor the wine his bloud But because Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud therefore the meaning of these wordes This is my body This is my bloud is thus This bread is my body This wine is my bloud And because in proper spéech that cannot be true for so it c De consecr dist 2 ca. panis est is vnpossible as the glose of yâ— canon law saith that bread should be the body of Christ therefore it must be figuratiuely vnderstood This bread is the signe and sacrament of my body c. To this the words alleaged out of Chrysostome are verie pregnant d Chrysost ad Caesat Monachum The breadis vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ Why doth the Answ smoother vp these wordes and talke impertinently of that which in this place was not mentioned at all I talked not here of the nature remaining I tell him out of Chrysostome that after consecration it is bread which beareth the name of the body of Christ and let his owne conscience tell him whether that be any thing against him or not when as he and his companie say there is no bread remaining after consecration Chrysostome saith The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ The Papist saith There is no bread but the verie body of Christ it selfe As for his construction of the nature of bread remaining that is the colour shape taste and féeding without any substance of bread it maketh Chrysostome to speake fondly as himselfe vseth to doe namely thus The bread is vouchsafed the name of Christes body although there be no bread His infinite testimonies out of Chrysostome to prooue the reall presence are iust neuer a one He deceiâ—â—eth himselfe for want of the knowledge of that rule which Chrysostome himselfe giueth him vpon these wordes of Christ e chrys in Ioh. hom 46. The flesh profiteth nothing Hee meaneth it not saith he of the flesh it selfe God forbid But of those which carnally and fleshly vnderstand those thinges which are spoken And what is it to vnderstand carnally Marry simply as things are spoken
not that because Christ taking y◠bread said thereof This is my bodie therefore the bread was turned into his bodie And this is so good Logicke that diuerse great maisters of his side haue plainly confessed that the wordes of the Gospell notwithstanding the aforesaid consent do not enforce Transubstantiation as I told him before and he answereth nothing to it Yea Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken vpon him to be the Atlas of Popery at this time after that he hath sweat and trauailed to proue it by the scripture when he hath all done is content to confesse so much For being vrged that Scotus and Cameracensis do say that there is no so expresse place of scripture that it can enforce to admit of Transubstantiation he answereth a Bellar. tom 2. contr 3. li 3. cap. 23. This indeed is not altogither vnlikely For although the scripture which I haue alleaged before seeme to vs so cleare that it is able to force a man that is not ouerthwart yet whether it be so or not it may worthily bee doubted for that most learned sharpe witted men such as Scotus especially was do thinke the contrary It is sufficient for our discharge that the Iesuit confesseth that it may iustly be doubted whether Transubstantiation may be proued by the scripture or not and that it is likely that indeed it cannot The matter then is come to this passe that Transubstantiation must be beléeued because of the authoritie of the Church of Rome but otherwise that it cannot be prooued by the authoritie of the scripture But we dare not trust the Church of Rome so farre as to receiue any doctrine of her without the warrant of the scripture For we are of Chrysostomes minde b Chrisost in Psal 95. If any thing saith he be spoken without scripture the minde of the hearer halteth or hangeth in suspense But when there commeth out of the scripture the testimony of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the minde of the hearer and the words of the speaker They must prooue it vnto vs by the scripture or else wee cannot bee assured of it But they cannot agrée how to expounde the wordes of scripture for it and the scripture it selfe is manifestly against it Christ saith This is my bodie The word This doth demonstrate and point to somewhat And what may that be One of them saith one thing and another saith another thing in fine they cannot tell So that we must suppose that Christ said This I know not what is my bodie Bellarmine commeth after all the rest to resolue the matter and he telleth vs that we must vnderstand it thus c Bellar. tom 2 cont 3 lib. 1. ca. 10. 11. This that is conteined vnder the formes is my bodie But the question is the same againe what is that conteined vnder the formes To say it is the bodie before all the words of consecration be spoken they themselues will not allow But except the bodie it can be nothing else but bread It is bread therefore to which the word This is referred perforce must the words be thus taken This bread is my body which again must néeds haue this meaning This bread is the signe and Sacrament of my bodie and consequently ouerthrow Transubstantiation Moreouer what Christ brake bid his Disciples take and eate that they did take and eate It was bread which he brake and bid them take and eate for the words of consecration were not yet spoken Therfore it was bread which they did take and eate But that which they did eate Christ called his bodie Therefore Christ called bread his bodie and meant This bread is my bodie So likewise as touching the other part of the Sacrament we say that what Christ willed them to drinke that they did drinke But Christ willed them to drinke wine saying Drinke ye all of this and this was wine because there was yet no consecration Therfore they did drinke wine That which they did drinke Christ called his blood The words therefore of Christ must be thus meant This wine is my blood And so he expoundeth himselfe immediatly when he calleth it This frute of the vine shewing hereby to what we must referre the word This when he saith This is my blood namely to the frute of the vine that is to say wine To auoyd these things thus plainly gathered from the circumstances of the text many blind shifts haue bene deuised but one especially most worthy to be noted d Tho. Aquin. pag. 3. q. 78. art 1. that the Euangelists doe not report these matters of the institution of the Sacrament in that order as they were spoken and done by our Sauiour Christ Thus to serue their turne the Euangelists must be controlled and vpon their word we must beléeue that these things are not so orderly set downe as the matter required I might adde hereunto how the scripture vsually calleth the Sacrament c Act. 20. 7. 1. Cor. 10. 16. 11. 26. 27. 28 bread euen after consecration in the breaking distributing and eating thereof then which what should we require more to assure vs that in substance it is bread indéede And of this spéech they can giue no certaine reason neither but are carried vp and downe from fancie to another as appeareth by Lanfrancus saying f Lanfran lib. de sacram Euchar◠It is called bread either because it was made of bread and retaineth some qualities therof or because it feedeth the soule or because it is the bodie of the sonne of God who is the bread of Angels or in some other maner which may be conceiued of them that are better learned but cannot of me They care not what they say it is so that they grant it not to be that that it is in truth But thus do they deserue to be led vp and down from errour to errour and follie to follie as it were after a dauncing fire who refuse to be guided and directed by the cleare and shining light of the euident word of God By this that hath bene said it may appeare sufficiently how litle hold the Answ hath in the consent of the Euange lists for the proofe of his Transubstantiation euen by the confession of his owne fellowes to whose wisedome and learning he doth greatly trust But yet once againe to proue it by the Gospell we haue another argument wherein the Answ as a sawcie fellow taketh vpon him to censure controll M. Beza and M. Fulke in a matter of Gréeke construction as he did M. Caluin and B. Iewell in other matters before But what may it be that he presumeth so much on Forsooth the Gréeke in Luc. 22. is so plaine against our doctrine and for proofe of Transubstantiation that Beza was greatly troubled there with and was faine to say that either S. Luke spake false Gréeke or else that somewhat was foisted into the text This argument Gregory Martin and others haue runne out of breath
and reprooued the argument framed against him by that similitude But confessing that the Sacraments of bread wine do passe ouer and be turned into a diuine substance thereby granting a reall presence of Christ God and man and in effect transubstantiation only he denieth the bread to be anihilated or become nothing or as he termeth it desinere esse to cease from hauing any being at all Before Berengarius neuer any man held that h Vntruth for all the Fathers held the same as shall appear by many of them in that which followeth Christs bodie was not really in the Sacrament nor that the whole substance of bread and wine vnchaunged were in the Sacrament either without anie other substance as Zwinglius and Caluin holde or ioyned togither with Christs bodie by impanacion as Luther held but that the bread and wine by a conuersion were made Christs bodie blood which conuersion in the church of God in the greatest Councell that euer was held called the Laterane Councell where occasion was offered of the full search of the matter by Berengarius heresie by the instinct i Not of the holie Ghost but of the spirit of Sathan to bring in idolâ—try into the Temple of God of the holie Ghost most agreeable to the greatest number and the best learned of the Fathers defined to be by transubstantiation that is the whole substances of bread wine being turned into the whole substance of Christs body and blood his Godhead being ioyned thereto per concomitantiam Yet did Innocentius vnder whom that Councell was holden thus write that though the substance of the bread and wine were changed into Christ yet there remained not only the accidents or accidentall properties but also the naturall properties namely as he there speaketh panietas breadinesse to driue away hunger and vineitas wininesse to driue away thirst and the force or nature of nourishing So that this turning of the bread and wine into Christs bodie was not anihilation or vtter vanishing of the bread as Gelasius denieth not a naturall change as is wrought in naturall conuersions where the same matter remaining vnder both formes only the first forme is changed into an other forme I meane not forma accidentalis but forma essentialis by which things they haue their being and substance neither change of the matter that is vnder the essentiall forme the said essentiall forme remaining but in this wonderfull sacrifice is a most diuine and miraculous change of both the matter and essentiall forme of bread into the whole substance of Christs bodie And that was so established least by ioyning either the matter or the essentiall forme of bread with Christs bodie they should graunt k A waightie consideration verily and fit for the learning of such graue Fathers impersonation that is any substance sauing Christ to be personally vnited with Christ It was not a matter clearly l Christ and his Apostles neuer cleerly defined that there was any transubstantiation defined before the said Councell what kind of conuersion it was neither heresie not to iumpe in iust termes with transubstantiation before that time so that the reall presence were not denied as after Berengarius did nor the substance of bread wholy were affirmed to remaine as neuer any Father said Onely Gelasius to make a resemblance betweene the Sacrament which he calleth an image of Christs being in heauen and Christs two natures in one person in heauen which he termeth in this comparing of them togither the principall mysterie he saith two things first that the Sacrament is a diuine thing by which we are made partners of the diuine nature And that it is so because the Sacrament by the working of the holie Ghost doth passe ouer into a diuine substance What m He must say more or else it will not serue for transubstantiation See the answere more could he haue said for the reall presence or transubstantiation The second thing which to answere and stop the quarrelling hereticke he addeth is that the substance of bread and wine do not cease to be that is to say doth not vtterly perish into nothing but remaineth vnder the chaunge which word Substance he mollifieth and interpreteth by adding or nature of bread and by and by after he calleth it the propertie of the nature of bread where the heretickes for or which is a word interpreting the former haue foysted in substance and nature of bread So that Gelasius meant not that the whole substance of bread remaineth in the Sacrament but that not only the accidentall properties but also the verie essentiall properties as Innocentius before named also set downe of bread and wine do remaine and that was inough against the hereticke And n It may be that Gelasius did deny tâ—ansubstantiation because the church as then knew it not it may be that he being before the generall definition of the church did not much trouble himselfe with the exact search thereof thinking that the same matter or else the same essentiall forme remained in that blessed conuersion but not the whole substance that is the whole essentiall forme and the whole matter And so many in these daies held without heresie as S. Thomas contragentes declareth which now after the churches generall definitioÌ„ were damnable Otherwise if we would vrge the word Substantia in Gelasius and not admit Gelasius his qualification thereof and exposition of his vel natura proprietas naturâ— which euerie Catholicke admitteth this absurditie were too beastly and blasphemous for Gelasius so holy a Father and old fellow that Christs bodie were vnited personally or become one person with the bread so that Christ were one person of three natures the Godhead the manhood the breadhood which is most peeuish blasphemie And for Gelasius to admit o To admit the same to remaine without the substaâ—ce serued fitly and fully for the heresie of Eutyches See the answere the nature or substantiall properties to remaine as himselfe termeth them was inough to stop the Eutychian heretickes mouth who denied any naturall propertie to remaine at all in the Sacrament And therfore thus much is to be noted that the force of the coÌ„parison between Christs being in heauen in the blessed Sacrament is not in this point that in heauen he is in both substance of manhood and Godhead euen as in the Sacrament are two whole substances Christs body the whole substance of bread and wine But the similitude is herein that as in the diuine Sacrament with the verie true bodie of Christ which Gelasius calleth a diuine substance there are conioyned essentiall substantiall and naturall properties of bread and wine Euen so in heauen Christ in one person hath vnited all the naturall and essentiall properties of his two natures the Godhead and the manhood vnconfounded inuiolable whole and distinct which is as much as out of the heretickes obiection of the Sacrament he needed to reply or vrge against him
religion by reason of any such opinion that Christ was really bound in them or in the eares of corne or branches of the vine because then all bread and all wine should haue béene matter of mystery and religion with them which was not so but it is made mysticall bread and wine by a certaine coÌ„secration namely whilest by the word of God they are dedicated and halowed to be sacrameÌ„ts and mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ The which consecrating halowing the same S. Austen elsewhere declareth thus concerning Baptisme m August â—n Ioha tri 8â— The word commeth to the element and it is mede a sacrament in an other place concerning the Lords supper thus n Idem de trâ—nit lib. 3. cap. 4. We call that the body of Christ which being taken of the fruites of the earth consecrated by mystical praier wee receiue in memory of the passion of our Lord. Now what is all this to the real presence which the Answerer saith S. Austen did graunt Not a word doth S. Austen vse to import it Nay he rather reiecteth it in that he saith that bread and wine are not vsed in sacrament as in respect of Christ really bound in them but are made only mystical by consecration where he denieth that reall presence which they fancied and putteth no other in place therof but only saith that the bread is made mysticall bread by consecration As for Transsubstantiation he is plainely enough against it also in the same place in that he calleth the sacrament the sacrament of bread and of the cuppe wherby we vnderstand that the sacrament is bread and in that he denieth that the church had the same religion concerning bread and wine that the Manichées had because it was not religion but sacriledge with the Manichées to tast wine importing hereby that it was wine which the church tooke tasted in the sacrament But the Papistes reall presence iumpeth with the Manichées imprisoning of Christ for they make Christ so fast bound by consecration to the formes of bread and wine that though ratts or mise or swine eate the same or though it lie in the mire yet it must not be thought but that the body of Christ is there stil euen till the formes be consumed and to thinke otherwise as Thomas Aquinas saith derogateth from the truth of the sacrament as after shal be declared To his sixt circumstance I answere him that the Lateran councell was the assembly of Gog and Magog to set the idoll Mauzim in his place That which they resolued against Berengarius they reselued against all the Fathers who neuer knew reall presence nor transsubstantiation As for Innodentius his breadinesse and wininesse panietas vineitas in the seauenth circumstance the Answ would not haue named it but that swine are delighted with mire and filth The eight circumstaÌ„ce also containeth only new Popish subtilties and deserueth no answere The putting in therof and others as impertinent by way of explication of Gelasius his wordes sheweth the falsehood of the Answ thinking nothing lesse then to deale plainely and seeking by friuolous tales and idle talke to lead the reader away from that which otherwise he cannot but sée The ninth circumstance telleth vs honestly that before the Laterane councell it was no heresy not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation And then belike a man might haue beene a Caluinist in that point as all the Fathers were and yet not to be accounted an hereticke At least he might haue said that the substaÌ„ces of bread wine did remaine in part but not wholly forsooth as perhappes saith the Answ some of the Fathers and namely Gelasius thought a ridiculous and childish fancy When we shew them plainely out of the Fathers that the substances of bread and wine remaine in the sacrament forsooth the Fathers thought that the substances of bread and wine remaine in part but not wholly What conscience may we thinke these men make of their answers Why doth he not bring somewhat out of the Fathers to approoue this fond sophistication vnhandsome dreame But it must be enough for vs that the Answ telleth vs that so it is But it is worth the noting that he telleth vs that it was not clearely defined before the Lateran councell what maner oâ— conuersion is in the sacrament No was Why did not the Apostles clearely know it or knowing it did they not deliuer it to yâ— church Did he which o Act. 20. 27. kept nothing back but declared all the councell of God kéepe backe this or did he deliuer it to the Ephesians and not deliuer it to the Romaines other churches To say the Apostles did not clearely know it is to make himselfe wiser then the Apostles To say they knew it but declared it not is to make them vnfaithful in their charge To say that the church receiued it cléerely deliuered and yet that it was neuer cléerely defined vntill the Lateran councell is a contradiction and impugneth that in the one part which is set downe in the other To say the church and namely the church of Rome receiued it and did afterwardes forgoe it is to make the church of Rome a very bad kéeper of the doctrines of the Apostles especially séeing the sacrament is a matter of continuall and daily vse But indéed we take that which he saith for true that Transsubstantiation was neuer cléerely defined before the Lateran councel But we tell him withall that we are very deinty to admit that for a doctrine of truth which for a thousand yeares and more after Christ was neuer cleerly knowen or defined in the church of God And because it was no heresy all that while not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation we are well assured that it is no heresy to leape from it now Now to returne to Gelasius the Answ findeth an hole or two in his wordes before alleaged whereby he would faine créepe out The wordes are thus There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine He addeth or nature saith the Answ to mollifie and interpret the word substance as importing that the naturall properties of bread and wine remaine though the substaÌ„ce be gone A very naturall answere Belike the substance remaineth or there ceaseth not to be the substance is as much as to say the substance is quite gone and vtterly ceased only the accidents remaine But Gelasius a little before speaketh in the very same sort concerning Christ and sheweth the meaning of his own wordes We say saith he that the propriety of each substance or nature abideth continually in Christ where most plainely by the same phrase of spéech he maketh substance and nature to import one thing And if we will follow the Answ exposition we must say here in the behalfe of Eutyches that not the substances themselues but the naturall properties of each substance abide stil in Christ because he saith substance or nature Againe a little before
that he saith There is no substance but it is called a nature because if the nature of any thing being be remoued or taken away the substaÌ„ce also must needs be taken away By which it is plaine that Gelasius nameth nature no otherwise but to signify the very substance because euery substance is called a nature Otherwise when he nameth as oft he doth propriety of nature the Answerer must expound it to be meaÌ„t propriety of naturall properties which is more absurd then that his face can be bold to face it out It is certaine therfore that Gelasius by nature meaneth the very essentiall being of the thing And so the Answerer cannot but know that in that whole disputation concerning two natures in Christ Gelasius by two natures vnderstandeth two entire perfect substances as al the reâ—t of yâ— Fathers doe Only in this place Gelasius forgot himselfe and fell a sléepe and by nature would vnderstand naturall properties and accidents albeit his very drift was to shew by the abiding of the nature of bread and wine in the sacrament the abiding of the nature that is the true substantiall being of the manhood of Christ But yâ—t saith the Answ Gelasius saith that the bread and wine do passe ouer into a diuine substance We graunt the same For as Gelasius hath said before they are now diuine things because they are sacraments of Christes body bloud and by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature The visible element of the sacrament is no longer to be taken as a common or méere earthly substance but being sanctified by the word of Christ it is a diuine and heauenly thing And therfore doth p de consecr dist 2. ca. hoc est saint Austen call the bread of the sacrament heauenly bread and Cyprian calleth it q Cyprian de orat domin de caena domi the foode of saluation and of immortality and Theodoret calleth it r Theodor. dial 2. the bread of life and Bertram saith of it Å¿ Bertram de corp sang domini There is in it the spirit of Christ euen the power of the word of God not only feeding but also clensing the soule In respect therfore of this excellent grace and vertue it is rightly said that the bread and wine are now become a diuine substance But do they therfore loose their owne proper nature and substance Then we must thinke the like of the manhood of Christ For Gelasius saith that we must think the same in Christ which we professe in his image the sacrament If we thinke not so of the manhood of Christ then we must conceiue that bread and wine passe ouer into a diuine substaÌ„ce not by forgoing their owne substance and nature but t Theodor. dial 1. Non naturam mutans sed naturae graâ—iaÌ„ adâ—ciens by adding grace and spirituall blessing vnto nature as Theodoret rightly teacheth vs. So doth Dionisius whosoeuer he was say that we u Dyonis de eccles Hierar cap. 1. 3. stapulens edi are made God do passe ouer into God not because we chaunge our substance be made substantially Gods but because through our coÌ„munion with Iesus Christ we are by grace renued to the likenesse of God and effectually vnited vnto him So doth Vigilius say that w Vigil lib. 1. cont Eutych the nature of the flesh passed ouer into the person of the word but yet so as that saith he it was not consumed of the word So doth Leo Bishop of Rome say x Leo. epist 22 We receiuing the vertue of the heauenly foode do passe ouer into the flesh of Christ who is made our flesh Which S. Cyprian also saith and noteth the manuer therof y Cypri ser de caena dom We are vnited vnto Christ not by a corporall but by a spirituall passing ouer into him Cyrill speaketh in like sort that we are z Cyril in Ioh. lib. 1â— ca. 26. made one with Christ who by his flesh passed ouer vnto vs. Yet neither Christ by passing ouer vnto vs nor we by passing ouer into him do loose the propriety and truth of our former nature and substance By which it is plaine that the passing ouer into a diuine substance doth not enforce any changing of the substaÌ„ce and nature but only of the condition and vse of the substance And therfore Gelasius saith plainly that notwithstanding this passing ouer into a diuine substance yet the bread and wine continue still in the propriety of their owne nature which is the same which he had said before There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine For wheras the Answ would haue the coÌ„tinuing in the propriety of their owne nature to be vnderstood of the remaining of certaine properties of bread and wine without the substance it is too grosse and palpable shifting For in the whole disputation concerning two natures in our Sauiour Christ that phrase of spéech is continually vsed both by Gelasius Leo Vigilius and others to import the manhood of Christ not only in properties and qualities which Eutyches would haue admitted but also in truth and substance inuiolably being and remayning which he would not graunt Euery kind of thing hath his owne proper and distinct essence and being wherby it is seuered from all other thinges and from whence do issue immediatly certaine properties and qualities which are not incident vnto any other Now this own-nesse as I may call it and distinctnesse of essence being these Fathers expresse by propriety of nature affirming that Christ continueth in the proprietie of both natures namely so as that each nature the Godhead the maÌ„hood reteineth his own proper and distinct substance being Now seing that the abiding of the bread and wine in the propriety of their nature is vsed by Gelasius in the place alleaged to declare that continuance of the manhood of Christ it followeth necessarily that it must be vnderstoode of the remaining not only of the properties but also of the substance of bread and wine vnlesse we will ouer turne all that those Fathers haue disputed against Eutiches plead for him out of their owne wordes that though certaine properties and shewes of the manhood of Christ be remaining yet the substaÌ„ce therof is abolished But the Answ as guilty in his owne conscience of the vntruth vnsufficieÌ„cy of this answere flitteth from it saith as I noted before that it may be that Gelasius thought the somewhat of the substance did remaine and therfore was somewhat of our opinion at least wheras he had said before that whatsoeuer Gelasius thought he was far enough from our mind And yet such is his giddy head that by and by againe he saith that if substaÌ„ce be vnderstood for substance indéede then there should follow this great absurdity that Christ should be personally vnited vnto the bread and so should consist of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the
in their former nature because they nourish no lesse then the substance of bread it selfe would haue done if it had remained They remain in the former shape and kind as being things that may be seene touched as they might before Theodoretus then hauing saide thus much for the one part of the Sacrament commeth also to shew the other part thereof For his minde is to declare that as there be two kinds of things in one Eucharist so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christ Therefore the other nature besides the formes of bread and wine is the reall substance of Christs bodie and blood of which part thus he speaketh Intellâ—guntur autem esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vâ—pote quae illa sunt quae creduntur the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be those things which they were made and they are beleeued they are adored as being those things which they are beleeued to be Note that these mystica symbola are vnderstanded to be that they were made but what are they vnderstaÌ„ded to be that b They are truly vnderstood to be that in mystetie and siâ—nificatioÌ„ which in substance and nature they are not which they are not Nay syr that were false vnderstanding which falshood cannot be in the mysteries of Christ they are theÌ„ that indeed which they are vnderstanded to be What is it Theodoretus sheweth a little before that they were after consecration the body blood of Christ Therefore the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood not because they be not so but because they are so for that they were made his bodie and blood and so they are beleeued to be and are adored or kneeled and bowed vnto But how percase as bearing the image and signes of the bodie and blood of Christ No syr but as being c Strange diuinitie that mysticall 〈◊〉 should be indeed the bodie and bloud of Christ 〈…〉 mysticall sigâ—â— had bene of the virgine Mary Ioh. 1. Theophy in Ioh. 1. indeed the bodie and blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being those things which they are vnderstanded and beleeued to be They are Adored because they are the bodie and blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being and the word as meaneth in that place a truth of being as if it were vere existentia quae creâ—untur being indeed the things which they are beleeued to be So speaketh S. Iohn Viâ—imus gloriam eius gloriam quasi vnigeniti a patre we saw his glorie a glorie as of the only begotten of the father to wit we saw the glorie of him being indeed the only begotten of his father VpoÌ„ which place Theophylact saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English as is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likenesse but that confirmeth and betokeneth an vndoubted determination as when we see a King comming forth with great glory we say that he came forth as a King that is to say he came forth as being indeed a King So that by the iudgement of Theophylact that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Theodoret vseth doth betoken an vndoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speake The holie mysteries are adored as being those things indeed which they are beleeued to be This place is such as cannot be reasonably answered vnto For the reason of adoring or giuing d Theodoret intendeth not to giue godly honour to the mystical signs for that were idolatry but only such reuerent vsage as is fit for holy things See the answere godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is because it is indeed the bodie of Christ as it is beleeued to be But it is beleeued to be the bodie of Christ after consecration therefore it is adored as being the true bodie of Christ For Theodoret before hauing confessed the mysteries after consecration to be called the bodie and blood of Christ when it was demanded farther Doest thou beleeue that thou receiuest the bodie and blood of Christ he answereth to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo I do beleeue so Now therefore he affirmeth those mysticall signes to be indeed after consecration the bodie and blood of Christ which they are beleeued to be and so beleeued that they are receiued of vs. Euerie word must be weighed because we haue to do with our aduersaries who must finde shifts or els their deceit will appeare to all the world First therefore let it be marked that after consecration the mysteries are called the bodie and blood Secondly that the mysteries are e They are vnderstood to be at made and beleeued to be mystical signes of the body blood and so are reuerently vsed though in substance they be but bread and wine This is all that Theodoret meaneth as shall appeare vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood of Christ Thirdly that they are made so Fourthly they are beleeued to be so Fiftly they are adored for that they are indeed those things which they are beleeued to be And last of all they are receiued The first saying second and the last ye can beare withall to wit that they are called the bodie and blood and are vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood and that the bodie blood are receiued For you wold haue them called so and not be so thereby making the namer of them a miscaller as one that calleth them by a wrong name Secondly you would haue them vnderstanded to be the bodie blood and yet not be so thereby shewing that you take pleasure in vntrue vnderstanding for no f S. Paul would haue the rock vnderstood to be Christ which indeed was not christ yet he was a good man good man wold haue a thing vnderstanded to be that which indeed it is not Againe you would the bodie and blood to be receiued How trow you In the faith of the man but g VVe receiue the truth of the bodie of Christ not by the mouth of our bodies but by the faith of our soules You haue turned faith into the mouth and the truth of the bodie into the fantasie of a bodie not in the truth of the bodie therby declaring that you diuide faith from truth as men that haue a perswasion of things that indeed be not so But to calling vnderstanding and receiuing Theodoret ioyneth also beleeuing adoring and being And the beliefe which he speaketh of is not referred to heauen but vnto the holie mysteries They are beleeued they are adored as being those things which they are beleeued to be h A peeuish and blind fansie Nothing is more vsual then to call the signe by the name of the thing signified though indeed it be not the same The thing that is called or named Christes bodie and blood is indeed that thing which it is called Christ can h misname nothing at all
for if he should call that which were before aire water or earth by the name of fire stones and bread aire earth and water would sooner cease to be and fire bread and stones would come in their place then God would call any creature by a wrong name He called bread his bodie therfore bread is vnderstanded to be made the body of Christ You saie the vnderstanding of man taketh his beginning of senses which i S. Austen saith that which you sâ—â— iâ— bread as your eyes also tell you He saith it is that which our eies tell vs it is tell me it is bread I saie in the matter belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth mee it is k In signification and mysterie after the maner of Sacraments but not in substance the bodie of Christ and Theodoret saith it is beleeued to be and it is worshipped for it is so And he giueth the same very word of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worshipping to the holie mysteries the which in the same sentence he giueth to the immortall bodie of Christ sitting at the right hand of his father And no wonder for seeing it is one bodie whether it be worshipped in heauen or l Vigâ—lius saith that the flesh of Christ now that it is in heauen is not vpoÌ„ the earth Therfore seeing it is in heaueÌ„ it cannot be worshipped vpon the 〈◊〉 vpon the Altar one worship is alwaies due to it Thus it is witnessed by Theodoret that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his bodie and blood but as being indeed his bodie and his blood Therefore worship is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really contain the truth represented by them Looke Bellarmine lib. 2. de Sacrament cap. 27. pro horum testimonijs R. Abbot 12. NOw come to be handled the words of Theodoret whom the Answerer vseth in the same honest maner as he hath done Gelasius yet cannot stoppe his mouth but that he still standeth at defiance with Transubstantiation Theodoret in his Dialogues debateth the whole matter of Eutyches his heresie not only as Eutyches himselfe held it as before hath bene shewed but also as some would seeme afterwards to correct it by saying that though Christ reteined the substance of his manhood while he continued on the earth yet after his ascension it was turned into the Godhead as of which there was thenceforth no longer vse Now hauing disputed the matter at large and brought the heretick to this latter shift he taketh an argument from the Sacrament to proue the remaining and being of Christs bodie and blood For signes or samptars are not admitted but of such things as haue being Séeing therefore we receiue the mysticall signes in token of the bodie and blood of Christ it is certaine that the bodie and blood of Christ haue their owne nature and being Now the hereticke taketh occasion of this mention of the sacrament to reason thus a Euen as the signes of the Lords bodie and o Theodor. dial 2. blood before the priests inuocation are other things but after the inuocation are chaunged and made other then before so the Lords bodie after his assumption or taking vp into heauen is changed into the diuine substance Whereby being changed and made other he meaneth not any reall chaunging into the very body and blood of Christ for he denied that Christ had now any substantiall bodie neither doth he vnderstand the loosing of their owne former substance for he expresly yéeldeth the contrary as was shewed before in handling the place of Gelasius but only intendeth that they are other in vse and name being now made signs of the body blood of Christ which he once truly tooke but afterwards did foâ—go This is plaine inough by the circumstance of the place and by that which he had confessed before in the former Dialogue that the bread and wine were signes not of the diuine nature of Christ but of those things whose names they did beare namely the bodie blood But to the obiection Theodoret answereth thus Thou art taken in the net which thy selfe hast made For the mysticall signes do not depart from their owne nature after consecration For they coÌ„tinue in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be the same which they are made and are beleeued so and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now therfore conferre the image with the principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be like vnto the truth Verily that bodie of Christ hath also the same forme as before the same figure and circumscription and to speake all at once the same substance of a bodie But it is made immortal after his resurrectioÌ„ c. Here it is plainly auouched that the mysticall signes continue not only in figure and shape but also in substance the same that they were before and so as that in them we must take notice how Christ continueth the same in substance of his bodie after his ascension For the mysticall signes are the figure image of Christs bodie and the figure must be correspondent to the truth And therefore if we finde not the true and proper substance remaining in the mysticall signes neither can it be auouched in the truth that is in Christs bodie What construction now then shall we haue of these words Mary this The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is to say the formes haue a new subsistence by themselues and the accidents remaine without the substance Bread and wine after consecration remaine in their former substance that is to say there is the colour of bread and wine the taste of bread wine the force and strength of bread and wine the quantitie and qualitie of bread and wine but there is no substance of bread and wine I wonder whether these men be perswaded of the truth of these vnreasonable and senselesse expositions If they be it is fulfilled in them which is written b 2. Thes 2. 11 God shall send vpon them strong delusioÌ„ that they may beleeue lies which beleeued not the truth c. If not then c Esa 5. 20. Wo saith the Prophet to them that call good euill and euill good which put light for darkenesse and darknesse for light The thing is plaine inough The mysticall signes saith Theodoret remaine in their former substance What was their former substance The verie true and proper being or substance of bread wine They continue therfore in the true and proper being and substance of bread and wine But the Answerer goeth from substance which Theodoret nameth to subsistence of his owne forging and yet euen there confoundeth himselfe without recouery For what was their former subsistence Mary they subsisted before in the natures of
life as the rocke was Christ as the Apostle saith They dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christ It is not said The rocke was Christ because the rocke did really conteine Christ No more then was it said The bloud is the life because it did really conteine the life but because it was ordained to be a signe of life though it selfe were altogether dead and cold And this doth S. Austen againe expresly note in another place saying It k August cont aduersa leg proph lib. 2. cap. 6. is said The bloud of al flesh is the life or soule thereof in like maner as it is said The rocke was Christ not because it was so indeed but because Christ was signified heereby The lawe would by the bloud signifie the life or soule a thing inuisible by a thing visible c. because the bloud is visibly as the soule is inuisibly the chiefest and most principall of all things whereof wee consist Héere is then a matter of signification onely not of any reall conteining vnlesse the Answ will be so fond as to say that the rocke did really conteine Christ But now of this maner of speaking The bloud is the life or soule when it is indéede but a signe thereof S. Austen giueth a like example in the words of our Sauiour Christ who saith he doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body directly to this meaning that as Christ said This is my body when he gaue it into his Disciples handes not his bodie indéede but onely the signe and sacrament of his body and as the Apostle saith the rock was Christ when it was not Christ indéede but onely a signe of Christ so Moses said The bloud is the life not because it selfe was the life indéede but was onely appointed to be a signe of life And if the sacrament were indéed really the body of Christ what occasion should there be why Christ should doubt to say this is my body But either S. Austen speaketh vainly or els his words import that there might be occasion of doubting to say so And why but because it was not so indéede Yet saith he because it was the mysterie and signe of his body though not his body in substance and indéed therfore hee doubted not according to the maner of the scriptures in like case to say This is my body and so did Moses speake of the bloud Thus most manifestly and plainly I haue shewed that the Answ irrefragable exposition is nothing else but vnhonest and vnconscionable shifting P. Spence Sect. 18. BVt Tertullian killeth the Cow for he saith a figure of the body What if I prooue to you that you be as fowly deceaued or would deceiue in Tertullian as in the last place of S. Augustine This hath Tertullian in lib. 4. contra Marcionem The bread which hee tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his body Lo Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his body so say we and not you how made it he his body by speaking ouer it the wordes of consecration in saying this is my body that is a figure of my body Did Christ say to them This is the figure of my body But if he had yet by speaking those wordes hee had made it his body after Tertullians minde But the very trueth and all the point of the case heerein is in this that Tertullians words may haue two expositions one which you like of This is my body Two expositions of Tertullian that is the figure of my body the other which is our sense and the verie intended meaning of Tertullian is this This is my body This that is to say the figure of my body is my bodie To prooue this vnto you remember it is out of his fourth booke against Marcion which Marcion held the ill God of the old testament to be a deadly enimie to the good God of the new testament Marcion wrote a book called Antithesis or Antilogiae of contradictions and repugnances betweene the two testamentes Against that booke spendeth Tertullian the greatest part of his fourth booke shewing howe Christ the God of the new testament fulfilled and consecrated the old figures of the old testament as a friend and not as an enemie thereof and to that end thus he saith conferring places togither Christ in the daie time taught in the temple of Hierusalem he had foretold by O see In my temple they sâ—ught me and there I will dispute with them Againe he went apart into the mount Elaeon that is to the mount of Oliues Because Zacharie wrote and his feete shall stand in the mount Elaeon Againe they came togither early in the morning agreeable to Esay who saith Hee hath giuen me an eare to heare betimes in the morning If this be saith Tertullian to dissolue the prophesies what is to fulfill them Againe hee chose the passouer for his passion For Moses said before It shall be the passouer of the Lord. Yea saith Tertullian He shewed his affection or desire I haue earnestly desired to eat this passeouer with you c. O destroier of the law which desired also to keepe the passeouer Againe he might haue been betraied of a stranger sauing that the Psalme had before prophesied He which eateth bread with me will lifâ— vp his foote against me Yet further he might haue been betraied without reward saue that that should haue been for another Christ not for him which fulfilled the prophesies For it was written They haue sold the iust Yea the verie price that he was sold for Hieremie foretold They tooke the thirtie siluer peeces the price of him that was valued and gaue them for a potters field Thus farre in this one place among infinite other in the whole booke Tertullian sheweth Christ the God of the new testament to haue fulfilled the figures of the olde as being the one onely God of both Testaments And then by and by he inferreth as another example these wordes Therefore professing that he did greatlie desire to eate the passeouer as his owne for it was vnfit that God should desire anie thing of anothers whereby hee sheweth Christ to be the onely God of both testaments He made the bread which he tooke and distributed to his Disciples his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie What figure I beseech you meant he not the figure vsed a He did not meane any figure vsed by Melchisedech neither doth any way allude to it by Melchisedech of bread and wine meant he not a figure of the old Testament taken vsed and fulfilled by Christ in the newe is not that his drift Must Tertullian become an asse to serue your turne and forget his owne drift and purpose here and contrary what he hath so plainly spoken of the Sacrament in other his books This is b It is not foolish vaunting and bragging that must waigh this
would for your sake to helpe you to an argument pull backe his owne confession affirming himselfe to haue spoken de veteri Figura of the olde Figure or except you say his meaning was that Christ made his Supper to be an auncient figure of the old testament R. Abbot 18. HEre the Answerer beginneth with his iest Tertullian saith he killeth the Cowe I aunswere him if Transubstantiation be a Cowe Tertullian killeth the Cowe Hée stronglye gainsaieth it and will not abide it Thus hée speaketh a Tertul. cont Marcion li. 4. The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie But it had not bene a figure vnlesse there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie could receiue no figure Marcion the hereticke against whom he wrote held that Christ had not a true and reall bodie but only a fantasie and appearance and shew of a bodie Tertullian proueth by the Sacrament that Christ had a verie true bodie For the scripture is not wont to set down tokens and figures of things which haue not the truth of the things answerable vnto them Therefore séeing Christ in the Gospell gaue bread as a token and figure of his bodie saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie it is certaine that Christ hath a true bodie correspondent to this figure Thus do b chrysost in Mat. hom 83. Theod. dâ—al 2. Iren adu haeres lib. 5. Chrysostome and other of the Fathers reason from the Sacrament to proue the veritie and truth of the passion and of the bodie of Iesus Christ To this place of Tertullian M. Harding confessing that Tertullian made these wordes This is a figure of my bodie the exposition of those words This is my bodie saith that his interpretatioÌ„ is not according to the right sense of Christs words and that in his contention he did not so much regard the exact vse of his words as how he might winne his purpose of his aduersary so maketh Tertullian to write he cared not what Campian being vrged with the same words in the Tower shifted the matter off that those words That is to say a figure of my bodie werâ— the exception of the hereticke and not Tertullians own words The Ans hath found in some other of his learned Treatises namely c Bellar. to 2. de sacram Euchar. lâ—b 2. cap 7. in Bellarmine another deuise for the saluing of this matter Wherby we may sée how these men are carried vp and downe with giddinesse and phrensie and being pressed with euidence of truth cannot finde any answere whereupon to rest themselues and therefore as ashamed each of others doings bestow their wits from day to day to deuise new collusions and shifts to saue themselues The Answ resting vpoÌ„ the credit of father Robert thinketh that there is great wit and reason in that which he hath written so that Tertullian must be an Asse if he meant otherwise then he expoundeth him but indéed getteth himselfe hereby a priuiledge to weare the eares to whomsoeuer it befall to be the Asse For his exposition beside that it is foolish and absurd maketh also expresly against himselfe and admitteth that which I desire and which he himselfe must néeds confesse to be the vndooing of Transubstantiation He maketh two expositions of Tertullians words the one ours and that thus This is my bodie that is to say this is a figure of my bodie and this being indéed the currant and direct passage of Tertullians words he disliketh and condemneth The other is theirs and as he would make vs beléeue the verie intended meaning of the words namely thus This is my bodie This that is to say the figure of my bodie is my bodie Whereby he briefly resolueth out of Tertullian a maruellous doubt wherof his Fathers were neuer able to determine any thing namely whereto the word This is to be applied For if it be sayd This bread which is the very truth then they sawe that Transubstantiation cannot stand Therefore haue they prophaned the sacred words of Christ with their cursed sophistications and haue most wretchedly tossed them too and fro to make a meaning of them that might serue for their purpose yet haue found none But the Answ setteth downe the meaning thus This figure of my bodie is my bodie So that the word This must be referred to the figure of the bodie And what figure The olde figure euen the same saith he that Melchisedech vsed And what was that olde figure Marry it was bread Then we haue the exposition of Christes words as we would haue it This is my bodie that is to say This bread is my bodie And this is manifest to be Tertullians mind by that he saith twise in this place that Christ called bread his bodie and in his booke against the Iewes saith in like sort that he called bread his bodie and in his first booke against Marcion saith againe that Christ represented his bodie by bread Now if Christ in the Sacrament call bread his bodie and by bread do represent his bodie then it followeth that in the Sacrament it is bread which is called the bodie of Christ and is so called because the bodie of Christ is represented thereby Therefore the meaning of Christs words must néeds be thus This bread is the figure of my bodie This were sufficient for the opening of Tertullians minde in this point but yet I will follow the Answ to sift the matter somewhat further I acknowledge first with him that Tertullians purpose in that place is to shewe that Christ fulfilled in the new Testament those things that were foretold and foreshewed in the old But as it was neuer prefigured in the old Testament that there should be a transubstantiation of the bread wine so no more doth Tertullian go about by any old figure to approue the same And if he had named Melchisedech or alluded vnto him any way as we are by this man borne in hand yet could it not haue bene to any other purpose but this that Melchisedech by bringing foorth bread and wine in figure of the Sacrament did signifie that Christ should appoint and institute bread and wine to be the tokens and signes of his bodie and blood and that Christ in the Gospell did fulfil the same So saith S. Hierom d Hieron in Mat. 26. Christ taketh bread goeth to the true SacrameÌ„t of the passeouer that as Melchisedech the priest of the high God in prefiguring of him offering bread and wine had done so he himselfe also might represent the truth of his bodie and blood Therfore though it be graunted that Tertullian speaketh of Melchisedech yet serueth it my purpose and not his that Christ instituted bread and wine to represent thereby the truth of his bodie and blood as Melchisedech had prefigured he should do But the truth is
Tertullian speaketh not of Melchisedech he doth not so much as intimate any thing of him and the Answ for that he read the place could not but know that there was nothing meant as touching Melchisedech and therefore in vpbraiding vs with stealing of scrappes out of the Fathers because we vse this place he giueth me occasion to charge him with voluntary and wilfull falsifying of their words But I leaue that to his owne conscience whether he did purposely séeke by this bad meanes to adde the more likelihood vnto a false tale Tertullian saith nothing here to intimate that the very creatures of bread and wine were vsed in the old Testament as figures of the body and blood of Christ but only expoundeth some places where the names of bread and wine are so vsed as that thereby should be signified the same bodie blood of Christ To this purpose he alleageth the words of Ieremy as the vulgar Latine text readeth them e Ier. 11. 19. Let vs cast the wood vpon his bread that is saith he the crosse vpon his bodie as noting that by the name of bread the Prophet signified the bodie of Christ Therefore he addeth Christ the reuealer of antiquities calling bread his bodie did sufficiently declare what his will was that bread should then signifie Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that as the Prophet did vse the name of bread to signifie the body of Christ so Christ himselfe to iustifie that spéech of the Prophet did institute bread it selfe to be the signe and Sacrament of his bodie and accordingly called it his bodie Another like spéech he reciteth concerning wine out of the words of Iacob the Patriarch f Gen. 49. 11. He shall wash his garment in wine and his cloathing in the blood of the grape Where by the garment and cloathing he vnderstandeth the bodie and flesh of Christ by wine the blood of Christ as if Iacob should foretell in those words that the bodie of Christ should be embrued with the shedding of his blood Hereupon he inferreth He that then figured wine in blood hath now consecrated his blood in wine noting hereby not that blood indéed was vsed for a figure of wine but that the name of the blood of the grape serued to signifie wine as prefiguring that wine it selâ—â— should be appointed to be the signe of the blood of Christ Now this was fulfilled by Christ when he consecrated his blood in wine that is to say made the Sacrament of his blood in wine or appointed wine in truth to be the Sacrament of his blood for signification whereof the name of wine had bene before vsed The old figure the refore of which Tertullian speaketh saying that we may acknowledge an olde figure in wine was in the vse of the names of bread and wine not of bread and wine indéed and that which by this olde figure and maner of speaking was intimated in the olde Testament Christ performed and fulfilled in the new when he consecrated and sanctified his creatures of bread and wine to be Sacraments and figures of his bodie and blood and by name accordingly called them his bodie and blood Which maner of speaking he had not approued but frustrated if in making the Sacrament he had destroyed the substance of bread and wine for then he could not haue called bread his bodie and wine his blood as Tertullian saith he did Now therefore that which the Answ saith that Figures are of the old Testament Christ fulfilleth them in the new maketh nothing against vs nay setting aside the error of the Answ it maketh wholly for vs. For he vainly fancieth Tertullian to say that the very elements of bread wine were vsed in the old Testament for figures of the bodie and blood of Christ and therefore that the same should not be againe appointed to that vse in the new Testament whereas Tertullian saith no more but only that the names or words of bread and wine were sometimes taken to signifie the same Now then let him remember that Turtullian auoucheth the fulfilling of this figure in this that Christ called bread his bodie and wine his blood and let him say with vs according to Tertullians minde that in the Sacrament it is bread and wine which is called the bodie and blood of Christ and that the meaning of Christs words is This bread is my bodie that is to say A Figure of my bodie Now hereby Tertullian proueth that Christ hath a true substantiall bodie For saith he It had bene no Figure except there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie might not haue bene capable of a Figure But here the Answ wold make vs beléeue that vnlesse Tertullian mean this of a Figure in the old Testament his saying is not true And this he proueth by Nigromancy for saith he the phantasticall bodies of spirits do exhibit to the eyes a certaine Figure or shape as the very Nigromancers do know But what motion I maruel came into the mans minde to diuert his spéech from mysticall and sacramentall figures instituted by Iesus Christ wherof Tertullian speaketh to figures and facions and shapes of diuels and spirits He was a blind man if he saw not his owne errour and folly but leaud and wretched if he sawe it and yet against his owne conscience would thus dally with Gods truth And why could he not conceiue that Tertullians wordes if they had concerned any such figures should haue bin false in respect of the old Testament as well as of the new because diuels and spirits had their figures and shapes as wel then as now Was it straunge vnto him that there are sacramentall figures in the new Testament to which the words of Tertullian might be fitly applied Surely S. Austen saith that g August in Psal 3. Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet wherein he commended to his Disciples the Figure of his body and blood So saith the old Father Ephrem that h Ephrem de natura dei noÌ„ scrutanda cap. 4. Christ blessed and brake the bread in figure of his bodie and blessed gaue the cup in Figure of his pretious blood Nay the Answ himselfe hath confessed i Sect. 10. before that the Fathers call the sacrifice which they speak of a figure of the death and passion of Christ Of such a figure Tertullian speaketh and reasoneth thus that there should neuer haue bin appointed in the Gospel a figure to represent the body of Christ except there had bene a true bodie to be represented thereby As for that cauill of his which he hath borrowed from Bellarmine that if Tertullian had not spoken of a figure in the old Testament he shuld not haue said fuisset but esset it is too too foolish and absurd and if he were in the Grammer schoole he should deserue to be laide ouer the forme to make him know that the verbe fuisset is rightly vsed by Tertullian with relation to Christs first
instituting of bread to be the figure of his bodie Let him consider better whether this stand not with good construction to say Christ tooke bread and said therof This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie But it had not bene or it should not haue bene a figure except there were a true bodie But yet he goeth farther Tertullian saith thus If Christ did therefore make bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. It made for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should be crucified These words saith he haue neither wit nor sense except it be supposed that Christs bodie is really in the Sacrament nay otherwise it must be bread that was crucified for vs. But except his wit and his sense did faile him he might find somwhat els in Tertullians words For stil he calleth the sacrameÌ„t bread putteth differeÌ„ce betwixt the bread that is called yâ— body and the true body it self so reasoneth against Marcion yâ— if Christ had not a true body indéed which he represented by bread in respect thereof called the same bread his body then the bread itselfe must be his bodie and consequently it was bread which was giuen and crucified for vs. But Marcion himselfe would not say that bread was crucified for vs Therefore he must néedes confesse that Christ had a true bodie figured by the bread And thus Tertullians reason against Marcion setteth downe bread in the Sacrament as a figure of Christes body and razeth the foundation of Popish Transubstantiation And this is yet againe plaine by these wordes to which he asketh me what I say that Christ called not a Pepon his body as he should haue done by Marcions opinion who held that Christ had in stéede of a heart a kinde of fruite called a Pepon but hee called bread his body because of the olde Figure namely because the Prophet vsing the name of bread to import the bodie of Christ did thereby prefigure that bread indéed should be appointed to be the figure and signe of the same bodie So that Christ did not renew an olde figure by consecrating or sanctifying the bread to be a figure of his bodie but fulfilled that in the trueth and substance of bread which Tertullian saith was foreshewed by the name of bread Thus much of Tertullians roundly wholly deliuered words where the Answ hath shewed as great folly in enlarging them as some other of his fellowes haue shewed falshood in clipping and paring them But to fill vp the measure of this follie he taketh vpon him by the way to censure Maister Iewell about a place alleaged out of the vnperfect worke vpon Math. Serm. 11. Which he doth in that péeuish and vaine sorte as that he sheweth himselfe to be led wholly with malice without any iudgment or discretion First he misliketh that he did alleage it in Chrisostomes name But why so Is it not as lawfull for maister Iewell or for the Church of England to doe so as it is for the Church of Roome and her followers k Sixt. Sâ—nâ—nâ— bâ—â—lâ—ot sanâ—â— 4 in lâ—â—n Câ—rysâ—st The Church of Rome readeth diuers homilies in their diuine seruice from thence vnder the name of Chrysostome Many sentences and propositions are brought thence vnder his name in the ordinarie gloses in the chaines of the explanations of the Gospels in the decrees of the Bistops of Roome in the Summaries of Diuinitie set forth by Diuines of great name as Sixtus Senensis himselfe a Papist giueth vs to vnderstand Why then should maister Iewell be blamed for alleaging that worke vnder Chrysostomes name when the Church of Roome by her example warranted him so to doe But yet hee will further make vs beléeue that the wordes doe not prooue that for which they are alleaged The wordes are these If l Chrysost in ope imperf hom 11. it be a dangerous matter to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses as Baltasar teacheth vs who drinking in the sacred cups was depriued of his kingdome and his life if then I say it be so dangerous to transferre to priuate vses these sanctified vessels in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his body is conteined c. Out of which wordes maister Iewell proueth yâ— in the sacred vessels there is not the true body of Christ as the Papistes dreame but onely a mysterie of his body The place is so plaine as nothing can be more plaine Now therefore what sayth the Answ to it Forsooth the authour meant these words of the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem which Nabuchodonosor tooke from thence and not of the vessels of our Christian Churches But what vessels I maruell were those in the temple of Hierusalem which conteined the mysterie of Christes body where did hee euer read or heare of any such Or if he can vnshamefastly face out such a matter how can he imagine that Chrysostome or the author whosoeuer would admonish his auditours that it was daungerous for them to abuse the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem which they neither had nor could haue to abuse Againe he saith not those holy vessels as pointing to the vessels of the temple but expresly these holy vessels vnderstanding them which he had then to vse Againe he saith not wherein was not but wherin is not the true body of Christ nor wherein was conteined but wherein is conteined the mysterie of his bodie All which being referred to the present time do plainly enough shew that hee spake of the vessels that then were present and therefore his wordes are a verie direct and substantiall proofe that in the vessels of Christian temples there is not the true body of Christ but onely a mysterie of his body Yea but there is mention of Baltazar there And what then Surely Baltasar is there brought in to teach vs as the authour speaketh Now what doth the example of Baltasar teach vs not to abuse the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem A senselesse conceite He teacheth vs not to abuse the vessels of our temples and Churches least offending as he did we be punished as he was For there is alwaies the same reason of the vse or abuse of holy thinges and particular examples are alwaies alleaged for confirmation and proofe of generall doctrines Surely the Answ was sodainly awaked out of his dreame when he conceiued this and set his handes to write before he was well aduised what he should write P. Spence Sect. 19. AS I haue dilated at large the meaning of Gelasius so I cannot but wonder at your repeating of him in this place so contrâ—â—ie to his meaning euen by your owne confession You woulde before haue Gelasius drift to be this that as in heauen Christ is in his two natures seuerall the godhead and the manhood so in the Sacrament with his body remaineth the bread thereby to haue hoth in heauen and here two seuerall natures Yet now
again in this mysterie his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people and Cyprian We sticke to the crosse we sucke the blood and fasten our tongues within the wounds of our redeemer and Chrysostome againe Good Lord the iudge himselfe is led to the iudgement seat the creator is set before the creature he which cannot be seene of the angels is spitted at by a seruant he tasteth gall and vâ—neger he is thrust in with a speare he is put into a graue c. In which maner of speaking S. Hierome saith Happie is he in whose heart Christ is euerie day borne and againe Christ is crucified for vs euerie day and S. Austen Then is Christ slaine vnto Aug. ouaesâ— Euan. li 2. q. 33. euery man when he beleeueth him to haue bene slaine Doe you thinke that these thinges are really done in the Sacrament as the words sound that Christ indeed suffereth dieth is burted that we cleaue to his crosse c S. Austen telleth you The offering of the De cons dist 2. cap. Hoc est flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Séeing then the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and the passion of Christ is to be vnderstood in the Sacrament not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie it followeth that that sacrifice is likewise â—o to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysserie and therefore that the sacrifice which you pretend is indéed sacriledge as I haue termed it and a manifest derogation from the sufficiency of Christs sacrifice vpon his crosse As touching the matter of Transubstantiation I alleaged vnto Gâ—las cont â—u yâ—h Nâ—st you the sentence of Geâ—asâ—â—â— Bishop of Rome There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine You answere me first that you suspect it to be corrupted by some of ours There is no cause M. Spence of that suspitioÌ„ but the shamelesse dealing of some leaud varlets of your side is notorious that way and infamous through all the Church of God Your owne clerkes cannot deny the truth of this allegation as they do not of many other sayings of the auncient Fathers as plainly contrary to your positions as this is Albeit Index Expurg in censura Bertrami they practise therein that which they professe in the Index Expurgatorius where they say In the old Catholicke Doctors we beare with many errours and we extenuate them excuse them by some deuised shift do oftentimes deny them and faine a conuenient meaning of them when they are opposed vnto vs in disputations or in contention with our aduersaries Indéed without these pretie shifts your men could finde no matter whereof to compile their answers But being taken for truly alleaged you say yet the whole faith of Christs Church in that point may not by his testimony be reproued against so many witnesses of scriptures and Fathers to the contrarie Whereas you should remember that Gelasius was Bishop of Rome that what he wrote he wrote it by way of iudgement and determination against an hereticke and therfore by your owne defence could not erre And if it had bene against the receiued faith of the Catholicke Church in those daies the heretickes against whom he wrote would haue returned it vpon him to his great reproach But he spake as other auncient Fathers had done before him as Theodor. dial 1. Theodoret He which called himselfe a vine did honour the visible elements and signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature And againe The Dial. 2. mysticall signes after consecration do not go from their own nature for they continue in their former substance figure and forme c. chrysost ad caesarium Monach August apud â—edam in 1. cor 10. Chrysostome thus Before the bread be consecrated we call it bread but the grace of God sanctifying it by the ministerie of the priest it is freed froÌ„ the name of bread is vouchsafed the name of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it Austen thus That which you see is bread and the cup which your eyes also do tell you De consect dist 2 cap. â—oc est But as touching that which your faith requireth for in â—ructioÌ„ bread is the bodie of Christ and the cup is his blood And againe This is it which we say which by all meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament that is the bodie of Christ And that you may not take that visible forme of the elements for your emptie formes and accidentes without substance which and many other things your Censours aboue-named say The latter age of the Church subtilly and truly added by the holie Index Expurgat in censura Bertrami Ghost confessing thereby that these Popish subâ—ilties were not knowne at all to the auncient Fathers take withall that which he addeth Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is true God true man because euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those things whereof it is made By which rule you may vnderstand also the saying of Irenee The Eucharist Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. consisteth of two things an earthly and a heauenly namely so as that it conteineth the nature and truth of them both By these places and many other like it is euident that albeit in this Sacrament there is yéelded vnto the faith of the receiuer the bodie and blood of Christ and the whole power and vertue thereof to euerlasting life yet there ceaseth not to be the substance nature and truth of bread and wine Which is the purport of Gelasiuâ— his words By the Sacraments which we receiue of the bodie and blood of Christ we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the subsance or nature of bread and wine The force of which words and of the wordes of Theodoret you shall perceiue the better if you know how they are directed against Eutyches the hereticke The hereticke in Theodorets Dialogues by a comparison drawen from Dial. â— the sacrament wold shew how the bodie of Christ after his assumption into heauen was swallowed vp as it were of his diuinitie and so Christ ceased to be truly man As said he the bread and wine before the blessing are one thing but after the blessing become another and are changed so the bodie or humanitie of Christ whereby he was truly man before is after-his ascension glorification changed into the substance of God But Theodoret answereth him Thou art
taken in the nettes which thou thy selfe hast wouen For as the bread and wine albeit in vertue and power they implie the bodie and blood of Christ yet retaine still the substance truth of nature which they had before so the bodie of Christ albeit it be glorified and aduanced to high and excellent dignitie yet remaineth still the same in substance and propertie of nature as it was before Which saint Austen expresseth thus speaking of the bodie of Christ To August ep 57. which indeed he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken away the nature thereof If Euâ—yches were now aliue he would surely be a Papist Your new and grosse heresie of Transubstantiation had bene a good neast for him to shroude himselfe in For he might and would haue said that as the bread and wine in the sacrament after consecration do leaue their former substance and are changed into another so the bodie of Christ although it were first a true and naturall bodie yet after his ascension and glorification was chaunged into another nature and substance of the Godhead A meete couer cyp de caena domini for such a cup. You may remember that I shewed you how Cyprian doth exemplifie the matter of the sacrament by the diuinitie humanitie of Christ that as Iesus Christ though truly God yet was not letted thereby to be truly man so the sacrament though it implie sacramentally not only the vertue power but also the truth of the bodie and blood of Christ yet is not therby hindered from hauing in it the substance and nature of bread wine And as Christ was changed in nature not by leauing his former nature of Godhead but by taking to him the nature of man so bread and wine were chaunged in nature not by leauing their former nature substance but by hauing vnited vnto them by the working of the holie Ghost in such maner as I haue said the substance and effect of the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ But you cannot sée how the words of Christ This is my bodie c. can be vnderstood otherwise but of your Transubstantiation There is M. Spence a veile of preiudice lying before your heart which blindeth your eyes that you cannot sée it Otherwise you might know by the very spéeches of the auncient Fathers to whom you referre your selfe that Christ called bread and wine his bodie and blood and that after the same maner of sacramentall speaking which I noted vnto you before out of saint Austen Sacraments because August ep 23. of the resemblance do most commonly take the names of the things themselues which they do resemble Whereof he saith for example in the same place The Sacrament of Christes bodie is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ But Cyprian telleth you Our Cypr. ll 1. ep 6. Lord called the bread made by the vniting of many cornes his bodie and the wine pressed out of many clusters and grapes hee called his blood And Chrysostome saith of bread in the sacrament The bread chrysost ad caesar Theod. dia. 1. is vouchsafed the name of our Lords bodie And Theodoret as before Christ honored the visible signes with the name of his body blood And S. Austen The bread is the bodie of Christ And Theodoret againe Aug. apâ—d Bâ—dam in 1. cor 10. Our Sauiour chaunged the names and gaue vnto his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his bodie And Cyprian againe Our Lorde gaue at the table with his owne handes bread Theod dial 1. Cypr. de vnct Chrismatis and wine and bread and wine are his flesh and blood The signes and the things signified are counted by one name And if you wold know the cause why Christ did vse this exchaunge of names Theodoret telleth you straightwaies after He would haue those that are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things which are seene but because of the changing of the names to beleeue the chaunge which is wrought by grace namely that our mindes may be fixed not vpon the signs but vpon the things signified therby as he that hath any thing assured vnto him by hand and seale respecteth not the paper or the writing or the seale but the things that are confirmed and assured vnto him hereby By these you may vnderstand that it was bread which Christ called his bodie and as Cypr. lib. 2. epâ—st 3. Aug. cont Adâ—m c2 12. Tertul cont Marcionem lib. 4. Cyprian saith That it was wine which he called his blood And let S. Austen tell you the same Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the sign of his body So Tertullian The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie saying this is my body that is to say a figure of my bodie Wherby you may conceiue that bread and wine are not really chaunged into the bodie and blood as you teach but remaining in substance the same they were are in vse and propertie the signes and figures of the bodie and blood of Christ And as Gelasius addeth to the words before alleaged The image and resemblance of the Lords body and blood is celebrated in the exercise of the Sacraments Yet they are not naked and bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill but substantiall and effectuall signes or seales rather assuring our faith of the things signified thereby and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruite and benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ But you will vrge perhaps that Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his bodie which words your men are wont to alleage out of the former part of the sentence guilefully concealing the end of the same Tertullian declareth his owne meaning that he vnderstandeth a figure of the bodie But you may further Ioh. 1. 1â— remember that the Gospell saith The word was made flesh and yet it ceased not to be the word so the bread is made the bodie of Christ and yet it ceaseth not to be the bread S. Austen saith August apud Bedam in 1. cor 10. Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his body blood which also he made vs to be and by his mercy we are that which we do receiue yet we are not transubstantiated into the bodie blood of Christ Vnderstand therefore that the bread is made the bodie of Christ after a certain maner and not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie As touching the bodily and Popish eating drinking of Christs flesh and blood grounded on this point of transubstantiation Christ our Sauiour said to the Iewes as S. Austen expoundeth his words August in Psal 98. Ye shall not eate this bodie which you see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead that shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being
his supper But S. Cyprian in his Epistle ad Caecilium so long ago 〈…〉 〈…〉 th it sure that Christ vsed both Let that Epistle for all these points be the stickeler betweene vs who saith e Cyprians words are thus In the sacrifice which is christ none but christ is to be followed Therefore we are not to follow the church of Rome beyond or beside that which Christ did In the sacrifice which is Christ Christ is to be followed euen to this verie purpose vsing those words Against which point to alleage S. Cyprian ad Pompeium is to alleage S. Cyprian against S. Cypriaâ— But let S. Cyprian saie thus much for vs to you If it be commanded in the Gospell or be conteined in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles to vse only wine let this traditioÌ„ then be obserued To make short wine is ex institutâ—one to put thereto water is Ex praecepto Ecclesiae which vpon your warrant being so long and so vniuersally vsed I dare not breake There arose about S. Cyprians time certaine fond innouators verie foolish fellowes who for temperance forsooth vsed no wine but all water only in the sacrifice of the Church These in the Catalogue of Heretickes written by S. Augustine Ad quod vult deum in the like Catalogue of Heretickes written by Philastrius Brixiamus Episcopus are called Aquarij Who saith he in the heauenly Sacraments offer onelie water and not that which the Catholicke and Apostolicke Church is accustomed to do The argument and drift of the afore-named Epistle of Saint Cyprian ad Caecilium lib. 2. Epist 3. is briefly set downe In the sacrifice of the Church neither water without wine nor wine without water ought to be offered The whole Epistle is for that matter notable and no doubt Saint Chrysostome meant of those Aquarij Saint Cyprian calleth it our Lords tradition and a thing ordâ—ined of God he saith our Lord both did it and also taught it The learned Fathers of the sixt Councell called it an order deliuered to the Church by God and say it was the tradition of the Apostles Clemens constitu Apost lib. 8. cap 17 saith likewise mingling of the cup with wine and water and consecrating it c. S. Iames in his Liturgie saith Likewise after he had supped taking the cup and mingling it with wine and water c. S. Basill in his Liturgie saith Likewise also taking the cup of the iuyce of the wine mixing giuing thanks c. S. Chrysostome in his Liturgie in putting wine into the Chalice said And one of the souldiers opened his side and forthwith issued blood and mingling it with water he saith And water and he that saw it hath borne witnesse and his witnesse is true Ioh. 19. S. Proclus a neare successor of his De traditione diuinae Liturgiae saith By these praiers they expected the comming of the holie Ghost that by his diuine presence he should make the bread and the wine mixed with water which were proposed for sacrifice the bodie and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ Theodoret Dialog 1. saith f Theodoret saith not he made it but he called it his blood That Christ made that which was mixed in the cup his blood Eusebius Emiss in ser 5. de Paschat saith that Christ himselfe by his example taught that we should consecrate the cup with wine mixed with water Concilium Carthagin 3. cap. 24. In which Austen was present saith thus That in the Sacrament of the bodie and blood of the Lord nothing else should be offered but that which the Lord deliuered that is bread and wine mixed with water Ambrosius lib de Sacramento cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. affirmeth that wine and water must be put in the cup. Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. When saith he the mixed cup and the bread broken receiueth the word of God it is made the Eucharist of the bodie blood of the Lord. August tract 120. in Iohannem Isidore lib. 2. offic cap. 18. Beda in Comment Marci cap. 14. vpon those words This is the cup of my blood Anselmus in 26. Mat. Alexander neare to the Apostle saith let bread only and wine mingled with water be offered in the sacrifice of Masses There ought not to be offered in the cup of our Lord either wine only or water only but both togither mingled because both is read to haue followed out of the side of our Lord in his passion Io. 19. de Consent distinct 2. cap. in Sacramentorum Iustinus Apostol 2. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 14. Grego Nissâ—n for Catechetico as is alleaged by Euthimius in Panoplia lib. 2. titulo 21. Chrysostome homil 84. in Ioannem hom 24. in 1. Corinth Theophâ—â—ct in Iâ—annem cap. 9. See Bellarminus lib. 4. de Sacramento Eucharistiae cap. 1. 11. beside many other testimonies of all ages in both Greeke and Latin Church R. Abbot 2. AS touching this first point of mixture of water with wine in the Sacrament I shewed before that our Churches haue accounted it as a meere indifferent thing where it is vsed with that simplicitie wherwith it was first begun The maner of Countries where their wines are verie strong is to delaie them with water Christians would not neglect that commendable shew of sobrietie in their mysticall banquet whereof Heathen men had regard at their ordinary tables Therefore according to the maner of their countries they mingled water with their wine taking wine to be the institution of Christ but whether méere wine or delaied wine they knew it made no difference Albeit some there were that in regard of this sobrietie and temperancie went too far leauing Christes institution of wine and vsing only water in the Sacrament as a Cypr. lib. 2. epist 3. Cyprian intimateth of some of his predecessours To this mixture was added at length some signification either in Cyprians time or perhaps before As for that of b Epist 1. Concil tomo â— Alexander the first to that purpose that Epistle of his and the rest of them are sufficiently knowne to be counterfeit and bastard stuffe But thus this vsage and custome ranne his course till at length it sell with the rest into the maine Ocean of Popish corruptions and superstitions where the fathers errours were turned into pestilent heresies and those things that arose of the simplicitie of men for c August epist 119. ad exhortationem vitae melioris profitable admonition and exhortation only as they intended them were made matters of true deuotion and of the worship of God Our Churches therefore séeing this mixture abused in the church of Rome and accounted as a necessary mysterie of Christian religion without any warrant of the word of God thought conuenient vtterly to relinquish the same though otherwise occasion requiring it they haue estéemed it an indifferent thing And herein they haue followed the example of our Lorde and maister Iesus Christ who knew well inough that the washing of handes and cuppes
was an indifferent thing and yet when he saw d Mat. 15. 2. c. the Scribes and Pharisies to put affiance of holinesse puritie in those washings so that they accounted them vncleane which omitted the same he did himselfe neglect and by his example as it séemeth moued his disciples to neglect that tradition of their Elders telling them that in vaine they did worship God teaching for doctrines the precepts of men In leauing the mixture of water we are not contraried by the e Mat 26. 2â— institution of Christ set downe in the Gospell I alleaged before f Anselm sax on Centur. Magdebur 12. cap. 9. that the Gréeke Church consecrated with wine onely and their reason because we reade not that Christ added water I shewed how Chrysostome as one edition of his g Chrysost Liturg per Leonem Tusc 〈…〉 Liturgie intendeth added water after the consecration as being no part of the institution of the Sacrament I noted that h Anselm vt supra Anselmus and i Tho. Aquin. pag. 3. qu 74. art 6. Thomas Aquinas notwithstanding the assertions of diuers auncient writers could make at the most but a probabilitie of Christs vsing water in this Sacrament And why probable because the maner of that Country is so to drinke their wine Wherof it may rightly be gathered yâ— though Christ did vse water as we do not finde that he did yet he did it but after the maner of that Country in drinking wine and not for any mysterie of the Sacrament I alleaged moreouer that k Polyd. Virgâ—l de inuent rerum li. 5. ca. 10. Polydore Virgil and l Platina in Alexan 1. Platina and m DuraÌ„d Ratio diui lib. 4. cap. de officio sacerdotis c. Durand referre this tradition to Alexander the first and so for their parts haue acquited vs from crossing the institution of Christ Also that n De consecra dist 2 caâ— sicut in glossa Doctors haue taught that water is vsed in the cup de honestate tantum namely by way of temperancie and sobrietie only and therefore not of any necessitie to the Sacrament Why would this man take vpon him to answere and yet slily passe ouer all these things with silence so directly pertaining to the point in question But to pardon his silence to take that which he doth say he breaketh out at the first dash and telleth me that if I finde the words of Chrysostome expounded as was answered before out of the Trullan Canons then I did but wrangle in alleaging them to another purpose contrary to the knowne meaning of the Authour But I wrangle not herein Whatsoeuer exposition it pleased those Fathers to make of Chrysostomes wordes thrée hundred yeares after Chrysostomes death the wordes themselues are most plaine to that purpose that I first noted them He demandeth this question o Chrysost in Mat. hom 83. Why did Christ after his resurrection drinke Not Water but VVine Where manifestly he nameth the drinking of wine and denieth water To this he answereth He would plucke vp by the rootes the pernicious heresie of them which vse Water in the Sacrament For to shew that when he deliuered this Sacrament he deliuered wine therefore did he vse wine also after his resurrection at the bare table of the Sacrament Of the fruite of the vine saith he which surely bringeth forth VVine and not VVater It is hard to suppose that Chrysostom wold say that Christ did drinke not water but wine to reproue the heresie of them which vse water in the Sacrament and yet himselfe haue intention of both wine water to be vsed in the Sacrament I cannot sée it to stand with any reason If the answere can let him follow his owne fancie As for the thing it selfe we doubt not but the Churches of God haue vsed their libertie in the practise thereof for that vppon occasion of the heresie of them that vsed onely water they in some places tooke away this ceremony as by the aforesaid place of Chrysostome the practise of the Armenians may be gathered in other places at least altered the maner of it that whereas it was wont to be added before consecration thenceforth it should be added after that it might be knowne that water was no entire part or matter of the Sacrament but vsed for other purpose indifferently as hath bene before saide The ground whereof Chrysostome as we sée maketh to be this that Christ mentioneth only the fruite of the vine which saith he bringeth forth wine and not water Now this adding of water after consecration as it appeareth by the testimonie of p Ex Ansel vt supra Nechites Patriarch of Nicomedia who affirmeth yâ— in their rites they swarued not from the auncient tradition of their Fathers and by one copie of the q Chrysost Liturg vt supra Liturgie that goeth vnder Chrysostomes name so it is further manifest by the testimonie of r Theod. Balsam Annota in concil Constant â— can â—2 Theodorus Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch in his annotations vpon that Canon of the sixth Councell whereof I now speake where he sheweth the same vse and addeth further which the aforesaid Liturgie also giueth to vnderstand that the water which they put in was hote water The reason whereof he affirmeth to haue bene this to signifie that water blood came out of the side of Christ not cold dead but warme quicke and liuely as implying vertue and power to quicken and make vs aliue spiritually to which mysterie the words of the Canon aforesaid séeme to haue relation in making mention of Chrysostomes Liturgie If water had bene taken to be any necessary matter of the Sacrament surely these men would not haue omitted to haue mingled it before consecration that so the Sacrament might be whole and perfect But hereby it is manifest that it was not so taken â— therfore by the iudgement of the auncient Churches we offend not as maiming the Sacrament of Christ in vsing wine only without mixture of water The exception which the Answ vseth against the Bishops of Armenia is false and feined For whatsoeuer he can pretend of some Armenians that did reuolt yet it is apparant that the Bishops of Armenia did approue the condemnation of Eutyches Dioscorus by their Å¿ concil chalced in episto illusttium personarum pro eod concilio Epistles written to Leo the Emperour in approbation of the Chalcedon Councell wherein they were condemned and with reproofe of that heresie for which they were condemned And that it may not be thought yâ— they did it only for that time they are found again in the t concil constant 6. act 17. 18 in subscript sixth Councell to subscribe against and condemne the heresie of Eutyches euen in that Councell which the Answ alleageth for the defence of his cause And therefore it is hereby manifest that they vsed not wine only with any such
of the church mouth and eyes and spirit of the Church next Gods spirit a verie goodly noble and great part of the church far the best and fairest part of the church but their seuerall opinions are not the whole churches doctrine That question hath so many braunches that in this short discourse I cannot touch all the particularities thereof to our treatises therefore I refer you Was Gelasius Pope of Rome how proue it you if we deny it we maruell why you thinke so If he had bene Pope were all his bookes dogmaticke and definitiue b It skilleth not though he did not For Bellarmine telleth vs that it is most probable that the Pope cannot erre in his priuate iudgement It must be an Oracle therfore what soeuer he writeth whether as Pope or as a priuat man did he if he had bene Pope pronounce them pro tribunal◠Did he send them as responsa and decretall epistles Did neuer Popes write bookes and yet not in all points taken for Oracles Aeneas Siluius after he was Pope wrote much so did others You are wide and go astraie far from the state of that question I say no more but view our questions therein Theodoret Gelasius are answered at large whatsoeuer they thought they were far from your minde Theodoret at that time was so partiall as in the controuersie betweene him and Cyrill it appeareth that he was faine to recant ere he could bee reconciled And in these verie Dialogues we can shew you errors yea foule of his It is not vnlikely that hee followed sometimes the counsell that himselfe in the same Dialogues giueth that is to make a crooked wand straight to bend it as much the other way And now sir to come to Gelasius who in euerie point accordeth with Theodoret against the Eutychian heresie first he writeth thus Sapientia aedificauit sibi domum septiformis spiritus soliditate subnixam c. I will English it for the same cause Thus it is Wisedome that is Christ the wisedome of the father hath builded for it selfe an house grounded or leaning vpon the soundnesse of the seuenth fold spirit which should minister the foode or nourishment of Christs incarnation whereby or by which foode we are made partakers of the diuine nature Verily the Sacraments of the bodie blood of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing for the which cause by the same also are we made partners of the diuine nature and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be or looseth not his being vtterly and is anihilated and becommeth nothing and certes in the action or celebration of the mysteries or Sacraments an image or similitude or resemblance of Christs bodie and blood is celebrated or practised It is therefore euident inough shewed vnto vs that we ought to thinke the same thing to bee in Christ our Lorde himselfe which we professe to be which we celebrate and which we receiue in his image he meaneth in the Sacrament that euen as they the Sacrament of bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer or be chaunged into a diuine substance remaining neuerthelesse in the propertie of their nature right so do they shew that that verie principall mysterie it selfe by which he meaneth Christ God man now being in two natures one person in heauen whom the hereticke Eutyches would haue in heauen to haue lost his manhood and to be but God alone whose efficiencie or perfect nature and vertue they the sayd Sacraments do truly represent the things whereof it properly consisteth it is the two natures of the diuinitie and humanitie in one person still remaining doth remaine and continue one Christ because he is whole and truly being or consisting in his whole and true natures of God and man in one person This testimony of Gelasius might seeme perhaps to make somewhat for a Lutheran because it seemeth to affirme in the B. Sacrament to be two substances a diuine substance bread and wine but the Caluinist lacketh foure of his fiue wits to vrge it which maketh flat against him not only in the verie words but most chiefly in the drift of the argument against Eutyches which by the consideration c His circumstances serue only to blinde the eies of the reader The troubling of the riuer is for the aduantage of the fisher of the circumstances following shall most euidently appeare for that the verie words force of the reason or argument here made do proue Christs bodie to be really present which he denieth Eutyches the Abbot who was condemned in the Chalcedon Councell at which time Gelasius flourished held that our Sauiour Christ his deitie or diuine nature after his ascension into heauen did d As touching the substance not as touching the properties euen as the Papists say of the bread wine consume and anihilate or bring to nothing his humane nature So that by his heresie Christ now shuld be no more man but God alone The truth of the B. Sacrament that therein Christ was really continued was so commonly and firmely beleeued and professed in the holie church e That because neuer any Father taught it the Answerer is driuen to seeke proofe thereof from the heretickes that there were diuerse heretickes that vsed or rather abused the same for an argument pretensedly to confirme their heresies The Maniches to proue that the ill god such was their blasphemous heresie had imprisoned certaine parcels or peeces of the good God in these worldly creatures earthly things alleaged Christ whom they f Vntruth S. Austen doth not graunt it called the good God to be really in the Sacrament but S. Augustine graunting them Christ to be really therein saith hee is there by consecration not by creation or as it were imprisoned So touching our case of Gelasius the Eutychian against whom he wrote held Christ in heauen his humanitie being gone to be only God in like maner as his diuine nature only is in the Sacrament the bread and wine being anihilated and consumed vnto nothing g A leaud tale wholy deuised of the Answ himselfe Eutyches neuer imagined any such matter as shall appeare nothing therein remaining of the substantiall properties or natures of bread and wine but onely Christs diuine nature So certaine a veritie it was then currant in the whole church and to the verie heretickes that Christ is really in the B. Sacrament Whereupon by a similitude or resemblance taken from the Sacrament he wold haue nothing remaining in heauen of Christs humanitie but the same being vanished into nothing his Deitie only there to remain as the bread is cōsumed in the Sacrament Against this similitude Gelasius replieth not denying Christs bodie diuine nature to be really in the Sacrament which was and euer hath bene a generall currant and confessed truth which otherwise had serued his turne much better to deny and thereby had he more readily and directly reiected
at that time and vpon that occasion Thus much of Gelasius whom you affirme for the Bishop of Rome but you cannot prooue it for this Gelasius was neuer Bishop of Rome R. Abbot 11. THe whole béeing of the sacrifice of the masse resteth vpon this next point of transsubstantiation which béeing ouerthrowen the sacrifice consequently falleth to the grounde Nowe that is plainly ouerthrowen by the testimonies of Gelasius and Theodoret amongst others in my former answere alledged who both expresly affirme the substance of bread and wine after consecration But to vnwind himselfe from the euidence of their words it is straunge to sée what miserable and wretched shiftes the Answerer vseth and all in vaine He taketh exception against this Gelasius that he was not Bishop of Rome Then though he were yet all that he wrote was not of authority because he did not pronounce it from his consistory chaire c. Thirdly whatsoeuer he thought he was farre from our mind Againe Theodoret was not of sound iudgement he had foule errors and to make a crooked wand straight he did bend it too much the other way that is to confound Eutyches his heresie he did plainely and flatly deny popishe transsubstantiation But all these shifts the Answerer in his owne conscience knewe to be vaine and friuolous Gelasius after that he was Bishoppe of Rome wrote fiue bookes against Eutiches and Nestorius The treatise whence I tooke those words that I alleadged goeth vnder his name as a part of one of those bookes Thus I finde it reported and no proofe giuen to disprooue it In the end of this treatise he exhorteth them to whom he writeth that as they did with one mind hold the Apostolike sea so they should constantly auouch that rule of Catholicke faith which he had declared out of the writinges of the Fathers that were before him making their holding with the Apostolicke sea a reason why they should giue héede to that which he had written Which may giue a good coniecture that it was Galasius Bishop of Rome and no other Gelasius that was the author of this booke But it is sufficient though it were not Gelasius Bishop of Rome yet that the booke is confessed to be authenticall so that a Bellarm. tom 2. de sacram 〈◊〉 lib 2. cap. 2â— Bellarmine himselfe taketh it to haue bene written by Gelasius Bishop of Caesaria before the councel of ChalcedoÌ„ which was in the yéere 455. b Gregor â—â— valent de reâ—lâ— praesent â—â— transubst 〈◊〉 â— cap. â— Gregory de Valentia in one place saith that the author of that booke was Gelasius of Caesaria as Bellarmine doth in c Idem de â—dololat lib. 2. cap. 5. another that it was Gennadius of Massilia As for Theodoret he was found no other but a Catholicke Bishop in the said councell of d Concil Calced Act. 8. Calcedon and so approoued by generall applause It séemeth that e Leo Epâ— 61. et conciâ— chalced Act. 8 Leo Bishop of Rome tooke him for no other by his letters written to him and for him That which the Answ saith of his recantatioÌ„ is a lewd and slaunderous tale Some stomacke he tooke against f Praefat. iâ— opeâ—a Theodoreâ— Cirill for his procéeding in the councell of Ephesus before he and his company were come Therupon he wrot against Ciril séeking to draw him into suspicion of heresie withoute cause This doing of his was greatly disliked of many and made him to be euill thought of Yet matters were ordered be twixt them and they reconciled ech to other But that he made any recantation of his opinions or was conuicted in that behalfe it is vnhonestly affirmed These shifts therfore not seruing the turne the Answ sifteth the wordes alleaged against him and to wrest them from their plaine and euident meaning he sticketh not to belie the Fathers to father new opinions vpon the old heretickes to deuise affirme matters of his owne head without any testimony or shew of testimony of antiquitie He telleth me that wheÌ„ it is said There ceaseth not to be the substance the meaning is the accedents remaine He wil haue the body of Christ to be made euery day of bread which we beléeue to haue bene once only made of the substance of the Virgin Mary He maketh as if the Fathers were as fond as he himselfe is to say that there remaineth the colour of bread the tast the strength the shewe of bread but yet there is no bread He maketh Gelasius to write he knew not what because forsooth he was before the generall definition of the church and made no exact search of the matter But why doth he not bring proofe of all these straunge fancies that here he hath set downe Is it enough for him to say what he list May I not say as Austin said to the hereticke g August cont epis sundâ— cap. 5. Thinkest thou I am so foolish to beleeue or not to beleeue as thou woldst haue me without any reason giuen He may be a Pythagoras perhaps to his own pupills but we do looke for more then his bare wordes But alas what do these men meane thus to dally with God and to wound their coÌ„sciences by striuing against apparant and manifest truth A Caluinist the Answ telleth me lacketh foure of his fiue wittes to alleage that place of Gelasius being as he saith both in words and in the drift of the argument against him But I tell him againe that the odde fifth witte of a Caluinist findeth strength enough in this place to quell a Papist and wil be himselfe nothing endamaged thereby As touching his circumstances which he setteth downe to explicate the same wordes of Gelasius they are for the most part grosse and shamelesse forgeries which serue indéede for nothing else but to leade a man a daunce round about from the sight of that which at the first sight is plaine enough It shall appeare that they are nothing else by the consideration of the originall and processe of the matter disputed of by Gelasius Nestorius the hereticke held a separation and disioyning of the two natures of Christ the godhead and the manhood and denied the personall vniting of them into one Christ and therefore condemned these spéeches that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God and that God suffered for our sins Against him the councel of Ephesus resolued out of the word of God that the godhead the manhood are substantially vnited into one person so that as the soule body make one man so God and man are one Christ as h Athan. in Sâ—mbolo Athanasius speaketh By reason of which vnion they defended it to be truly said that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God because she is the mother of him who is not only man but also God And so it is truly sayd that i Luc. 1. 35. Act. 20. 28. 1 cor 2. 8. Leo. epis 10. God was borne that God was wrapped
nature of bread wine The words are plaine that in the Sacrament there remaineth the substance of bread and wine What should a man go about to cast a mist before the Sunne or by shifting and paltering to obscure that which is as cléere as the shining light Why do not the Answ and his fellowes say that Gelasius aboue a thousand yeares ago was a Caluinist and erreâ— in that point But he addeth further And surely in the exercise of the Sacraments there is celebrated an image resemblance of the bodie and blood of Christ Whereupon he inferreth thus against Eutyches It is therefore euidently inough shewed vnto vs that we must thinke the same in our Lord Iesus Christ which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image And what do we professe in his image that is in the Sacrament Forsooth saith the Papist we must professe that the substance of bread and wine is abolished and only certaine properties and shewes of bread and wine remaine Why then so must we thinke also of Christ himselfe that the substance of his manhood is extinguished and that there remain only certaine accidents and shewes thereof in which he liued here as a man was crucified as a man but was not man indéed which is the very thing that Eutyches desired But Gelasius telleth vs far otherwise that as these namely the bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer into a diuine substance yet continue in the proprietie of their own nature so they shew that that principall mysterie the force and vertue whereof these do 〈◊〉 represent vnto vs doth continue one Christ whole and true those natures properly remaining whereof he doth consist Let the Answ marke well that we must think the same iâ— Christ as we do in the Sacrament his image If consecration then take away the substance of bread and wine as Papists teach then personall vniting of the manhood vnto God taketh away the substance of the manhood as Eutyches affirmed He knoweth I say he knoweth that the comparison vsed by Gelasius enforceth so much if it be applied to the disproofe of Eutyches his heresie rightly truly reported Now as Gelasius draweth his comparison from the Sacrament to Christ so doth S. Austen as Gratian alleageth him from Christ to yâ— Sacrament a De consecra dist 2. cap. Hoc est This is it which we say saith he which by all meanes we labor to approue that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament thâ—â— is the bodie of Christ euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is truly God and truly mâ—â— For euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those thinges whereof it is made By which words it is most plaine and euâ—dent that as the person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and manhood veriâ—â— and â—â—â—ly so the Sacrament consisting of the visible element and the â—odiâ— of Christ of an earthly thing a heauenly thing as b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Ireneus speaketh conteineth the nature and truth of them both and therefore the nature truth of bread and wine And if the truth then the substance as Gelasius reasoneth concerning Christ c Gelas con Eurych If he be truly man then there is in him the true substance of the nature of man because otherwise he cannot be truly man but abiding substantially trâ—e in the proprietie of his nature So if there be the truth of the outward elements in the Sacrament then there is in them their true substance For otherwise there cannot be the truth of them but as they abide substantially true in the proprietie of their nature This collection togither with the places of Austen and Ireneus I set downe before sufficiently prouing the falshood of Transubstantiation But the Answ thought good to passe it ouer without any mention because he could not finde any answere at all to it which serueth not for the maintenance of Eutyches his heresie as do all those shifts and collusions whereby he goeth about to darken the euidence and clearenesse of Gelasius his words Let vs sée now what good stuffe there is conteined in them In his first and fourth circumstances he bewraieth either his ignorance or else his partialitie and falshood For taking in hand by way of circumstance to set downe the heresie of Eutyches where he should haue done it wholly faithfully he doth it but in part and deceitfully that it may not séem to make so directly against his breadlesse bread For he restraineth it only to yâ— time after Christs ascension as if Eutyches had thought that the humanitie of Christ was not consumed till after the time that he was ascended Whereas Gelasius in the very next words to the place before alleaged giueth plainly to vnderstand that Eutyches meant the abolishing of the substance of the manhood euen while Christ was on the earth though he reteined the shew and aprearance of man yea and continued passible also by reason whereof he sayd his Godhead suffered and was crucified which suffering was the very substantiall propertie of the humane nature For Eutyches held not the annihilating of the properties of the manhood as the Answ imagineth but the conâ—ounding of them with the properties of the Godhead so yâ— the Godhead by those properties did suffered those things which belonged to the manhood And this appeareth plainly in the definition of the Chalcedon Councell where it is thus sayd d Concil chalced Act. 5. in definit They fondly imagine that there is but one nature of the Godhead and the flesh and so by a monstrous confusion of Christ they signifie that the diuine nature or Godhead is passible and subiect to suffering So that Eutyches held the same of Christ on the earth as the Papists do of the bread in the Sacrament that there was the shewe and appearance of man and the properties of the manhood remaining but the substance was consumed euen as these do hold that there is in the Sacrament a shew of bread and the properties of bread remaining but the substance of the bread is vanished How then shuld Gelasius go about to refute the heresie of Eutyches by the Sacrament if his opinion as touching the Sacrament had bene the same that the Papists now is Againe whereas he saith that Eutyches held that the bread was vtterly annihilated nothing remaining therin of the substantiall properties or natures thereof he deserueth the iust reproach of a false vnshame fast person For what a peruerse and wilfull man is he to deuise such a matter of his owne braines for proofe or likelihood wherof there is not so much as any shew to be found in any auncient writer Eutyches forsooth held that panietas viâ—eitas the breaddinesse of
the bread and the winynesse of the wine were gone and Gelasius defended that the breadinesse and winynesse do still remaine though there be neither bread nor wine So his good maisters e Index Expurgat in censura Bertra the authors of the Index Expurgatorius to auoyd the euidence of Bertrams disputation say that he wrote against certaine men which held that there was not so much as the outward formes of bread and wine remaining in the sacrament but that that which was séene was the superficies or outside or skin of the body or flesh of Christ O leaud and vnconscionable men Where were these men or what story euer made mention of any such How dare they of their owne heads so boldly publish such vaine tales How doth that harlot of Rome be witch and enchaunt her louers that for her sake they care not what how foolishly absurdly falsly they speake so that it may serue them for a shift to blind the eyes of the vnlearned But the matter as touching Eutyches is plain by Theodoret that he yéelded and confessed that Christ in the deliuery of the mysteries called f Theodor. dial 1. To these things he answereth Ita nominauâ—t In coâ—â—esso est Hoc verâ— dixisti â—ta dico bread his bodie and wine his blood that he honoured these visible signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature that these were the signes not of his Deitie but of those things whose names they did beare that is of his body blood which he acknowledged that Christ did truly take but hauing taken them changed them into his diuine nature With what face then doth the Answ say that the hereticke thought that the bread and wine were vtterly annihilated that nothing of their nature remained that the Sacrament was a matter onely of Christs diuine nature It were answere inough vnto him to laie open this his false and vnhonest dealing but yet I go forward In saying that Gelasius vsed these words by way of reply to Eutyches his comparison which he doth to the ende that hauing made of Eutyches his heresie what he list he may hew Gelasius his words to be an answere to that fancie of his he againe dealeth amisse with Gelasius For he of his owne accord vseth them to declare the point whereof he disputed namely that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament become diuine thinges so as that by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet they loose not their former substance so though the manhood of Christ by personall vnion with the Godhead be highly aduanced so that it is truly said that the man Christ is God yet he looseth not the substance and nature of the manhood But supposing that the hereticke had vrged Gelasius with that comparison and had affirmed the presence of Christs diuine nature only in the Sacrament how I maruell doth the Answ imagin that it had serued for a direct answere to haue denied the reall presence Should he haue denied the real presence of the diuine nature That none denieth because g Vigiâ— lib. 1. cont â—uty Plena sunt omnia filio nec est aâ—iquis locus diâ—initatis eius praesentia vacuus it is of the nature of the Godhead to be euery where Should he haue denied the reall presence of the bodie of Christ which is the very question How had that serued his turne against the hereticke which neither vrged him with reall presence of the body nor thought that Christ had any body at all What a wise man is this to write thus he knoweth not what without rime or reason without head or taile Surely for Gelasius to deny the reall presence in this place had bin to talke as the Answ doth beside the purpose foolishly idlely of matters wherof no occasion was giuâ—n to him In the second circumstance he setteth downe his Cuckowes note which he rehearseth again in yâ— fourth fifth sixth to fasten it in the eies memories of his secret readers as being a speciall pillar to vphold his cause He telleth me forsooth yâ— the real presence of yâ— body of Christ was a truth commonly knowne currant generally confessed in the primitiue church wherof notwithstanding neither he nor all his followes for him are able to giue any certaine and apparant proofe out of any of the Fathers writings But because the Fathers faile him he would prooue it by the heretickes who as he saith did reason from it as from a comon receiued truth to prooue their heresies It is a shamâ— we say to bely the Deuil why doth the Answ bely the hereticks to make theÌ„ yâ— witnesses of his real presence Indéed if it had béen a matter theÌ„ receiued it had serued fit for the heresies of Marceon Manes Apollinaris such like who taught that Christ had neuer any true bodie indéede but only a phantasy and shew of a body For they might and would haue said do ye not confesse that Christes body iâ— really in the sacrament yet nothing to be séen but the outward shew of bread and wine It is here it is there it is in euery priestes handes in euery piâ— in euery part of the world at once in the quantity and likenesse of a cake What is this else but a fancy of a body Thus they would haue reasoned if it had béene so beléeued especially when the auncient Fathers themselues gaue them occasioÌ„ therof by proouing that Christ had a true body because that the sacrament is vsed in token of his body and bloud wherein he suffered and was put to death for vs. But they vsed not a word to this purpose because there was no such thing then beléeued The manichées whom the Answ nameth in the third circumstance dreamed as S. Austen h Augst con faust Manich. lib. 20. ca. 11. declareth that Christ was really in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse and hanging at euery bough c. and all at once S. Austen telleth them that Christ i Secundum corporalem praesentiam according to his bodily presence could not be at once in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse and therby crosseth the real presence of the Papists wherby they hold christ corporally to be in heauen and in earth in this mans handes and that mans handes and infinite places and all at once contrary to the nature of a true body wherto S. Austen in those wordes alludeth Now wheras the Answ saith that S. Austen being vrged by the Manichée with the reall presence did graunt the same he lewdly abuseth S. Austen For the hereticke k ibid ca. 1. obiecting that the church vsed the bread and wine in the sacrament with the same superstitious conceipt which they maintained namely that Christ was realy bound in them S. Austen Answereth Å¿ Ibid. ca. 13. that the church did not vse the bread and wine for a sacrament of
bodie that he set vpon the signe the name of his bodie that he honoured the mysticall signes with the name of his bodie and blood not chaunging their nature but adding grace vnto nature that the holie foode is the signe and figure of the body and blood of Christ And in this dialogue againe that the mystical signes of the bodie and blood of Christ are offered to God by the priests of God that the mysticall signes do represent the true bodie that they are the image and figure of Christs bodie and maketh a manifest difference betwixt the bodie it selfe and the mysticall signe which is called the bodie By all which spéeches he declareth that the mysticall signes are truly bread and wine yet by consecration made figures of the bodie and blood of Christ and called by the name of the bodie and blood of Christ as Sacraments are wont to be called by yâ— name of the things whereof they are Sacraments to lift vp our mindes from the beholding of the visible elements to the consideration of the thinges signified by them as Theodoret in the first Dialogue sheweth And therefore the Priest hath not in his hands the reall bodie of Christ to offer vp vnto God but only the mysticall signes which represent the bodie so that both Transubstantiation and reall presence and reall sacrifice are all ouerthrowne by Theodorets iudgement Now whereas the Answ vrgeth that we receiue the bodie and blood of Christ Theodoret indeed saith that he beléeueth that he is made a partaker thereof in receiuing the Sacrament We beleeue the same and it is our singular comfort But this receiuing of Christ is not really by the mouth into the bodie but spiritually by faith into the soule We say with the ancient Fathers that this food is not the food of the belly but of the mind not for the téeth to chew but for the conscience to be refreshed with S. Austen checketh that conceit of bodily eating e Aug in Ioh. â—â— 25. Why preparest thou thy teeth thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten f ibid. tr 2â— For to beleeue in Christ this is saith he to eate the bread of life And acknowledging no other reall presence of Christ whereby we may receiue him and eate him but only in heauen he maketh one to demand of him g ibid tr 50. How shall I take hold of him being absent how shall I put vp my hand to heauen to take hold of him there Whereto he answereth Send vp thy faith and thou hast laid hold of him plainly confessing that there is no bodily presence of Christ here but that by faith he is to be receiued sitting in heauen That which the Answ further vrgeth of adoration is friuolous vnlesse he could shew it to be meant of diuine or godly honour that is which is proper vnto God Theodoret plainly referreth it to the mysticall signes but to giue diuine honour or adoration to mystical signes or to formes of bread and wine is manifest idolatrie The word of adoration here vsed by Theodoret is verie often vsed by the seuen interpreters in the Gréeke and by the vulgar Latine interpreter also not only for diuine adoration but also for ciuill worship And this diuerse signification h Aug. Quaest in Gen. lib. 1. cap. 61. S. Austen noteth vpon that which is written coÌ„cerning Abraham that i Gen 2â— 7. he adored the Princes of the Hittites as the Latine translation speaketh It is néedlesse to vse many proofes hereof séeing the Answ maisters the k Rhe. â—â—no tat Act. 1â— 25 Rhemists confesse that this word of adoration doth not alwaies note diuine worship but is commonly vsed in the scriptures towards men So the glose of the Canon law maketh a construction of adoration by which we may as it is there said l De conse dist 3. cap. â—â—nâ—rabâ—les Adore any sacred or holie thing or m Thom. Aquin 22. q 8. aâ— â— any excellent creature as Thomas Aquinas saith which adoration they expound by hauing reuerence thereof Therefore Theodoret referring adoration to the mysticall signes must not straightwaies be taken to vnderstand diuine honour and worship but only importeth a religious and holy regard and reuerence to be had thereof as being not now common bread and wine but diuine and heauenly mysteries sanctified by the word and spirit of God to most excellent and singular vse Which reuerence S. Austen ascribeth not only to the Lords Supper but also to the n Aug. de doct Chr lib. 3. ca 9. Sacrament of Baptisme by the Latine word Venerari So that the Answ can gather nothing out of Theodoret to serue his turne Wheras he further saith that Christ calleth nothing by a wrong name c. he sheweth his folly and péeuish ignorance Signes and Sacraments are vsually called by the names of the things whereof they are signes though in substance they be not the same and therefore are wrong named in respect of the substance but rightly and truly named in respect of the signification o 1 Cor. 10 2. The rock was Christ saith S. Paul He saith not saith p Idem quaest sup Leâ—it â—7 S. Austen The rocke signified Christ but speaketh as if it were Christ which yet was not he in substance but in signification Nothing is more vsuall either in sacred or prophane writings then thus to speake without transubstantiating one thing into another Christ saith that he is the vine and his father the husbandman must Christ therefore néeds be turned into a vine and the father into a husbandman He saith that we are his shéepe are we therefore turned into shéepe This must néeds follow if it be true which the Answ fondly speaketh of the misnaming of things But this is taken out of his blinde deuotions and serueth him as a reason wherby to seduce in corners silly and ignorant soules O saith he ye may not thinke that Christ will misname any thing and therefore when he called bread his bodie without doubt he turned it into his bodie Meane knowledge wil teach any man that this is but fond and childish trifling And thus much of Theodoret. Now that which was further added in my former discourse out of Austen Irenaeus for declaring and iustifying that which was spoken by Gelasius and Theodoret the Answ slily passeth ouer as being too manifest for him to cauill at But partly it hath alreadie and partly it will by and by méete with him againe P. Spence Sect. 13. YOur secundum quendam modum out of Saint Augustine ad Bonifacium epist 23. affirmeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie to be his bodie but the maner is the point for he was a S. Austen speaketh not of a maner of reall being but of a maner and forme of speaking and signifying See the Answere visible and passible on the earth in heauen in Maiestie in the Sacrament sacramentally and inuisibly but yet truly As for the examples vsed in
fantasticall body of Christ we read onely of a true and substantiall body wherein he is like vnto vs wherein hée sitteth at the right hand of God g August Ep ad Darda 57. in Ioh. tr 30. in some one place of heauen as S. Austen noteth and is there conteined by reason of the maner of a true body vntill hée come to iudge the quicke and the dead at which time he shal come in the same forme and substance of his body in which he went from hence to which we beleeue he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken from it the nature of a body yâ— it should be any where in that maner as yâ— Answ and his fellowes Marcion-like do teach We say as Vigilius also saith h 〈…〉 con 〈◊〉 the flesh of Christ when it was vpoÌ„ the earth was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen surely it is not on the earth As for the words which he alleageth I maruell how he can make them good to be S. Austens In all S. Austens works extant they are not found They are cited out of the sentences of Prosper and there they are not Beda hath many fragmentes of Austen but not a word of this i L 〈…〉 de sacra Eucha Lanfrancus vseth them as his owne wordes without any quotation of Austen and that writing against Berengarius where he would surely haue countenanced them with the name of Austen if they had béen his The trueth is for ought that I can perceiue Lanfrancus is the authour of them and they are his ilfauoured answere to Berengarius his allegation of S. Austens words which we haue now in hand Yet because Gratian by errour hath made S. Austen the reputed father of them mistaking be like Austen for Lanfrancus as very oftentimes he is found to put the names of Austen and others to those things which they neuer spake I wil doe the Answe that curtesie to take them for S. Austens words onely so that he wil not make S. Austen in this point to be at bate with himselfe First therefore according to the doctrine of S. Austen and all others who haue defined what sacraments be they are alwaies k Aug decate chiâ—rud ca. 26. visible signes and therefore to be discerned with the sense For l De dâ—ct C 〈…〉 l. 2. cap 1. a signe saith the same S. Austen is a thing which beside the shew that it offereth to the senses causeth by it somewhat else to come into the minde and vnderstanding In sacramentes therefore being signes m â—x ser ad infan Beda 1. Cor. 10. CoÌ„â— Maximi Aria lib. 3. cap. 22. one thing is seene another thing is vnderstoode by that which is séene therefore againe doth he call the sacrament n In Iohan. tra 80. a visible word because the visible creature being consecrated to the sacramentall vse doth in the vse thereof after a sorte set before our eyes that which the word of God deliuereth to our eares yea and doth as it were speake vnto vs also to admonish and put vs in minde of the things thereby so signified Now S. Austen doth verie precisely put difference o De consecr di 2. cap. Hoc est betwixt the sacrament which is the visible signe and the thing or matter of the sacrament p In Ioh. tr 26 so that in diuersitie of sacramentes yet the matter of the sacrament that is the thing signified may be the same and q Ibid. a man may be partaker of the sacrament or signe and yet haue no benefite at all of the thing signified Notwithstanding by reason of that relation which by the word of God is wrought betwixt the sacramental signe and the thing thereby signified r Epist 23. in quaest super Leuit. q. 75. the signe or sacrament as hath béen before said doth vsually take vnto it the name of the thing signified as Å¿ De consecr dist 2. cap. vtrum sub Gratian noteth againe vnder S. Austens name that the name of the bodie of Christ is giuen not onely to the verie bodie but also to the figure thereof which is outwardly perceiued But what shall we take this figure of the body to be by S. Austens iudgement Marry saith hée t Ex ser ad infan Beda 2. Cor. 10. that which you see is bread as your eyes also tell you which words the Answe hath left vnanswered as also the other v De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est that the sacrament conteineth the nature and trueth of the visible element But by those wordes S. Austen referreth vs to our eyes and willeth vs to beléeue our eyes that it is verily bread Now then séeing that by his iudgment a sacrament is a visible signe and the visible signe in the Lordes supper is bread how may it stand with his doctrine that the flesh couered in the forme of bread is a sacrament of the flesh the bloud vnder the forme of wine is a sacrament of the bloud and that by the inuisible flesh is signified the visible body of Christ Surely if we take flesh to signifie truely and properly flesh this standeth not with S. Austens grounds For séeing flesh is not visible in the sacrament neither is there any appearance thereof to the sense nay it is called héere inuisible flesh it cannot be said to be a sacrament that is a visible thing Therefore we must séeke another meaning of the wordes flesh and bloud according to the other rule whereby the outward elementes take vnto them the names of the thinges represented by them By flesh and bloud then we vnderstand the visible elements which are called by these names and that not onely for that they doe signifie the true flesh and bloud of Christ but also as w August ser ad inâ—an aâ—ud Bed 1. cor 10. touching the spirituall fruite as S. Austen speaketh in x Ambros de sacram lib. 6. cap. 1. grace and vertue as saith saint Ambros y Cypria de caena d 〈…〉 de resuâ— chri concerning the inuisible efficiencie and vertue as Cyprian speaketh are the same to the faith of the receiuer according to that which Gratian saith concerning a prayer of the Church crauing to receiue the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ that some not z De consâ—cr dist 2 cap. species without probable reason did expound that trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ to be the verie efficiencie or working thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes Now because the visible element which is thus called flesh is no such thing in outward appearance neither hath anie shew of this vertue therefore it is said to be flesh couered in the forme of bread inuisible spirituall a matter of vnderstanding For sacramentes conteine those thinges which they conteine not openly but couertly not in appearance of the thinges themselues but vnder the signes of the visible
and not to bethinke any thing els For these things must not be iudged of as they seeme but all mysteries are to be considered with the inward eies that is to say spiritually The forging of this lesson maketh the Answ to play the Athenian mad man so that wheresoeuer he heareth of the body of Christ in the sacrament hée dreameth of his reall and carnall presence wheresoeuer he readeth of eating the flesh and drinking the bloud of Christ hée imagineth his carnall and Capernaitish feeding But let him vnderstand Chrisostome by Chrysostomes own rule and he shall finde nothing in him to stand him in any stéed for these grosse conceites P. Spence Sect. 15. YOur place of S. Cyprian Our Lord gaue at his supper bread and wine c. De vnctio Chrismat Besides many other places of S. Cyprian proouing the reall presence marke this place vnmaymed and tell me what you thinke of it and how you a I like it very well for hee saith plainly that Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples with his own hands bread and wine like it But yet you make me maruell what you make in this Sermon prowling for a testimonie where the Sermon it selfe is wholly against you haue you in your church the vse b VVe neither haue it nor care to haue it because christ hath not taught of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended haue you retained c Dâ—gma tuum â—â—rdet cum te tua cuâ—pa remordet any shadowe of the publique and generall reconciliation of sinners spoken of him in this Sermon done by the Church with musick and common Iubilations and reioycings of the whole multitude in their reconciliation as heere S. Cyprian if you wil admit him for the authour of these Sermons wonderfull gallantly setteth out And withall doe ye like of this thing M. Abbot that he saith that it was done in that time by publique order of the Church when Christ as he vttereth it brought out the prisoners from hell Or as he saith a little before when as descending to hell he turned the olde captiuitie and led it captiue Or doe you like of this point that he left this example to his Church by tradition yet continuing that there should be in the Church absolution of sinners Thinke you Christ descended into hell I doubt you doe not except in that most pitifull damnable sorte to speake no worse of it which d It is horror to the Papist which is the speciall comfort of a true christian maÌ„ with horrour I must remember that hee should suffer hell tormentes himselfe vppon the Crosse What meant you then to put vs in minde of this booke so much condemning your practises and so notoriously testifying the auncient custom of hallowing of the oyle vpon this time of Christes passion to serue for all the yeare after And yet the fathers forsooth are yours against vs. I oppose nothing but wish to be quiet els you might heare whether they speake for vs. Thus then to the place he had shewed before that the Sacramentes one of the which hee maketh vnction by expresse word doe worke our ioyning to Christ for that coniunctions sake he inferreth Our Lord then at the table where he eate his last supper with his Apostles gaue with his owne handes bread and wine but vpon the crosse he yeelded his body to be wounded by the handes of the soulâ—iours But why or how to giue theÌ„ bare bread no But â—hat sincere trueth and true sinceritie being more secretly imprinted in the Apostles should declare vnto the nations What that the Sacramentes were bare e Not so but that being in tâ—en own nature but onely commoÌ„ creatures â—read wine yet by grace and by the worde of God they are to our faith not onely in name but in power the flesh bloud of christ the pledges of the grace of God the assuraÌ„ces of our immortalitie the seales of our redemption and as it were vessels wherin God setteth before vs all his promises of blessings that we may receiue and enioy the same bread and wine a deep high point forsooth in such secret figuratiue sort to be shewed No M. Abbot they should shew the nations How wine and bread are the flesh and bloud and in what sort the causes agree to the effects and diuers names or kindes are reduced or brought to one essence Do you heare essence they be brought to one essence or one substance helpe that sore if you can with all your cunning and the signes and the things signified are reckoned by the same names And he hath told you why they should be called by one name because as he said before with the same breath they were brought to one essence In the next period he termeth the Sacrament f Not because of the substaÌ„ce of iâ— but because of the mysterie and signification the tree of life Read what our side doth tell you vpon this and infinite such places in their bookes which my simplenesse is not worthy to beare or touch and yet you oppose me wil mine answers as though the credite of the cause hanged wholly vppon my small skill and learning or as though I must not beleeue the Catholique religion except I were a doctor in the same R. Abbot 15. THe Answerer being wéeried as it séemeth with the euidence of the testimonies cited against him and therefore desirous to take breath a while maketh an idle vagary in answering this place of a câ—prian de vnct chriâ—matis Cyprian and vrgeth me with other matters conteined and commended in that sermon which hée saith are not vsed or receiued in our Church as Chrisme absolution the descending of Christ into hell But I maruell whether he were well aduised or not when he wrote these thinges or whether hee vnderstood what Cyprian said To answere to them in order First hée demaundeth Haue you in your Church the vse of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended He bringeth no reason whereby to prooue anie necessitie of Chrisme and therefore it may be sufficient to answere him with the like demaund Haue you in your Church of Roome the custome of washing eche others feete vppon maundy thursday so much commended in this sermon and which you are here told that Christ b Hâ—â— soleâ—â—i d 〈…〉 tione omni tempore aâ—endum instituit instituted to be alwaies done with solemne deuotion in the vse wherof Saint c Ambros de sacram lib. 3. cap. 1. Ambrose also thought that his church of Millaine did more rightly then the old church of Roome in not vsing it He wil say the they haue lawfully refused this We say that we haue as lawfully refused the other These were arbitrary and indifferent ceremonies taken vp by the will of men and by the will of men and by the libertie of men to be refused againe d Staâ—ulen in Dâ—oni Aâ—cop Eccle. Hieraâ— Stapulensis vppon Dyonisius noteth many
ceremonies obserued in the auncient Churches that are now omitted in the Church of Roome Though the Church of Rome were as sound as euer she was that we might say as Ambrose said that e Ambros de sacra liâ— 3. cap 1. we desire in all thinge to follow the Church of Roome yet we would say as he addeth We are men too that haue iudgement and vnderstanding as well as they of Rome and haue as great libertie in vsing or not vsing ceremonies as they haue Secondly he asketh me Haue you retained any shadow of the publicke and generall reconciliation of sinners spoken of in this sermon c. Let him turne the wordes and suppose me demaunding of him the same question concerning the Church of Roome Verily she hath it not she hath no shewe nor shadow of it neither the maner nor the matter of it The Answ in vpbraiding our Church with yâ— want hereof doth much more lay open the shame and reproch of his owne friendes The Church of Roome is she that hath broken the bonds of all discipline and made a mockerie of all religion in stéed of absoluing men she hath bound them faster in stéed of reconcilement to God she hath thrust them further off from God Whatsoeuer defect or want our Church hath in this be halfe it is but asker of that wound wherewith the Church of Roome had wounded vs and as a weakenesse remaining after a gréeuous and deadly sicknesse from whence we haue not as yet béen able perfectly to recouer our selues But thankes be vnto God that we haue before vs the substance of true absolution and reconciliation in the word of the gospel which the Church of Roome withholdeth from her Children We preach to the repentant absolution and attonement with God by the bloud of Iesus Christ wherby they finde comfort and release from the bondes of their sinnes and giue glorie vnto God Whereas the Church of Roome giuing men ashes in stéed of bread and setting before them the superstitious deuises of men in stéed of the soueraigne bloud of Christ and mocking them with the supposed absoluing words of a grumbling Popish Priest in stéed of the comfort of the gospell of Christ leaueth them either senselesse and not féeling their owne estate or restlesse and vnquiet whilest in the absolutions of sinfull men they finde no assured trust of being absolued and pardoned with God Concerning the descending of Christ into hell I doubt not but he speaketh what he thinketh but vnderstandeth not what he speaketh nor what he ought to thinke The iudgement of learned and godly men both old and new are very diuerse as touching the meaning of this point I preiudicate not the iudgement of any man that hath not in it a preiudice against yâ— word of God For my part I imbrace it as an article of the Créede and I take it that I am to conceiue euery article of the Créede as importing somewhat that entirely and properly concerneth my self either as touching my creation or saluation And therefore I simply reiect as a méere fancie the opinion of the Papists that Christ descended to Linebus patrum to fetch the fathers from thence But if for any respect properly touching our saluation it may be iustified that Christ in soule descended to the very place of hell as the very letter of the article doth import I willingly subscribe the same In the meane time that which the Answ cauilleth at which some learned men haue deliuered for the meaning of Christes descending into hell as touching the doctrine whether belonging to this article or to the other of his suffering I embrace and hold because I know it conteineth the certaine vndoubted trueth of the word of God and particularly toucheth the redemption of mine own soule We beléeue by the word of God that Iesus Christ the sonne of God is our redéemer not onely in his body but also in his soule that in both he hath paied a price for vs f Irene adu har lib. 5. giuing as Ireneus speaketh his soule for our soules and his flesh for our flesh not onely his flesh or bodie for our bodies but his soule also for our soules The scripture iustifieth so much He shall giue g Esa 33. 10. his soule an offering for sinne The storie of the passion of Christ iustifieth the same where before any thing ailed him as touching any bodily paine he is described vnto vs h Mat. 26. 37. to be sorrrowful greeuously troubled i Mar. 14. 33. to be afraid in great heauinesse k Luc. 22. 44. to be in an agonie yea such an agonie and so beyond measure afflicting him that the sweate was like drops of bloud trickling from him downe to the ground that the father thought it expedient to send l v. 43. an angell from heauen to comfort him that hee was driuen to crie â—ut m Math. 26. 3â— 3â— My soule is heauie euen vnto the death father if it be possible let this cup passe from me To referre these spéeches and affections to any bodâ—â—y sufferings were fond and childish sith as yet he suffered nothing in body but as he himselfe expresly teacheth they are to be construed immediatly of the passion and sufferinges of his soul Therefore Hierome saith n Hieron iâ— Eâ—a â—â— That which wee should haue suffered for our sinnes he suffered in our behalfe c. Whereby it is manifest that as his bodie being scourged and rent did beare the signes of that iniurie in stripes and blewnesse of woundes so his soule also did verily suffer greefe for vs least that partly a trueth partly a lie should be beleeued in Christ Whereby he testifieth that Christ suffered for vs both in body and soule and euen that that we should haue suffered for our sinnes and that if he comming in the nature of man to suffer for vs had suffered onely in body it should be in part a lie which wee beléeue of his suffering for vs because as touching his soule it should not be true S. Ambrose héereof saith thus o Ambrâ—s â—n Luc. ca. 22. lâ—â— 1â— de fide ad Grati. lib. 2. cap. 3. He laboured in his passion with deepe affection that because he destroyed our sinnes in his flesh he might also by the anguish of his soule abolish the anguish of our soules Which as it appeareth by those spéeches already mentioned at the first entrance of his passion so it is further most effectually shewed by his crying with a loud voice vpon the crosse My p Math. 27. 4â— God my God why hast thou forsaken me A mysterie the depth whereof the verie Angels themselues are not able throughly to search that the sonne of God should be humbled so farre for our sakes as to be for the time in our forlorne and desperate state vnder the burden of the wrath of God to féele his fathers indignation q Esa â—3 8 10. smiting him
first which hee tooke to make the Sacrament but in being made the Sacrament it was no longer wine as if Cyprian had said thus Christ tooke wine and made it no wine and though it were now no wine yet he called wine his bloud Cyprians wordes are euident that Christ called wine his bloud and that by wine is represented his bloud which cannot be till it be made a sacrament Therefore in the Sacrament there is wine which representeth and is called the bloud of Christ Such testimonies he saith are the scrappes and parings and crummes of the fathers But let him remember that a crumme is enough to choke a man and so doth this testimonie choke him so that hee staggereth and stammereth out an answere whereof he himself can make no reason if he were enquired of it by word of mouth His other idle talke is answered b Sect. 2. before Pet. Spence Sect. 17. SAint Augustine ad Adimantum maketh so flatly against you that I wonder why you alleage it Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body Why should he doubt to say it was so when he knew it was so when he gaue the signe of his bodie But what signe a bare signe no sir but such a signe as contained in it the thing signified really how prooue you it Euen thus Hee writeth against the Manichees that condemned all the olde testament as being the euill Gods testament such was their vile blasphemie among other places they condemned this place of Leuiticus 17. Sanguis pecoris erit eius aâ—ima This place saith S. Augustine is spoken figuratiuely not that it is the very soule or life of the beast but that in it lieth the soule or life of the beast neither is the bloud a bare signification of the beasts soule but such a signe as containeth in it the very soule of the beast and therefore of the same speech he hath Quaestio 57. in Leuiticum made particular discourse where he hath these wordes We are to seeke out such speeches as by that which containeth do signifie that which is conteined â—â— because the life is holden in the body by the bloud for if the bloud be shed the life or soule departeth therefore by the bloud is most fâ—â—ly signified the soule and the bloud taketh the name thereof euen as the place wherein the Church assembled is called the Church You a I see the Answerer play with his owne fancie altogether stranâ—e from S. Austenâ— meaning as shall be shewed see he maketh in this place the bloud of the beast a signe of the beasts soule but such a signe as contained the soule in it Now in the other place ad Adimantum by you obiected S. Augustine forgat not this point of this place touched but in excusing that place of Leuiticus and interpreting it he exemplifieth it by the wordes of Christ which they admitted all the sorte of them as being the wordes of the good God of the new testament as they termed him saying I may interpret that precept to be set downe by way of signe For our Lord doubted not to say c. So that this place is brought by S. Augustine to shewe that in the B. Sacrament there is a signe containing the thing and therefore called by the name of the thing so in that of Leuiticus Moses called the bloud the soule of the beast because it is such a signe as containeth the soule of the beast really in it This exposition is irrefragable because it is b VVhich S. Austen himselfe neuer dreamed of S. August own exposition who could best expound his own meaning And against the Manichees he could not bring any other meaning possibly of This is my body but that For they confessed Christ to be really in the Sacrament in his bodie because the euill God had tied him or as they foolishly vttered it certaine peeces of him aswel in the Sacramentall bread as in other bread eares of corne stickes hearbes meates and all other creatures and that the elect Manichees by eating those things and after belching them out againe and otherwise auoiding them did let out at libertie the good God Christes body And therefore after these expositions agreeable to their heresie this place did fitly as S. Augustine bringeth it in expound that of Leuiticus As Christ in saying This is my body must meane as you Manichees expound it This is a signe of my body in which signe the partes of my body are bound euen so the bloud of the beast is the life is as much as the bloud of the beast is a signe of his life in which signe his life is contained Thus did S. Augustine excellently quoad homines answere the Manichees with their owne opinion And therefore to conclude S Augustine in calling it signum doth inferre most necessarie that his body is present because it is a signe in which the body is conteined R. Abbot 17. TO shew further that our Sauiour Christ said of verie bread This is my body and therefore that the Sacrament is not really and substantially but onely in signe and mysterie the body of Christ I alleaged the words of S. Austen Our a August cont Adimantum cap. 12. Lord doubted not to say This a is my body when he gaue the signe of his body The wordes are plaine that Christ in a certaine vnderstanding and meaning called that by the name of his body which is indéede but a signe of his bodie Now with this place of Austen the Answ dealeth as b Leu. deca 1. lib. 1. Cacus the théefe dealt with Hercules his Oxen when he drew them backward by the tailes into his caue So doth this man violently pull and draw the wordes of Austen backward into his den of reall presence and streineth them whether they wil or not to serue his turne in that behalfe But the lowing of the Oxen to their fellowes descried the theft of Cacus and the wordes following in S. Austen himselfe doe prooue that the Answ doth but play the théefe M. Harding was content to say that S. Austen in heate of disputation spake that which might be greatest aduantage against the hereticke not most agréeable to the trueth or to his owne meaning but little did he thinke that the place should serue to prooue any thing for his part But the Answ hath learned a tricke to make the wordes speake for reall presence which neuer was in S. Austens minde Forsooth hauing in hand against the Manichees to expound the wordes of Moses law The bloud is the soule or life he telleth them that the meaning thereof is that the bloud is a signe of life in which signe the soule or life is really conteined and to shew this we are tolde that he bringeth the words of Christ This is my body which he spake of the signe of his body but yet such a signe as doth really conteine the body and therefore we must thinke that the bodie of Christ
matter but reason and trueth see the answere at large to steale scrappes out of the fathers and not to care for their drift and purposes but onely to patch vp matter for a shew and to the sale The figures be of the old testament in the newe testament Christ fulfilleth them It followeth But it had been no figure except there were a true bodie Surelie an emptie thing as is a phantasie can take no figure The Marcionites said Christ had a phantastical body that saith Tertullian could not haue a figure No can Doe not the phantasticall bodies of spirites exhibite to the eies a certaine figure or shape it is too well knowen to the verie Negromancers and the Apostles feared the like of Christ But he meaneth if Christ had no body at all but a phantasticall body Melchisedech in the old testament had vsed no figure of that in bread wine For of c Vntrueth for he talketh not of it and though hee had yet doth it not stand the Answ in any steed as shall appeare it he talketh so that that is a figure of my bodie must needs be interpreted thus This that is this figure of the old testament of bread and wine vsed by Melchisedech which I now fulfill est corpus meum is nowe become my bodie by my fulfilling in this my new testament in veritie a figure of the olde testament in a mysterie It followeth Or if therefore he made the bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. This illation of Tertullian can haue no wit nor sense if he meant not Christ to be really in his verie true bodie in the Sacrament It made for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should be crucified If Christ had giuen his Apostles bread onely and not his verie flesh then by Tertullians minde he must haue giuen a bready body or a body of bread to be also crucified so sure he was that the thing he gaue his Disciples was the same that was also afterward crucified What say you to this maister Abbot Marcion said that Christ had in steed of a heart a kind of fruit called a Pepon Why saith Tertullian did he not call a Pepon his bodie as well as the bread or rather after Marcions opinion his reason is because Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an olde figure of the bodie of Christ Lo your id est figura is by Tertullian as much as id est vetus figura an old figure Then by your minde Christ fulfilled not the old figure in veritie although Tertullian saith neuer so plainly he made the bread his bodie But gaue them the old figure therefore to end this testimonie of Tertullian I answere you that the premisses considered you must needes graunt that the same id est is not referred to corpus meum but to hoc That which in the old testament was a figure of my bodie is now being made so by my speaking dicendo omnipotentia verbi by the almightie power of the word as S. Cyprian de caena domini vttereth my bodie Note these points whereby it so appeareth by Tertullian to be meant First the scope of his fourth booke to prooue the figures of the old lawe and the fulfilling of the new Secondly Tertullian hath figura non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus If hee had meant a figure then in the new testament he had not said fuisset sed esset figura Thirdly when hee saith Christ called bread his bodie and not a Pepon as Marcions follie would haue him to haue spoken hee telleth that Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an ancient figure of his bodie so that Tertullian meaneth not the bread to be a new figure of his bodie instituted by Christ in his Supper of the new testament but an auncient figure of the olde testament vsed by Melchisedech Fourthly a little after this place he saith that Christ the reuealer of aniquities did sufficiently dâ—clare what hee would haue the bread to haue signified calling bread his bodie Wherby d Tertullians minde iâ— that the name of bread had bin vsed to import the body of Ch 〈…〉 â—â— prefigurâ—â—â—at bread indeede should be appointed to signifie the â—â—me body This he sayâ—h Ch 〈…〉 ful 〈…〉 〈◊〉 he took bread ind 〈…〉 and called it hiâ— body his mind is that Christ would haue the bread in the old testameÌ„t to haue signified his body to come not now instituting a new figure in bread Fifthly he saith a litle after thou maiest acknowledge the olde figure of bloud in the wine Lo the wine in the old testament was an ancient figure of his bloud What can plainlier vtter or expresse his meaning Lastly it followeth Now saith he it is at his maundy he consecrated his bloud in wine who then that is speaking certain words of Iacob the Patriarche euen by the said Iacob figured wine by bloud he attributeth e A Figure to the name of wine consecration to wine it selfe a figure to wine consecration to his bloud in wine a figure to the old law consecration to the new a figure to the olde lawe fulfilling thereof to the newe what meane you then maister Abbot to charge vs with guilefull concealing clipping and paring of Tertullian who deliuer him vnto you so roundly and so wholly wee play not with you as maister Iewell did who brought out of Opus imperfectum sermo 11. in Chrisostomes name in almost an hundreth places of his booke as putting great trust in the same these wordes against the Sacrament and against Chrisostome for that verie point in a notable Sermon of his made for that purpose In the vessels of the church is not contained the true body and bloud of Christ but a figure of his body and bloud Whereas the f An answere altogether vain and senslesse as the very wordes shew authour meaneth it of the vessels taken out of the temple of Ierusalem by Nabuchodonosor which point he guilefully suppressed For the authours wordes are these For if it be a sinne and dangerous to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses as Balthazar teacheth vs who drinking in the holy cups was therfore deposed from his kingdome and bereaued of his life if then it be thus dangerous to transferre these holie vessels to priuate vses in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his bodie is conteined c. You may see howe Balthazar was stolne out of the text to make those olde Churches vessels to be the vessels of our Christian temples Vpon those words of Tertullian how crossely you inferre your conclusion vppon your owne supposed sense of id est figura it may I hope appeare vnto you vpon the consideration of that which I haue discoursed concerning his testimonie except you could wage Tertullian to say that he made no comparison betweene a figure of the old testament and the veritie of the new answering the same and that he
forsooth Gelasius must forget what he hath to proue and must say for you that the Sacrament is nothing but a signe and then howe serueth it for an argument against Eutyches if it be but bare brad in one nature onely whereas if you looke vpon the whole testimonie of Gelasius as I set it downe largely to you you shall see yea with halfe an eye that the meaning of these wordes An image and similitude of the body and bloud of the Lord is performed in the celebration of the mysteries is no other but this that his being in the Sacrament both in a diuine substance as himselfe tolde you and also ioyned with the naturall properties of bread is a figure and resemblance of his two natures remaining in heauen vnconfused Thus you care not howe foolishly you make the authour to speake so he affoord you wordes and sillables to make a shew Looke vpon Gelasius and bethinke your selfe I haue answered him at large Looke a in the end and there you shall find it because it was written before yours came to my hand I was loth to write it againe in his orderly place for that writing is somwhat painfull to my weake head and yeares Wherefore I craue you to beare with me in that matter R. Abbot 19. THe wordes of Gelasius are these An a Gelas cont Euty Nestor image or resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries or sacraments Héereby Gelasius giueth to vnderstand that the sacrament is not the verie bodie of Christ but the image and resemblance of his body It is more plaine by that which he addeth We must therfore think the same of Christ himselfe which we professe in his image that is to say in the Sacrament Marke how he distinguisheth Christ himselfe and the image of Christ The Sacrament therefore which is the image of Christ is not Christ himselfe Thus the wordes themselues doe manifestly giue that for which I alleaged them But the Answ telleth me that I alleage Gelasius héere contrarie to his owne meaning euen by mine own confession How may that be Forsooth I would before haue Gelasius his drift to be that as Christ is in heaueÌ„ in two natures so héere vpon the earth in the sacrament is bread with the body and so both in heauen and héere would haue two seuerall natures but nowe in this place I would haue the Sacrament to be nothing but a signe and bare bread in one nature onely But hée knoweth that he speaketh vntrueth both in the one and in the other Of the former he himselfe hath acquited me before saying b Sect. 9. you would haue the Sacrament a memorie of Christ as though hee were absent Then belike I would not haue the bodie of Christ really present héere vpon the earth in the Sacrament Of the other I acquited my selfe in that very place which he taketh vpon him to answer For I added immediately vpon the alleaging of those words thus Yet are not the Sacraments naked bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill but substantiall and effectuall signs or seales rather assuring our faith of the things sealed therby and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruite benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ To answere him to both in a word thus I say that as the water of Baptisme doth sacramentally imply the blood of Christ though the blood of Christ be in heauen so likewise the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper do sacramentally imply the bodie and blood of Christ though the same bodie and blood be in heauen and not vpon the earth And therefore neither did I before say nor do now that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures really being vpon earth but of bread and wine being on earth and the bodie and blood of Christ being in heauen the one receiued by the hand of the bodie the other only by the hand of the soule which only reacheth vnto heauen Againe as water in Baptisme is not therefore bare water because the blood of Christ is not there really present so no more is the bread of the Lords table bare bread although there be no reall presence of the bodie but it doth most effectually offer and yéelde vnto the beléeuing soule the assurance of the grace of God and of the forgiuenesse of sinnes That which he further addeth as touching the drift and purpose of Gelasius how lewdly it peruerteth his wordes and maketh them to serue fully for the heresie of Eutyches against which Gelasius writeth I haue declared before and so well haue I bethought my selfe héereof as that I doubt I may in that behalfe charge the Answ conscience with voluntarie and wilfull falshood and desperate fighting against God Pet. Spence Sect. 20. YOur terme of Seales applied to the Sacraments is done to an ill purpose to make the Sacramentes no better then the Iewes Sacramentes were To handle that matter would require a greater discourse which willingly I let passe But yet I must tel you that the said opinion is verie derogatorie to the a Vntrueth for the passioÌ„ of christ hath had his effect from the beginning of the world effect of Christes passion of the which the Sacraments of Christes Church take a farre more effectuall vertue then the Iewes Sacraments did Read our treatises of that matter for I list not to runne into that disputation R. Abbot 20. HE disliketh that I call the Sacramentes Seales Yet héere his owne conscience could tell him that we make not the Sacrament bare bread and wine as he and his fellows maliciously cauill Though waxe of it selfe bâ— but waxe yet when â—◠〈◊〉 with the Princes signeâ— it is treason to offer despight vnto it So whatsoeuer the bread and wine be of themselues yet when they are by the word of God as it were stamped and printed to be Sacramentes and seales it is the perill of the soule to abuse them or to come vnreuerently vnto them But why is not the terme of sâ—ales to be approoued in our sacraments Surely S. Austen calleth them visible a August lib. de catechâ—z â—ud ca. 26. hom 50. de v. Tit. poenâ—t Seales and why then is it amisse in vs Forsooth because it maketh our sacraments no better then the sacraments of the Iewes Indéede our Sacramentes are in number sewer for obseruation more easie in vse more cleane in signification more plaine and through the manifest reuelation of the Gospell more méete to excite and stirre vp our faith and in these respects they are better then the sacraments of the Iewes but as touching inward and spirituall grace they are both the same neither is there in that respect any reason to affirme our sacramentes to be better then theirs For they did b 1 Cor. 10. â— eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke that we doe The same I say that we
place he putteth me in minde to answere him with a saying of Luther Hoc scio pro certo quod si cum stercore certo Vinco vel vincor semper ego maculor But to the matter The b Timothean August de 〈…〉 e. ad 〈◊〉 in â—ine heretickes as S. Austen reporteth affirmed that the godhead of Christ was really changed into the manhoode This they would prooue by the wordes of the Gospell The word was made flesh which they expounded thus The diuine nature is turned or transubstantiated into the nature of man In like sort the Answ and some other cogging marchants of his part single out the wordes of Tertullian Christ made the bread his body and will needes haue vs to beleeue thereby that the bread is really turned and transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ They both argue alike vpon the word made For answere hereof I shewed how Tertullian expoundeth his owne meaning by these wordes that is to say a figure of his bodie Further I said that that phrase or maner of spéech Christ made the bread his bodie doth not enforce any Transubstantiation Which I shewed by comparing therewith the verie like spéech or phrase before alleaged out of the Gospell c Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh For as it was absurdly gathered by the Timotheans that because the word was made flesh therefore it ceased to be the word so as fondly is it gathered by the Papists of Tertullians words that because the bread is made the bodie of Christ therfore it ceaseth to be bread The one enforceth not for the Timothean any transubstantiation of the word therefore neither doth the other for the Papist any transubstantiation of the bread The spéeches are like The word was made flesh the bread is made the bodie of Christ Now hath he not sent me a worthy answere to this The words of S. Iohn saith he what proue they touching the Sacrament What argument is this The word was made flesh the sense is the word assumpted flesh vnto it And it is not to be taken as the words do sound therefore this text This is my bodie is not to be taken as the words import A verie mightie vpstantiall argument Nay a very pithie sound answere and worthie to be registred in Vaticano I make a comparison betwixt the words of S. Iohn and the words of Tertullian and he answereth me of a comparison betwixt the words of Iohn the words of Christ How many mile to London A poke full of plummes Yet as a childe plaieth with a counter in stéed of a péece of gold so he delighteth himselfe in a rascall shift as if he had made a verie substantiall answere But sée yet further the extreame folly and ignorance of this man It is saith he as if you should reason thus I am the vine is a figuratiue speech therefore I am the light of the world is a figuratiue spéech And what is it not by a figure that Christ is called the light of the world Surely Christ is the light in respect of the darknesse of the world Séeing therefore darknesse is vnderstood figuratiuely in the world a man would thinke that that which is called light as opposite to this darknesse should be so called by a figure Light is properly a sensible qualitie and darkenesse the p 〈…〉 tion therof and both haue relation to the bodily eye They are by a Metaphore applied to the soule and so is Christ called light euen as he is elsewhere called d Mal 4. 2. The sunne of righteousnesse not properly I trow but by a figure vnlesse the Answ be of the Manichees minde who as Theodoret saith would sometimes say that e Theodo haerâ—t faâ—ul lib. â— Christ was the verie sunne Now therefore séeing that Christ is no otherwise called the light of the world then he is called a vine a yoong boy in the Vniuersitie will easily finde a Topicke place in Aristotle to prooue that this argument holdeth very well Christ is called a vine by a figure therefore he is also called the light of the world by a figure Further he saith But I pray you sir is this saying The world was made flesh like to This is my bodie I answere him Truly sir no. But yet these are like The word was made flesh and the bread is made the bodie of Christ as transubstantiation of the word cannot be proued by the one so transubstantiation of the bread cannot be proued by the other Whereas he demandeth whether bread stil remaining do assumpt vnto it Christes bodie into one person his question is idle I haue answered before that the vnion of Christ with the Sacrament is not personall or reall as he vnderstandeth reall but relatiue and sacramentall as in Baptisme also it is But as the word remaineth being personally vnited to the flesh so the bread remaineth being sacramentally vnited vnto Christ That which he saith of Luther is false Luther did not teach that the bodie of Christ was ioyned into one person with the bread But now I wish him to bethinke himselfe who it is that careth not what he say so that he say somewhat Now for further declaration of the words of Tertullian I alleaged a saying of S. Austen Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood which also he hath made vs and by his mercy we are the same that we receiue Wheras the Answ saith that the first part of this sentence serueth very wel for him it is but like the dotage of the melancholy Athenian We say with S. Austen that Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood yet not being on earth to be receiued by the mouth but f August in Ioh. tr â—0 Sitting in heauen to be receiued by faith But as Tertullian said Christ made the bread his bodie so here Austen saith Christ hath made vs his bodie and blood The maner of spéech is here also alike and therefore I inferred hereof that Tertullians words do no more proue yâ— the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ then S. Austens do proue that there is a transubstantiatioÌ„ of vs into the bodie of Christ That which I excepted as touching those words Yet wee are not transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ the Answ falsifieth and peruerteth thus yet we are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament This is the faithfulnesse that he vseth But what answere maketh he Forsooth it would aske a long discourse to answere me and therefore he hath thought good not to answere me at all For as for that which he saith it serueth directly for me We are become one with Christ saith he let him speake as S. Austen speaketh we are made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into him but by being ioyned vnto him So say we that the bread is made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into his bodie but by hauing tied vnto it
by the word of God the promise of that grace and blessing that is yéelded vnto vs by and in the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ Or else let him shew what commission he and his fellowes haue to tell vs that the word Made must import transubstantiation in the place of Tertullian and in S. Austen must import none If they haue no such then let them giue vs leaue to say that as we are made the bodie of Christ not by chaunging our substance but by being vnited and ioyned vnto him so the bread of the sacrament is made the bodie of Christ not by the chaunging of the nature of it as Theodoret saith but g Theodor. diâ—l 1. by adding grace vnto nature not by changing the substance but by altering the condition and vse thereof not by loosing his former being but by hauing the bodie of Christ vnited vnto it in such sort as I haue before declared through the almightie power of the word of God and the vnspeakable working of the holy Ghost So that as S. Ambrose saith h Ambrâ—â— sacra lib. 4 cap. 4. The bread and wine are the same that they were yet are chaunged to other also They are the same in substance that they were before but as touching the vse the vertue power and effect thereof they are chaunged into other As for the meditation that is offered vnto vs by the words of S. Austen it is too diuine heauenly for the Answerers grosse and fleshly conceit who can imagine no other receiuing of Christ but by the mouth nor eating of his flesh but into the belly We become the mysticall bodie of Christ by Baptisme as S. Paul teacheth Eph. 5. 26. There we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone There also as S. Austen noteth i August ser ad infan â—â—da 1. Cor. 10. We are made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ so that though one die before he come to the Sacrament of the bread and the cup yet is he not depriued of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament seeing hee hath founde that alreadie which this Sacrament signifieth Into this holie communion and fellowship with Christ we grow more and more through faith in the exercise of the word and of the other sacrament he abiding in vs and we in him he ministring vnto vs and we receiuing of him through the holy Ghost the suck and iuice of his heauenly grace euen as branches from the Vine wherby as his members we are quickened to euerlasting life Hereof Cyril and Hilary haue written indéed very diuinely but they must haue readers that are as diuinely and spiritually minded not such as the Answ is who turneth all to his owne carnall and Capernaitish imagination He should gather from these that such as is our vniting and ioyning vnto Christ such is our eating of his flesh and drinking his blood Our vniting vnto Christ is mysticall and spirituall not carnall and bodily Therfore such also must our eating and drinking be As for that grosse and bodily eating Cyrill maketh a straunge absurd matter of it when k Cyril aduer Theodoret. anathe â—â— he saith to Theodoret Doest thou pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man and prophanely vrge the mindes of them that beleeue to grosse imaginations and assaie to handle by humane conceits those things which are to be receiued by only pure and sincere faith By which wordes he plainly sheweth that the opinion of the Papists of the eating and drinking with the mouth the verie humane flesh and blood of Christ is a grosse and prophane imagination and therfore litle helpe may the Answ hope for to his purpose by any thing that Cyrill saith P. Spence Sect. 23. BVt S. Augustine saith Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see and drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me that is a S. Austen speakâ—â—h simplâ— of eating and dâ—inking â—ith the mouth and denieth the same of câ—tting in gobbets he saith nothing not to cut it in gobbets as the Capharnits imagined and as flesh to be bought in the shambles nor in this visible shape as it were Anthropophagi You must M. Abbot not snatch peeces of S. Augustine to make vp a patched testimony to serue your owne turne For so you may make your Doctor say what you will haue him But you must consider the circumstances of the place and thereafter iudge of the meaning as heere he talketh of the Capharnites butcherly Anthropophagicall imagination and therefore he telleth how we must eate Christs bodie I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament being spiritually vnderstood it shall giue you life c. As who should say b As who should say ye sâ—all not eate him in peeces but ye shall eâ—te him â—hole A miâ—â—rable anâ—were you shall not eate him cut in peeces but entire in a Sacrament in a most diuine sacramentall maner and in a spirituall high mysterie but yet most verily For you imagine c Spiritually importeth that it is a thing done by the spirit not by the bodie and therefore that we eate Christ by the faith of the heart not by the chewing of the teeth spiritually to be applied to the substance wheras it is to be referred to the maner We receiue his verie flesh not fleshly but spiritually We eate his verie bodie but not corporally or after a bodily maner as we eate common meates R. Abbot 23. FOr disproofe of that carnall eating and drinking and consequentlie of Transsubstantiation I alleaged Saint Austens exposition of Christes wordes in the sixth Chapter of saint Iohn concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood Saint Austen writing in Psal 98. falleth into treatie of the offence that many tooke at Christes words and sheweth the reason therof that they a August in Psal 98. tooke them foolishly they vnderstood them carnally and thought that he would cut them peeces of his flesh But if they had not bene hard hearted they would haue thought It is not without some cause that he saith this Surely there is some secret mysterie in it His disciples he instructed saith he and said vnto them It is the spirit that quickeneth c which he expoundeth thus Vnderstand spiritually that which I haue said Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being spiritually vnderstoode it shall giue you life This place doth plainly denie that eating and drinking of the very flesh and bloud of Christ which the Capernaits dreamed of and telleth vs that we do not eat Christes verie flesh nor drinke his very bloud namely with the mouth and body but that for our eating and drinking wee haue a sacrament commended vnto vs which being though visibly celebrated yet spiritually vnderstood doth make vs partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christ to euerlasting life
alreadie and therefore it will not serue the Answerers turn to carry him so farre as he would faine go That which he mentioneth first of false Gréeke is but his péeuishnesse and malice Beza nameth it Solaecophanes which is a figure noting an appearance of incongruitie by departure from the vsuall and ordinary course of Grammar construction The same hee noteth may be excused in this place as being borrowed from an Hebrew manner of speaking And whereas g Discou ca. 1. sect 39. Gregory Martin without regard of his owne credit auouched that not one example could be brought of the like constructtoÌ„ to be resolued as Beza translateth this M. Fulke sheweth him diuerse the very same in all respects as Col. 1. 26. Apoc. 1. 4. 5. and 3. 12. and 8. 9. And therefore a man might haue said to him as Austen saide to Iulian the Pelagian heretike h August coÌ„t Iul. Pelagâ—li 5. cap. 2. I am sory that you should so abuse the ignorance of them which know not the Greeke tongue that you would not feare the iudgement and censure of them that haue knowledge of it As touching the other point Beza indéed vpon some coniecture supposeth that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for you might happily be added from the margin into the text as in other places sundrie haue obserued But yet he fréely and ingenuously confesseth that he found them in all copies generally that he saw and therefore leaueth them in the text entire and whole and translateth them as the words of the holy Ghost No man denieth the words no man maketh question of them but receiueth them for Canonicall scripture Therefore all that the Answ saith in that respect is but vaine cauilling Let vs consider the words of the text which he saith are so against vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shead for you Here saith he the words which is shead for you must by the order of construction be referred to the cup and so the cup that is to say that in the cup shall be said to be shed for vs which must néeds be vnderstood of the blood of Christ whereof it must follow that that which was in the cup was the blood of Christ I answere him that there is no necessitie by the Gréeke construction to referre those words to the cup as is proued by the examples of the like construction before alleaged And in this point G. Martine was so taken tardie by M. Fulke for his bold asseueration that I doubt it was one matter that killed his heart The Answ by some secret intelligence belike hath learned to vrge the matter otherwise and leaueth Martin to go alone He denieth not therefore but that the like incongruities may be found but demaundeth reason why we should translate it to a sense that admitteth incongruitie of spéech and refuse the sense wherein the text is congrue inough Reasons inough haue bene giuen but they are not yet confuted and therefore it was folly to make any further mention of this matter First there is not found any one of the auncient Fathers either Gréeke or Latin that taketh the words otherwise then as we translate them Secondly i Basil Ascet defin 21. S. Basil expresly readeth the Gréeke according as Beza translateth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In my blood which blood is shed for you Whereby it is apparant that either the text was so read at that time as is likely for that Basil in that booke setteth downe thâ— very words of the scripture or at the least that he being a Bishop so famously learned and most â—loquent in the Gréeke tongue tooke the construction and sense of those words to be no otherwise Thirdly Erasmus in his translation dedicated to Leo the tenth Bishop of Rome and approued by him at which time he was knowne to be no enemy to Transubstantiation yet translated those words as Beza doth being a man I trow as well séene in Gréeke construction as Gregorie Martin was Fourthly what reasonable man will déeme that the Euangelist or Christ himselfe would thus speake This blood which is shedde for you is the newe Teshament in my blood or thus This blood is the newe Testament in my blood which I alleaged to the Answerer to be an absurd tautologie and he speaketh nothing at all whereby to defend it Moreouer it séemeth strange to me that the Euangelist setting downe the proper name of bloud to which shedding must be applied and that betwixt the word cup and the mention of shedding should notwithstanding intend the word shed to be referred rather to the cup which is further of and to say that the cup was shed for vs then to the proper name of bloud which is next vnto it and to which it properly belongeth Againe the bloud of Christ could not be in the cup without being shed and separated from his bodie and to this end did Christ beside the Sacrament of his bodie institute seuerally and distinctly the sacrament of his bloud thereby to betoken the shedding the issuing forth the seuering of the same bloud from his bodie in his passion for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes in respect whereof he saith This is my bloud which is shed for you Nowe his bloud was not shed or seuered from his bodie but in his passion For hee shed not his bloud twise Therefore the wordes of shedding cannot be referred to that in the cup. Seuenthly the bloud of Christ as the k Bellar. tom 2 conâ— â— lib. 1. cap. 11. Papistes themselues confesse is not in the cup till the wordes of consecration be all spoken Therefore when Christ had sayd no more but This cup the bloud was not yet there but onely wine and therefore the words which is shed for you cannot be referred to the cup because it was not wine which was shed for vs. Further also the Answ saith straightwaies after that Christ began to his Disciples of that which was in the cup. But wee cannot beléeue that Christ did eate himselfe or that he dranke the very bloud of his owne body Therefore we beléeue not that that in the cup was the bloud that was shedde for vs or that the Euangelist would intend to say This cup which is shed for you Last of all the Answ fellowes of farre greater worth then himselfe confesse partly that there is not at all partly that it may be iustly doubted whether there be or not any place of Scripture sufficient to prooue Transubstantiation as I haue before shewed Therefore they graunt that this place doth not necessarily require any such construction as whereby Transubstantiation should be concluded Whereby they giue to vnderstand that they themselues do know that all that they say both of this place and others is nothing els but cauilling without any certaine ground or assurance of truth These reasons I take it are sufficient and strong
a De consâ—â— dist 2. cap. species receiue the truth of the flesh blood of Christ Some saith Gratian not without probabilitie expound the truth of the flesh blood of Christ in this place to be the effect thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sins Whereby it is euident that those some did vnderstand the receiuing of the truth of Christs flesh and blood to be not that corporal eating and drinking which the church of Rome mainteineth but the participation of the effects of his passion that is forgiuenesse of sinnes according to that which was before declared out of S. Austen Now to note that in receiuing the effect and fruite of the flesh and blood of Christ we are said to be partakers of the same flesh and blood I alleaged this exposition in my former Treatise which doth plainly testifie the same But the Ans as a melancholy man imagining himselfe to be made of glasse and fearing euerie wall least he should be crackt in péeces thinketh his reall presence to be here disputed against and telleth me that I do fowly abuse Gratian in making him an aduersary of Transubstantiation reall presence and moreouer that those words do not serue for exposition of the words of Christ What Gratian thought I stand not vpon it may be he was as absurd in his conceits as the Answe is I speake of them whose expositioÌ„ he alleageth who as touching their church praier tell vs that a man in receiuing the effects of Christs flesh and blood is said to receiue the truth of his flesh and blood and this is all for which I alleaged it Albeit it séemeth to me indéed now a strong proofe against reall presence For if they had thought that they had receiued the very truth of the flesh and blood of Christ according to the substance in the sacrament they would haue vsed other words to eâ—presse the effects thereof and not pray againe to receiue the truth that is the effects But it skilleth not whether it be a proofe to this purpose or not There be belleâ— inough to ring against Transubstantiation and reall presence though the clapper of this should be pulled out It is fit inough to shew that for which I brought it and therefore all this answere of his is but a fond cauill P. Spence Sect. 29. YOu charge our doctrine with Caphemitish eating drinking of Christs bodie and of those monstrous blasphemous horrible conceits which some of our captaines haue fallen into As for those conceites I cannot conceiue what they might be on gods name and therefore will conceiue no answere to them till I vnderstand your conceits but referre thâ—se conceits to your owne conceit But you a Vntruth for the Capernaits thought they should eat with their mouthes the flesh of Christ and so do the Papists roaue wide from the marke in calling vs Capharnites for wee are farre inough from thinking to eate Christes bodie peece-meale as flesh in the shaâ—bles We eat him in a Sacrament whole inuiolable like the paschal Lambe without breaking a bone of him yeâ— not hurting of him nor brusing of him nor tearing of him with our teeth as the â—apâ—erâ—its dreamed of Remember what S. Thomas Aquinas a Papist in the office of the Sacrament saith and all the church singeth A sumente non concisus non confractus nec diuisus integer accipitur Which sequences Luther was very farre in loue withall a late Papist of Oxonfâ—rd sing not long sâ—thence in a most sweete tune of that same matter Sumeris sumptus rursuâ—â— sine fine resumi Neâ— tamen absumi diminuiuâ— potes Beware beare not false witnesse against your neighbours R. Abbot 29. I Charge them with the grosse errour of the Capernaits in their doctrine of eating Christs bodie and blood But he answereth me that I roaue wide from the marke in calling them Capernaits And why I pray Marry sir the Capernaits thought they should eate Christes bodie by péeces but they say they eate him whole Surely but that the iudgement of God is great vpon them it were wonder that such vnhaâ—soâ— imaginations should prenaile with reasonable men I haue spoken hereof a Sect. 23. before As for his sequences verses they may haue their coÌ„uenient vnderstanding without that absurd coÌ„struction of eating drinking which he maketh I told him of monstrous blasphemous horrible conceits that some captaines of his part haue râ—nne into by defence of that eating He answereth me very pleasantly that he vnderstandeth not those conceits but referreth those conceites to mine owne conceit But M. Spence you could haue tolde him what they were because you had bene before vrged therewith but could not stumble out any answere to them Let me tell him what they are I referre him first to the glose of the Canon law where he shall finde this conceit that b De conse dist 2. cap. Qui benè It is no great inconuenience to say that a Mouse receiueth the bodie of Christ seeing that most wicked men do also receiue it The maister of the sentences knoweth not what to conceiue hereof c Lib. 4. dist 13 What doth the mouse take or what doth he eate God knoweth saith he As for him he cannot tell Yet he holdeth that d Ibid. It may be foundly said that the bodie of Christ is not eaten of bruite beasts But he is noted for that in the margine Here the Maister is not holden and the e In erroribus condemn Paris Parisians set it downe for one of his errours not commonly receiued that he saith that the bruit croature doth not receiue the very body of Christ Let him looke the conceit of f Pat. 4. qu. 45. Alexander de Hales If a dog or a swine should swallow the whole consecrated host I see no reason why the bodie of Christ should not withall passe into the belly of the dog or swine He commendeth Thomas Aquinas by the name of a Papist and his catholicke church hath set him in his place next the Canonicall scriptures Let him looke the conceits of this Papist g Thom. Aqui. sum par 3. qu. 79. art 3. in res ad 3. Albeit saith he A mouse or a dog do eate the consecrated host yet the substance of the bodie of Christ ceaseth not to be vnder the forme of the breaâ— so long as the same form doth remain c. Aâ— also if it shuld be cast into the mire And again some haue said that straitwaies assoone as the SacrameÌ„t is touched of the mouse or dog there ceaseth to be the bodie of Christ but this saith he derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament And againe h Ibi. in corp arti The bodie of Christ doth so long contiâ—â—e vnder the sacrament all formes receiued by sinfull men as the substance of bread would remaine if it were there which ceaseth not to be by and by but remaineth vntill it be digested by naturall heate These are those
horrible and blasphemous â—onceits which the Answ could not conâ—eiue out of my former words These are yâ— fruits of their Transubstantiation and reall presence that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued into the bellies of dâ—gs and swine and mice that it may be in the dirt in the bellies of vngodly men vntil the forms â—e consumed and digested beside other filthy matters i Antonin summ p. 3. tit 13. cap. 6. q. 3. de defectib Missae of vomiting vp the bodie of Christ and eating it again being vomited and drawing it out of the entrals of the mouse or other beast that hath eaten it c. which are most leathsome to any Christian eares to heare of 〈◊〉 yet very venturously disputed of and resolued vpon by Antoninâ—s no meaner a man then Archbishop of Florence and as I thinke Saincted by the Pope for his great paines Neuer any Capernaite more grosse neuer Manichée more blasphemous then these villainous imaginations which these caiâ—ifes haue published to the world and their reall presence standing they cannot resolue how to shift of these things but stagger as Harding did with it may be this and it may be that and it may be they know not what Therefore let the Ansvv now thinke with himselfe with what reason he bid me beware of bearing false witnesse against my neighbour Let him remember that théeues and malefactours do vsually call true euidence false witnesse but yet their honestie and truth is no whit the more S. Hierom saith that k Hierony in Esa 66. li. 18. they vvhich are louers of pleasures more then louers of God and are not holy both in bodie and spirite do neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood whereof he himself speaketh in the sixth of Iohn He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life Where out of the words of Christ himselfe he secludeth not only bruit beasts but also vngodly and vnholy men from eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ Yet it may so be that not only vnholy prophane men but also bruite beasts may eate of the Romish host or Sacrament Therefore the Romish Sacrament is not the very flesh and blood of Christ as the Romish faction would beare vs in hand that it is P. Spence Sect. 30. THe conformitie of the words of the Euangelists and of S. Paul is so great a matter as that of it selfe it offereth good and great cause of noting it without the warning of any Allen Parsons or any other neuer so learned And your similitude of the sacrifices of the old lawe so agreeably vttered and yet by your leaue but by one Moses alone and not by three sundry Euangelistes and one Apostle as it is in this case fitteth not to this For Moses endewed with the spirite of God could not in any wordes imagine to attribute a A meere fansie Their Sacramentes yeelded the same fruite to them that ours do to vs. See sect 20. such a working force ex opere operato to the legall expiations which wrought ex adiuncto fidei and not of themselues as is to be giuen to the Sacramentes of Christ howsoeuer your side abase them as low as the verie Iewish Sacramentes I am glad that the plain consent of the Euangelistes and Saint Paul doth so little like you in this point R. Abbot 30. THere is vrged for the proofe of Transubstantiation the consent of the Euangelistes and S. Paul saying all alike This is my bodie whereas if they meant not to be vnderstood literally the one would haue expounded the other But the conformitie of these thrée Euangelistes and S. Paul is no stronger an argument as I haue tolde him to prooue Transubstantiation then the continuall calling of the old sacrifices of Moses law by the name of expiations and attonementes was to prooue that they were verily and indéed expiations and attonementes for sinne which yet were but types and figures thereof as the Sacrament is a figure and signe of the bodie and bloud of Christ The exception of the Answ that that was spoken but by one Moses this by thrée Euangelistes and one Apostle is vaine The holie Ghost spake in both places by whomsoeuer and if the Answ argument be good must néedes haue altered that spéech in Moses lawe But that the goodnesse of it is distrusted by his owne fellowes also it followeth after to be shewed That which he addeth in this place of the working force in both sacraments the old and the new is impertinent I spake not of the working force of either but of the like phrase of spéech concerning both But yet whereas he saith that the Sacraments of the new testament haue force by the very work wrought I must tel him that he speaketh without scripture without father a thing absurd in itselfe and contrary also to that which he hath said before If wee obtaine the effects of the Sacrament by receiuing Christ in fayth hope and charity togither with the entrance of his body into ours as he sayd before then the sacrament giueth not that grace by the very worke wrought as he sayth héere If it giue grace by the very worke wrought as he saith héere then it is not to be ascribed to fayth hope and charity as he sayth there The councell of Trent hath tolde vs that a man a Concil TrideÌ„t sess 6. ca. 9 may not assure himselfe that hée hath receiued the grace of God But if the sacraments yéeld graâ—â— by the very worke wrought a man may assure himselfe that he hath receiued grace because he may assure himselfe that he is baptised And what reason is there why infants naturals and franticke persons should be excluded from receiuing the Lords supper if the Sacrament haue his force of the verie worke done But S. Austen plainly refuteth this conceit as touching our sacraments b August in Ioh. tra 80. Whence hath the water such force saith he to touch the bodie and clense the heart but that the word worketh it and that not because it is spoken but because it is beleeued Therefore hee calleth it according to the Apostle c Rom. 10. 8. 9 The word of faith because if thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue in thine heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued To this purpose he alleageth that God is said d Act. 15. 9. to clense the heart by faith and that of S. Peter that e 1. Pet. 3. 21. baptisme saueth vs not the washing away the filth of the flesh that is not for the very worke wrought but the answere of a good conscience towardes God To this effect Tertullian saith f Tertul de resurrect carnis The soule is sanctified not by the washing of water but by the answere of faith And S. Austen againe g August quae vet noui test q. 59. He cannot attaine the heauenly gift which thinketh