Austen in plaine termes concluding It is therfore a figure of speech Phi. Sir you bee misconstered all this while The verbe which coupleth both partes of the proposition togither doeth not here signifie this to bee simply that but this to be really changed in that as if our Lord had said THIS breade is now become my body that is substantially changed into my body Theo. Sir you shuffle the words of Christ to serue your dreames yet you scape not the rockes which you thought to shunne If the bread must be changed in substance that is become no bread afore it be the body of Christ ergo breade is not the body of Christ and so your construction is a plaine contradiction to the letter which you would interprete For Christ said this bread is my body that cannot be true say you vnlesse the bread loose first his substance and ceaâ—e in deede to be breade and so where Christ saide this bread is my body you expound his wordes in this sort that it must first be no bread afore it can be his body Besides in absurdity there is no difference whether you say bead is Christ or bread is made Christ changed into Christ. For that which is made Christ without all question is Christ so the same blasphemies are consequent to this exposition that were dependant on the former Phi. Well yet the bread may be abolished and Christs body succeede in the place where the bread was without any of these inconueniences Theo. Thither are you faine to flie when you be hardly pressed with the sequeles of the literall sense but in the meane time you forget that you be cleane gone from the wordes of Christ which you pretended to folow He said this is my body you to expouÌ„d his speach say THIS must first vanish away and then my body shall succeede in the same place and be couered with the same accidents though THIS neither in shew nor substance be my body Phi. This is sophistry which the catholike fathers were neuer acquainted with Theo. If it be any it is yours not ours you first forsooke the exposition of Christs words which the learned and godly fathers with one accord witnessed deliuered then stuÌ„bling at the letter you hatched your carnal local presence against Scriptures and fathers and when the wordes of Christ would not sit your fansies you racked wrenched them til you brought both them to nothing and your selues to a maze that you knew not what you said where as if you had continued their interpretation you had cleared the wordes of Christ from all perplexities inioyed the fruites of the Lords table without perill of Idolatrie or impietie eased your selues of those absurdities which you be now plunged in vp hard to the eares Phi. What interpretation meane you Theo. That which the Fathers generally beleeued publikly taught in the church of Christ. Phi. And what exposition was that but the same which we now vrge you resist The. Shew but one ancient father that euer affirmed the wordes of Christ at his last Supper were properly spoken or literally to be taken and wee will receiue your sense Phi. What you will not Theo. What neede you repeate it when you heare vs offer it Phi. Not a father that euer auouched these words of Christ this is my body to be properly spoken or literally taken Theo. Not a father that is ancient Phi. How would you lie if you might be let alone I can name you presently a good number of them that in exquisite termes shal affirme the words of Christ to be literall Theo. Shal they be auncient Phi. I can not tel what you mean by auncient you would haue them belike before Christ was borne Theo. As though there were not difference both in the ages and credites of those writers that haue gone before vs in the church of Christ. Phi. They shall bee auncient Theo. Damascene perhaps Theophilact Phi. Yea Epiphanius Euthymius and many others The. Many others is a note aboue ela These foure affirme that Christ did not say this is the image or figure of my body but this is my body which we confesse was needefull for the first ordayner and institutor of the Sacrament to say Mary by those wordes our Sauiour did not meane to abolish the substance of breade or wine but to vnite the force and fruite of his flesh crucified and blood shed for our sinnes to the elementes that receiuing the one we might through faith bee partakers of the other by the working of his spirite and power of the word which he then spake much lesse did these later writers the eldest of them being more thaÌ„ 700 yeres after Christ intend to gainesay the fathers that were before them of greater iudgement and deeper knowledge howsoeuer in shew they seeme loth that Christes wordes should be recalled to a bare and naked figure which for our parts we do not Phi. A bare figure nay they will haue no figure in the wordes of Christ to that ende they vrge the very letter as excluding all tropes figures which you now take vp in a spleene to frustrate our proofes Theo. Did the Fathers meane to frustrate your proofes when they tooke vppe this doctrine many hundrethes before you or your reall presence were hearde of Philand Do they teache the wordes of Christ eate this is my bodie to bee figuratiue Theo. I haue shewed you causes sufficient to fray the godly from the letter which doth rather kill than quicken the carnal interpreters yet am I content to forgo them all if in expounding the wordes of Christ figuratiuely the catholike and ancient fathers do not make expressely with vs and against you directly Tertullian The bread which was taken and giuen to the Disciples Christ made his body by saying this is my body that is the figure of my bodie Why doth Christ call bread his bodie Marcion vnderstandeth not this was an old figure of the body of Christ speaking by Ieremie they laide their handes togither against mee saying come let vs cast wood on his bread that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightner of antiquities in calling the bread his bodie fully declared what he would then at his last Supper haue the bread to signifie Augustine discussing the wordes of Moses the soule of all flesh is his blood The thing saith he that doth signifie commonly taketh the name of the thing that is thereby signified as it is written the seuen eares of corne which Pharao dreampt of bee seuen yeres he said not they signifie seuen yeres the seuen kine be seuen yeres many such speeches So was it saide by Paul the rocke was Christ hee sayde not the rocke did signifie Christ but as if it had beene the selfesame thing which by substance it was not but by signification Euen so the blood because it signifieth the soule is
after the manner of Sacramentes called the soule I can interprete this precept to consist of a signe or figure for the Lord did not sticke to say this is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie And speaking in Christes person he sayeth This bodie which you see you shal not eate neither shal you drinke the blood which they that crucifie me shall shed I haue commended a Sacrament vnto you that Sacrament spiritually vnderstood shal quicken you It is therefore as you hearde before out of the same Father a figure of speech commaunding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion For the Lord at his supper saith he commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood Cypriā The Lord at his last supper gaue bread and wine with his own hands on the crosse he gaue his body to be wounded by the souldiers handes that syncere truth secretly printed in his Apostles might teach the Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood and how the causes agreed with their effectes and different names and kindes might be reduced to one essence and the signes signifieng and the thinges signified might be called by the same names Origen There is in the very Gospell a letter that doth kill not onely in the old Testament is there a deadly letter found but in the new Testament there is a letter that doth kill him which doeth not spiritually conceiue the thinges that be spoken For if you take this saying except yee eate my flesh and drinke my blood according to the letter this letter killeth And againe Not the matter of bread but the word recited ouer it doth profit the worthy receiuer This I speake of the typical and figuratiue body Ambrose It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried this therefore is the Sacrament of that true fleshe The Lord Iesus himselfe sayth this is my body Before the blessing of these heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing after consecration the body of Christ is thereby signified In eating and drinking at the Lords table We signifie the body and blood of Christ that were offered for vs. The new Testament is confirmed by blood in a figure of which blood We reciue the mysticall cup. The priest in the church seruice faith Make this oblation ascribed reasonable and acceptable for vs which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Hierom When the Pascal lambe was eaten Iesus taketh bread which strengthneth the heart of man and goeth to the true sacrament of the passouer that as Melchisedec had done offering bread wine in a profiguratiō of him so he likewise might represent the truth of his body blood For Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it transfiguring his body into the breade Chrysostom This table hath he prepared for his seruants that hee might euery day for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ shew foorth in a Sacramēt vnto vs bread and wine after the maner of Meschisedec Before it be sanctified we cal it bread but the diuine grace once sanctifieng the same by the ministerie of the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread coūted worthy to be called the Lordes body though the nature of bread continew there still So that in the sanctified vessel there is not the true body of Christ but a mystery of his body is there contained Nazianzene Let vs bee partakers of the passeouer figuratiuely notwithstanding as yet though this Passeouer bee more manifest than the former Theodoret. Our Sauiour in deed changed the names called his bodie by the name of the signe and the signe by the name of his body The reason whereof is manifest to those that are acquainted with the diuine mysteries He would haue the receiuers of these heauenly mysteries not looke to the nature of the things which are seen but hearing the alteration of names beleeue the chāge which is there made by grace For he that called his natural body wheat bread named himself a vine the same Lord honored the signes elements of bread wine which we see with the name of his body blood not changing the nature of the signes but casting grace vnto nature Prosper The diuine breade which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the body of Christ being in deed but the sacramēt of Christs bodie Which words your own law thus expoundeth The diuine bread which truly representeth the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly wherfore it is said after a sort which is non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in exactnes of truth but in a mysterie of signification So that this is the meaning it is called the body of Christ that is the body of Christ is thereby signified Bede The solemnities of the old Passeouer being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the church is desirous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in steede of the flesh and blood of a lamb he substituting the sacrament or sacred signe of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to be the same to whome the Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedec Druthmarus The Lord gaue his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sinnes that being mindfull of his deede they might alwaies in a figure do that which he was to do for thē not forget his loue This is my body that is in a sacrament Wine maketh glad increaseth blood and for that cause the blood of Chirst is aptly figured thereby Bertram That bread wine is figuratiuely the body and blood of christ the maner thereof is in a figure representation in mysterio non veritate in a mysterie not in truth plaine speech Phi. You thinke to winne the spurres but you may chance to loose bootes and all These places which you bring haue a shew before the simple but there is no pith nor substance in them and with one puffe wee can blowe them all away Theo. It must be such a puffe then as wherwith you first blew away christ and his gospel and brought in your own decrees to ouerrule both God and man with the breath of your mouthes Phi. You scoffe my meaning is that I can crosse them all with one answere Theo. If they were sprites you might driue them away with crossing but being ancient and godly fathers they will tell on their tales to your reproofe crosse you what you will or can in their wayes Phi. I will not crosse it in their way but in yours Theo. When you will wherefore serue my feete but to tosse it out of the way or at lest to step ouer it that it hinder not
mysterie that Christ is eaten vnder the formes of bread and wine Theo. None at all if you set your teeth and iawes on worke to eate him as the Capernites thought they should when they peruerted the wordes of Christ. Phi. They supposed they should haue seene and tasted mans flesh which is horrible Theo. Eating as I haue shewed you doth consist not in seeing or tasting but in chamming and swallowing since you therein consent with the Capernites though you could alleadge twentie diuersities betweene their maner of eating yours yet both are corporal and contrary to that doctrine which Christ deliuered in the sixt of Iohn â— For that as I haue proued was intended and referred to the soules and spirits of men not to their throats or entrals and therefore well in couering the body of Christ and deluding your senses you may differ from the Capernites but in preparing your teeth and iawes for the flesh of Christ and in drawing his wordes from their mystical and figuratiue sense you ioyne with the Capernites against all the Catholike Fathers that euer wrate in the Church of Christ. Phi. Haue we thinke you no fathers with vs as well for the literall construction of Christs wordes as for the corporal eating of his flesh in the Sacrament Corporall I call it not because we see it or tast it as we doe other meates but because we be sure it entereth our mouthes when we receiue our rightes and is really contained in our bodies Theo. You may abuse some fathers to make a shew but otherwise you haue no ground in them either of your literall vnderstanding Christs speach or corporal eating of christs â—lesh Phi. Haue we not S. Damascen S. Epiphanius Theophilact Euthymius and others earnestly presse the literal construction of christs words against your signes and figures and as for eating the flesh of Christ with our very mouthes S. Austen S. Chrysostom S. Leo S. Gregorie S. Cyril Tertullian others are resolute whoÌ„ I trust you wil not condemn for Capernites By this way the simple learne what to looke for at your hands that wil out-face so plaine a trueth Theo. He that will be good at outfacing let him studie your Testament and hee neede none other teacher but what trueth is it that we outface Phi. Neuer father you said auouched the literal sense of Christes wordes Theo. I said no ancient father of which number I do not account these late Grecians to be And therefore if they did contradict that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others did teach long before them wee would not regard them but as yet I seeâ— no such thing proued by them Phi. The proofe is easie S. Damascene rehearsing the wordes of Christ This is my body immediately addeth not a figure of my body but my body not a figure of my bloud but my bloud S. Epiphanius likewise Christ said take eate this is my body Hee saide not take eate the Image of my body And Theophilact Bread is the very bodie of our Lord and not a figure correspondent For he said not this is a figure but this is my body And so Euthymius Christ said not these are signes of my body but these are my body These be manifest places and yet such is your impudencie that you affirme no father euer vrged the literall force of Christes words And so for the corporall eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes S. Augustine saith It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in the honour of so great a Sacrament our Lordes bodie should enter into the mouth before other meates And S. Chrysostome Our mouth hath gotten no small honour receiuing our Lordes bodie And S. Gregorie The bloud of the lambe is sucked not only by the mouth of the heart but also by the mouth of the body And S. Leo That is receiued by the mouth which is beleeued by the heart And Tertullian Our flesh doth feede on the bodie and bloud of our Lord And S. Cyril It was needfull that this rude and earthly body should be recouered to immortalitie by touch tast and foode of the same kind with it selfe You aske for fathers here they be both many in number and auncient in time to discharge vs that we be no Capernites and to refell your foolish vaunt that all antiquitie were of the verie same mind that you are now It may bee you neuer heard the places before If you did not I will pardon your ignorance so you repent your rashâ—es Theo. Yeas sir I haue seene them and â—â— may bee weighed them better than euer you did And notwithstanding your magnificence it will appeare you be not free from ignorance whatsoeuer you be from impudencie Phil. I will burne my cloathes to my shirt if euer you answere them Theo. But saue your skinne from the fire though you spare not other mens blood nor bones Phi. We vse you but as heretikes should be vsed Theo. If it be heresie for vs to serue god according to the Gospel of his sonne what is it for you to serue him with your own medlees Phi. You would flie the fielde rather than your life but I must keepe you to it Theo. You runne so fast from God and your Prince that you may soone ouer-goe vs if we would flie but as yet I see no cause Damascene Theophilact and Euthymius presse the letter of christes speach not to deriue thence your carnal and guâ—tural eating of christs flesh nor to controll that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others men of farre greater learning and authoritie than these taught long before them in the church of God but to shew that bread and wine be not only tokens and bare signes of christes fleshe and bloud but also cary with them and in them the vertue power and effect of his death and passâ—on Euthymius Christ said not these be the signes of my body and bloud but these are my bodie and bloud We must therefore NOT LOOKE TO THE NATVRE of the giftes which are proposed BVT TO THE VERTVE Against them which defend that this Sacrament doth only figure not offer signifie not exhibite grace the letter may wel be forced to proue the diuine power and operation of the mysticall elemenets Against vs which hold the visible signes in substance to bee creatures in signification mysteries in operation and vertue the things themselues whose names they bearâ— this illation concludeth nothing Yet for the better explication of him selfe and others vsing the like kind of speach Theophilact addeth this worde ONLY Marke that the bread which is eaten of vs in the mysteries Non est TANTVM figuratio quaedam carnis Domini is not an only figuring of the Lords flesh but the Lords very flesh For he saide not the bread which I will giue is a figure of my flesh but is my flesh Their meaning was as we see
by their own words to teach more than idle signes or ONLY figures in the Lords supper because together with the name goe the vertâ—es and effects of Christes flesh bloud vnited in manner of a Sacrament to the visible signes And this their assertion neither troubleth our Doctrine nor strengthneth your error Againe these writers may very well say the Sacraments of the Gospell BE NO FIGVRES but TRVETH IT SELFE in that respect as figures bee taken for samplers of things to come Such were the figures of the law which did premonstrat the coÌ„ming of christ in flesh ceased at his coÌ„ming And so the mysteries of the Lords table were not figures of things expected but euidences of the truth there sitting in persoÌ„ the next day to be nailed to the crosse therby to fulfil abolish al figures our sacrameÌ„ts are now not signes of farther promises but memorials of his mercies alredy performed Do this saith christ not in figure of an other truth to come but in remeÌ„brance of me which am come for memorie you know stretcheth only to things past and doone and in this sense the letter may bee safely pressed and your carnall conueyance nothing relieued I find a third cause that might induce them to force the letter in this sort yet no way confirming your grosse supposall which is this When the Greeke church fell at variance for Images they which held that Christ ought not to be figured after the likenes of our bodies amongest other reasons alleadged this for one that the Lord at his Supper for a true and effectuall Image of his incarnation chose the whole substance of bread not any way like the proportion of a man lest it should occasion Idolatry The defenders of Images whose side Damascene tooke pressed with this obiection durst not flee to your annihilation of the substance of bread and adoration of the Sacrament with diuine honour which no doubt they would haue doone with great triumph had those two points of your Doctrine beene then counted catholike but yeelding and by their silence confessing that the substance of bread remayned in the supper and was not adored for so the contrarie part opposed at length for very pure neede came to this shift that the mysticall bread was not ordained to resemble and figure Christs humane nature nor so called by christ at his maundie who said not this is a figure of my body but my body nor a figure of my bloud but my bloud and when Basil and Eustathius were produced affirming the bread and wine to be figures and resemblances of Christs flesh and bloud the Patrones of Images replied that was spoken alwaies before neuer after consecration Wherefore Damascene first beganne this myncing and straining the wordes of Christ not to build on them any reall or corporall conuersion of the bread into the flesh of christ but in fauour of his artifical pictures and Images he could by no meanes abide that the mysteries should after consecration be called Images and figures of Christs bodie The next that traced this path after Damascene was Epiphanius not that auncient and learned Bishoppe of Cyprus but a pratling Deacon in the bastard Councell of Nice whose furious and fanaticall answer to the Councel of Constantinople that made this obiection declareth more tongue than witte more face than learning Christ did not say take ye eat ye the Image of my bodie Reade whiles thou wilt saith hee thou shalt neuer find that either the Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers called that vnbloudie Sacrifice which the Priest offereth AN IMAGE Thus doth he braie foorth defiance to the whole worlde without trueth without shame For Chrysostome saith If Iesus were not once dead whose image and signe is this Sacrifice This Sacrifice is an image and samplar of that Sacrifice And Gelasius Surely the IMAGE and resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries We must therefore so thinke of the Lord Christ himselfe as we professe and obserue in his IMAGE And likewise Theodoret. Ortho. The mysticall signes which are offered to god by his Priests whereof doest thou call them signes Eranist Of the body blood of the Lord. Ortho It is very well saide Conferre then the image with the paterne and thou shalt see the likenes Dionysius calleth it both an image and a figuratiue sacrifice Nazianzene excusing himselfe How should I saith he presume to offer vnto God that externall sacrifice the image of the great mysteries Clemens Offer you in your churches the image of the royall body of Christ. Macarius In the Church are offered breade and wine the images of his flesh and blood The 〈◊〉 â—aâ—hers keepe the same word the same sense Ambrose In the law was a shadow in the Gospel is an image in heauen is the trueth Before was offered a lambe or a calf now Christ is offred here in an image there in truth where he intreateth his father as an aduocate for vs. AusteÌ„ Christ gaue an image of his burnt offering to be celebrated in the church for a remembrance of his passion The rest say the like but what neede we farther refutation of so ridiculous and vnshamefast a bragge such causes such councels such poppets such Proctors The very children in the church of God knowe that the diuine mysteries by the generall definition of a Sacrament be visible signes of inuisible graces and as Augustine interpreteth the word Sacramentum id est sacrum signum a Sacrament that is a sacred signe So that vnlesse they be signes they can possibly be no sacraments neither sacraments nor signes can they be without or before coÌ„secration which this stout champion had not yet learned therfore his verdict in matters of religion except his cunning were greater may be wel refused As Damasene and your prating Epiphanius were more than 700. yeares after Christ so Theophilact and Euthymius are farre younger The first of them was Bishoppe of the Bulgarians who were conuerted to the faâ—eth 868. yeares after Christ the second your owne chronologie placeth after Gracian and Lombard 1100. yeares short of Christ. Were then these later Grecians wholy with you what gaine you by them If you woulde oppose them to Tertullian Origen Cyprian Austen Gelasius Thedorete others of purer times and sounder iudgements you could winne nothing by that bargaine the choice were soone made which to take which to leaue but in deede you do them wrong to returne them for transsubstantiators they neuer knew what it ment They say the mysteries of the Lords table be not only figures but haue the truth annexed No figures of grace differed but seales of mercy perfourmed in Christ and inioyed of vs no called figures or images of Christes flesh after consecration but bearing as well the names as the fruits and effects of the things themselues whose
after the same sort the blood of christ euen so the sacrament of faith meaning thereby baptisme is saith We he buried saith Paul with christ through baptism into his death Hâ— saith not we signifie that his burial but he saith plainly we 〈…〉 The sacrameÌ„t of so great a thing he would not cal but by the 〈…〉 thing it self Upon this verie ground be concluded as you heard 〈…〉 Lâ—â—d doubted not not to say this my body when he gaue the signe of his body What maâ—uell then if the catholike Fathers vsed often the names of the body blood of Christ where the materiall elementes of bread and wine must be vnderstood since this is the certaine rule of al sacraments and the common order of all ancient diuines writing of the Lordes supper to call the giftes proposed at the Lordes table the body and blood of Christ. The wilfull contempt of which obseruation hath miserably snared and hampered you and your fellowes euerie where referring and forcing that to the naturall fleshe of Christ which by the learned and godly fathers was spoken and ment of the visible signes called by the names of the body and blood of Christ. The second thing that you sticke at is the substance of bread which we say remaineth and abideth as well after consecration as before You wil haue it either vanish to nothing or else to bee turned and conuerted into the very fleshe of Christ there present God maÌ„ vnder the whitenes roundnes such like shewes appearances of bread left only to content the sight and palate least the raw flesh of Christ should displease your eyes or offend your tast This is your doctrine and this we say is not catholike The church of Christ neuer held that the substance of bread perished or ceased after consecration it is a late deuise you can bring no father that is ancient for this assertion they neuer taught they neuer heard they neuer dreampt any such thinges They taught that the mysticall signes were creatures well knowen not straunge and miraculous accidentes that the substance of bread was not changed but remained still after consecration and this they taught in as plaine words as heart can imagine or tongue expresse lette the Reader bee iudge if I â—aye not the truth Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome for his antiquitie reuerenced of vs for his place not to be refused of you writeth thus against Eutiches The sacraments which we receiue of the body blood of Christ are a diuine thing by them are we made partakers of the diuine nature yet for all that ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread wine to be Theodoret The mystical signes do not after sanctification depart from their own nature for they remaine in their former substance figure forme Ambrose Thou camest to the altar â—awest the sacraments theron wonderest at the very creature yet it is a â—olemn known creature Ireneus Christ counseling or willing his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of those creatures tooke that bread which is a creature gaue thankes saying this is my body We must therefore in all thinges be found thankefull to God the creator offering the first fruits of those creatures which be his and this oblation the Church onely maketh in puritie to the creatour offering to him of his own creatures with thankes giuing Origen The Lords bread according to the material partes thereof goeth into the belly and thence to the draught so that it is not the matter of breade that doeth proâ—itte the râ—ceiuer but the worde rehearsed ouer it Epiphanius That which our Sauiour our tooke in his hand and saide this is my body wee see to bee neither proportional nor like to his image in flesh nor his inuisible Deity for this is of a round figure hath no power of sense but our Lord wee knowe to bee wholy sense wholy sensitiue Cyprian Since the Lord said do this in my remembraÌ„ce this is my flesh this is my blood as often as with these words this faith we do that he did this substantial bread cup sanctified with a solemn blessing is profiâ—able for the life safegard of the whole man being both a medicine to heal our infirmities a sacrifice to clense our iniquities Chrysostom After coÌ„secration it is deliuered from the name of bread reputed worthy to be called the Lords body nothwithstanding the nature of bread still remaine Austen These things are therefore called Sacramentes because in them one thing is seen an other thing vnderstood That which is seen speciem habet corporalem hath a corporal shape or kind that which is vnderstood hath a spiritual fruit This is of al other a miserable seruitude of the soule to mistake the signes for the things themselues not to be able to lift vp the eye of the minde aboue the corporall creature to behold the light that is eternall The councell of Constantinople Christ commaunded the whole substaunce of breade chosen for his image to bee set on his table least if it resembled the shape of a man idolatrie might bee committed Bertram The signes as touching the substances of the creatures are the same after consecration which they were before Can you looke for plainer or directer witnesses Do they not all ioyne together in one profession and succession of truth that the mysticall signes after consecration be knowen corporal and senselesse creatures abiding in their proper and former yea their whole nature and substance Be not these wordes significant and pregnant directly conâ—uting your reall inclosing and corporall eaâ—ing of Christ vnder the shewes and accidentes of bread and wine The third thing that I saide was to bee considered in the elementes of bread and wine is their power and operation For since the substance of the creatures is not chaunged the signes coulde not iustly beare the names of the thinges them-selues except â—â—e vertue power and â—ffect of Christs fleshe and bloode were adioyned to them and vnited with them after a secrete and vnspeakable manner by the working of the holy Ghost in such sort that whosoeuer duelie receiueth the signe is vndoubtedly partaker of the grace offered vnto all but inioyed onely by those that with fayth and repentance clense the inward man from that corruption of flesh spirit which Christ abhorreth Cyprian of Sacraments in generall writeth thus To the elements once sanctified not now their owne nature giueth effect but the diuine vertue worketh in them more mightily the trueth is present with the signe and the spirit with the Sacrament so that the worthines of the grace appeareth by the verie efficiencie of the things Of the Lordes Supper in speciall thus he saith b There is giuen the foode of immortalitie differing from commoÌ„ meates Corporalis substantiae etmens speciem retaining the kind or truth
peruert the meaning of Leo and if you did but vnderstand the right course of his reason you would suppresse both his voice and your vaunt for verie shame Phi. He that will trust your sayings shall haue manie false fiers when he should not Theo. And he that will credit your doings shall feele manie quick flames when he would not Phi. You be better at quipping than at answering Theo. You are lothe we should encroch on your common But returne to Leo. Can you tell against whome he wrote Phi. Against such as you are that denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Were they men without names or names without men Phi. Mock not they were your auncetours Theo. They say it is a wise childe that knoweth his owne father Doe you But in sadnes whome did Leo traduce in that sermon Phil. Mary Eutiches and such like heretikes Theoph. You saie well for Leo nameth him but a litle before in that sermon and against his opinion he reasoneth Philand I am content with that Theoph. What was his error Phi. He denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Who told you so Phi. I gather it by those that refute him Theo. By them you shall learne his error but this it was not Philan. What was it say you Theo. Eutiches affirmed that Christes humane nature and substance was not onely glorified by his ascension but consumed and turned into the nature immensitie of his Godhead Against him wrate Theodorete Gelasius and others and one of the cheefest argumentes which they bring against him is that which Leo here toucheth in a woorde or two Phi. That argument cleane confoundeth your sacramentarie Sect. Theo. Yours or ours it must needes confound for this it is As the bread and wine after consecration are changed and altered into the bodie and bloud of Christ so is the humane nature of Christ conuerted into his diuine after his resurrection ascension but the bread and wine are not changed neither in substance nor forme nor figure nor naturall proprieties but only in grace and working ergo Christs humane nature is not changed into his diuine EITHER IN SVBSTANCE circumscription or forme but only endewed with glory and immortalitie Phi. This is no Catholike reason but sauoreth altogether of your hereticall poison Theo. They which first framed and vrged this reason against Eutiches in your opinion were they heretikes Phi. No father euer vsed it Theo. If they did must not they be doubbed for heretikes as the first proposers of that reason or at least you for affirming now the quite contrarie For you reiect both their assumption conclusion against Eutiches as starke false and whose ancetour then is Eutiches but yours Phi. They do not vse it as you report it Theo. Looke you offspring of Eutiches whether Gelasius Theodoret and Augustine do not vrge it in those verie pointes and wordes which I repeate Thus Gelasius framed his reason against Eutiches An image or similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is therefore apparant and euident enough that we must holde the same opinion of Christ the Lord which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image That as those signes by the working of the holy Ghost passe into the diuine substance and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature Euen so that verie principall mysterie it selfe whose force truth that Image assuredly representeth doth demonstrate one whole and true Christ to continue the two natures of which he consisteth properlie remaining And lest you should not vnderstand what he ment by this The signes still abide in the proprietie of their owne nature he expoundeth himselfe an saith Non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not or perisheth not When Theodoret had made an entrance to the very same reason by laying this foundation Oportet archetypum Imaginis esse exemplar the Originall must be answerable to the Image the heretike caught the words out of his mouth and said It hapned in good time that you did mention the diuine mysteries for euen thereby will I prooue the Lordes bodie to be chaunged into an other nature As then the signes of the Lordes bodie and blood are other thinges before the inuocation of the Priest but after they are chaunged and become other than that they were so the Lords bodie after his assumption is chaunged into his diuine substance The maior being good such as Gelasius and Theoderet did both auouch that as the signes were changed after consecration so was Christes humanitie after his assumption if your opinion had then beene taught in the church that the substance of bread and wine were changed by consecration the conclusion had beene infallible for Eutiches error that the substance of Christes humanitie had beene changed by his ascention into his diuinitie and not only both these Fathers had had their mouthes stopped but Eutiches error had beene inâ—olâ—ble as beeing grounded on a Maior that was a confessed and famous trueth and on a Minor that was as you thinke the vndoubted saith of the Church Mary the Minor in deed was apparantly false though you now defend it for Catholike Doctrine and with the plaine deniall of that as a manifest vntrueth Theodoret inferreth the contrarye that because neither the Substance nor naturall proprieties of the bread and wine are chaunged by consecration as the whole Church then beleeued and confessed therefore neither the substance nor shape nor circumscription of Chrisâ—es humane nature were changed by his ascention but his body remaineth in the â—ame substance quantitie and forme that he rose from death and ascended vp withall and with the very same forme and substance of flesh shall come to iudge the worlde These are his wordes Thou art caught saith Theodoret to the heretike with the same nets that thou laiedst for others The mysticall signes after sanctification doe not depart from their own nature For they remanie in their former substance and figure and forme c. Conferre then the Image with the originall and thou shalt see the likenes betweene them For the figure must be like to the trueth That body therefore of christ in heauen hath his former shape and figure circumscription to speake al at once his former substance Lay all your heades together aâ—d graunting the Maior which the whole Church held auoide the conclusion of Eutiches withâ—ut the denying the Minor as Theodoret did which yet is your faith and beleefe at this day and we wil grant you to be Catholiks and our selues heretikes If you cannot see how far you be falleÌ„ from the doctrine of Christs church and that in no lesse point than the greatest and chieâ—esâ— Sacrament on which you haue wickedly founded your adoration oblation halfe communion priuate masse and barbarous prayers without
personages than those famous and woorthie Pastours that obserued this course in the Church of Christ many hundreths before you were borne and find it most expedient to continue your vnfruitfull manner of praying in a tongue not vnderstoode though the precept of God the Doctrine of the Apostle and the practise of the primatiue Church bee expressely against it O mouthes prepared to sticke at nothing that may any way serue to hoodwinke your hearers In this and many other points of your Religion you runne headlong against the cleare testimonies of the sacred Scriptures and generall consent of the Catholike fathers and yet you will be Catholikes Phi. You be very rife with your reproches Theo. I might iustly giue you some oftener remembrances but that I more respect the seemelynes of the cause which is Gods than the sinnefulnesse of your attempts who neglect Scriptures Fathers Councels Canons Church and all that is to followe the decrees you knowe not of whome and yet will haue it insolencie and madnes in vs to dispute of your actions Philand You doe but slaunder vs. Theoph. Wee haue hitherto slaundered you with matters of trueth if the rest prooue like wee shall doe you no wrong though wee fawne on you lesse Your Masse which this Realme hath nowe reiected what hath it in it either Catholike or Apostolike or any way concordable with Christes insâ—itution Philand You coulde neuer light on a woorse match Of all the rites obseruances and Sacraments which we haue none is more Apostolike more Catholike more conformable to Christes order and example than our Masse and your prophane Supper hath nothing agreeable to the Apostles or Christs institution but all cleane contrary yea your communion is the very table and cup of diuels and your Caluins bread and wine like at length to come to the sacrifice of Ceres and Bacchus Theo. Tie vp your doggish if not diuelish eloquence you shall haue no praise though you take some pride in broching these blasphemies Your poysonfull tongues and vnblushing faces may iniurie the ordinance of God but you can not ouerthrow his trueth If wee had deuised any thing of our owne braines as you haue done the most part of your Religion you would haue kindled I see to some choler that spare vs such speaches for following the very samplar original which Christ did institute as exactly as we possibly might Phi. You follow no part of Christes institution Theo. It is easie for your side to say what you list you were no right Friers if you coulde not speake for your selues but leaue your scoffes vaunts at home bring forth your proofs Phi. I wil beginne with the name and so proceede to the rest of the circumstances You haue smal reason to name the holy sacrament rather the Supper of the Lord than after the maner of the primatiue Church the Eucharist Masse or Liturgie But belike you would bring it to the supper againe or Euening seruice when men be not fasting the rather to take away the olde estimation of the holynes thereof The. If you leaue not so much as the name vntouched I hope you will not conceale any weightie matter of more importance Phi. You may sweare for that and keepe your othe Theo. Then if all your quarrels being discussed you bee found to haue vttered nothing against vs but your sharpe and eger stomackes and notwithstanding your vagaries and resaliries to and fro your Masse bee neither Catholike nor Apostolike deserue you not to beare backe your owne burden and to haue Bacchus Ceres and the rest of your infernall saints to the shrines whence you brought them Phi. When that falleth out which wil be neuer But you delay the time for feare you take the foyle Theo. If your arguments be as quicke as your appetites we shall soone dispatch but bring vs not drippings and say they be deinties Phi. S. Ambrose in hunc locum and most good authors nowe thinke this which the Apostle calleth Dominicam Caenam is not ment of the blessed Sacrament as the circumstances also of the text do giue namelie the reiecting of the poore the riche mens priuate deuouring of all not exspecting one an other gluttonie and drunkennes in the same which cannot agree to the holie Sacrament And therefore you haue small reason as I saide to name the saide holie Sacrament rather the Supper of the Lorde than after the manner of the primatiue Church the Eucharist Masse or Liturgie Theo. Malice bursteth out at your tongues endes when you cannot abide the woordes which wee vse though the Scriptures did first authorize them and the fathers for their partes continue them The Sacrament which the Lorde ordained at his last maundie hath sundrie names that wee finde authenticallie written in the worde of God as the Lordes table the breaking of bread and cup of thanksgiuing the Communion of the bodie and blood of Christ and as we thought till this time the Lordes Supper You beginne to tell vs S. Ambrose is of an other minde and bâ—caâ—se your holde in him was verie small you adde that the most of your selues also doe nowe so thinke A worshipful catch that fifteene hundreth yeres after Christ you come in with your owne verdict in your owne cause and looke to haue it currant Phi. We meane not our selues Theo. You can meane none but your selues or your fellowes For you saie most good Authors now thinke so of our side I am sure you will not agnise that anie be good authors as you call them or that the most of vs are of that opinion and therefore you meane your selues and your owne adherents who were you not partial yet are you too young to bid Augustine Hierome Chrysostome Theodorete and others rise from their chaiers and giue you place Augustine repeating the verie woordes of S. Paul when you come togither this is not to eate the Lords supper saith hanc ipsam acceptionem Eucharistiae Dominicam Caenam vocat the Apostle calleth this verie receiuing of the Eucharist the Lords Supper Hierome commenting vpon the same wordes when you come togither this is not to eate the Lords Supper addeth Now is it not the Lordes Supper as you vse it but mans in as much as you seeme to meete rather to fill your bellies than for the mysterie For the Lordes Supper ought to be common to all because he deliuered the Sacramentes equallie to all his Disciples that were present And a Supper therefore it is called for that the Lord at Supper deliuered the Sacraments Chrysostome affirmeth the same The Apostle toucheth them more dreadfullie with these wordes This is not to eate the Lordes Supper sending them to that night in which Christ deliuered the wonderfull mysteries Therefore he calleth it a Supper for that Supper had all that were present sitting togither in common that is at one time and in one place * As
but let a man examine himself and so eate of this bread and drinke of this cup that is before hee eate of this breade and drinke of this cup and he shall find that contentious and riotous persons such as they were in their feastes bee no sit ghestes for that heauenly Supper And yet to vs it is all one whether it were before or after at their bankers and feastes it was ministred and eueÌ„ serued at their tables as S. Augustine noteth in these words Non debent fratres mensis suis ista miscere sicut faciebant quos Apostolus arguit emendat The brethren ought not to haue these mysteries serued at their tables as they did whome the Apostle reprooueth and refourmeth And had not the Lordes Supper beene abused among them what needed the rehearsall of the first institution to the which because the Apostle recalleth them it is euident they were fallen from it Nowe abuses in this place S. Paul mentioneth none but drunkennesse dissention and defrauding the poore and since drunkennesse and deceiuing the poore as you auouche can not agree to the Sacrament it followeth that dissention was the thing which defaced the Lordes Supper among them in that they would neither at coÌ„mon meats nor at the Lordes Supper sit al together but sort them selues in factions and companies as they fauoured and friended eche other This was the fault which S. Paul first rebuked when hee beganne to redresse the thinges that troubled the Church of Corinth They contended about Baptisme saying I am Pauls and I am Apollos and I am Cephaes and their dissention so increased and came to that sharpnes that they woulde haue their tables in the Church and euen the Lordes Supper also eche company by them selues The false Apostles sayth Ambrose had sowen such discorde among them that they stood striuing for their oblations Hierom saith In ecclesia conuenieÌ„tes oblationes suas separatim offerebant Meeting in the church they deliuered their oblations to seueral companies according as euery man fansied the parties And againe Nemo alium expectabat vt communiter offeretur No man expected one an other that the oblation might be common And S. Paul as Chrysostom thinketh brought the Table Supper where the Lord himselfe was and at which sate all his Disciples euen Iudas the Traytour for an example to shew them that that is rightly iudged to be The Lordes Supper quae omnibus simul conuocatis concorditer communiter sumitur which is receiued in common and with one consent of all assembled together Yea S. Augustine affirmeth that The Apostle speaking of this Sacrament saith for which cause brethren when you assemble together to eate expect one an other Your obseruations therefore are first false when you say these circumstances can not agree to the holy Sacrament For euen these which you name as most vnlikeliest are applied by the fathers to the Lordes Supper Expecting one an other you heard S. Augustine referre directly to this Sacrament Deuouring of all by the rich and drunkennesse S. Hierom expoundeth likewise of the verie same mysterie The Apostle sayth one is drunke and an other hungrie for this reason Quia superuenientibus mediocribus volentibus sumere Sacramenta deerant quoniam ab illis qui obtulerant oblationes in communi conuiuio fuerant cuncta consumpta Because the meaner sort comming after the rich mynding to receiue the Sacraments there was nothing left to minister the Sacrament withall they that brought the oblations deuouring all in their common banket Haymo sayth One is hungrie that is hee which for pouertie is not able to bring wheaten bread and wyne to bee consecrated for the Communion an other to witte the riche and wealthie man is drunken and surfeyteth as well with other meates as with the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord. Next did some of them not agree to the sacraments of the Lordes table as surfeyting deuouring and drunkennesse yet other circumstaunces as schismes not expecting one an other may and doe very fitly serue for the Lordes Supper as you see by the iudgement of those Fathers whom I haue named Thirdly did no circumstaunces of their disorders agree to the right institution of the Sacrament yet so long as Saint Paul refelleth their doinges in the Church as vnseemely for the sacred mysteries there prepared and receiued what reason haue you to deny that Saint Paul meaneth the sacrament where hee sayth when you come together if you fall to filling your bellies and despising the poore as you doe in your feastes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You can not or this is not the right way to eate the Lordes Supper For this is plaine to him that hath but halfe an eye that Saint Paul checketh them as vnwoorthie partakers by these their abuses of the mysteries of Christ and interpreteth the plagues which some of them felt to bee Gods scourges for their loosenes in that behalfe and therefore with great reasons might hee beginne to reprehend them as vnâ—it approchers to the Sacrament and vtter so much in these woordes when you come together this is not the way to eate the Lordes Supper or to haue accesse to his table to make schismes at your feastes in the Church with excesse in your selues and reproche to others Phi. If you will needes haue the Sacrament called the Lordes Supper keepe you that name and wee will keepe ours as more auncient and Catholike by the testimonie of Saint Augustine S. Ambrose and the rest whome I cited before for the antiquitie of the blessed Masse Theo. Hee that wil boldly deny a trueth will easily affirme a falsehood S. Augustine in all the works that be vndoubtedly his neuer so much as once named the Masse The Sermons de tempore which you produce are collected out of other mens writings as well as his and many of them found vnder the names of other authors and fauour litle either of Austens learning or phrase as Erasmus confessed when he first surueyed them S. Ambrose hath the woorde once and so haue two Prouinciall Councels of Africa Leo hath it twise which is all that you can finde in sixe hundreth yeres till Gregorie the first came and vsed the woorde somewhat oftener yet none of these cal the Sacrament or Sacrifice by that name as you would haue it but rather expresse by that word the auncient order of the primatiue church in sending away such as might not be partakers of the Lords table as in place where I noted before And that Missa with the fathers doeth signifie not the Masse but leaue to depart before or after the communion your owne fellowes wil instruct you whom you may not wel distrust as being with you though you trust not vs that are against you Polydore repeateth and alloweth the same with these woordes Mihiverò prior ratio probatur vt
magis apposita The former diriuation of the word Mâ—ssa pleaseth me better as the likelier and not that it should signifie a sacrifice and be deriued from the Hebrew word Missà as Reuchline woulde deduce it And therefore he sayth Idem igitur mos a nostris etiam seruatur vt peractis sacris per Diaconum pronuncietur Ite missa est quod idem est ac ilicet id est ire licet The same maner is obserued of our men that at the ende of diuine seruice the Deacon should say ITE MISSA EST which is as if he sayd YOV MAY DEPART And that missa was vsual for missio he sheweth out of Cyprians epistles where he sayth remissa for remissio Rhenanus another of your friends giueth the like obseruation in his notes vppon the 4. booke of Tertullian against Marcion Hodie in fine Sacri Leuita pronunciat Ite missa est id est missio est quod olim in initio dicebatur antequam inciperentur videlicet ipsa mysteria Hinc iuxta vulgi consuetudinem Ambrosius missas facere dixit Propriè missa erat tempore Sacrificij quando Cathecumeni foras mittebantur At this day the Priest pronounceth at the end of his seruice Ite missa est that is go you haue leaue to depart which in the primatiue church was sayd in the beginning before they came to the celebration of the Sacraments Thence Ambrose vsed the word missam facere according to the vulgar custome of those tymes For properly missa was when the conuerts not yet baptized were sent away in the time of the sacrifice that is at what time the rest addressed themselues to be partakers of the Lords table And that missa was common for missio hee proueth by Tertullian and Cyprian in his booke de bono patientiae and epist. 14. And lest you shoulde thinke this to bee a phantasticall assertion of his without all ground or authoritie such as the most of your obseruations are hee telleth you that this mysterie of antiquitie is related in Isidores Lexicon And in deede so it is For Isidore sayth Missa tempore Sacrificij est quando Cathecumeni foras mittuntur clamaÌ„te Leuita si quis cathecumenus remansit exeat foras inde missa quia sacrameÌ„tis altaris interesse non possunt qui nonduÌ„ regenerati nascuntur Missa was about the tyme of the sacrifice when the learners and such as were not yet baptized were sent out of the Church the Leuite crying if any Cathecumene bee heere let him depart and thence is the word missa because they can not be present at the Sacrament of the Altar which are not yet regenerate And I thinke for very shame you would not séeme to be so foolish as to take missam Cathecumenorum which the fourth councell of Carthage doth mention in the place alleaged by your selues and likewise S. Austen in those very sermons which you cite as his for your Masse or Sacrifice For how can fit missa Cathecumenis stand either for the sacrament or sacrifice since the persons named were not baptized and consequently not to be admitted to any of the Church mysteries So that graunt the word missa were found oftner in the Fathers than it is you can thence conclude nothing for your Masse which you rudely and vnaduisedly thinke to be all one with their missa or missarum solemnia where in déede it is as contrarie to that which they spake of as poyson to an wholesome potion For missa with them did signifie the sending away of such as might not communicate with the rest at the Lords table the masse with you is the reall and actuall sacrificing of the sonne of God to his father and the setting of the people to gaze on the Priest whiles he alone deuoureth all and falsifieth the very words and actions of Christes institution Phil. Nay you falsifie both the words and déedes of Christes institution and though you gather out of Isidore and others that Missa in the ancient Fathers was the demising of such as might not be present at the Sacrifice and missa Cathecumenorum by no meanes can be our Masse yet touching our Sauiours institution of the blessed Sacrament we come néerer to this example than you do you missing it in most points that be essentiall and we following all his actions that are imitable Theop. What essentiall points do we misse Phil. Almost all Theop. Reason you named some Phil. You do not imitate Christ in blessing the bread and wyne nor in vnleauened bread and mingling water with wine nor in saying the words of consecration ouer the bread and wine you vse no confession before nor adoration of the blessed Sacrament at the receiuing of it A number of like defects there are in your communion which cause it to be no sacrament but common bread and wine Therfore imperet vobis Deus and confound you for not discerning his holy body and for conculcating the blood of the new Testament Theop. Kéepe your burning and cursing deuotion for your selues your manquelling and masse-mongring rage hath as much affinitie with Michaels praier beséeching God the diuell might be restrained as fiercenes and furie hath to patience and pietie If we haue altered any part of Christes institution curse on in Gods name and let your curses take effect But if the celebration of our mysteries be answerable to his will and word that first ordained them you curse not vs whome you would hurt but him that your cursed toongs can not hurt which is God to be blessed for euer and whose euerlasting curse will take hold of you if you relent not the sooner for your proude defiance and stately contempt of his truth in respect of your massing reuels and mummeries Philand Nay you are contemners of his true body and blood in this reuerent blessed and holy sacrament and breakers of his institution and therefore his curse will light on you Theop. Uaine spéech doth but spend time shew first wherein we breake Christes institution and for the truth of his presence in this Sacrament if we teach otherwise than the Scriptures and Fathers do warrant vs we are content to heare and beare the curse which blind zeale hath wrested from you Philand We shewed you euen now what things they were wherein you swarued from Christes institution Theoph. You must both repeate them and diuide them that we may the better discusse them Phil. I will Christ tooke bread into his hands applying this ceremonie action and benediction to it and did blesse the very element vsed power and actiue words vpon it as he did ouer the bread and fishes which he multiplied and so doeth the Church of God and so do not you if you followe your owne booke and Doctrine but you let the bread and cup stand aloofe and occupie Christes words by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed to
forefinger with twenty such nicefinities curiosities haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs action nor institution nor to his Apostles doctrine nor doings who knew their masters meaning and continued their masters example with words gestures reuerent sufficient to satisfie his heauenly will and precept for this matter Phi. You doe not so much as vse any words vpon the elements but let the bread and the wine stand aloofe as if you were afraid to touch them Theo. In déede we blesse with our hearts and voices not with our fingers and therefore we make our account that our praiers are as forceable and as effectuall at sixe féete length as at six haires bredth And to deal friendly with you that blessing with mouth taketh no place except the hand be also winding turning the patene and chalice after your maner we can not beléeue it afore we sée some reason for it sorcerers and coniurers haue such circumstances but we hope you be not of their Seminaries Phi. Did not Christ take the bread likewise the cup into his hands Theo. Yes verily He could not BREAK it with his hand vnles it were in his hand neither could he GIVE it out of his hand afore he TOOKE it into his hand Phil. Then Christ TOOKE the bread so the cup into his hands before he did consecrate so you do not Theo. You would say before he did distribute For breking giuing which wer the ends of his taking are parts of distributiō not of cōsecration Phi. What blasphemy haue we heer did Christ distribute before he did cōsecrate the bread Theo. You be so busie about blessing the host and the chalice that you charge the sonne of God in his doings and the euangelists in their writings with blasphemy Phi. Nay we charge you with blasphemie for saying that Christ gaue vnconsecrated bread and wine to his disciples Theoph. Doth not the Scripture say the same Iesus taking bread and giuing thanks brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and saide take ye eate ye this is my bodie And taking the cup and giuing thanks he gaue it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament c. He tooke bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples bidding them take it and eate it before he said this is my body Now if these words this is my bodie be the words of Consecration ergo distribution went before Consecration and when Christ did consecrate the bread was in his disciples and not in his owne hands Phil. But he blessed as we call it or as you terme it he gaue thanks before he brake it Theop. That thanksgiuing or benediction was not consecration as your selues confesse and would séem to prooue by an whole heape of fathers and therfore in spite of all that you do or can say Christ did consecrate by word of mouth whē the disciples had the bread cup in their hands Phi. Would you haue the priest then not at al to touch the elements Theo. When we diuide them we cannot choose but touch them as Christ did Mary they may be sanctified by prayer and made Sacraments by repeating the words of Christ though at that instant we touch them not And therfore your vnsound quidities that Christ blessed the very element and vsed power actiue words vpon the bread and ouer the bread which we doe not but let the bread and wine stand a loofe and occupie the words of Christ by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed these nice and new found quddities I say be méere fooleries since the words of Consecration take their effect not from our fingers or gestures but from Christs mouth and commandement that we should do the like Phil. You neuer apply these words this is my body more than the whole narration of the institution nor recite the whole otherwise than in historical maner and for that cause you make it no Sacrament at al. Theo. Can you tell what you say Phil. Why doubt you that Theo. Because it is a wicked and blasphemous lie for the priest to say this is my bodie otherwise than by way of rehearsall what Christ said And therefore your braines be more than distempered if you would haue vs or any other Christian ministers to say it otherwise than by report what Christ saide and commanded vs to do in remembrance of him Phil. Doe you thinke we meane the priest should say of his owne person this is my bodie Theo. If you do meane it Bedlem is a fitter place for you than either Rhemes or Rome Phil. You may be sure we do not Theo. Why then reprooue you vs for repeating the words of Christ by way of rehearsall what he did and saide Phil. You should apply them to the matter proposed Theo. How By praier precedent and consequent or by glozing and interlacing Christs wordes with ours Phil. You should actiuely and presently apply them to the elements of bread and wine Theo. I must aske you the same question that I did before The wordes were spoken by Christ in his own person and cannot actiuely and presently be pronounced by any priest but by way of report what Christ saide without apparent and horrible blasphemie And therefore the application of them in our words must either go before them or after them and not exactly with them much lesse to be comprised in them Phil. We tell you you doe not apply them actiuely and presently Theo. We tell you you knowe not what you say The words of Christ this is my body this is my blood mauger all the diuels in hell must be pronounced in no mans person but only by way of repetition what Christ at his last supper said in his owne person and your Iesuitical nouelties of actiuely and presently be so far from the soundnes of faith and substance of truth that your selues are not able to expound what you speake Phil. Yes that we are Theo. So it should séeme by the readinesse of your answere What then is the present and actiue application which you striue for or which way is it made By word of mouth or intention of hart The Priest when he saith this is my body cannot iointly with those words vtter any other words of his owne to apply them Intention of heart cannot alter the sense of the spéech but only direct before God the purpose of the speaker And vnlesse the meaning of the Priest be to recite the words of Christ by way of repetition I sée not how you can excuse either the Priests hart or mouth from outragious and monstrous impietie Phil. We haue a present and actiue application of the words which you haue not Theo. What is it Phil. The Priest intendeth to doe as Christ did and therefore vttereth the words distinctly and aduisedly ouer the elements that are in his hands and vnder his eies
which you doe not Theo. What you list to do is no care of ours if you can shew vs any thing in Christs institution which we haue not we wil giue you the hearing otherwise to ad your ceremonies to his commandements we mind it not We knowe you crosse the creatures at benedixit and hold your noses â—o néere the bread when you say hoc est corpus meum that the breath of your mouthes euen warmeth the host but our beliefe is that his mightie word not your vnpausing spéech or intentiue lookes performeth the Sacrament And therfore your blowing Christs words vpon the bread is rather a magicall incantation than any effectuall application of them to the elements and if you hold that his word is too weake to endue the visible signe with inuisible grace except it be backed by your blowing and crossing we say you be proud disciples no right appliers of his heauenly word and power Phil. We do not help his words as if they were of themselues weake but we apply them to the elements in this present and actiue maner which you do not for when you recite the words a man cannot tell whether you speake them to trie your memories or to coÌ„secrate the mysteries you be so far from vsing any gestures or action that should import application Theop. The purpose of our hearts wel knowen vnto God and made open vnto men wheÌ„ we call them to the Lords table the praiers which we make before we come to the words of Christ directly and plainely tending to that end the placing of the bread and the cup in our and their sight the mentioning of Christes institution and commandement that we should follow his example and continue that remembrance of him the duetifull and reuerent rehearsing the words which he spake as the holy Ghost did penne them this demonstration and supplication that we receiuing THESE THY creatures of bread and wine according to thy Sonne our Sauiour Iesus Christes institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed bodie and blood vsed immediatly before we repeate the words of Christ the breaking and giuing of the bread and so likewise the cup immediatly after they be sanctified and offering them to each communicant in remembrance of Christes bodie that was broken and blood that was shed to purchase the remission of their sinnes thereby to preserue them body and soule to euerlasting life the praiers I say precedent the preparation euident the direction adherent the distribution consequent are signes enough to hym that hath but eares or eyes that we presently purposely publikely execute Christes institution and other hooking and haling of Christes words to the elements by crossing crouching gaping and blowing on them as your manner is we acknowledge none to be required or expressed in the Lords Supper Philand It is no Sacrament but as Saint Augustine saith when the words come that is to say actiuely and presently be applied to the elements Theoph. We know that to be most true which S. Augustine saith Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum when the word commeth to the element the Sacrament is perfite but what haue your termes actiuely and presently to do with Saint Austens speach yea what place could you choose more repugnant to your fansies than this which you bring The element without the word is a weake and corruptible creature put the word to it and then it becommeth a Sacrament Philand You marke not the force of the verbe Accedit which signifieth the word must come so néere that it must euen touch the element Theoph. Can you tell vs how words may touch elements Philand What else By actiue and present application Theoph. This is your old song which we would haue you turne to some plainer note What kind of application meane you with the breath of your mouths motion of your hands or cogitation of your hearts You may blowe vppon the bread and wyne but there is some difference betwéene the sounde of your voyce and the breath of your loongs if you looke a little but to Aristotles Predicamentes and therefore your breath may touche the elements your woords can not Much lesse can your fingers apply your speach either actiuely or presently to the elements you must runne to the inward intention of the mynd and that may direct your purpose in speaking as it dooth ours but not actiuely apply your spéech to come néerer the elements in your masse than in our communion And so the comming of the word to the element in Saint Austen to perfite a Sacrament helpeth you to prooue your reall and manuall application of Christs words in your Masse as much as chaulke doth to make chéese when curds are wanting Yea rather if you reade on but foure lines you shall find your follies flatly refuted by Saint Augustine and a cleare resolution for vs that not vttering but beleeuing the words of Christ giueth force to the Sacraments In the water of Baptisme saith he it is the word that clenseth Take away the word and what is water but water Then commeth that which you cite Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Put the word to the element and then is it a Sacrament Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat nisi faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Nam in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manens Whence hath the water this vertue to touch the body and wash the soule but by the power of the word not in that it is spoken but in that it is beleeued for in the word it selfe the sound passing is one thing and that little woorth the vertue remaining is another thing If the word of Christ do not worke in that it is spoken much lesse in that it is actiuely or exquisitely spoken with square conueiance and nimble gestures the lacke of which is the greatest fault you can find with our Sacraments Philand This is no small fault but yet not the greatest Theoph. You should haue laid foorth in writing what circumstances are required to your actiue application of Christes words and then you might haue béene answered with more perspicuitie Wheras now your obiecting vnto vs the breach of Christes institution in certaine metaphysicall and supermysticall termes neither opened by your selues nor vnderstood of others is but a Iesuiticall deuise to make a brable about words and to get the simple in the meane time to mistrust some-what in our doctrine and doings though they nor you sée no iust cause to mislike But to be short with you if the repelling of your actiue and slipper gestures and hauiours that we might embrace the will and commandement of the high and mightie God be a fault we haue committed many foule faults in this and all other parts of our profession otherwise in pride and presumption you
steps Phil. Cyprian saith there must be water as well as wine Theo. But whē he alleadgeth Christes example that the cup must be mingled he meaneth the mixture of wine not of water And so he expoundeth himself very often in that epistle Calix qui inebriat vtique vino mixtus est the cup which maketh drunke no doubt is mixed with wine And againe A Domino admoniti instructi sumus vt calicem Dominicum vino mixtum secundum quod Dominus obtulit offeramus We be taught and instructed by the Lord that we should offer the Lords cup mingled with wine according as the Lord did offer it So that the commistion which Cyprian requireth by vertue of Christs institution is not of water which at that present was not in question but of wine which by the olde Testament he prooueth was foretolde of Christ that he should offer and by the new he sheweth that he did offer in the cup which he deliuered to the twelue Apostles You therefore abuse Cyprians words when you bring them to prooue that Christ had water as wel as wine and that if we leaue out either we follow not Christs example for he namely vrgeth Christs action for the vse of wine and that if we omit we violate the Lords institution Philan. Cyprians reason will declare that he speaketh of both and his words to that ende are so manifest that we maruel you wil stand in it Thus he saith In sanstificando calice Domini offerri aqua sola non potest quomodo nec vinum solum potest Nam si vinum tantum quis offerat sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis si verò aqua sit sola plebs incipit esse sine Christo. In sanctifying our Lordes chalice water alone may not bee offered as also not wine alone For if a man offer wine alone the bloode of Christ beginneth to bee there without vs. And if water alone be offered the people beginne to bee in the cup with-out Christ. And therefore he resolueth Quando in calice vino aqua miscetur Christo populus adunatur When water is mixed in the chalice with wine then the people is vnited vnto Christ. Theo. Sir we neuer denied that Cyprian spake of water in one part of the Sacrament and to continue the vse thereof alluded to the mysticall interpretation of water which Saint Iohn maketh in his Reuelation when he saith The waters which thou sawest where the whoore of Babylon sitteth are peoples multitudes Nations and tongues but it is one thing to alledge Christs institution for the necessitie of hauing water in the sacred cup which Cyprian did not and an other thing to play with figures and allegories as Cyprian doth when he sheweth what water may signifie That Christ mixed water with wine at his last Supper no Scripture reporteth and the Gospell kéeping silence no man can iustly prooue it And therefore Cyprian neyther did nor could auouch any such thing but that water was and might be vsed in the Church of GOD and in Saint Iohns vision of the whoore of Babylon was parabolically taken for nations and countries this we can graunt both to you and to Cyprian without any preiudice And yet I must let you vnderstand that neither this kind of prouing by parables is alwais sound nor this collection that without water the people is not figured in the Lords cup is any néedful point of christian religiō For Cyprian himselfe elsewhere sheweth that wine alone in the Lords cup though no water be added resembleth the people vnited to Christ far better than water that resemblance is alledged subscribed vnto by S. Augustine the other is not When the Lord called his body bread that is made of the kneading together of many corns he declareth the vnion of our people whose burden he bare And when he called his blood wine which is pressed out of many kernels and clusters of grapes and gathered into one liquor he signifieth also our flocke coupled with the permixtion of a multitude conioined And this way he saith the Lords sacrifices declare the vnitie of Christians knit togither with firme inseparable charitie whose words S. Austen repeateth and commendeth writing against the Donatists And vseth the very same in a Sermon of his owne concerning this matter As to make the visible kinde of bread many cornes are kneaded into one lump of dough so also of the wine brethren call to your memories how it is made one Many grapes hang in the cluster but their iuice runneth into one liquor Wherupon he concludeth that the Lord hath consecrated at his table the mysterie of our peace and vnitie This similitude is grounded on the nature of the elements and signification of the Sacraments the other is not and that the faithfull be not ioined to Christ their head in this mysterie but by mingling water with wine this doctrine is neither safe nor true by the confession of either side yours ours especially yours for you exclude the people not only from the water but also from the wine and yet by the bread alone you suppose them to be coupled and vnited to Christ their head and we for our side confesse that both parts alike doe knit vs vnto Christ as well the bread as the cup and that not the mixing or tempering of either element but the due receiuing of both doth incorporate vs into Christ. Phil. Then you refuse this saying of Cyprians as vntrue Theo. We can giue Cyprian leaue to dally with allegories and to allude to the mingling of water wine then vsed in the Church but we can not giue you leaue to deriue it from Christs institution and to make it an essentiall part of the Sacrament And yet you crosse Cyprians authoritie more than we doe For where the mixing of water with wine is required by Cyprian that the people and not the Priests onely might be ioined with Christ in that part of the mysterie you retain the action and frustrate the signification by taking both wine and water from the people of God and therby shew that your mixture is wholy superfluous as not directed to that end which Cyprian speaketh of but rather to the contrary And of all others you may least indure Cyprians comparison for he saith that after cōsecration as Christ is in the wine so the people is in the water and if you transubstantiate the water into the people as you do the wine into Christ and bring them within the compasse of your chalice you had néede of a chalice as wide as the church or else you shall shrewdly throng them together Your doctrine therefore reiecteth the meaning and saying of Cyprian more than ours and with more pride we hauing the gospel for our discharge when we say that Christ commanded no mixture in his last Supper your owne Schooles with one consent to affirme with vs
your pelting quarelles in the eyes of all men that euer reade the wordes of Christ if your owne Schooles in eyther or any of these thinges which you oppose goe not cleare with vs that they bee no partes of Christes institution wee will yeelde to the fault and correct that ouersight If they doe then let your friends conceiue what truth there is in your mâ—uthes and what credit is to bee giuen to your wrangling obseruations sent vs lately from Rhemes wherein without all shame and care you refute not vs but your selues and your owne conclusions that you might say somewhat against vs before the simple and vnlearned were it otherwise neuer so false or foolish and euen contrary to your own Principles But you did well to beginne first you sawe howe plainely you were to bee taken tardie with many wilfull and ineâ—cusable breaches of Christes institution and therefore you thought it safest to make the salie first on vs that whiles we were occupied in defending our own we should desist from impugning your Masse which is nowe nothing else but an heape of sinnefull deuises and abuses inuented by Satan and broached by Antichrist to deface and frustrate the Lordes supper Phi. Who can abide your blasphemies against the blessed Masse Theo. Call you that blâ—ssed where besides your fruitlesse prayers and superstitious ceremonies your prinâ—â—e halfe commâ—nion subuerteâ—h â—he Lords instâ—tution your sacrifice derogateth from his death and bloodshedding your adoration of bread wine conuinceth you of hainous open Idolatrie Phi. Thâ—se words declare your fury Theo. Those deedes shew foorth your pieâ—â—e Phi. You can not proue so much as one of these things which you obiect Theo. If we moue not euery one of them we will acquite you from them all Phi. That shall you neuer do Theo. So must you say though it bee neuer so plaine but to the point Where learned you thaâ—â—he Priest might celebrate the Lordes Supper openly in the church witâ—â—â—â— any man to communicate with him the people standing by and gasing on hâ—m The Gospell is against you for Christ took bread and when hee had giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue it to the Disciples you breake the bread in your priuate Masse for fashions sake but to whom doe you giue it Giuing is a part of the Lordes supper as wel as breaking If it bee needefull to breake the bread because Christ did so wee conclude it as needfull to giue thâ— bread because he did both and the bread is broken as Augustine affirmeth to be diuided In vaine then is it broken if it be not giuen This the wordes that next insue confirme Accipite edite take ye eate ye The wordes bee plurall ergo they bee neither truly repeated nor dulie followed except others receiue with the Priest For his person and action is wholy singular and so perforce you must either chaunge the wordes of Christs institution which is no way lawfull or increase the number of communicants which euerteth your priuate Masse We are all partakers of one bread saith Paul describing thereby the Lordes Supper and with you no man is partaker besides the Priest When you come togither to eate the Lords supper tarie one for an other that ye come not together vnto condemnation which the Apostle spake of this Sacrament as you hearde out of Augustine To liâ—le purpose stay you for them which shall eate nothing when they come The Lordes supper ought to be common to all because he gaue the Sacramentes equally to all his Disciples that were present and your Masse is priuate to the Priest alone Call you this an imitation of the Lordes Supper or a perfourmance of his will when you frustrate the very wordes which hee spake and neglect the chiefest thing which himselfe did at his table Doe this sayth Christ in remembraunce of mee that is neither omit nor alter you this institution but in all pointes doe that which I did before you which you doe not therefore as yet we see not how you can excuse your selues from a plaine contempt of Christ and his ordinance Phi. Is this all you can say Theo. This is more than you yet haue answered or as I think can for all your crakes Phi. It is answered with a word The. Such a word it may be that it will worke miracles but in the meane time how keepe you Christs institution Phi. All the circumstances of time person and place which in Christes action are noted neede not to bee mitated As that the Sacrament shoulde bee ministred at night to men onely to only twelue after supper and such like because as S. Cyprian epist. 63. nu 7. S. Aug. epist. 118. nu 6 note there were causes of those accidentes in Christ that are not nowe to bee alleadged for vs. Theo. That which you say is true but it serueth not your turn The circumstances of time as whether at night or in the morning of place as whether in church or in chamber of person as whether men or women twelue or any other number these things we grant be wholy in different The reason is The Lord neither in his speech nor in his actions which he commaunded vs to imitate did comprise any of these particulars He tooke bread he gaue thanks he brake it and eate it saieng this is my body The cup likewise he tooke and when he had giuen thanks he gaue it them drinke ye all of this this is my blood of the new Testament Do this in remembraunce of me These things be essential parts of the Lords supper commaunded by him to be followed of vs. These if you neglect you neither obey his precept nor celebrate his supper but prophanely and wickedly thrust his ordinance out at doores that your owne deuises may take place Phi. His words this is my body this is my blood of the new TestameÌ„t c. are essentiall parts of this mystery and so are the elements for in these two consist the matter and forme of the sacrament The. And what are his acâ—ions be not they likewise essential parts of his supper Phi. What actions meane you Theo. Giuing thaÌ„ks breaking giuing eating drinking wtout which it is not the Lords supper Phi. These be certain accidents which our Sauior then vsed they be not of the essence of the sacrament Theo. With what words did he command vs to continue this memoriall of him Phi. Do this for a commemoratioÌ„ of me Theo. Let it be in remeÌ„brance of me or for a coÌ„memoration of mee whether you wil so you take not commemoration for Dirges which Christ needeth not since he liueth raigneth in the glory of God his â—ather the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the remembrance of me but the first part of the sentence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do ye this Phi. It is so what then Theo. He that charged his Apostles
precepts eate ye drinke ye but in al respects the cup was deliuered at the same time to the same persons when the bread was So that you must either exclude the people from both which I trust you dare not or admit them to both which is the very point that we presse you with Heare what a man of your side thinketh as well of this consequent as of your halfe communion There be some false catholikes that feare not to stop the reformation of the church what they can These spare no blasphemies least that other part of the Sacrament shoulde bee restoared to the lay people For say they Christ spake drinke ye all of this onely to the Apostles but the words of the Masse be these take and eate ye al of this Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles then must laymen abstaine likewise from the element of bread which to say is an heresie yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemie It is therefore consequēt that both these words eate ye drinke ye were spoken to the whole Church I will not take this aduantage that your owne fellow doth proclaime you for false Catholikes heretikes and horrible blasphemers God giue you grace to see whither you be fallen and whence This for your liues you cannot shifte but these two precepts eate ye drinke ye by the tenor of Christs institution must be referred to the same persons and so both or neither pertaine to the people Surely the wordes which our Sauiour vsed in deliuering the cup are more generall and effectiue than when he gaue the bread Drinke ye all of this and they all dranke of it take it diuide it among you This cup is the newe Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you Now the Lord shed not his blood for the Priest onely but also for the people neither was the new Testament established in the blood of Christ for the Priestes sake but as well for the redemption of the people Then as the fruites and effects of the blood of Christ are common to the people with the Priest so should the cup also which is the communion of his blood shed for the remission of the peoples sins be diuided indifferently betweene the Preist and people There is saieth Chrysostome where the Priest differeth nothing from the people as when wee must receiue the dreadfull mysteries For it is not here as it was in the olde Lawe where the Priest eate one part and the pleople an other neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those thinges which the Priest was but now it is not so but rather one bodie is proposed to all and one cup. Phil. The church then might like that the people shoulde haue the cup as the church after did mislike it for many and weightie causes but how proue you that Christes precept extendeth vnto the people Theo. Wee can haue no better interpreter of Christes speech than his Apostle that was best acquainted with the true meaning of our Sauiour Wee haue sayth he the minde of Christ and that which I deliuered you I receiued of the Lorde So that hee did not correct but onely report the Lordes ordinaunce and in deliuering both kindes to the whole church of Corinth priest and people without exceptiō the teacher of the gentiles did neither swarue frō the first institutiō nor right intentiō of Christ his master The cup of thāksgiuing which we blesse is it not the communion of Christes blood The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord the cup of diuels Ye can not be partakers of the Lordes table and of the table of diuels Can you frame vs a reason out of these wordes of Sainct Paul to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking such things as the Gentile there sacrificed to Idols not confesse that they dranke of the Lords cup It is not possible For this is Sainct Paules argument You can not drinke both the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels the cuppe of thankes giuing which wee blesse and you all drinke of is the communion of the Lordes blood therefore you maie not drinke of the cup of diuels YOV CANNOT DRINKE BOTH inferreth they did and should drinke one which was the Lordes cup not the cup of diuels els Paul should haue said you maie drinke neither not the cup of diuels for they might haue no fellowship with diuels neither the Lordes cup for that is reserued for the Priest by your doctrine but both saith Paul you cannot drinke ergo they must drinke one which was not the cup of diuels Againe the cup which they dranke not could to them be no Communion For nature teacheth vs that to be partaker of a cup is to drinke but the Lordes cup was to them the communion of his blood ergo they dranke of the Lordes cup. My collection is so cleare that the vulgar translation which you are tied to by the Councell of Trent putteth these verie woordes in the text Omnes de vno pane de vno calice participamus we all are partakers of one bread AND OF ONE CVP. Ambrose Hierom Bede Haymo and others found it so consequent to S. Pauls former woords and coherent with his maine reason that they sticke not to keepe this addition de vno calice in their verie terts on which they comment So that out of question Paul taught the Church of Corinth to distribute the Lordes supper to the Christians in both kindes and that as he saith he receiued of the Lorde And who◠that hath anie shame or sense left reading the next Chapter that followeth where Christes institution is fullie proposed and largelie debated by S. Paul will or can doubt but the Lorde at his last Supper ordained both kindes for all the faithfull As often saith Paul to the whole Congregation as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this cup ye shewe the Lordes death till he come Whosoeuer shall eate this bread drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthilie shall be guiltie of the bodie and blood of the Lorde Let a man therefore not speaking of this or that man but of euerie man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. And least you should want a generall affirmatiue to iustifie this our exposition take these woordes of S. Paul and quiet your selfe By one spirit are we all Baptized into one bodie whether we be Iewes or Grecians bond or free and WE ALL HAVE DRVNKE into one spirit Can you looke for directer or plainer woordes All Iewes and Gentiles bond and free not onelie dranke but by drinking were made partakers of one and the same spirite uen as by baptisme they were grafted into one bodie Then if Christ himselfe deliuered both kindes at his last Supper
it or recall you backe from your enterprise is sacrilege Woe bee to you that call good euill and euill good which set darkenesse for light and light for darkenesse and put bitter for sweete and sweete for bitter Woe bee to you that are so wise in your owne eyes and so prudent in your owne conceites that you preferre your owne Counsell before the wisedome of God Philand Nay you preferre your wittes before the whole Church of GOD you woulde not other-wise take vppon you to controle your forefathers and teachers in such sort as you doe Theoph. If they forsooke their fathers yea GOD him-selfe why shoulde wee not renounce them rather as parricides than resemblance of their auncestours Philand They were Catholikes and so are wee Theoph. You leaue the steppes both of Christ and his Church and yet you must and will bee catholikes Philand Wee followe them better than you doe Theoph. So it appeareth by your halfe communion which they condemned for sacrilege and you embrace for Religion Phi. Here is such a stirre about eating and drinking as though all consisted therein and in the meane while you neglect and abolish the holy and vnbloody sacrifice which is farre more Catholike than your communion Theo. You neede not make so light of eating and drinking at the Lordes table There depende greater promises and dueties on that than on your vnbloody sacrificing the sonne of God As often as yee shall eate this breade and drinke this cup yee shewe the Lordes death till hee come Without eating and drinking therefore the Lordes death is not shewed The bread which we breake to be eaten is it not the communion of Christes body The cup of blessing which wee blesse that all may drinke of it is it not the communion of Christes blood If wee refuse eating the one or drinking the other can we be partakers of Christ or his spirit Hee that eateth my flesh sayth our sauiour and drinketh my blood dwelleth in mee and I in him and except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you These bee the fruites and effectes of religions and worthie eating and drinking at the Lordes table shewe vs the like for your sacrificing and wee will thinke you had some occasion though no reason to turne the Lords Supper into an offering Philand This one Sacrifice hath succeeded all other and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices and hath the force and vertue of all other to be offered for all persons and causes that the others for the lyuing and the dead for sinnes and for thankesgiuing and for what other necessitie soeuer of body or soule Bee not these as great and good effectes of our Sacrifice as those which you nowe rehearsed for eating and drinking at the Altar Theo. They bee great if you had as good authoritie for the one as wee haue for the other Philand Wee haue better Theo. Wee must giue you leaue to say so but you shall giue vs leaue not to beleeue you Phi. All the fathers with one consent stand on our side for the Sacrifice Theoph. Were it so that yet is many degrees beneath the credite of our conclusion You bring vs the speaches of men wee bring you the woorde of God I trust you will aguise some difference betwixt them Phi. As though wee coulde not bring you Scriptures as well as fathers for the sacrifice of the Masse Melchisedec by his oblation in bread and wyne did properly and most singularly prefigurate this office of Christes eternall Priesthoode and sacrificing himselfe vnder the formes of breadâ— and wyne which shall contynue in the Church throughout all Christian Nations in steede of all the offeringes of Aarons Priesthood as the Prophet Malachie did foretell as Saint Cyprian Saint Iustine Saint Irineus and others the most auncient Doctors and Martyrs doe testifie Cyprian epistola 63. num 2. Iustin. dial cum Trypho post med Iren. libro 4. capit 32. And Saint Augustine libro 17. cap. 20. de ciuitat Dei libro primo contra aduers. leg prophet ca. 18. lib. 3. de baptism ca. 19. S. Leo sermone 8. de passione auouch that this one sacrifice hath succeeded all other and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices c. Yea in S. Pauls epistle to the Church at Corinth the first and tenth chapter We maie obserue that our bread and chalice our table and altar the participation of our host and oblation be compared or resembled point by point in all effectes conditions and properties to the altars hostes sacrifices and immolatious of the Iewes and Gentiles Which the Apostle woulde not or coulde not haue done in this Sacrament of the altar rather than in other Sacraments or seruice of our Religion if it onelie had not beene a Sacrifice and the proper worship of God among the Christians as the other were among the Iewes and heathen And so doe all the fathers acknowledge calling it onelie and continuallie almost by such termes as they doe no other Sacrament or ceremonie of Christes Religion The Lamb of God laide vpon the table Concil Nicen. The vnbloodie seruice of the Sacrifice In Concil Ephesin epist. ad Nestor pag. 605. The sacrifice of sacrifices Dionys. Eccles. Hieronym cap. 3. The quickning holie sacrifice the vnbloodie host and victime Cyril Alex. in Concil Ephes. Anatâ— the propitiatorie sacrifice both for the liuing and the dead Tertul. de cor Milit. Chrys. ho. 41. in 1. Corinth ho. 3. ad Phil. Ho. 66. ad pop Antioch Cypr. epi. 66. decaena Do. nu 1. August Euch. 109. Quaest. 2. ad Dulcit to 4. Ser. 34. de verb. Apost The sacrifice of our mediator the sacrifice of our price the sacrifice of the newe Testament the sacrifice of the Church August li. 9. ca. 13. li. 3. de baptist ca. 19. The one only inconsumptible victime without which there is no Religion Cyprian de caen Do. nu 2. Chrysost. ho. 17. ad Hebr. The pure oblation the newe ofspring of the newe Law the vital and impolluted host the honoâ—râ—ble dreadful Sacrifice the Sacrifice of thankesgiuing or Eucharistical the Sacrifice of Melchisedec This is the Apostles and fathers doctrine God grant you may find mercy to see so euident and inuincible a trueth Theo. You be nowe where you would be and where the fathers seeme to fit your foote But if your sacrifice bee conuinced to bee nothing lesse than catholike or consequent to the Prophets Apostles or Fathers Doctrine what say you then to your vanitie in alleaging if not impietie in abusing so many Fathers and Scriptures to proppe vp your follies Phi. Bee not these places which we bring you for this matter vndeniable vnauoydable indefeatable vnanswerable Theo. In any case lay on loade of termes You haue made vs so many in your late Rhemish testameÌ„t that now you must not seeme to lack But what if all these places neede
neither denying auoyding defeating nor answering What if not one of these fathers whose works you cite as thick as hops euer spake or heard of your external and real sacrificing the sonne of God afresh for the sinnes of the worlde but they vsing the wordes Sacrifice and oblation to an other purpose you force a priuate and peculiar sense of yours vpon their speaches against their meanings Phi. This is euer your wont when the woordes bee so plaine that you can not deny them to flie to the meaning Theo. In deede this hath beene not the least of Satans sleights in conueying your Religion from steppe to step point by point to keepe the speach and chaunge the sense of the learned and auncient fathers that what with the phrases which were theirs and the forgeries which were not theirs and yet caried their names hee might make the way for Antichrist to set vp his visible Monarchie of error and hypocrisie Phi. This is the way to rid your selues of all obiections Theoph. And the other is the way to drowne your selues in the deapth of all corruption but so long as wee holde their fayth and doctrine which were the lights and lampes of Christes church we can spare you their phrases here and there skattered in their writings you no whit the neerer the trueth of their beliefe Phi. You hold not their fayth in this or any other point of your Religion Theo. The greatest boasters bee not alwaies the greatest conquerours Let it therefore first appeare what they teache touching the Sacrifice of the Lords table and what wee admit and then it will soone bee seene which of vs twaine hath departed from them The fathers with one consent call not your priuate Masse that they neuer knew but the Lordes Supper a Sacrifice which wee both willingly graunt and openly teach so their text not your gloze may preuayle For there besides the sacrifice of praier and thankesgiuing which we must then offer to God for our redemption other his graces bestowed on vs in Christ his sonne besides the dedication of our soules and bodies to be a reasonable quicke and holy sacrifice to serue and please him besides the contribution and almes then giuen in the primatiue Church for the reliefe of the poore and other good vses a Sacrifice no doubt very acceptable to God I say besides these three sundry sortes of offerings incident to the Lordes table the very Supper itselfe is a publike memorial of that great dreadful sacrifice I meane of the death bloodshedding of our sauiour and a most assured application of the merites of his passion for the remission of our sinnes not to the gazers on or standers by but to those that with faith and repentance come to the due receiuing of those mysteries The visible sacrifice of bread and wyne representing the Lords death S. Austen enforceth in these words Hold most firmly neither doubt of this in any case that the only begotten sonne of God taking our flesh offered himselfe a sweet smelling sacrifice to god to whom with the father the holy ghost the Patriarks Prophets Priests vnder the old law sacrificed brute beasts to whoÌ„ now in the time of the new Testament with the same father holy spirite the holy Catholike Church throughout the world doth not cease to ofâ—er the sacrifice of breade and wine in faith charitie In those carnal Sacrifices there was a figuration of the flesh of Christ which he should offer bloud which he should shed for the remissioÌ„ of our sins In this sacrifice there is a thankesgiuing remembrance of the flesh which he hath offered and bloud which the same god hath shed for vs. With him agreeth Ireneus Christ willing his Disciples to offer vnto God the first fruites of his creatures not that god needed them but lest they should be found vnfruiteful or vnthankful toke the creature of bread and gaue thanks saying this is my body And likewise he confessed the cup which is a creature amongst vs to be his bloud teaching the new oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiuing from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the world We must theÌ„ offer to god in al things yeeld thanks to god the maker with a pure mind vnfaigned faith stedfast hope and feruent loue offering the first fruits of his Creatures and this oblation the Church only sacrificeth in purity to the creator offering to God of his creatures with thanksgiuing And this we offer to him not as if he stoode in neede of these presents but rendring him thanks for these his gifts and sanctifieng the creature This oblation of bread wyne for a thankesgiuing to God a memoriall of his sonnes death was so confessed vndoubted a trueth in the church of Christ till your Schoolemen beganne to wrest both Scriptures and Fathers to serue their quiddities that not onely the Liturgies vnder the names of Clemens Basil and Chrysostome do mention it We offer to thee our king and God this bread this cup according to thy sonnes institutioÌ„ tua ex tuis offerimus tibi domine we offer thee O Lord these thy gifts of thine own creatures Which sense Irineus vrgeth against valentine but also the very Missals vsed in your own Churches at this day do confirme the same These be the woordes of your own Offertorie Receiue holy Father God euerlasting this vndefiled host which I thine vnworthy seruant offer to thee my king and true God for my sinnes negligences and offences innumerable for al standers by yea for all faithful christians as wel liuing as departed this life that it may helpe me theÌ„ to attaine eternal life We offer to thee O Lord this cup of saluation intreating thy goodnes that it may be taken vp into thy sight as a sweet smell for the sauing of vs the whole world Receiue blessed Trinitie this oblatioÌ„ which we offer to thee in remeÌ„brance of the passion resurrection asceÌ„tion of Christ Iesus our Lord. We humbly beseech thee most merciful father through Iesus Christ thy son our Lord that thou accept blesse these gifts these preseÌ„ts these holy vndefiled sacrifices which we offer to thee first for thy Church holy and catholike c. For al true belieuers c. For al here present c. For the redemption of their soules and hope of saluation Certainely you speake these words long before you repeate Christs institution your Masse-booke doth apparently prooue that which I report if I mistake the secretes of your masse let the shame bee mine What then offer you in this place Christ or the creatures of bread wine By your own doctrine Christ is not present neither any change made til these wordes This is my body this is my blood be pronounced ergo before consecration the creatures of bread wyne keepe their
proper earthly substance when notwithstanding your selues offer thē to God in your masses for the remissiō of your sins redēption of your soules to profit the quick the dead by that oblation You teach the people that nothing is offred by the priest to god the father for remission of sins but Christ his son Your masse where this should be done conuinceth that you sacrifice not Christ but the creatures of bread wine Be you not more thā blind which see not that the praiers which you daily frequent refute the sacrifice which you falsly pretend Phi. As though the ancient fathers did not also say that Christ himself is daily offred in the church Theo. Not in the substance which is your error but in signification which is their doctrine ours Take their interpretation with their words they make nothing for your local external offring of christ Was not Christ saith Austen once sacrificed in himselfe and yet in a sacrament is he offered for the benefite of the people not euery Paschal feast only but euery day Neither doth he lie that whē the questiō is asked him answereth Christ is offred daily For if Sacraments had not a certain similitude of the things wherof they be sacraments they should be no Sacraments at al. And by reason of this similitude they vsually take the names of the things them-selues Christ is offred daily this is true saith Austen but how The communion is a sacrament of the Lords death sacraments haue the names of the things them selues from a certaine resemblance that is betwene them This doctrine differeth much from yours and yet must Austen stand for a christian and Catholike father when you by your patience shall goe for vpstarts Phi. S. Augustine spake this not of the liuely flesh blood of Christ which we sacrifice to god the father by the priests hands for the sins necessities of mē but of his death passiō represented at our masse by the holy mysteries The. In deed S. Augustin spake of that he knew as for your cōceit of sacrificing the liuely flesh blood of Christ in substance vnder the formes of bread wine by the priests hands neither he nor any good author was euer acquainted with it And to say the truth the very spring roote of your error is this that you seek for a sacrifice in the Lords supper besides the Lords death Marke wel the words of Cyprian The passion of the Lord is the sacrifice which we offer Of Ambrose Our high priest is he that offred on the crosse a sacrifice to clense vs the very same we offer now which being then offred cannot be consumed this Sacrifice is a sāplar of that we offer that very sacrifice for euer Of Eusebius Christ after al things ended offred a wōderful oblation most excellent sacrifice on the crosse for the saluation of vs al gaue vs a memorie therof in stead of a sacrifice we therfore offer the remēbrance of that great sacrifice in the mysteries which he deliuered vs. Of Chrysost. Bringing these mysteries we stop the mouthes of those that aske how we proue that Christ was sacrificed on the crosse For if Iesus were not slaine whose signe and token is this sacrifice Of Austen We sacrifice to God in that only manner in which he commanded we should offer to him at the reuealing of the new Testament the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was yeelded in verie trueth when Christ was put to death after his ascention it is now solemnized by a Sacramēt of memorie The verie elements and actions of the Lordes Supper conuince no lesse The bread which we breake what else doth it represent but the Lordes bodie that was broken for vs The cup which we drinke what els doth it resemble saue the Lordes blood that was shed for our sakes When the host is broken and the blood poured out of the cup into the mouthes of the faithfull what other thing saith Prosper is thereby designed than the offering of the Lordes bodie on the crosse and the shedding of his blood from his side As often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup you shewe forth the Lordes death till he come saith Paul There can be no question of this the spirit of god hath spoken it Then if the death of Christ be the sacrifice which the church offreth it is euident that christ is not only sacrificed at this table but also crucified crucified in that selfe same sort sense that he is sacrificed but no man is so mad as to defēd that christ is really put to death in these mysteries ergo neither is he really sacrificed vnder the formes of bread wine which thing your selues haue lately ventered rashly presumed without al antiquity The catholik fathers I can assure you say christ is offered christ is crucified in the Lords supper indifferently So Ierom Christ is euery day crucified to vs. So Chrysostom The death of christ is here performed So Gregory Christ dieth againe in this mysterie his flesh suffreth for the saluation of the people so to conclude Austen The gētiles now through the whole world tast lick the passion of Christ in the sacraments of his body blood If you can expound this you shall not neede to stagger at the rest The church hath no Sacrifice propiciatorie besides the death of her Sauiour and therefore as she doth kill him so she doth offer him in her mysteries If you can not learne by the direction of your own decrees what doctrin was taught in the primatiue church and euen in your own church for 1300. yeres touching this matter The offering of the Lords flesh by the Priests hands is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ Non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Not in precise truth but in a mystical signification or it your gloze delight you rather In this mysterie Christ dieth that is his death is represented his flesh suffereth that is his passion is represented In this very sense Christ is offred daily Chrysostom Do we not offer euery day we do but a memorial of his death We do not offer an other sacrifice but euer the same or rather we continue the remembrance of that sacrifice Ambrose Because we were deliuered by the Lords death we bearing that in mynd do signifie with eating and drinking the flesh and blood that were offred for vs It is a memorial of our redemption Eusebius Christ offered a wonderful sacrifice for the saluatiō of vs al we haue receiued a memorial of that most sacred oblation to be performed at the Lordes table according to the rule of the new testament Augustin Christ is our high priest after the order of Melchisedec which yeelded himself a slain sacrifice for our sinnes and gaue vs a
similitude image of that oblation to be celebrated for a remēbrance of his passiō in so much that we may see that which Melchisedec offred to God now sacrificed in the church of Christ throughout the world Emissenus Considering that Christ was to take his body from our eyes place the same in the heauens it was requisite he should institute the sacrament of his body and blood for vs at his last supper that it might alwaies be continued in a mysterie which was once offred for a ransom because the work of our redemption did neuer faile the sacrifice of our redemption might be perpetual and that euerlasting oblation of Christ on the crosse might remaine fresh in memorie and present for euer in grace Theodorete If Christ by his owne sacrifice on the crosse brought to passe that other sacrifices should be superfluous why doe the Priests of the new Testament execute the mysticall Lyturgie or Sacrifice It is cleare to them that are instructed in our mysteries that we doe not offer an other sacrifice but continue the memorie of that one and healthful Sacrifice For so the Lord himself commanded vs doe this in my remembrance that in beholding the figures we should remember the paines which he suffered for vs beare a louing heart towards him that did vs so much fauour and expect the receiuing of good things to come which he promised Theophilact Do we then offer vnbloody sacrifices No doubt wee doe◠mary by being a remembrance of the Lords death He was once offred and yet we offer him alwaies or rather we celebrate the memorial of that oblation when he sacrificed himselfe on the crosse Receiue this addition which they make and wee graunt you that oblation which they teach Christ is offered or rather a memorial of his death and oblation is celebrated This later correction doeth expound and interprete their former assertion You can require no plainer nor sounder doctrine They piese not Christ with their handes they shroud him not in accidences they pray not for him that God will vouchsafe to respect and accept him as hee did the giftes and external sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedec as you do in your Masses they neuer tolde vs the very fact and intention of the Priest were meritorious these bee your absurdities and blasphemies They did offer an vnbloody sacrifice not of flesh but of Spirite and mynd the selfe-same which Melchisedec did two thousande yeeres before Christ tooke flesh and therefore not the flesh of Christ a figuratiue sacrifice to witte Signes Samplars Similitudes and Memorials of his death and bloodshedding So that Christ is offered dayly but Mystically not couered with qualities and quantities of bread and wyne for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death of Christ but by the breade which is broken by the wyne which is drunke in substance creatures in signification Sacraments the Lordes death is figured proposed to the communicants and they for their parts no lesse people than Priest do present Christ hanging on the crosse to God the father with a liuely faith inward deuotion and humble prayer as a most sufficiēt and euerlasting Sacrifice for the full remission of their sinnes and assured fruition of his mercies Other actual and propitiatorie sacrifice than this the church of Christ neuer had neuer taught You beleeue not mee Well what if your owne fellowes and friends teach the same What if the master of your Sentences what if the Glozer of your decrees what if the Ringleader of your Schoolemen make with vs in this question and euince that for twelue hundred yeres after Christ your Sacrifice was not knowen to the woorlde will you giue the people leaue to bethinke themselues better before they call you or account you catholikes Then heare what they say Peter Lombard in his 4. booke and 12. distinction I demaund whether that which the Priest doeth bee properly called a Sacrifice or an oblation and whether Christ be daily offered or els were offered only once To this our answere is briefe that which is offred and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblatiō because it is a memorie representation of the true sacrifice holy oblatiō made on the altar of the crosse Also Christ died once on the crosse and there was he offred himself but he is offred daily in a sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once done Now what this meaneth Christ is offred in a sacramēt we need no fairer interpretation thā that which your own gloze oftē repeateth Christ is offred in a sacrament that is his offring is represented a memorie of his passion celebrated It is the same oblation which he made * that is a representation of the same passion Christ is offered euery day mystically * that is the oblation which Christ made for vs is represented in the sacrament of his body blood With these concurreth Thomas of Aquine Because the celebration of this Sacrament is a certaine Image of Christs passion it maie conuenientlie be called the sacrificing of Christ. The celebration of this Sacrament is termed the immolating of Christ in two respects First for that as Austen saith resemblances are woont to be called by the names of those thinges whose resemblances they are next for that by this sacrament wee be made partakers of the fruite of the Lordes passion Here find you no reall locall nor externall offering of Christ to God his father by the Priest for the sinnes of the people which is your opinion at this daie you finde that the celebration of the Lordes supper maie be called an oblation first for that it is a representation of Christs death and sacraments haue the names of the things which they signifie next because the merits and fruits of Christs passion are by the power of his spirite diuided and bestowed on the faithfull receiuers of these mysteries Nowe boast of your Catholike doctrine that your pratling Sophists and wandering Friers inuented but yesterday now call for your souereigne Sacrifice not onelie repugnant to the sacred Scriptures and auncient fathers but reiected by the Mint-master of your sentences refuted by the conclusions of your Seraphicall Doctor shunned by your rude Gloze-maker and cleane thwart to the Canon of your ordinarie Masse If you speede no better in the rest of your causes a worse name than fugitiues will become you and your companions well enough without perill of slaunder or breach of charitie These foundations lying sure to wit that the creatures of bread and wine are offered to God for a thanksgiuing when they be sanctified and receiued according to his sonnes institution and that Christ himselfe is daylie offered and crucified in a mysterie because the breaking of his bodie and shedding of his blood on the crosse are proposed and renewed by the bread
which we eate and cup which we drinke at the Lordes table these conclusions I saie standing good we receiue the foure and twentie places which here you huddle and the fourteene which the Pen-man of your Apologie hath shufled into his sixt chapter being for the most part the same that these are and the rest weaker than these and affirme that not one of them teacheth anie other sacrifice than we haue shewed and confessed and that is no such offering as you auouch and defend at this daie to be in your Masse For you will haue a reall externall and corporall kinde of offering the liue fleâ—â— of Christ by the Priests hands vnder the formes of bread and wine to God the father for the sinnes of men and this manual seruice or act of the Priest you auouch to be meritorious and propitiatorie for those that can purchase the Priests good will to be mindfull of them in his memento This is we saie a wicked inuention of yours not the assertion of anie father They celebrated and solemnized the Lordes death by sanctifying the creatures as Christ ordained and by diuiding them to such as were faithfull and thankeful to God for the redemption of the world in the blood of his sonne and this their incitation and prouocation of all men to faith praier thanks and obedience was the acceptable seruice and Sacrifice of the new testament To this we would recall you by telling you that God careth not for the Priests hands but for the peoples hearts and that he requireth not one mans crossing but the whole Churches calling on him with one heart and one mouth that he may be honoured and wee comforted in the death of his sonne And this was it that Malachie foretolde and not the Priests holding vp the Chalice or clenly conueighing the paten as he must in your Sacrifice Phi. The Prophet Malachie did plainly foretel our Sacrifice as S. Cyprian S. Iustine S. Ireneus and other most ancient Doctors and Martyrs doe testifie Theo. Why What saide the Prophet Malachie Phi. I haue no will to you saith our Lord of Saboth to the Iewish Priests and a gift wil I not receiue of your hands For from the rising of the sunne to the setting thereof my name is great among the Gentils and in euery place A CLEANE OBLATION IS OFFERED AND SACRIFICED TO MY NAME Theo. Malachie doth not say it shal be offred at the Altar or by the Priests hands or vnder the formes of bread wine but a pure oblation is offered vnto my name Phi. And what oblation can be so pure as the bodie and bloud of Christ Theo. Neither saith hee the purest but a pure oblation is offered Phi. What other oblation hath the new Testament but only that Theo. Sacrifice for sinne it hath none but that which the sonne of God made on the crosse mary yet the new Testament teacheth vs other oblations besides that though I confesse all our words and works euen our selues must bee washed and sanctified in that sacrifice before we or any thing that we say or doe can be acceptable vnto God Phi. What oblations doth the new Testament teach vs besides that Theo. You haue not forgotten I dare say what Peter saith And ye as liuely stones be made a spirituall house and an holy Priesthood to offer vp spiritual Sacrifices acceptable vnto God by Iesus Christ. Phi. Why may not S. Peter speake that of the annointed Priests and their true sacrifices Theo. So he doth but he meaneth all Christians and not your shauelings Phi. You would picke a quarell to holy oile but you bee not yet at rest from the sacrifice Why may not S. Peter I pray you speake of the blessed Masse Theo. Because hee speaketh to al both men and weomen and telleth them of a blesseder matter than your masse that is of the true spiritual sacrifices in which god taketh more pleasure than in your mumbling of fruitlesse Masses Phi. What are those Theo. S. Paul vttereth two of them almost in one sentence Let vs therefore by him offer the Sacrifice of praise alwaies to God that is the fruite of lippes confessing his name To doe good and distribute forget not for with such sacrifices God is pleased which liberalitie els where he calleth a sweete smelling odour and a sacrifice acceptable and pleasaunt to God A third kind of Sacrifice is that which he mentioneth to the Romanes I beseech you brethren by the mercies of God that you giue vp your bodies a liuing SACRIFICE holy and acceptable vnto God which is your reasonable seruing of God Phi. These were Sacrifices of the old Testament as wel as of the new For Dauid saith To thee will I sacrifice the offerings of praise and call vpon the name of our Lord and of the next He that sheweth mercie offereth a Sacrifice and so of the third A sacrifice to God is a spirit afflicting him-selfe with penance Theo. Keepe your penances to stuffe puddings The sacrifice to God is a troubled or a broken spirit We will not now striue for wordes These you see be Sacrifices of the olde Testament as well as of the new Theo. And therefore the truer and purer Sacrifices For the rest were shaddowes these were none and so those were abolished which these were not Phi. But Malachie speaketh of a new Sacrifice that was neuer before Theo. He speaketh of the true Sacrifice which from the beginning and so to the ende was and shall be more acceptable to God than the bloody and externall sacrifices of the Iewes Of a new Sacrifice that neuer was before he speaketh nothing for ought that I can see Phi. The sacrifice which Christ made of himselfe vnder the formes of bread and wine was a new sacrifice Theo. Uerie new if anie such were made Phi. Of that Malachie speaketh Theo. Who tolde you so Phi. S. Cyprian S. Iustine S. Ireneus and others Theo. You might doe well to speake more directlie for nowe wee knowe not whether you alledge them to expound the Prophet Malachie or whether you make them Prophets to tel what shall continew in the Church throughout all Christian Nations in steade of all Aarons offerings Phi. They will tell you the meaning of Malachie Theo. They will in deed but you neither quote them right nor applie them right if you cite them to shew that your Massing Sacrifice was forespoken of by the Prophet Malachie Phi. No whie Theo. Cyprian in that epistle maketh no mention of Malachie nor of his woordes Iustinus and Ireneus alledge him marie not for the Priests act in offering the sonne of God nor for Christs secret lodging vnder the formes of bread but for the praiers and thankes that all the faithful giue to GOD when they come to bee partakers of this mysterie Philand They say Malachies woordes are perfourmed in the Eucharist Theo. Not by the Priestes handes or gestures but by the
is fiâ—lie prepared with faith and repentance to receiue and lodge so worthie a ghost Phil. The Sacrament is turned into the reall and naturall flesh of Christ and so are not we Theoph. If that were true when the Sacrament is turned by naturall digestion into the nourishment of our bodies the flesh and blood of Christ must likewise be conuerted into the substance of our bodies but that is so blasphemous and impious that you dare not abide it and therefore Christ entereth not our mouthes when he commeth vnder our roofe but possesseth our soules replenisheth them with his heauenlie presence power of grace and life neither must we saie to the Sacrament Lord I am not worthie since that is an earthlie and corruptible creature but to Christ himselfe who hath promised in his Gospell that he and his father wil come and dwel with vs and perfourmeth the same by the hearing of his worde and receiuing of his Sacraments by which meanes he commeth and dwelleth in our harts by faith as S. Paul affirmeth and not in our mouthes or bellies by anie local and reall comprehension as you imagine Phi. Wee doe not deny that Christ commeth by his worde vnto vs but the Sacraments haue a speciall presence of his which the worde hath not Theo. The sacraments take their force onely and wholy from the worde neither is the worde anie whit the stronger or better for the visible signes but our weaknes is staied and supported by them and they endued with power and vertue by the worde to sanctifie the receiuer where it is beleeued And therefore Christ commeth and dwelleth in vs as truely by his worde as by his sacraments and if you compare them more truely by his worde than by the signes and seales of his worde Phi. We eate his flesh and drink his blood in the sacrament in the word we do not Theo. We eate his flesh drinke his blood more truely in the word than in the Sacramental and mystical signes S. Hierom saith Ego corpus Iesu Euangelium puto quando dicit qui non commederit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum licet in mysterio possit intelligi tamen verius corpus Christi sanguis eius sermo Scripturarum est The body of Iesus I think to be the Gospel when he saith he that doth not eate my flesh and drinke my blood though this maie be vnderstood of the Sacrament yet the worde of the Scriptures is more truely the bodie and blood of Christ. S. Austen saith Beleeue and thou hast eaten to beleeue in him is to eate the liuelie bread and that he calleth of the twaine the truer kinde of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. For repeating these woordes of our sauiour he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him he saith Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera coâ—pus Christi manducare Christ sheweth what it is to eate his flesh not by way of a Sacrament but in deede or truely So that the flesh and blood of Christ are MORE TRVELY in the members and words of Christ than in the Sacraments and yet your selues teache no man to say to the Preacher or the Scriptures Lorde I am not woorthie Phi. Chrysostome in his Masse sayde the very same woordes to the Sacrament Theo. Howe knowe you what hee sayde that died so long before you Phi. You shall find them in his Liturgie Theo. Well we may hereafter when you haue put them in but as yet we find no such wordes at all in his Liturgie Phi. The Greeke exemplar hath them Theo. Not those which either Erasmus or Leo Thuscus had when they translated it into Latin if you haue gotten new copies contrarie to the olde reason is you publish them and prooue the credits of them before we regard them Phi. So we will Theo. And with all you must shew that hee speaketh these wordes to the Sacrament otherwise they conclude nothing for you no more than Origens words did in the like case when he taught men to say them to Christ at the sacred communion Phi. That is your euasion for both Origen and S. Chrysostome sayde it to the Sacrament Theo. That is your intrusion for neither Origen nor Chrysostom hath any such reference Phi. See the bookes Theo. Neuer appeale to the sight of the bookes but produce the wordes This is your cunning in your Rhemish Testament to bid vs often See the fathers and so the rest but wee haue seene them where you come in thickest with them and there finde nothing for your false and erroneous fansies And therefore either alleage their woordes when you vse their names or say you sawe them not wee lyst not at your bidding to goe seeke for oysters in the Ocean Philand You feare to bee confounded by them and that is the cause you will not See them Theoph. They bee not our but your allegations and did they make for you wee should soone haue tidings of you mary nowe their woordes comming short of your assertions to beare out the matter you send the reader to the names and workes of many Fathers where hee must picke out what hee can at his fingers endes and in the meane time not bee able to charge you with corrupting them since you bid him See them but tolde him not what hee shoulde finde in them This is a way to quote what authorities you list bee they neuer so impertinent and yet to amaze the simple with the number and wearie the learned with not expressing what wordes you take hold of and what they seeke for which in questions of fayth were very needefull Phi. They say wee tell you auoyde it how you can Theo. They say no such thing and though Origen as you haue hearde bee farre enough from it yet Chrysostom in the place which you cite is farther off I meane from directing his prayers to the sacrament Making his supplications to God after consecration hee sayth Ipse Domine caelitus respice ad seruos tuos inclinantes tibi capita sua Thou Lorde looke from heauen on thy seruants that bowe their neckes vnto thee And againe Attende Domine Iesu Christe Deus noster de sancto habitaculo tuo de throno gloriae regni tui veni ad sanctificandum nos qui in excelsis vna cum patre sedes hic nobiscum inuisibiliter ades Behold Lorde Iesu Christ our God FROM thy holy habitation and FROM the throne of the glory of thy kingdome and come to sanctifie vs who sittest in the heauens with thy father and art here with vs inuisibly Hee desireth the sonne of God to beholde his seruantes from heauen not from the sacrament and from thence hee looketh for sanctification not from the patent or Chalice Phi. Hee sayth that Christ is also present with vs
paines and to make a readier dispatch if you will be ruled by me Phi. What is it Theo. Bring vs but one father for 800. yeares that euer taught your transsubstantiation and wee will count it catholike Phi. What talke you of one You shall haue one hundreth of as auncient and catholike writers as anie were in the Church of christ for a thousand yeares after his ascending to heauen Theo. You were best take it when you be wel offered One faire and sufficient authority shall please vs better than a cartloade of names abused and places peruerted Phi. It is as easie for vs to bring them by whole hundreds A man that once supplied the same roome which you doe nowe hath produced two hundreth of them in his Diacosion Martyrion Vernierus an other of our side hath alledged 318. seuerall and sundrie writers as manie as there were Bishops in the great Councell of Nice Garetius a man of singular reading hath gathered foure hundred fourtie fiue good and substantiall Authors euen from Melchizedech to this present age besides Poets women Councels Miracles visions Iewes Ethnicks and heretiks which all beare witnes to our doctrine And if you haue not seene the bookes I will lend you them for your instruction I could be content I tell you to be at anie cost to win a soul and wish to you no worse than to my selfe Theo. Your kindnes without cause is but seruice without thankes I haue seene your Diacosion Martyrion your great vniuersal Councell militant touching the truth of the most diuine sacrament of the Eucharist assembled by Vernierus your nine orders Rancks of I know not whom digested by Garetius besides the labours trauels of many others your adherents And reading them all I find not one father that euer dreampt of your material corporal conuersion of the elements into christ for 800. yeres vpward Hyperbolical speaches I find in Chrysostom some hard similitudes in damascene others but a manifest testimonie for the real carnal presence which you defend I find none and as for the fathers which be any thing ancient they go clearely and exactly with vs in this question Phi. With you By this a man may perceiue you neuer saw them or at lest neuer read them My selfe can alleage you 500. places wherof you shall not answere one but by meere shifts iestes of tropes and figures and such like mockeries Theo. It were paynes better bestowed for you to vnderstand what you alleage than to alleage that which you vnderstand not You may wrest and misuse 500. places of the fathers as your friends before you haue done in this point your selues in other questioÌ„s haue shewed the like actiuitie But that the substance of the bread vanished by consecratioÌ„ the substaÌ„ce of Christs body really succeedeth vnder the same dimensions accidents of bread wine entereth our mouthes locally coÌ„prised within those formes for this you shal neuer shew vs any one father greeke or latin within the compas of 800. yeres after Christ. Phi. A thousand authorities can we bring you with a wette finger that shall clearly conuince the presence of Christ in the sacrament Theo. And not one of them shal conclude that maner of presence which you maintain Phi. As for the maner of his being there it forceth not much so you grant him to be really and verily present Theo. His presence there can do you litle good except the manner of his presence be likewise expressed and auouched by the places which you would bring Phi. If he be present ergo the substance of his flesh is present and that must needs be corporally locally coÌ„prised in the formes of bread wine Theo. What father saith so besides your selues Phi. They al say he is preseÌ„t Theo. And so do we Phi. In words you say it but when you come to the push you deny the truth and effect of his presence Theo. Wee do not looke you should vnderstand vs that vnderstand not your selues You haue framed of your own heades a certaine maner of Christes presence in the supper without the direction or consent of any learned or auncient father and that of al others the grossest and absurdest that could be deuised and nowe you no sooner heare the name of Christes body or blood in the mysteries but you straightway grow to a speciall conceite that your reall and carnall presence is there confirmed and confessed And this made your builders of Babel as they posted through the Fathers to note euery place and person that did but mention The body of Christ as a witnes for Transubstantiation where if it woulde haue pleased you and your fellowes to haue weighed the rules and cautions of the fathers together with their speaches and exhortatioÌ„s not to haue hunted after your owne fansies in their phrases but marked remeÌ„bred their instructioÌ„s how they would be takeÌ„ vnderstood wheÌ„ they speak of the christiaÌ„ mysteries you should haue saued a great deale of labor which now you should haue saued a great deale of labour which nowe you haue spent to no purpose gained securitie from this difficultie which hath sâ—tted your schooles and churches with a most pernicious and yet a monsterous error Phi. And wee say that you bee so blinded with presumption and rebellion against the Church of God that you will not yeelde to all the fathers that euer wrate of this matter since Christes time but because they nowe and then speake of signes and figures you turne all to tropes and metaphores as if neither Christ himselfe nor any of his Apostles or their successors the Godly teachers and Pastours of his church had euer spoken properly or plainely of this sacrament but al in clouds and riddles such as neither Priest nor people that should come after could possibly conceiue and none to this day had vnderstood till you came lately to trouble the world with heresie and inâ—quitie Theo. Take your pleasures your tongues bee your owne who can tame them if you will not containe them You haue learned of your fathers to whet them like swordes and to smite with them and to shoote foorth your arrowes euen bitter wordes but the mouth that rageth with lies slanders as the wise man forwarneth destroyeth the soule and in the meane time your errors are nothing diminished or excused by your taunts or teeth-gawles As touching the matter it selfe Sacraments of their owne nature and by their first and chiefe erection are visible signes of inuisible graces so that if they be no signes they bee no sacraments and though the signes must bee diligently distinguished from the thinges yet for good causes in teaching and writing do the signes beare the names of the things them selues whose signes they are in so much that no father speaking or writing of the bread or wyne after they be once made sacraments giueth them any other
Christ if you know not whereof he spake proue no conuersion of the bread into his body For vnlesse THIS be taken to import the bread the bread by those wordes can not be changed and if not by these then surely by none Phi. I see your drift you fet about to force me to confesse that by the strict coherence of our Sauiours wordes the bread is Christ since that propositioÌ„ in precise speech is vntrue you would come in with your figures Theo. And your drift is as open that hauing deuised a reall and carnall presence to your selues by colour of Christes wordes and perceiuing the same to bee no way consequent to the letter which you pretend least you shoulde bee disproued to your faces you will not admit the perfect and plaine context of Christes wordes but stand houering about other sophisticall illusions which will not helpe you For we haue the ful confession of scriptures fathers against you that the pronoune THIS in Christes words must bee restrained to the bread and to nothing else The Lord tooke breade and when hee had giuen thankes he brake no doubt the bread that he tooke and gaue to the Disciples the selfesame that he brake saying take ye eate ye this that I giue you This is my bodie What THIS could our Sauiour mean but THIS that he gaue THIS that he brake THIS that he tooke which by the witnesse of the Scripture it selfe was bread If you suppose that he tooke bread but brake it not or brake it but gaue it not or gaue it his Disciples to eate but told them not this which he gaue them but some other thing besides that was his body you make the Lords supper a merry iest where the later end starteth from the beginning and the middle from the both The pronoune THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore except you name the bread which Christ pointed vnto when he spake these wordes you coÌ„firme not the faithes but amase the wits of your followers S. Paul proposing the Lordes Supper to the church of Corinth expresseth that very word which we say the circumstances of the Gospel import As often as ye shall eate saith he This bread and drinke this cuppe you shew foorth the Lords death till he come The bread which he brake is it not the communion of Christs body Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cup for whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guilty of the body blood of the Lord. So that as wel by the cohereÌ„ce of the former words in the description of the Lords supper as by the manifest adiectioÌ„ which S. Paul putteth to the demoÌ„stratiue we conclude our sauior pronouÌ„ced of the bread that it was his body The referring of THIS to the bread all the catholik fathers that euer wrate with pen in the church of God acknowledge with one consent Iustinus Wee be taught that the sanctified foode which nourisheth our fleshe and our blood is the fleshe and blood of that Iesu. Tertullian So Christ taught vs calling bread his bodie and discussing the wordes of the supper Why saith he doth Christ there call bread his bodie Austen That which your faith requireth to be taught the bread is the body of Christ and the cup his blood Cyprian Our Lord at his table gaue to the Disciples with his own handes bread and wine on the crosse hee yeelded his body to the souldiers handes to be wounded that his Apostles might teach all Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood Ireneus How shall it appeare to them that the bread on which they giue thankes is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood if they graunt not Christ to be the sonne of the creator of the world How did the Lord rightly if an other were his father taking bread of this condition that is vsuall amongst vs confesse it to bee his body Hierom Let vs learn that the bread which the Lord brake gaue to his disciples is the Lords body himself saying to theÌ„ take ye eate ye this is my body Athan. or at lest the coÌ„mentary that is extaÌ„t in his name What is the bread the body of Christ. Epiphan Of that which is round in figure sensles in power the Lord would say by grace this is my body Cyrill Christ thus auoucheth and saith of the bread this is my body Theodorete In the verie giuing of the misteries he called bread his body And of all others your selues may not shrink from this resolution of Christs wordes the surest holde of your reall presence though it bee not much standeth onely on this settle For what wordes haue you besides thâ—se to proue that the breade is chaunged from his former substaunce Uerily none Then if in these wordes which should worke the change there be no mention at all of bread how can that which is no way comprised in them bee chaunged by them So miraculous a change can not be wrought by silence but rather if any such be by the power of Christes words and in those words must the thing at least be named that shall be changed Againe the demonstratiue THIS must needes note that which was there present on the Lordes table before the words of consecration were wholy repeated and the flesh of Christ coulde not be present vnder the likenesse of bread without or before Consecration ergo the pronoune inferreth not Christ but the bread which by your owne positions is not abolished but in vltimo instanti prolationis verboruÌ„ in the very last end instant of vttering these wordes And therefore remaine in his owne nature wheÌ„ the first word was pronounced Which some not the meanest men of your side foresaw very well howsoeuer you since haue taken other counsel and therefore they say Dicendum est quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panis We must behold saith Gerson that the pronoune THIS doeth demonstrate the substaunce of bread and Steuen Gardiner Christus ait euidenter hoc est corpus meum demonstrans panem Christ sayeth plainly this is my body pointing to the bread Notwithstanding afterward he changed his minde in this as in many other thinges came to Indiuiduum vagum as if Christ had saide THIS what is it I can not tell but it must needes be somwhat is my body Occam and other profound fellowes of your side bethinking themselues how your opinion might best agree with the wordes of Christ say the pronoune THIS must be referred to the bodie of Christ as if our Sauiour had said this my body is my body To make all cocksure the coronell of your scholmen I meane the gloze resolueth the doubt on this wife Solet quaeri quid demonstretur per pronomen
doubt arise not touching the creatures of breade and wine but touching the fleshe and blood of Christ which are the Principall partes of this mystery the solution and explication of euery such doubt must be fet from the place where the Lord first reuealed this secret rebuked the Capernites for the misconstruction of his words and taught his Disciples how they should be both fruitfull partakers of his flesh rightful interpreters of his speech Phi. You woulde faine haue it so but wee meane to barre you that chaâ—ce Theo. You cannot bar vs but you must bar Chrysostom Cyprian Cyrill Austen and others that confesse the same trueth before vs. How chanced saieth Chrysostome the Disciples were not troubled when they heard this take eate this is my body Because their master had debated the same matter largely and profoundly before For at first when he spake of these thinges many were offended at the very words So Cyprian To the sonnes of Abraham doing the workes of Abraham the high Priest bringeth foorth bread and wine saying this is my body There arose before this as we reade in the Gospell of Iohn a question touching the nouelty of this speech and at the doctrine of this mysterie the hearers were amazed So Cyrill The Capernites before they beleeue question busily with him Therefore the Lord did not tell them how that might be but exhorteth them to seeke for it with faith mary to the beleeuing disciples he gaue peeces of breade saying take yee eate ye this is my body Likewise the cuppe hee deliuered round saying drinke yee all of this Thou seest that to those which asked without faith hee did not open the maner of this mysterie but to those which beleeued yea when they did not aske hee declared the same And Augustine When Christ spake of the Sacrament of his body and bloode they saide this speech is hard Who can heare it You see by the constant opinion of these Fathers that our Sauiour in the sixt of Iohn taught his Disciples what manner of eating his flesh and drinking his blood they should expect at his last Supper and that they therefore started not at these words this is my body because they learned of him before what to looke for and well remembred his interpretation of himselfe when the Capernites staggered at the like speech Then perforce what sense the wordes of Christ in the sixt of Iohn doe beare the same must the wordes of the supper retaine but there Christ teacheth the spirituall eating of his fleshe by faith his wordes bee figuratiue ergo the Lordes supper doeth not import any corporal eating of his flesh nor literall exposition of his wordes And why The performance may no way differ from the promise The promise made by Christ in the sixt of Iohn the bread which I will giue is my flesh was figuratiue The wordes then of the Supper THIS which I now giue is my body perfourming the same must likewise be figuratiue For Seales doe not alter or infringe but strengthen and confirme that which was promised The creatures of bread and wine Christ ordained at his last Supper to bee Sacramentes and Seales of his former promises vttered in the sixth of Iohn ergo they change not his meaning expressed before That was spiritual figuratiue therefore the wordes of the Supper can not be corporall nor literall And the wordes of Origen expounding the sixt of Iohn are a iust proofe that if in the wordes of the Supper you follow the letter that letter killeth Phi. This can not be Christ in the sixth of Iohn you say teacheth a spirituall and figuratiue kinde of eating his fleshe and in deliuering the Sacrament we be sure he spake of a corporall not of a spirituall eating his body For when our Lord saide take eate this is my body did hee not meane they should take it with their handes and eate it with their mouthes And therefore either the one place doth not serue to expound the other or else in both places is prescribed a reall and corporall eating the flesh of Christ drinking his blood which we rather imbrace as the likeliest Theo. In those wordes take and eate spoken at the last Supper hee ment no doubt the corporall taking and eating of that creature which hee gaue them and when hee added this is my body which hee tolde them before they must eate if they would haue any life in them he recalled to their mindes as Chrysostom noteth the doctrine hee had taught them of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in which because they were wel instructed by the Capernites error and their masters declaration of himselfe that the wordes which he spake were spirite and life they neither started nor stumbled at his speech but presently perceiued the Lord was ordayning a Sacrament to confirme their faith and not hiding his fleshe vnder accidentes or any other couerts to enter their mouthes for which grossenes the Capernits were before reproued Christes exposition therefore in the sixt of Iohn was purposely made to confute the carnal Iewes who when they heard of eating mans flesh and drinking blood dreampt of no kind of eating and drinking but with their bodily iawes lips and for that cause murmured as if they had beene inuited to some barbarous brutish act next to teach the disciples that indured his words in what sort they should looke for a diuiner purer kind of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood by beleeuing hoping and reioycing in his fleshe that was wounded and blood that was shed for their sinnes This he assured and ratified vnto them by ordaining afterward a Sacrament which they shoulde visibly see but inuisibly vnderstand corporally receiue but spiritually interprete in beleeuing the same by the power of his worde and spirit to haue in it cary with it the fulnes of his trueth mercy openly sealed with those pledges of his promises instruments of his grace lest their faith should faint by reason of his departure absence from theÌ„ or their harts faile them as if they were destitute of his protection fauor amidst so many troubles as should inclose them Phi. If you will needes haue the sixt of S. Iohn to pertaine to the Sacrament then is there say we a reall corporall kind of eating established in that chapter For Christ in plaine speech saith my flesh is meate in deede and my blood is drinke in deede Theo. It is well that you bethinke your selfe at last you were about to dissent both froÌ„ the fathers from your own felowes For the fathers as I haue shewed you confesse that the Disciples were by the words of Christ in this place instructed how they should eate his flesh drinke his blood euen in the sacrament that made theÌ„ vnderstand him when he said take eate this is my body drink ye al
sacraments they bee This maketh nothing for your locall inclosing of Christ vnder accidentes neither for your corporal mingling of his flesh with your flesh which are the two points that we chiefely detest in your reall presence Thus the greatest storme from which you thought no roose could rescue vs is halfe ouerpast and no hurt done if the rest fal as faire besides vs it wil be high time for your to leaue disputing and fall to practising as the rest of your fellowes do which bee lurking at home to infuse a rebellion or stirring abroad to boile it vp to his highth Your kingdom will neuer reflorish by pen and paper you must lay more plots and make new mariages Your time is short your rage great Phi. When you be confuted by reason then beginne you to charge vs with treason but answere the places which we bring you or I will leaue you I haue somewhat else to doing Theo. I thinke it bee the truest word you spake this moneth but an answere if that be all you looke for you shall not lackâ— The fathers whom you alleage for eating the real naturall flesh of Christ drinking his blood with your mouthes throates are fowly abused their words ignorantly misconstered if not purposely peruerted Phi. Are you there at host I see by your winding you wil run to their meaning Theo. What wroÌ„g is that if by their own rules I recal you to the right conceiuing of their wordâ— Phi. If you may make rules for religion we shall haue some wise worke of it I dare vndertake Theo. If themselues made rules to direct their hearers least their words should happily be mistaken you shew both your religion wisedom in refusing the same Phi. We refuse theÌ„ not if they be theirs Theo. If they be not you may the sooner repel theÌ„ Phi. Wel then what are they The. There shal not be many of them one will serue this turne Phi. That one then what is it The. The signes haue the names of the things themselues therfore out of the places which you haue brought you may not conclude that the naturall flesh of Christ is actually eaten with teeth or his blood really drunk with your lips but rather that the visible signes elements which are corporally receiued into your mouthes stomackes haue the vertues of those thinges whose names thâ—y beare after consecration Phi. I thought we should haue some such shift but trust me this of all others is the fondest absurdest that you could make For what ground of faith shal persist vnshaken if you giue men this scope to confesse the nâ—mâ—s but not the thinges So the Iew may reply when Christ is proued to be the true Mâ—ssias that he is so called but not so in deede So any heretâ—k may delude the whole scriptures if words shal stand as empty sounds without their sense See to what miserie you be driuen whiles you withstand the blessed Sacrament how far better were you to adore the same with vs catholâ—ks than to run into such hereticall briers The. Your sumptuous exhortatioÌ„ is but a ridiculous Iudification of your selues others We do not say that in matters of doctrine words may be receiued without their natural due signification but in Sacramentes we say the signes remaining in their former substance are called by the names of the thinges themselues therfore you must take good heed that you do not rashly conclude that of the one which was spokeÌ„ of the other least you fall into that seruitude sicknes of the soule which S. Austen warned you of before Phi. Would you appoint wheÌ„ the fathers words shal be consâ—ered of the signes wâ—en of the things The. Neither we nor you themselues are the â—ittest men to limit what they spake of the signes what of the things Phi. And do they say they spake this which I alleage of the signes The. They do Phi. â—f I should stay here til that be proued I should neuer go hence Theo. The matter is not so hard to be proued as you make it For if they mainly teach that Christs flesh is not eaten with teeth not swalowed with iawes not receiued into the coÌ„passe of the belly they must eithâ—r contradict theÌ„selues which they do not or those speeches which you bring must be vnderstood of the signes called by the names of Christs flesh blood though in truth they be not those things but sacraments of them as they by their own cautions wil instruct you Phi. I can not abide this going about the bush Theo. Indeed madmeÌ„ wil through the midst though they tear their flesh to the boanes for their labor Phi. Do you think vs mad The. It is greater madnes to sâ—ea your own soules with the rigor of other mens phrases when they giue you warning to the contrary than to wound your owne bodies with the sharpnes of any thornes Phi. We presse not their speeches against their prescriptions you rather would frustrate their meaning with your figures The. Let them tell their owne tales what they teach concerning the parts of this Sacrament then it will soone be seene whether you or we peruert them There be three thinges in the bread by like proportion in the wine that may be douted of the name the substance the power operation When we see which of these three be changed and which vnchaunged the myst of error will soonâ— be scattered The name we prooue to be chaunged by the generall confession of all the fathers Our Sauiour saiâ—h Theodoret changed the names and called the signe by the name of his bodie Christ called bread his bodie saieth Tertullian The signifying elementes and the thinges signified are called by the same names saith Cyprian Before the wordes of Christ saith Ambrose that which is offered is called bread when once the words of Christ be rehearsed it is now called not bread but his bodie The bread saith Prosper is called the bodie of Christ being in trueth the Sacrament that is the sacred signe of Christes bodie Chrysostom After sanctification it is discharged from the name of bread and counted worthie to beare the name of the Lords bodie notwithstanding the nature of brâ—ad still remaine Rabanus Because bread strengthneth our bodies therefore is it â—itly termed the bodie of Christ. Bertram The signes be called the Lords body blood by reason they take the name of that thing whose sacraments they be The general rule is plainely set downe by the famous Clarke S. Austen in these wordes If Sacraments had not a certaine likenes and resemblance to the things whose sacraments they are they should be no sacraments at all And for his similitude they commonly beare the names of the things themselues As therefore the Sacrament of christs body is after a sort the bodie of christ and the sacrament of christes blood
the thinges themselues whose signes those are Philand It were Theophil Why then since corporall eating serueth only for corporall nourishing and hath a continuall and naturall coherence with it doe you confesse the trueth in the later and not as well in the former part of that action why doe you not expound them both alike Philand To say the immortall fleshe of Christ is conuerted and turned into the quantitie and substaunce of our mortall flesh is an horrible heresie Theophil And so say that his fleshe is eaten with our mouthes and â—awes lâ—â—th in our stomacks is the verie pathway right introduction to that heresie or at least to as brutish and grosse an erour as that is Philand The Fathers affirme that his body is eaten with our mouthes Theophil And so they affirme that his bodie and blood doe increase and augment the substaunce of our mortall and sinnefull bodies Philand But that can not bee Theophil No more can the other Philand Howe shall our bodies rise at the last day if Christes body bee not in them Theophil Our resurrection dependeth not on the act of eating his flesh but of nourishing our fleshe with his as Ireneus telleth vs and the thinges which wee eate are not the causes but as the great Nicene councell admonisheth the pledges of our resurrection Their words be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must beleeue these to bee the signes or pledges of our resurrection Philand S. Chrysostom earnestly inforceth the eating of Christs flesh And sayth wee doe not onely eate it but euen * fasten our teeth in his fleshe Theo. In deede hee saith so but if you did not auert both your eyes and eares from the trueth you would perceiue by that verie sentence both the maner of his other Fathers speeches of that Sacrament and the right intent of their Doctrine in those cases His wordes are Non se tantum videri permittens desiderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desiderio sui omnes impleri Christ suffering himselfe not only to bee seene of those that are desirous but to bee touched and eaten and our teeth to bee fastned in his flesh and all to be satisfied of their longing after him Phi. Lord me thinketh these words be verie plain words He suffereth our teeth to bee fastned in his fleshe Theo. Uerie plaine they bee but very false also vnlesse you either take the flesh of Christ for the signe called by that name or else referre teeth and biting to the soule and faith of the â—â—ward man aâ— wel as you do the eyes hands wherewith we see him touch him Phi. Look what an â—â—â—sion you haue since gotten Theo. Nay looke what a subuersion of all truth and saith you be since fallen to Phi. Doth not this Father say wee fasten our teeth in his flesh Theo. Doeth hee not also say We see him with our eyes touch him with our handes Phi. That is referred to our faith as S. Ambrose teacheth Fide Christus videtur side Christus tangitur By faith Christ is seene by fayth Christ is touched Theoph. And why shall not the next which is more vnlikely to bee true bee referred to faith as well as the former Sainct Ambrose likewise saying Comedat te cor meuÌ„ panis sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee O holy bread O liuing bread O pure-bread come into my heart enter into my soule and Cyprian calling it the proper norishment of the spirite besides infinite others that for a thowsande yeares taught that doctrine in the church of God not your gutturall eating of Christ with teeth and iawes Phi. Was your maner of eating Christes fleshe which you defende in the sacrament taught in the church for a thowsande yeares Theop. Euen ours was and when yours came first to be proposed your schoolemen ran euery man his way fighting and scratching one an other â—ho should fal fastest and farthest from the truth Philand Blush you not to auouch two such monsterous lies Theop. A lyar will easily suspect any man as knowing him-selfe to delight in lies but GOD bee thanked that lyes with you bee truethes with vs and with all that haue any knowlegde of GOD or care of his truth The things which I affirmed be manifest truethes and such as you will blush at for verie shame if you be not sworne to your holie Father against Christ as well as you bee against your Prince Origen commenting vppon these wordes of the Supper this is my bodie this is my blood this breade sayeth hee which Christ confesseth to bee his bodie is the worde that nourisheth our soules and this drinke which hee confesseth to bee his blood is the worde that moysteneth and passinglie cheereth the heartes of such as drinke it Thou which art come vnto Christ sticke not in the blood of his fleshe but rather learne the blood of his worde and heare him saying to thee this is my blood which shall bee shedde for the remission of your sinnes Hee that is partaker of the mysteries knoweth the flesh and blood of the worde of God For the bread is the word of righteousnesse which our soules eating are nourished with and the drink is the worde of the knowledge of Christ according to the mysterie of his birth and death The blood of the Testament is poured into our heartes for the remission of our sinnes Athanasius Howe fewe men woulde his bodie haue sufficed that this shoulde bee the foode of the whole worlde Yea therefore doeth bee warne them of his ascension into heauen that he might drawe him from thinking on his bodie and they thereby learne that the flesh which he spake of was celestiall meate from aboue and spirituall nourishment to bee giuen by him The wordes which I spake to you are spirite and life which is as much as if hee had sayde this bodie which is in your sight and delyuered to death for the worlde shall bee giuen you for meate that it may bee spiritually distributed in euery one of you and be an assuraunce and preseruatiue to raise you to eternall life Cyprian writing of the Lordes Supper Eating and drinking saieth hee bee referred to the one and same end with the which as the substance of our bodies is increased and preserued so the life of the spirite is maintained with his proper nourishment What foode is to the fleshe that faith is to the soule what meate is to the body that the worde is to the spirite working euerlastingly with a more excellent vertue that which bodily meates doe for a time and vntill a season Ambrose approaching to the sacred communion which you intitle a prayer preparing to Masse amongest other thinges speaketh thus to Christ himselfe Thou Lord saydst with thine holy and blessed mouth the bread
which I will giue is my fleshe giuen for the life of the world Hee that eateth mee shall liue through mee hee abideth in mee and I in him I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer Most delightful bread heale thou the tast of my heart that I may feele the sweetenesse of thy loue Let mine heart eate thee and with thy present relesse let the bowels of my soule bee replenished Angels eate thee with full mouth let man that is a pilgrime on earth eate thee as his weakenesse will suffer him that hee faint not in the way hauing this prouision for his iourney Holy bread liuing bread beautifull bread which camest from heauen and giuest life to the worlde come into my heart and clense mee from all filth of flesh and spirit Enter into my soule heale and sanctifie me within and without No man earnester in this point than S. Austen This visible bread confirmeth the stomack confirmeth the bellie There is an other bread which confirmeth the hart because it is the bread of the hart There is a wine that doth rightly cheere the hart can do nothing but cheere the hart Therfore vnderstand so of the bread as thou doest of the wine inwardly hūger inwardly thirst blessed are they which hunger thirst after righteousnes for they shal be satisfied That breade is righteousnes that wine is righteousnesse is trueth and Christ is the trueth I am saieth hee the liuing bread which came from heauen and I am the vine you are but braunches To beleeue in him this is to eate the liuing bread hee that beleeueth eateth Man is inuisibly fedde because hee is inuisibly regenerated He is inwardly in soule a babe inwardly in minde renewed Looke in what part man is newe borne in that part is hee fedde The vnbeleeuing Iewes were farre from this heauenly breade neither knewe they howe to hunger for it the iawes of their hearts were dull and this bread requireth the hunger of the inward man Take heed brethren eate you this heauenly bread spiritually bring innocencie to the altar Eate life and drinke life For then is the bodie and blood of the Lord life to each man when that which is visiblie taken in the Sacrament is in very trueth spiritually eaten spiritually drunken When Christ is eaten life is eaten neither when wee eate him doe wee make peeces of him In deede in the Sacrament it is so and the faithfull knowe howe they eate the fleshe of Christ euerie man taketh his peece Wherefore grace it selfe is termed peeces Christ is eaten by peeces in the sacrament and yet hee remaineth whole in heauen hee remayneth whole in thine heart Prouide not your iawes but your heart Thence is this Supper commended Beholde wee beleeue in Christ wee receiue him with our fayth In taking wee know what wee should thinke wee take him but a litle and our heart is replenished Macarius In the church is offered breade and wine the samplar of his body and blood and they which are partakers of the visible breade doe spiritually eate the Lordes fleshe Emissenus When thou goest vppe to the reuerende Altar to bee filled with spirituall meats by fayth beholde honour and wonder at the sacred bodie and bloode of thy God touch it with thy mynde take it with the hand of thyne heart and chiefely prouide that the inwarde manne swallowe the whole This Doctrine continued eight hundreth yeares after Christ. Bertram then liuing is witnesse sufficient The bodie and blood of Christ if thou consider the outward appearance is a creature subiect to mutation and corruption but if thou waigh the vertue of the mysterie it is life performing immortalitie to those that receiue it As touching the visible creature the mysteries feed the body but by the vertue of a mightier substance they feede sanctify the soules of the faithful What we should eat what we should drinke the holy Ghost expresseth by the Prophet Tast and see howe sweete the Lord is Doeth that breade corporally tasted or that wine sipped shewe howe sweete the Lorde is whatsoeuer tast that hath it is corporall and pleaseth the iawes Hee doeth therefore inuite vs to vse the relesse of our spirituall tast in that breade and drinke to dreame of no corporall thing but to conceiue all to bee spirituall This meate confirmeth our heart and this drinke cheereth the heart of man sayeth the Prophet By the which it is euident that nothing in this meate nothing in this drinke must bee corporally taken but the whole spirituallie considered For the soule which is ment by mans heart in this place is not fedde with corporall meate or drinke but is refreshed and nourished with the worde of God Faith beleeueth that which is not seene and spiritually feedeeth the soule and cheereth the heart and giueth eternall life whiles wee marke not that which feedeth the bodie not that which is pressed with teeth not that which is brused in peeces but that which is spiritually taken with faith For this is a spirituall foode and a spirituall drinke spiritually feeding the soule Paschasius commeth after Bertram in age but ioyneth with him in the same confession of trueth The diuine mysteries our inwarde man receiueth through the grace of Christ with vnderstanding and by them is hee made one bodie with Christ through the power of faith The fleshe and blood of Christ because they bee thinges spirituall are fullie receiued by fayth and vnderstanding It is not lawfull to eate Christ with teeth Christ is the meate of Angels and this Sacrament is truely his fleshe and his blood which fleshe and blood man eateth and drinketh spirituallie And so by what food the Angels liue by that also man liueth because in this that man receiueth all is diuine and spirituall Wee drinke spiritually and wee eate the spirituall flesh of Christ in which is beleeued to bee eternall life All that wee eate is spirituall The power of faith and vnderstanding which doubteth nothing of Christ doeth tast and relesse the whole spiritually Otherwise but for faith and vnderstanding what finde they which tast these thinges besides breade and wine The visible quantitie must not bee esteemed in this mysterie but the power of the spirituall Sacrament Wee must not respect howe much of the quantitie is pressed with our teeth but how much is receiued through faith and loue Therefore my sonne when thou commest to the participation of this mysterie OPEN THE BOSOM OF THY MINDE cleanse thy conscience and receiue thou not what a morsell containeth but AS MVCH AS THY FAITH APPREHENDETH Fulbertus a thousand yeres after Christ treadeth the same path That which appeared outwardly to be the substance of breade and wine is nowe made the bodie and blood
wil thinke you madde if you fall to these positions that Christ in the host hath an humane shape and yet the host which couereth him fully round that he is there in the iust length and breadth of a man and yet exactly enclosed in euery cromme of the bread drappe of the wine that he is * circumscribed with place and yet contained in no place that he * consisteth of skinne fleshe and bones and yet breaketh in shiuers and is poured out like liquor these with infinite other such outragious and enourmous absurdities and contrarieties will declare rather the weakenes of your braines than the maner of his presence You shall do well therefore either to shew vs what father euer taught these things before you or els keepe this confusion of al religion learning for those that list to ieopard their souls vpon such iests The Realme of England is not yet minded to admitte thâ—se monsters into their Creede Phi. We teache not these things without good grounds and such as the Catholike Fathers before vs embraced and allowed Theo. If you follow their steppes then shew vs their writings for that you affirme Phi. Can wee not thinke you Theo. What you can doe I care not you do not I see Phi. What one thing defend we which we haue not their witnes and warrant for Theo. You haue not one father for this whole question Phi. Not for the real presence Theo. You may runne on with some misconstructions of the Fathers which are as soone answered by vs as obiected by you but an euident testimonie for any of the partes which I haue proposed you haue none Phi. What partes Theo. Your head is wandring that you haue since forgotten them That Christ spake not of the bread when he said this is my body or that the sense of his wordes was literall or that the substance of bread ceaseth after consecration so as nothing remaineth of the former elements but accidents or that the corporall eating with the mouth of which the Fathers speak must be meant of the things themselues and not of the signes called by those names and hauing those vertues after sanctification or that the material substance of Christs natural body may be present in many places at one time or that it is no heresie to defend the body of Christ after his ascension may lack circumscription extension or shape For any of these bring vs but one sufficient and auncient authoritie we will omit the rest and admit your Masse Phi. Will you stand to that worde Theo. If you will vndertake the proofe Philand I will Theo. And what if you performe it not will you bethinke your selfe how lewdly you seduce the people of this land vnder a pretence of pietie and resist the annoincted of God vnder a colour of blind deuotion and zeale to your holie Father the worker of al this wickednes though the founder of your two Celledges Phi. If I perform not that I will do any thing marie prouided alwaies you shall not cauill at the Fathers workes when I cite them and say they be forged Theo. Prouided also that you produce the Fathers workes themselues and not the bare reportes of your fellowes that haue falsely conueied many thinges in the Fathers names Philand You shall haue their owne workes Theoph. Then keepe on your owne course Phi. The rest of the points which you propose I am alreadie past only traÌ„substanâ—iation which you most impugne I kept to the last to giue you the list But if I proue it so as you shall not deny it will you be as good as your promise and become a catholike Theo. A Catholike if I were not I would bee with a good will but not of your making For if you cannot shew me one Father that euer taught your Transubstantiation wel you may call your selues catholiks and christes own fellowes if you will but all that be Godly and wise will take you for deceitful if noâ— for desperate heretikes But why spend you time with triâ—ling thus It were better your fathers were on foot at lest if you haue them Phi. Haue them Such as shall amaze you when you heare them Theo. Your vaine is in A stourdie preface doth ill become an hungrie Oratour Phi. Marke the end Theo. I would see the man that I might marke him Phi. S. Austen shal be the man Theo. Was he a Transubstantiator Phi. Fairly flatly fully Th. So was the moone first made of green cheese Phi. You wil not beleeue him til you heare him Theo. He is not long in comming â—hath he not yet learned his lesson or are you scant resolued whether it be he or not Phi. It is euen he and these be his wordes Non dubitare debet alâ—quis cum panis vinum consecrantur in veram substantiam Christi ita vt non remaneat substantia panis vel vini cum multa alia etiam in operibus Dei non minus miranda videmus Hominem enim substantialiter mutat Deus in lapidem vt vxorem Loth in paruo artificio hominis faenum filicem in vitrum Nec credendum est quod substantia panis velvini remaneat sed panis in corpus Christi vinuÌ„ in sanguinem conuertitur solummodo qualitatibus panis vini remanentibus No man ought to doubt when bread wine are consecrated into the trew substance of christ so as the substance of bread wine doth not remaine whereas we see manie things in the works of God no lesse maruelous than this A man God changeth substantially into a stone as Loths wife in the small workmanship of man hay ferne into glasse Neither must we beleeue that the substance of bread or wine remaineth but the bread is turned into the bodie of Christ the wine into his bloud the qualities or accidents of bread wyne only remaining What say you to this check is it mate or no Theo. The words are sufficient if the writer be ancient Phi. Then are you gone for the author is S. Austen Theo. He seemeth to haue beene some glassâ—maker rather than S Austen for he saith the working of glasse is as wounderful a feate as the turning of bread into Christs bodie Phi. You would disgrace the writer but he will not so be put out of countenance Theo. I think he will not for had he or you any shame left he would haue blushed al his while to beare S Austens name which was none of his you would haue had some remorce to deceiue the worlde with such apparent euident treacheries Phi. I thought where we should haue you Now you cannot shifte the wordes you 〈◊〉 the place for a forgerie but this is against the first prouiso which I made with you Theophi Then shew vp where you find it in his workes for that was the second prouiso which you agreed to Phi. I assure my selfe these
earthly cogitations of the mysticall elements and to stir them rather to marke in this Sacrament the wonderfull power and effects of Gods spirit and grace than the base condition and naturall digestion of bread and wine Phi. Would S. Chrysostom haue vs thinke the mysteries to bee consumed vnlesse in deede they were consumed Theo. His directing our cogitations for religion and reuerence rather to the inward force than outward appearance of the mysteries doeth not chaunge the sensible qualities of bread and wine whereof hee spake much lesse the substance alone whereof he spake not but draweth the receiuers from that which their eyes behold to that which by faith they beleeue to the secreter and diuiner part of the Sacrament not abolishing the one but preferring the other as more worthy to be considered and desired by the commers to the Lordes table And in this sense he willeth the people not to thinke that the Priest is a man in the verie next wordes that followe without line or letter betwixt Wherefore approaching to the Lordes table doe not thinke that you receiue the diuine body at the handes of a man but that you take a fierie coale by the Seraphims tongues which Esay sawe in his vision Can this be Chrysostoms meaning that in act and verie deede the Priest is changed into a Seraphim his hand into a paire of tongs the body of Christ into a coale of fire Except you be past your fiue wits you wil say no yet Chrysostom in the same place perswadeth the cōmunicants so to think as he did before that the mysteries were consumed by the substance or presence of Christs body Then if the latter wordes inferre no such chaunge why should the former If you be not so foolish as to mistake the second part of this sentence why be you so wilfull as to peruert the first vttered at the same time to the same purpose with the verie same phrase of speach Chrysostomes intent is no more to transsubstantiate the bread than the priest or the bodie of Christ but with vehement amplifications as his manner is he perswadeth the people to come to the Lordes table with no lesse reuerence than if they were to receiue a fierie coale as Esay did in his vision from one of the glorious Seraphims And to this end also doth he kendle them what he can not to be basely minded and affected toward the mysteries as if they were onely bread and wine in that sort to passe through the bellie with other meates but to prepare their hartes and to lift them vp to God as they promised to doe when the Priest saide lift vp your minds and harts they made answere we lift them vp vnto the Lord. These wordes therefore force no reall mutation in the thinges receiued but leade the receiuers from thinking on the weake creatures which they see to the mighty power of Gods graces which they see not and this is done with a religious cōsideration not with any monsterous transubstantiation or annihilation of the sacred mysteries Phi. S. Cyrill of Ierusalem saith Know you for a suerty that this bread which is seene of vs is not bread though the tast find it to be bread but the body of Christ. And so Theophilact It appeareth to bee bread but it is fleshe Theo. The first authors of this speach were late writers as Theophilact or lately set foorth by your fellowes not without great suspition as Cyrill of Ierusalem and the speech it selfe doth somwhat vary from the stile both of the Scriptures and fathers which acknowledge this mysterie to be bread wine The bread which we breake saith Paul is it not the communion of Christes body We all are partakers of one bread As often as you eate of this bread drink of this cup you shew the Lords death til he come Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drink of this cup. And our Sauiour in the Gospell speaking of the cup I will not drinke hencefoorth of this fruit of the vine Tertul. Christ hath not euen at this day reiected the water of the creator by which he doth wash his nor the bread by the which hee doth represent his verie body Clemens Alexandrinus This is my blood euē the blood of the grape Cyprian We find it was wine which the Lord called his blood The Lord called his body bread kneaded togither of many cornes and his blood wine pressed out of many clusters of grapes Origen The Lords bread according to the materiall partes thereof goeth into the belly and so foorth by the draught Austen As the men of God before vs did expound this the Lord commended his body blood in those things which are made one of many For the first is kneaded of many cornes into one lumpe the other is pressed of many clusters into one liquour That then which you saw is bread which also your eyes can tell you Cyrill of Alexandria To the beleeuing Disciples Christ gaue peeces of breade saying take eate this is my body Hesychius Hee meaneth that mystery which is both breade and fleshe The phrase it selfe therefore It is not bread sauoreth of later ages and writers and crosseth that course of speeche which both Scriptures and Fathers obserued and yet if you suffer them to declare their owne mindes they may soone be reconciled to the rest Theophilact expressing the same point in other wordes saieth Speciem quidem panis vini seruat in virtutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat Christ keepeth the shape or kind of bread and wine but changeth thē into the vertue of his body and blood Cyrill openeth his owne saying more at large The bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost is nowe no more common bread but the bodie of Christ. In the new Law the heauenly bread and cup of saluation sanctifie both soule and bodie As the bread serueth for the bodie so doth the word for the soule Thinke not therefore of the Sacrament as of bare bread and bare wine it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lordes owne wordes And although sense tell thee this that is bare bread and wine yet let faith confirme thee neither iudge them by tast but rather by faith assure thy selfe without all doubt that the body and blood of Christ are giuen vnto thee This assertion we grant is right and good and this intent had hee when hee said the bread which is seene is no bread meaning no common no bare bread In which assertion other ancient Fathers concurre with him Iustinus Wee receiue not these thinges as a common vsual bread or accustomed drink but we be taught that the food blessed by praier of the worde receiued from him is the fleshe and blood of that Iesus which tooke fleshe for our sakes Ireneus
Friers vnder the names of ancient and learnâ—â— Fathers Phi. Whatsoeuer he was ancient he was and taught the same doctrine without all question which we doe Theo. His antiquitie you know not and his doctrine you vnderstand not For though we like not your shuffling and exchanging of names with the fathers and broaching your fancies and heresies vnder their 〈…〉 this whâ—le sermon we can and doe admitte as hauing nothing either dissident from true antiquitie or repugnant to that which we teach Phi. Will you say that doctrine of his is not repugnant to yours Theo. Why should I not Phi. Wil you confesse that the visible creatures are turned into the substance of christs flesh by the secret power of his word The. His words I say make nothing for your abolishing the substance of bread and wine and leauing the accidents Phi. He saith the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud Theo. But he saith not the substance of the visible creatures is turned into the substance of christs flesh Phi. How can one creature bee turned into the substance of an other but by loosing his former substance Theo. In natural mutations it is so but this is nothing lesse than natural Phi. It is diuine and supernaturall Theo. And so is it likewise spirituall and mysticall not really changing the matter and substance of the elements but casting grace vnto nature Phi. Nay he saith the substance of the creatures is changed Theo. Where saith he so Phi. He saith which is al one that the visible creatures are changed into the substance of christs body The. But by no material nor corporal change Phi. How can the creatures be turned into christs substaÌ„ce but by a material corporal change Theo. That is your error not your authors addition Phi. It is not possible to be otherwise Theo. What if your own writer in this very case and place reproue you for a liar Phi. That earthly creatures shoulde be turned into Christs substance without a materiall and substantiall change Neuer say it it cannot be Theo. Will you looke but two lines farther and you shall see this great impossibilitie auouched by your own author Quomodo tibi nouum impossibile esse non debeat quod in Christi substantiam terrena mortalia conuertuntur te ipsum qui in Christo es regeneratus interroga How this to thee should neither be strange nor impossible that mortal earthly creatures are turned into Christs substance aske thy selfe which art regenerated in Christ. Somtimes since thou wast farre from life excluded from mercie and banished from the path of saluation as being inwardly dead suddenly initiated by the lawes of christ renued by the healthfull mysteries thou didst passe into the body of the church not by sight but by faith thou which wert the sonne of perdition obtainedst to be made the adopted child of god by a secret puritie remaining in the same visible measure thou grewest inuisibly without increase of quantitie being thy self the very same that thou wast before in processe of faith thou becamest another in the outward man nothing was added al changed in the inward Taking this spiritual immaterial change of euery christiaÌ„ in baptism to shew in what sort how he ment that mortal earthly creatures by consâ—â—ration are conuerted into the substance of christ which is far froÌ„ a corporal substantial change such as you would vrge by preteÌ„ce of his words in yâ— creatures of bread wine Phi. This construction cannot stand that creatures should be turned into an other substance and yet remaine in their owne and former substance For then how are they chaunged Theo. In your physical conceits it cannot but if you consult those Fathers that were the first introducers of this speeche you shall finde it may Gelasius ioyneth them both together in one sentence the one to expound the other In diuinam transeunt spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae The sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ passe into a diuine substance by the working of the holie Ghost and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature And lest you shoulde cauell that they kept their former qualities and not their substance in expresse woordes he saith tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini and yet for all they passe into a diuine substance the former substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not nor is abolished no more than the manhood of Christ was chaunged from his former substance when after his ascension it was replenished with diuine glorie Phi. You frustrate the sayings of the fathers with your comparisons Theo. They be their owne comparisons principal intentions in those places where they speake these wordes and therefore if you will rack the one to your length and not respect the other you may soone force some phrases to feede your fansies But this is not the safest way for you to walke in matters of faith nor the rightest course for you to take to come by their meaning You must looke how far they presse their own words what they would conclude not what you lâ—st to conceiue or imagine of their speaches Howsoeuer they mention a change of the bread into the diuine essence substance no father auoucheth any corporal material or substantial change of the elements into the bodie blood of Christ but a spirituall mystical and effectual annexing vniting the one to the other either paâ—t retaining the trueth of his former and proper nature and substance This is apparent by those very places sentences which you bring to prooue a chaunge the fathers teach not the one without the other as you saw for eâ—ample in Gelasius and your Eusebius and so in Cyprian Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread which the Lord gaue to his disciples chaunged not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh and lest you should dreame of any materiall or substantiall chaunge as your manner is the verie next wordes in the same sentence are Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essentia and as in the person of Christ his humanitie was seene his diuinitie was hidde and secret so in the visible sacrament the diuine essence doth infuse it selfe after an vnspeakeable manner Phi. Did you bring this place for vs or against vs you could not haue lighted on a fitter for our purpose if you shuld haue sought these seuen yeares The. I knowe it is one of your best authorities as you make your account and yet it is no way preiudiciall to vs if
more can it worke this that they shal be the same they were yet be changed into an other thing And to shew vs an example how a thing may be that it was yet be changed he forthwith addeth Tu ipse eras sed era◠vetus creatura posteae quam consecratu◠es noua creatura esse caepisti Vis scire quam nouae creatura Omnis inquit in Christo nouae creatura Accip◠ergo quemadinodū sermo Christi creaturam omnem mutare consueuerit mutat quando vult instituta naturae Thou thy selfe wast but thou wast an oulde creature after when thou wast Baptised thou begannest to be a new creature Wilt thou know how true it is that thou art a new creature Euery one saith the Apostle is in Christ a new creature Learn then how the word of Christ is accustomed to chaunge euery creature and when he will he altereth the course of nature ◠keeping the same similitude of Baptisme for the explication of himselfe that the rest do thereby declaring he meaneth nothing lesse than that the matter and substance of the bread and wine should be changed For he that is baptised suffereth no materiall substantiall nor corporall chaunge though hee bee borne a fresh and putte on Christ and euen so the sacred elements are turned into the fleshe of our Sauiour without abolishing their former nature or substance Phi. If these places of S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose conclude not for vs certainly they conclude nothing against vs and therefore you cannot refell our assertion by them Theo. I doe not I shew the places which you take most hold of haue no such sequel as you surmise so your transubstantiation is your late and priuate imagination without all antiquite Phi. Call you that late or priuate which hath beene the generall and constant confession of all Christendome for these fifteene hundereth yeres Theo. It doth you good to crake though there be neither trueth nor sense in that you say Hath al christendom for these fifteene hundereth yeres confessed the substance of bread and wine at the Lords table to be changed into the reall natural body bloud of Christ Phi. It hath Theo. How shal we know that Phi. You may find it in their writings Theo. How chanceth then you can not shew one that for 800 yeares made that confession Phi. We can Theo. You do not as yet Phi. Yeas we haue done it S. Augustine told you plainly the substance of breade and wine did not remaine but only the qualities and venerable Bede said there was the shew but not the substance of bread Be not these direct and faire proofes Theo. Fairely forged they be but otherwise the writers themselues were neuer of that opinion Phi. I haue proued by S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril that it is no bread Theo. No bare nor common bread as our sense doth iudge but yet the nature of bread still remaineth though endued with a more diuine and mightie grace Phi. The bread is chaunged as S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose teache Theo. Not by loosing that it had but by annexing that it had not Phi. It is conuerted into the substance of Christ. Theo. But by no materal nor corporall chaunge of the former substance Phi. This is your deluding of fathers The. That is your abusing of them Phi. You recal their wordes to your liking Theo. And you inforce thē against their meaning Phi. Who shall iudge of that Theo. Not you Phi. Nor you Theo. Let their owne mouthes be trusted Phi. I am well contented Theo. Then are you condemned For where their wordes beare our exposition as wel as yours you vrge a corporal and substantial change on their speaches in euery place which they in plaine wordes protest to be no part of their faith Phi. Where find you that protestation Theo. Is your memorie so short that I must now make a new repetition Phi. You went about to prooue that the substance of bread remained The. And that which I professed I performed you may turne back view the words The substance of bread doth not cease to be the signes remaine in their former substance As touching the substances of the creatures they are the same after Consecration that they were before And that was Cyprians meaning when he said Corporalis substantiae retinens speciem retaining their kind of corporall substance as also this substantiall bread This is warrant sufficient in any Christian mans iudgement for vs so to interpret the fathers words as we do not abolish the substance of bread which they confesse remaineth Phi. Had that beene their doctrine would their after-commers thinke you haue so soone swarued from their faith Theo. They did not That verie confession that the substance of bread remained after consecration dured almost a thousand yeares in most parts of the West Church and namely in this realme Omit Bertram that liued 830. after Christ whose booke is extant purposely and largely treating of this matter Walafridus an other of that time giueth flat euidence against your chaunging of substances in the sacrament when hee saith In caena quam ante traditionem suam vltimam cum Discipulis Christus habuit post Paschae veteris solemnia corporis sanguinis sui sacramenta in panis vini substantia eisdem Discipulis tradidit In the supper which Christ had with his Disciples last before hee was betraied after the solemnities of the olde Passeouer he deliuered to the same disciples the sacraments of his bodie and blood in the substance of bread and wine And so doeth Druthmarus reporting our Sauiours act at his last supper in these words Transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus suum vinum in sanguinem Christ chaunging the bread into his bodie and the wine into his bloode spirituallie And so Paschasius though you haue here there enterlaced that book to help your selues and printed it vnder the name of Rabanus as well as of Paschasius Panis confirmat cor hominis vinum letificat c. propter quod in eadem substantia iure celebratur hoc mysterium salutis Bread confirmeth and wine cheereth the hart c. wherefore in that substance is this mysterie of our saluation worthily celebrated Waleramus Bishop of Medburg a thousand yeares after Christ continued the same doctrine though some Italians then beganne to fortifie their new conceits of shewes without substance His wordes are Materiae vel substantia Sacrificij non simpla est sicut nec pontifex solius diuinae vel-humanae solius substantiae est Est ergo tam in Pontifice quā in sacrificio diuina substātia est terrena Terrena in vtroque est illud quod corporaliter vel localiter videri potest diuina in vtroque verbum inuisibile quod in principio erat Deus apud Deum The matter or substance of the sacrifice is not single as also the high priest
himself is neither of a diuine substance only nor of an humane only There is then as wel in the high Priest as in the sacrifice an heauenly substance there is also an earthly substanceâ— The earthly substance in theÌ„ both is that which may corporally locally be seen The heauenly in them both is the inuisile word which in the beginning was God with God The Church of England euen to the conquest held the same Doctrine and taught it to the people of this Land in their publike homilies which are yet to be seene of good record in the Saxon tongue The sermon then read on Easter day throughout their Churches is a manifest declaration of that which I say where amongst others these words are occurrent The holy font water that is called the welspring of life is like in shape to other waters and is subiect to corruption but the holy Ghosts might commeth to the corruptible water through the Priests blessing and it can after wash the bodie and soul from all sinne through Ghostly might Beholde now we see two things in this one creature After true nature that water is corruptible water and after Ghostly mystery hath hallowing might So also if we behold that holie housell after bodily vnderstanding then see we that it is a creature corruptible mutable if we acknowledge therein ghostly might theÌ„ vnderstaÌ„d we that life is therein and that it giueth immortalitie to them that eate it with beliefe Much is betwixt the inuisible might of the holy housel the visible shape of his proper nature It is naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine and is by might of Gods word truly Christes bodie and his bloud not so notwithstanding bodily but Ghostly Much is betwixt the bodie Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housell The body truely that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud with bone with skinne and with sinewes in humane limmes with a reasonable soul liuing and his Ghostly body which wee call the housell is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without limme without soul. And therefore nothing is to be vnderstood therein bodily but al is Ghostly to be vnderstood Phi. What care we for your Saxon recordes Theo. Lesse care we for your Romish Monckish recordes so lately and grossely forged as we haue proued yet this to your inward grief you may now see shal an other day to your vtter confusion feele that your nouelties touching the Sacrament were neuer hard of in the Church of England nor in the Church of Christ til Lancfrancus Anselmus other Italians a thowsand yeres after christ came in with their AntichristiaÌ„ deuises and inuentions expounding Species and forma panis for the qualities accidents of bread without any subiect or substance which once taking place you fel amaine both to sacrilegious sophismes against trueth and rebellious practises against Princes ceased not til you brought them to their hight in your late Laterane Councell vnder Innocentius the third 1215 yeares after Christ. This is your Catholicisme that you so much vaunt of which the Christian world was vtterly ignorant of for almost a thousand yeares and to the which you would now reduce the simple with a shew of holines pretending greate grauitie and admirable antiquitie with bolde faces and eger speaches though you be void of both if you were well examined Phi. Were the doctrine of elder ages in some doubt which we knowe to be fully for vs yet you confesse these last fiue hundreth yeares are cleare on our side Theo. The miter and Scepter were yours the mysterie of iniquiiie working as was foretold and infecting the West Church with hypocrisie and heresie as fast as the Turke oppressed the East with rage tyrannie Yet in euerie of these last most corrupted ages God raised a number of innocent and simple men with the confession of their mouthes and expence of their liues to witnesse his trueth against the pride and fury of their aduersaries whome your holie father hanged burned and otherwise murdered for repining at his proceedings that whome with honour and ease he could not allure at lest he might quaile with terror and torment Phi. Shoulde wee leaue the fellowship of holie Popes famous Prelates mighty Princes learned and Religious Moncks and Friers yea Saints and ioyne our selues to a fewe condemned and infamous heretikes as you doe Theo. That which is pretious and admirable before men may be odious detestable before God The dignities of men cannot deface the truth of Christ the higher their states the greater their falles if they did oppose themselues against the highest Phi. You say they did Theo. I doe not but this I say that if the respect of their externall and temporall glorie be the ground of your conscience you haue a wicked affection as well as Religion To follow men against God is to magnifie them afore God Phi. You condemne them for cast-awaies Theo. I am not their iudge He that made them might be mercifull to them amiddest the defects and dangers of those daies as he hath been to some in all ages and places yet that is no safetie for you to defend their open errors and wilfully to continue their wickednes Phi. Were not our fathers religious and holy men Theo. Iustifie not your fathers against God lest their mouthes condemne you for a pernicious ofsprng God will be glorified when he iudgeth say you and your fattherâ— what you can to the contrary Reprooue not the sharpnes of his iustice which he neuer sheweth but for great and vrgent cause submit your selues rather and acknowledge it is his vndeserued and yet not vnwoonted mercie that you be not consumed as your fathers were before you but haue yet time and warning to repâ—nt Phi. And are you such Saints that you â—eede no repentance Theo. Wee desire to liue no longer than we confâ—sse before heauen and earth that as God hath beene righteous in reuenging the sinnes and iniquities of our fathers by taking his trueth from them and leauing them to the power of darkenes and kingdome of Antichrist so he might most iustly for our vngodlines vnthankfulnes haue wrapped vs in the same confusion and destruction saue that of his infinite and vnspeakeable mercy he woulde haue his Gospell preached afresh for a witnes to all Nations before he come to iudgement to make all men inexcusable that haue either not beleeued or not obeyed the truth And this causeth vs not onely with all that is within vs to giue glorie to his name for so great a blessing but to beseech him that though we be lighted on the ends of the world when charitie waxeth cold and faith is skant found on the face of the earth we may not be caried away with the error of the wicked to perdition especially not to followe the way of Cain that
naught why should it haue chambers A christian Prince may not pardon or winke at your falshood S. Paul hath put in a caueat against that sleight of permitting which in truth is consenting Elie reproued his sonnes yet was he sharply punished of God for his indulgence which is all one with your conniuence S. Iohn saith he that lodgeth or biddeth an heretike God speede is partaker of his euill works Thē how can the Magistrate beare with your sacrilegious prophaning the Lordes supper or licence the rest of your blasphemies hope to be free from your plagues When Valentinian the yonger was requested to winke at the renewing of an altar for the Pagās in Rome S. Ambrose disswadeth him in these words All mē serue you that be Princes you serue that mighty God He that serueth this God must bring no dissimulation no conniuence but faithful zeale deuotion he must giue no kind of cōsent to the worship of Idols other prophane ceremonies For God will not be deceiued which searcheth all things euen the secrets of our heartes This earnest desire to serue God in hir Princely vocation without any shrinking or wauering hath bin so long plāted is so well setled in hir Maiesties deuoute minde that no possible meanes euer could as you presently finde euer shall as we trust in Gods mercy quench in hir Highnesse that religious affection Phi. This the Apostles confessors did often in the primitiue Church S. Cypriā testifieth that some did in his time S. Athanasius himselfe did with the Catholikes in Antioch Theo. What did they marchandize priuate Masses or feede men with demie Communions Did they mock the simple with praiers not vnderstood or weary them with empty gestures They did no such thing but Priest people ioyned togither to celebrate the Lords supper tasting al of one bread which was broken of one cup which was blessed offred thanks to God with one consent of hart voice for the flesh of Christ that was wounded blood y◠was shed for the remission of their sinnes This was done in prisons whiles persecution lasted in chambers if necessitie forced in those churches which the Christians frequēted Straine Cyprians words at your pleasure yet will they neuer be drawen to make for your vanities He warneth the people not to flock to the prisons in heaps least their resort be noted of Infidels by that meanes all accesse denied he rather aduiseth them that a Priest a Deacon by course should visite the Confessors To what end you shal find at large in a leter of his to Cornelius Let vs not leaue thē naked vnarmed whō we prouoke incite to the skirmish but defend them with the munitiō of the body blood of Christ our Eucharist hauing that vertue to safegard the receiuers How do we prepare thē to take the cup of Martyrdom except we first admit them in the church as cōmunicāts to drink of the Lords cup He that cōcludeth both kinds to be needful for such as were ready to spend their liues in the professiō of Christs name doubtles neuer ment to procure thē a priuate Masse that should keep thē frō receiuing of either Athanasius refusing Leontius the Bishop of Antioch for heresie did cōmunicate in priuat houses with such as fauored Eustathius It skilleth not where but what he did our Sauiour appointed neither time nor place to be respected in his supper but the word elemēts charging vs to do what he did which is to breake giue that all may be partakers of one bread to diuide the cup that all may drincke thereof Do that which he commanded to be done who first ordained this mystery Do that which S. Paul receiued of the Lord deliuered to the Church of Corinth do that I say which the primitiue Church of Christ alwayes did and as for places we wil not greatly striue The rigor of penal statutes searches of temporal officers watchfulnes of poore ministers doth maruelously trouble your spirits I wil not requite you with the flames you kindled in England to burne your brethren to dust with that holy house which your Friers haue planted in Spaine resembling the tortures of Neroes garden with the Massacres of Prouince Piemont and Paris Let passe with silence the cruel executions of your inordinate rages God giue you grace to repent your murders past and soften your vnmercifull harts in time to come you were brought vp in lambes lease belike that you startle thus at the fatherlie chastisement wherewith this Realme seeketh your amendment and sucketh not your blood Compare the penalties which you fret at with the lawes of former Emperours and you shall see that hir Maiesties gracious inclination to shew you fauour aboue your deserts hath eased the burden and tempered the sharpenesse of their auncient edictes which restrained such as forbare to communicate with the Church of Christ from buying selling disposing bequething goods or lands by will or otherwise yea from receiuing any legacies or enioying their fathers inheritance the place where schismaticall seruice was saide chappell or house to be forfaited and the Bishop and Cleargie-man to paie tenne pound weight in gold or to be banished S. Austen when it was expected by reason of the goodnesse of his nature that he should mediate for some part of these penalties to be released gaue this quick stout answere Yea marie what else I should gain-say this constitution that you loose not the things which you call yours you without feare spoile Christ of all his that the Romane lawes should permit you to make your last wils and you with cauelling reuerse that which God bequethed our fathers that in buying and selling your contracts might be good and you share that among you which Christ bought when he was solde that you might freely giue what you list and what the God of Gods hath bestowed on his owne children from East to West should be voide that you should not be banished from the place where your bodies rest and you driue Christ from the kingdom purchased with his blod to reach from sea to sea Nay nay let Princes on Gods name serue Christ in making lawes for Christ. You neede not complaine of rigour so long as our penall statutes be farre more fauourable than these lawes which the Christian Emperours established and the Catholike fathers commended Acquaint the world with the persecution that you suffer in England and your vntrue reports shall soone be conuinced The greatest brunt your friends did beare till this last reuolt which you procured if they ioyned therewithall no traiterous intent was imprisonment where no man was denied the freedom of his goods the comfort of his wife the succor of his friends the basest among them neuer knew what dungeon stocks or Irons ment yet say you They were chased from their houses spoiled of their goods and handled
nouelties and thy life stayned with so manifold infamies wee let thee vnderstand that as we neuer promised thee obedience so hereafter will wee yeeld thee none because no man amongst vs as thou openly gauest out hath bene hereto accounted a Bishoppe by thee thou also from henceforth shalt be taken by none of vs for Apostolike The Bishops and nobles at Brixia concluded against him in these woordes Because it is certaine that he was not chosen by God but by fraude and briberie most shamelesly intruded himselfe which also subuerteth the order of the Church and troubleth the Christian Empire which practiseth to kill both the body and soule of our Catholike and peaceable king and maintaineth a periured king which hath sowed discord betwene those that agreed strife betwene those that were at peace offences betwene brethren and diuorces betweene man and wife and hath shaken whatsoeuer stood quiet amongst the godly we assembled togither in the name of God agaynst the said Hildebrand a most impudent person breathing out sacrileges spoiles defending periuries and murderers calling in question the Catholicke and Apostolike faith of the body and blood of our Lorde an olde disciple of the heretike Berengarius an obseruer of diuinations dreames a manifest cōiurer vsing familiaritie with diuels and therefore fallen from the true faith adiudge him to be Canonically deposed expelled And this toke place three yeres after when the Romanes desired a day to be appointed in the which the Pope and all the Senators shoulde come before the Emperour but the Pope woulde not come in presence whereupon the Romanes being moued yeelded to the king and with one consent reiected Pope Hildebrand who secretly fleeing gate him to Salerna and there stayed till he dyed Phi. Henry did this by force and the Bishops that so reuiled the Pope were of his faction but the stories commend Gregorie the seuenth for a wise iust milde man a fauourer of the poore of orphanes and widowes and the only stout and earnest defender of the Romane Church against the treacheries of heretikes and power of ill disposed princes seeking to possesse the goods of the Church by violence Theo. Gregories life I will not examine it is not incident to this matter Yet if we beleeue Beno the Cardinall that liued at the same time he deserueth no such prayse as you giue him but I respect not that in this place Certaine it is the Bishops of Germanie and Italie not onley refused but also deposed him yea thirteene Cardinals of the wiser and better sort the Archdeacon and chiefe president and many of the Laterane Clergie at Rome seeing his intollerable Apostasie forsooke his communion and so by the iudgement of the Romanes themselues Hildebrand was turned out of his Popedome Phi. I know they did it but therein they passed their boundes Theo. If the crimes by them obiected were true they did but their dueties Phi. Their accusations were all false Theo. That is lustily spoken but faintly proued and yet if it were so my first assertion standeth good that your owne Cardinals Councels haue often resisted repressed the Bishop of Rome Phi. And my answere standeth as good that they were schismatikes which did so Theo. What say you then to the Councel at Pisa where the whole Colledge of Cardinals with one consent depriued Gregorie Benedict of their Popedomes all nations allowing that strait sentence besides a few that fauoured Benedictus and Alexander the fift on his death bed protesting their actes in that Councel to be good and lawfull Will you nowe replie that all nations and all the cardinals yea the Pope himselfe were schismatikes Or if you care not for that what say you to the generall Councell of Constance that deposed as many Popes as the Councell of Pisa and not only de facto did it but also expressely and aduisedly decreed that they might doe it Dare you thinke the Councell of Constance to be schismatical And what if the general Councel of Basill by manifest positions conclude you an heretike for holding that a Councell may not depose the Pope will you rather incurre the guilt of heresie than forsake your new found diuinitie Phi. You load mee with too many allegations at once I can not tell which to answere first Theo. I will seuer them with a good will say what you can against them The general Councel of Pisa deposed two Popes and chose Alexander the first ergo the Pope may bee both resisted and depriued by a Councell Phi. Was that Councell generall Theo. Reade the Bull of Iohn the 23. conuocating the Councell of Constance Dudum felicis recordationis Alexander Papa quintus praedecessor noster in sacro generals Pisano Concilio tunc praesidens c. Not long since Alexander the fift of happie memorie our predecessor then sitting chiefe in the sacred generall Councell at Pisa. Laziardus a writer of that age sayth Both Colleges of Cardinals or at least the most part of them called a generall Councell at Pisa where they stayed from the Annuntiation of the virgine Marie till the xxvi of Iune with a great number of Prelats Ambassadours of Kings Princes Vniuersities Vpon which day those two which stroue for the Popedome being first depriued by sentence and order of lawe in all thinges obserued they chose Alexander the fift Phi. Doe al stories agree that they deposed Gregorie and Benedict Theo. See Blondus Auentinus Nauclerus Sabellicus Paulus Aemylius or whome you will The Cardinals of Gregorie and Benedict sayth Nauclerus meeting conferring resolued the citie of Pisa to be the fittest place for a general coūcel to be kept Whereupon by letters and messengers they called al Bishops Prelats Princes cōmunities to come to the Coūcell that should be held at Pisa exhorting them to send their Legats to withhold obedience from those two Popes whom they had cited to be present there In the yeere of our Lord 1409. at Pisa they began to proceed and against both Popes Gregorie and Benedict not appearing vpon lawfull citation but wilfully refusing they pronounced sentence of deposition and depriuation as against heretikes and schismatikes forbidding all Christians to cal either of them Pope or yeld either of them obedience as Bishop of Rome This done they went to the election of an other whom they called Alexander the fift Phi. Might they cal and keepe a Councell without any Pope Theo. Looke you to that Nauclerus addeth that About the deposition of these two Popes there was a great debating in the Councel of Pisa whether graunting that both these Popes did scandalize the Church by manifest collusion and periurie c. the Cardinals might cal a councel both of them being cited to come to the Councell not appearing but persisting in their contumacie whether they might be deposed and an other chosen And after long disputation in the presence of very many Doctors of diuinitie and
persons excōmunicate and consequently your applying of scriptures that wee may not salute them nor keepe companie with them is a violent deprauing of these textes and refuted by the manifest practise of Christes Church And because wee bee come so farre I will adde somewhat touching the rest of your wise pretences Constantius Valens Valentinian the younger Anastasius Iustinian Heraclius Constantine the 4. and others were hereticall Princes Iulian an open Apostata and yet the Church of Christ endured serued and obeyed them not in temporall things only but in ecclesiasticall also so farre as their Lawes did not impugne the faith or corrupt good manners Phi. You inferre vpon our examples which we can auoyde when wee wil but you answere them not Theo. Our illation which you shall neuer auoyd proueth your examples to conclude for vs and not against vs. You shewe that Princes were remoued from the Sacraments which we graunt but that they were remoued from their kingdomes which we denie that you shewe not and so by your silence you confesse that to bee most true which wee affirme that hereticall and excommunicate Princes must haue their due subiection honour and tribute as they had before they fell to such impieties because they bee perils to their soules not forfeytures of their Crownes Other answere we neede not make you since this will suffice And yet if wee would examine your examples by the pole I coulde take many of them tardie A booke written in Chrysostomes name witnesseth that Babylas Bishoppe of Antioche excluded a Christian Emperour out of the Church for murdering a young Prince committed to him for an hostage and was martyred by the same tyrant for his constancie but this can not stand with the stories of the Church nor with your owne Author whom you alleage for the repentance and submission that you say this Emperour was after brought to by Fabian the generall sheephearde of Christendome Eusebius who wrate an hundreth yeeres before Chrysostome sayth that Babylas Bishoppe of Antioche died in prison vnder Decius an heathen Tyrant After Philip succeeded Decius who for hatred of Philip persecuted the Church in the which persecution Fabianus Bishoppe of Rome was martyred and Babylas Bishoppe of Antioche died in prison after the constant confession of his fayth With him agreeth Nicephorus Babylas sub Decio post confessionem fortiter obitam in vinculis discessit Babylas after hee had made a stout confession of his fayth dyed in Prison vnder Decius If hee died vnder Decius howe coulde hee bee slaine by Philippus or Numerius that were before Decius If hee deceased in Prison how can your Chrysostome say that hee was caried out of Prison to his death and slaine Can you reconcile these thinges and not giue one of your Authors the lie If that declamation were Chrysostomes hee wrate it when he came fresh from the Philosophers schooles as both the stile matter argue and before he was Bishoppe as his owne woordes declare For speaking of the place where Babylas was Bishoppe he sayth Nostri huius gregis curam gerebat he was Pastor of this our flocke and Chrysostome was Bishop of Constantinople not of Antioche Who pursued the saide Emperour by like excommunication for killing his Pastor since the Pastor was aliue after the Emperour was dead and died in prison without any violence neither can you tell neither neede wee care Of Philip Nicephorus sayth no such thing in the place which you quote hee repeateth only that which Eusebius long before reported in these words Of Philip the fame is that fauouring Christ and willing the night before Easter to ioyne with the multitude of Christians in their prayers hee was not suffered so to doe by the Bishoppe that then was vnlesse hee would first acknowledge his sinnes and keepe his place with the repentants Otherwise he could not be admitted because his sinnes were many And they say that hee gladly hearkened to the Bishop and shewed his syncere and religious mynde to God-ward by his deedes The ground of the whole in him that first wrate it is but hearesay the principall matter whether the Prince were remooued from the communion or neuer before admitted to the Lordes table very doubtfull The thing required at his handes was no more but to humble himselfe in the sight of God to whome all Princes must stoope with as great deuotion and submission as the poorest woormes that are on earth The conclusion may bee that Princes then were trayned to Godlinesse but that they were depriued of their kingdomes is a wicked and vngodly suggestion of yours Wee may with as good reason say a Frier many tymes doeth shriue the Pope Ergo a Frier may depose the Pope which I thinke your holy Father will not like of Saint Ambrose is the onely example in all antiquitie which fully proueth that a Bishoppe did prohibite a Prince to enter the Church and to bee partaker of the Lordes table which wee neither deny nor dispraise considering the cause and the manner of the fact The Prince for a tumult raysed by some of the inhabitants of Thessalonica caused his souldiers without finding or searching the doers to murder the people were they straungers or Citizens faultlesse or faultie to the number of seuen thousand After this execution at his next comming to the Church S. Ambrose stepped to the Church dore and sayd Thou seemest O Prince not to vnderstand what a monsterous slaughter of people is committed by thee neither doth rage suffer thee to weigh with thy selfe what thou hast done yet must thou know that from dust we came to dust we shal Let not therfore the brightnes of thy robes hide frō thee the weaknes of flesh that is vnder them Thy subiects are of the same metall which thou art serue the same Lord that thou doest With what eyes therefore wilt thou behold the house of this cōmon Lord with what feete wilt thou tread on his holy pauements Wilt thou reach these hāds dropping yet with the blood of innocents to receiue the most sacred bodie of the Lorde Wilt thou put that precious blood of his to thy mouth which in a rage hast spilt so much Christian blood Depart rather and heape not one sinne on an other neither refuse this bond which the Lord of all doeth ratifie in heauen It is not much and it will restoare thee the health of thy soule This strake the Christian Prince to the heart and turning about hee went home with teares and all the tyme that hee was kept out of the Church as a man in mourning hee woulde not put on his Imperiall robes but that Ambrose commaunded him to put off his kingly robes and to leaue his Imperiall throne in the Chauncel this is your venemous admixtion the storie sayth no such thing You falsely father it on S. Ambrose to make men beleeue that the Bishoppe might as well haue taken the princes scepter and sworde from
him hee woulde lacke a great deale of that praise which you and other such Pharisaicall Friers as you bee giue him The Councell of Woormes where were present Vniuersi pené Teutonici Episcopi almost all the Bishoppes of Germanie condemned him of great periuries newfangled abuses and manifolde infamies of life after that thirtie Bishoppes of Italie gathered together at Brixia hauing there the Legates and letters of nineteene Bishoppes assembled at Mentz with the Nobles of Italie and Germanie not onely auouched of him that hee most impudently intruded himselfe into the See of Rome by fraud and monie subuerted the ecclesiasticall order troubled the regiment of the Christian Empire sought destruction of bodie and soule vppon their Catholike and peaceable king and maintained a periure against him but in fine they adiudge the saide Hildebrand a most shamelesse person breathing out sacrilege and spoile defending periuries and homicides calling in question the Catholike and Apostolike fayth of the bodie and blood of Christ the auncient scholer of the heretique Berengarius an obseruer of dreames diuinations a manifest coniurer and a worker with a familiar spirit therefore fallen from the true fayth to be canonically deposed and expelled from his Bishopricke Phi. These bee the slaunderous libels which I tolde you some of the Emperours flatterers and his enemies wrote against him Theo. You beleeue not the report of so many Bishoppes and Nobles iudicially proceeding and â—inding him culpable in these thinges and affirming so much to his face and euen nowe you when you heard the malitious and slaunderous accusation of one priuate man against his Prince neither discussed nor prooued but obiected only in defence of his rebellion you beleeued that and put it in print to the view of all men with no lesse leuitie than partialitie as if al were true that liketh you be it neuer so vnlikelie or vntrue and againe all false that fitteth not your fansie bee there neuer so many deponents for it and iudges with it both Bishoppes and nobles Such indifferencie wel becommeth such writers as you are which seeke nothing but that your tales may take place bee they neuer so vnchristian or vncredible Phi. Will you beleeue men in a faction one against another Theo. If the Princes faction may not bee credited against the Pope why should the Popes faction be receiued against the Prince And yet the Princes faction against Hildebrand if it were a faction was very generall Fraunce Germanie and Italie were of that faction in so much that when the Emperour had reconciled him-selfe to the Pope at Canusium and Legates were sent to absolue such as were excommunicate the Princes and people of Italie fell to an vproare against the Emperour for submitting him-selfe and ment to haue set his sonne in his place as Schafnaburgensis confesseth in these woordes When the Legate came and shewed to the people of Italie the cause of his comming a vehement offence and dislike was conceiued against him Fremere omnes saeuire verbis ac manibus caeperunt Apostolicae Legationi irrisorijs exclamationibus obstrepere conuicia maledicta vtcunque turpissima furor suggessisset irrogare se excommunicationem illius nihili estimare quem ipsum omnes Italiae episcopi iustis de causis iam pridem excommunicassent qui sedem Apostolicam per Symoniacam haeresim occupasset homicidijs cruentasset adulterijs alysque capitalibus criminibus polluisset regem secus ac deceat egisse crimenque gloriae suae intulisse nunquam abolendum quod homini haeretico probis omnibus infamato maiestatem regiam submiserit c. They all began to mutter and to manifest their griefe of mynde with woordes and handes and to deride and interrupt the Popes Lagate to taunt him and raile on him euen as their rage lead them saying that they esteemed not Hildebrands excommunication whom all the Bishoppes of Italie long before had excommunicated for that hee gate the Apostolike Seate by Symonie and had embrued it with blood and defiled it with adulteries and other capitall crimes and that the king had done otherwise than became him and had vtterly blemished his glorie in submitting his royall maiestie to an heretike and one that was infamous for all vices This sedition growing ripe they were all of one minde and determination to refuse the father who had made himselfe vnworthie of the scepter and to choose his sonne to be their king though very yong and vnfit for the affaires of the Realme and to goe to Rome with him and elect them an other Pope by whom both he should be crowned and al the actes of this Apostatical Pope should bee reuersed This opinion his owne people had of him how learned and godly a man soeuer hee seemeth in your eyes and these were not procured by the Prince but readie to forsake the Prince for humbling himselfe to so infamous an heretike as Hildebrand was whome you call a very notable good Pope The rest of his goodnes if I should lay foorth as Beno the Cardinall that liued with him describeth him all other the vitious and infamous Popes which the whoore of Babylon hath bred vs would seeme punees to him but thither I refer the reader that list to behold the man of sinne exalting himselfe in the Church of God I seeke to examine the fact and not the life of Gregorie the seuenth if that were good though he were badde I will vse no aduantage Phi. These were his enemies Theo. To an euill man howe could they bee but enemies if that they said were true Phi. True not a word of it Theo. So say you but what if wee beleeue them before you haue we not good cause so to doe Phi. These were such as helde against him and therefore hardly would speake well But others and the best of that age greatly coÌ„mend him Theo. Were they not such as tooke his part Phi. Yes but yet they would not lie for him Theo. Might not the Pope haue flatterers as well as the Prince Phi. Hee might but these were none Theo. Howe shall we know that Phi. They were godly Monkes and Bishoppes that woulde not flatter Theo. They might be godly and yet be deceiued in iudging of other mens persons The best men are hardest to beleeue euill reportes concerning others though perhaps true if they were perfectly knowen and yet there were other causes which wanne him the fauour of many Monkes and Bishops in those dayes and of many Romish writers since that time and those were the suppressing of maried Priestes and aduauncing of Monkes and the exempting of Bishoppes from their Princes which things the Church of Rome after him greedily embraced and holdeth vnto this day as the glorious acts of Hildebrand Phi. Doe you dispraise them Theo. The Church of Christ til that time suffered the mariage of Priests and expected the Princes consent in the choice of her Bishoppes both which Hildebrand
be occupied and therefore howsoeuer the simple people be deluded by the rehearsall of the same words which Christ vsed yet consecration benediction or sanctification of bread and wine you professe you make none at all Theoph. Christ you say tooke bread into his hands and did blesse the very element What meane you by blessing Philand He vsed power and actiue words vpon it as he did ouer the bread and fishes which he multiplied Theoph. Why walke you thus in cloudes Blessing with vs is the giuing of thanks vnto God with you it is the making of a crosse in the aire with your two forefingers Which of these twaine do you meane Philand That Christ blessed the bread we be very sure that he gaue thanks to the bread you dare not say Theo. Thanks he gaue to God and not to the bread Phil. But he blessed the bread and therefore blessing is not taken in Christes institution for thankes-giuing as you misconster it Theoph. If a man should put you to the new Testament in Gréeke can you spell it Philand Yea Sir and conster it as well as you Theoph. Then I trust your cunning will serue you to know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word the holy Ghost vseth to expresse the Lords action and benediction at his last Supper doth inferre that our Sauiour gaue thanks to God and made no crosse with his hand ouer the bread Philand But S. Marke saith that our Lord brake the bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing first blessed it and Saint Paul doeth not sticke to referre that word to the cup it selfe and not to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chalice of benediction which we blesse is it not the communication of the blood of Christ Theo. Do you think S. Marke reproueth S. Luke S. Matthew or that S. Paul is contrarie to himselfe Phil. No I thinke the one expoundeth the other and all their reportes méete full in one congruence Theoph. And otherwise to say or thinke is apparent blasphemie against the spirit of God who neuer halteth in his tale nor dissenteth from him-selfe in any thing much lesse in a matter of so weightie moment as this is Philand He can be no Christian that doubteth thereof Theop. Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since children in Grammer schooles do know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to giue thanks with words and not to crosse with fingers we conclude that this is a childish error of yours to thinke that Christ gaue not thanks to God but blessed the very element Yea no word plainer conuinceth your puerilitie than that which you haue brought to relieue your selfe For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth more euidently refell your crossing with fingers than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being compounded of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Gréeke importeth speach vttered by month and by no meanes drawing or crossing the fingers Phil. Let the word signifie what you will that which Christ did were it with hand or mouth he did it ouer the bread and vpon the bread and so do not you but let the bread and cup stand aloofe and occupie Christs words by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed to be occupied Theop. This is the right behauiour of your Rhemish translatours to wrangle and trifle about phrases and ambiguities as if they were the precepts and commandements of God Our Sauiour you affirme blessed the very element that is vsed power and actiue words vpon it or ouer it Blessing is a word that is diuersly vsed in the scriptures To blesse God is to praise him and to giue honor to his name and for that cause you shall find both those words ioyned together as words of like force as wheÌ„ S. Luke saith the disciples continued in the temple praising and blessing God To blesse men if it be done by men for of their blessings we speake and not of Gods is to pray for them and to beséech God that he will blesse them that is defend them prosper them and be mercifull vnto them So Isaac blessed Iacob and Iacob the sonnes of Ioseph and so were the Priests appointed by God himselfe to blesse the children of Israel and a forme of praier for that purpose prescribed them We may also blesse the time place and meanes in which or by which God sheweth his fauour towards vs that is we may pronounce them blessed for our sakes and our selues bound to blesse God for them So Dauid sayd to Abigail Blessed be God that sent thee this day to meete me Blessed be thy speach or counsell and blessed be thou which hast kept me this day from going to shed blood where he blesseth God as the author the woman as the meanes her words as the perswasions and occasions that kept him from vsing the bloody reuenge which he determined against Nabal and his familie And so said Salomon blessed is the tree whereby righteousnes commeth So on the contrary Iob and Ieremie cursed the dayes wherein they were borne would not haue them to be blessed We must likewise blesse the meates which we eate the things which we vse for the maintenance of this mortall life that is praier must be made vnto God that they may be healthfull for vs we thankfull for them by which meanes our food al other succors of this life are sanctified to his pleasure our comfort Since then the Scriptures not onely permit but also command that we should blesse one another and so the creatures which nourish our bodies we make no doubt but it is both lawfull néedfull for vs to blesse the sacraments which are the seales of Gods euerlasting promises therfore we readily receiue S. Pauls adiection when he saith the cup of blessing WHICH WE BLESSE is it not the coÌ„munion of Christs blood Mary blessing in that place we take not for crossing or charming the cup with a set number order of signs profers as you vse at your masse but for the making of our ernest huÌ„ble praiers to God that our vnworthines do not hinder the working of his sacraments but that by his goodnes mercy they may take their due effects in vs according â—o his sonnes institutioÌ„ for the pardoning of our sins the incresing of his grace our faith the quikning of our inward man preseruing both body soul to eternal life And this the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the maner of blessing all other things persons directed by the scriptures the very principles of praier pietie do approue coÌ„firm wheras your houering blowing ouer the Chalice your crossing hiding it your rubbing of fingers for feare of crums your first thwarting and then lifting of armes your ioining and vnioining of thumbe and
that water is no necessarie part of this Sacrament The Gospell in plaine spéech reporteth of our Sauiour that he dranke the fruit of the vine His owne words are I say vnto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the vine which surely saith Chrysostom yeeldeth wine and not water Your owne Schooles conclude flatly with vs against you Non est aqua vino miscenda de necessitate Sacramenti To mingle water with wine is no necessarie point of this Sacrament Water by the position of your owne Schooles is not necessary then of consequent arbitrary that is euery church hath ful liberty to vse wine alone as Christ did with out danger of departing or dissenting frō the primatiue church though they for some respects delaied their wine with water and the Sacrament is as perfect and as consonant to Christs institution without the mixture of water as with it Phi. That Christ vsed wine we do not deny but we auouch that he also mingled it with water Theo. We knowe you auouch it but we would sée you proue it Phi. Cyprian saith it Theo. Cyprian saith it not he saith rather the contrarie Inuenimus vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit We finde it was wine which the Lord called his blood And againe Cum dicat Christus ego sum vitis vera sanguis Christi non aqua est vtique sed vinum Wheras Christ saith I am a true vine surely the blood of Christ is not water but wine And againe he saith that Noë typum futurae veritatis ostendens non aquam sed vinum biberit foreshewing a figure of the truth that should follow dranke not water but wine Phi. Not water alone but mixed with wine Theo. Then all that Cyprian either pretendeth or alledgeth Christ institution for is the hauing of wine not of water and though he vse the words mixtus and miscere very often yet his meaning is to proue by scripture the adding of wine not of water to the Lords cup. Phi. He nameth both wine water as I haue shewed you Theo. And as I haue answered you both were lawful and then vsed in the church but Christs institution is vrged by him for wine and not for water and though he call the cup mixtus mingled because there might be and were then both in vse yet the scriptures which he citeth concerning this Sacrament and the figures which he bringeth make cléerely for wine and not for water And therefore that Christ mingled water at his last Supper or commanded vs so to doe can not be prooued by Cyprian nor any other learned and ancient father but that the church of Christ tempered her wine with water though not in all places nor at all times as your boasting vaine serueth you to affirme that we grant may be proued by Cyprian and others and was euer confessed by vs mary that is not our question You charge vs with the breaches of Christs institutiō in which and in euery part of which there is an absolute necessitie that you should proue if you could tell which way to do it but your loftie words and weake proofes haue no coherence you speake it in state as if it were more than Gospell and when you come to bring foorth your proofes you wrest a poore place of Cyprians and so take your leaues Phil. We bring you S. Iames Masse which in expresse termes affirmeth that Christ after Supper taking the cup and mingling it with wine water sanctified it blessed it and gaue it to his Disciples Theop. Of Iames Masse I haue spoken before In such rotten records neither receiued nor regarded in the Church of Christ till errour and ignorance grew so great that the Pastours could not or would not discerne fables from truths and forgeries from sincerities lieth the summe of your late Rhemish religion but take back your Monkish corruptions and let vs haue likely testimonies for that you say or none you may alleage S. Iames Gospell which is yet extant with as good credit as S. Iames Masse and so the Gospels of Nicodemus Thomas Andrew Barnabas and Bartholomew or if those like you not the Acts of Peter Philip and Andrew and the Reuelations of Paul Steuen and Thomas for these be of the very same mint and stamp that Iames Masse and the Apostles canons and constitutions are but knowe you Sir that as Heretikes and other idle persons forged these things in their names so the Church of Christ euer reiected them as false and hereticall and suffered no christians to ground their actions or doctrines on such corruptiōs Phil. Sainct Basils Masse confirmeth the same The words are Likewise taking the cup of the fruite of the grape mingling it giuing thanks and blessing and sanctifieng it he gaue it to his holy Disciples Theoph. A pigge of the same sow They that would offer to broach their fansies in the Apostles names would neuer sticke at the Fathers works It is easie to put Ambrose Austens Basils and Chrysostoms names to any thing and yet the word which is vsed in Basils Liturgie doth not conuince the mingling of water with wine and Chrysostoms Liturgie doth apparently shew that water was mingled with wine for the people long after consecration and yet before distribution which argueth my saying to be most true that they delaied their wine for sobrietie they did not mixe it for any mysterie Phil. Sainct Basill I am sure saith Miscens Christ mingling the wine gaue it to his disciples Theo. The Gréek words for miscens mixtus if they come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not alwaies signifie the mingling of water with wine but generally the tempering or pouring out of wine for him that shall drinke though none other kind of liquour be added to it Erasmus giueth that obseruation vpon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Sainct Iohn so vseth it whē he sayeth He shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is mixed or poured without mingling into the cup of his wrath where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being without mixture is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is mingled or rather infused into the cup of Gods wrath Upon which spéech Erasmus noteth Graecis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur quod infunditur in calicem bibituro etiamsi non aqua diluatur aut alio potus genere The Grecians call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when any thing is powred into a cup for him that shall drinke though it be not delaied with water or any other kind of liquour In this sense manie of the Fathers that wrate in Gréeke may vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet no mingling with water can be inferred vpon those words as your interpreters ouer gréedily imagine Phil. You pare the words of Saint Basils Liturgie but Saint Iames Masse is so
in them all others to do what he did taught them that his actions were essentiall to his Supper as well as words He did not wil them to say this but to doe this in remembrance of him Phi. Do you not thinke the repeating and vsing of his words to be necessarie in the celebration of the Sacrament Theo. Yeas but I adde that his actions are as necessary Phi. There is difference betweene the making of a medicine or the substance and ingredience of it and the taking of it Theo. There is but wheÌ„ the medicine is neuer so well made if it be not ministred to the patient the making of it is vtterly vaine Phi. Yet the making of it is not the ministring of it Theo. The one is the end of the other and therfore without the ministring the making is superfluous Phi. Then taking and eating is not the substance or being or making of the sacrament or sacrifice of Christs body and blood but it is the vse application to the receiuer of the things that were made offered to God before Theo. Neither did I say that eating and drinking were the substantial partes of the sacrament but of the Lords institution Phi. As though the sacrament were not our Lords institution Theo. Christes institution containeth as well the vse as the matter or forme that must be vsed A supper is not only the meate prouided but also the act of eating that which is prouided so the Lords institution or Supper imploieth the vse and action as well as the word and elements Phi. The vse of it is to be a sacrifice as well as a sacrament and in a sacrifice offering is rather required than eating Theo. That is the way to correct the son of God who saide not take this and offer it but take this and eate it Eating which Chrâ—st commaunded you neglect offering which â—e did not commaunde you esteeme and yet you would bee followers of Christ. Phi. Did not Christ say to his Disciples Do this Theo. You knowe we presse you with that saying of his Phâ— Doe this that is offer this Theo. So you say but where saith Christ so Phi. Doubt you whether this bee a sacrifice Theo. We talke not what names the Lordes supper may be called by but what wordes Christ vsed Phi. Hâ— sâ—ide Doe this Theo. To wit that which he did before for so the demonstratiue bindetâ— the sense Phi. And what if Christ sacrificed himselfe as he sate at table Theo. 〈◊〉 must come to that issue or else your sacrificing is cleane without Christs commaunding Phi. Christ himselâ—e seemeth to mention some such thing when hee sayeth This is my body which is not which shal be broken for you And this is my blood which is shed not which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes If this were not a sacrifice wâ—at was it Theo. It was the foreteâ—ling of that which was then at hand presently to ensue Phi. Christ vsed the present and not the future tense Theo. And yet the suffering which hee specified by the breaking of his body and shedding of his blood was not present but the next day on the crosse If you teach that Christs blood was really shed at the table for remâ—ssion of sinnes you must put him twise to death make the later death which was on the crosse to be vtterly idle For where remission of sin is there needeth no more sacrifice for sin If theÌ„ remissioÌ„ of sins were obtained by the actual shedding of Christs blood at his last supper his death crosse the next day were superfluous If forgiuenes were not obtained ouer night but that the Lord the next day was to shed his blood for our sinnes then spake he before hand of that which the next day should follow his speech in the present tense noteth nothing but that hee had euen then giuen him-selfe ouer to death for our sakes which immâ—dâ—atly they should beheld No act of Christes therefore at his last supper importeth any reall sacrifice that he then made but he did institute a Sacrament of thankesgiuing and coâ—maunded vs by eating and drinking to bee partakers of his bodie that was wounded and bloode that was shedde the next daie for the remitting and pardoning of our sinnes So that you must either retayne eating and drinking at the Lordes table or else renounce both the beneâ—it of his passion and memoriall of his death with an open neglect of his last Will and Testament Phi. Wee do retaine it and as you know by our canons we bind all priests that consecrate to communicate in both kindes Theo. Let the decrees of men alone do you bind them to it by the words of Christ Phi. We do though the punishment bee expressed in the canons and not in the Scriptures Theo. It in punishment enough to bee guiltie of the body and bloode of Christ a greater you can not impose make your canons as seuere as you will Phil. Yet you see we binde them to communicate Theophil You should breake Christes institution if you shoulde doe otherwise Philand And therefore wee doe that which I tell you Theophil Then eating and drinking are necessary partes of Christes institution Philand Of his action they are partes but not of the Sacrament Theophil Neither doe I say that they are partes of his bodie blood but of his example and ordinance Philand Wee graunt Theo. And the neglecting of those actions which Christ in his person perfourmed before vs is a breach of his institution as well as the changing or omitting of his wordes Philand In the Priest it is Theo. Of the Priest wee speake for Christ charged him and not women or lay-men to doe as he did Phi. Then wee agree to your last position that if the Priest do not obserue Christes actions as well as Christes wordes he transgresseth Christes institution Theoph. Then your Priestes are all guiltie of violating Christes institution Phi. Doe they not eate and drinke at the Altar as hee did Phi. That Christ himselfe did eate and drinke at the ministration of the Sacrament is not expressed in any part of his institution though some wordes that followe after declare he dranke of the same fruite of the vyne which the rest did but the whole course of his actions speeches stood in deliuering the mysteries vnto others He tooke bread that hee might breake it hee brake it that hee might giue it he gaue it that they should eate and so his wordes declare which are both plurall and spoken to others take ye eate ye not singular or to himselfe Though therefore your Priest take and eate for his part yet since Christ brake the bread that it might bee diuided among others bid them take and eate it is certaine your Priestes neither doe as Christ did nor as hee commaunded his Apostles to do nor as the very wordes of Christ which he repeateth do
with a strait and generall charge for the cup drinke yee all of this and Paul receiuing his instructions from Christ his master proposed the same to the Lay men of Corinth no lesse than to the ministers excepting none Iewes nor Gentiles bond nor free from this precept how dare you Philander and your late Conuents restraine the people from drinking of it The Lordes cup is the new couenant which he hath made with all beleeuers do none beleeue but Priests For the remission of sinnes are laie men no sinners as a memoriall of his death maie the people loose that remembrance It is saith Paul THE COMMVNION OF HIS BLOOD and the partaking of his spirite haue the people no right to the blood of Christ that was shed for them or will you claime his spirite as peculiar to Priestes which is common to all the children of God Philand The Church I warraunt you did ponder and consider these reasons when shee tooke this order and finding them vnsufficient shee decreed with vs that the cuppe was not necessarie for the Laie people Theoph. What Church I praie you The primatiue and auncient Church of Christ where catholicisme should beginne Wee can assure you no. They ministred in both kindes to Priest and people men and women without exception DIONYSIVS The breade that was whole being broken into manie partes and ONE CVP DIVIDED AMONG ALL the Bishoppe in these twaine perfiteth the holie Sacrifice The sacred Communion of one and the same breade AND COMMON CVP bindeth Christians to diuine concorde and likenesse of manners as being nourced vp together IGNATIVS There is but one flesh of the Lord Iesu and one blood that was shed for vs there is also but one bread that is broken for all and ONE CVP THAT IS DIVIDED AMONG ALL. ATHANASIVS If those be his expositions which you haue set forth in his name The dreadfull cup was deliuered by the Lorde TO ALL MEN ALIKE CYPRIAN How doe we prepare the people for the cup of martyrdome if we doe not first admit them in the Church to DRINKE THE LORDES CVP BY RIGHT OF COMMVNION AVGVSTINE Not onelie no man is forbidden but rather ALL MEN that seeke for life ARE ENCOVRAGED TO DRINKE And againe speaking to the people simul bibimus quia simul viuimus WE DRINKE TOGETHER at the Lordes table because we liue together CHRYSOSTOME as before One bodie is proposed to al and one cup. GREGORIE The blood of Christ is now not powred into the hands of vnbeleeuers but into the mouthes of the faithfull THEOPHILACT How happeneth thou drinkest alone whereas this dreadfull cup was deliuered to all men indifferentlie HAYMO The cup is called a communion by Paul because all men are partakers of it PASCHASIVS Christ gaue the cup and said Drinke ye all of this as well the Ministers as the rest of the beleeuers Infinite are the places which might be brought to make faith that for a thousand yeares in the Church of God the people were not depriued of the Lordes cup. The master of your sentences who liued verie neare twelue hundred after Christ knewe not this maiming and paring of Christes institution which now raigneth in your churches Therefore is the Sacrament saith he celebrated in two kinds that in Christ the taking of soul and flesh and in vs the redeeming of them both might be signified For the flesh of Christ is offered for our flesh and his soul for our soules It is taken vnder both kindes which profiteth both partes If it shoulde be receiued in one kinde onely that would declare that it auayled for the safegard of one part onely soule or body not for both ioyntly The gloze that followed an hundred yeeres after resteth him-selfe on the same reason with the same wordes and shrinketh not from the communion in both kinds but in the danger of sicknes or point of necessitie Insirmus vel sanus in necessitate potest sumere corpus sine vino a sicke man whome the drinking of wyne might hurt or an whole man in case of necessitie where hee can not choose may receiue the body without the wyne Then in the Church where prouision might soone bee made for all and no necessitie coulde bee pretended it was not as yet counted lawefull for the people to receiue the Sacrament in one kinde Philand But if the Church after vppon good deliberation sawe sufficient cause to chaunge that order who made you controllers of Christes spouse Theoph. That vnshamefast harlot which foureteene hundred yeeres after Christes ascention woulde both alter her husbandes will and defraude his children of that portion which their Lorde and Sauiour had allotted them did prostitute her selfe and bastardize her ofspring as much as lay in her and is no way woorthie to haue the honour of a mother or name of a spouse though shee paint her selfe neuer so freshly with youthfull colours And the reasons which mooued her so to doe were as ridiculous as the fact was impious Durandus sayth Non esset decens tantum sanguinem conficere nec calix capax inueniretur It woulde not bee decent to consecrate so much blood as must serue the people neither can there so bigge a chalice bee gotten Gerson beateth his braines to iustifie that which the councell of Constance did in taking the Lordes cup wholy from the people not yet nyne score yeeres agoe and when hee hath all doone hee commeth in with these toyes THE length of Laymens beardes the lothsomnes to drinke after others the costlynes of so much wyne the difficulties first of getting then of keeping wyne from sowring freezing and breeding of flies the burden in bearing and daunger in spilling it last of all the peoples vnwoorthynes to match Messere magnifico the Priest in the receite of this Sacrament Bee not these valiant inducements for you to chaunge the last Will and Testament of Christ Iesus and abrogate that which was orderly kept in the church for a thousande yeeres and vpward And yet these were the grauest and profoundest considerations that your friendes had to leade them to this attempt and these you knowe bee verie miserable Gerson I graunt shifteth what hee can to bring other proofes that both kindes are not simply needfull but why the councell of Constance tooke the cup cleane from the people which violence before was neuer offered them of this I say Gerson a chiefe agent in that councell labouring purposely to shewe the reason of their doings neither doeth nor could yeelde any better or weightier occasions than these which I nowe repeated and the reader shall find blazed with great confidence in the second part of the foresaid treatise O deintie fathers and sleeke diuines which for long beardes and vnsweete breathes for a litle paynes and no great charges for frostes in winter and flies in sommer thought best to correct Christes institution and not onely to forsake the
full consent of all ages and Churches in expounding the same but also to chase the people by terror of secular power and ecclesiasticall curse from the cup of their saluation from the communion of Christs blood and felowship of his holy spirit Such fathers such fansies What is mockerie what is iniurie to God and man if this be Religion or pietie The Church of Rome you will say concluded with them That increaseth her sinnes and excuseth not their follies If an Angel from heauen had conspired with them our duetie bindeth vs to detest both him and them as accursed if they step from that which the primatiue church receiued from Paul and Paul from Christ Howe much more then ought wee to reiect that which the church of Rome presumeth not onely besides but against the sacred scriptures And yet to speake vprightly the auncient church of Rome maketh wholy with vs in this cause For no church euer resisted your mangled communions with greater vehemencie than the church of Rome did till couetousnesse and pride blinded her eyes and hardned her heart against God and his sonne Pope Iulius that lyued vnder Constantine the great made this decree We heare that certaine led with schismaticall ambition against the diuine ordinances and Apostolike directions doe giue TO THE PEOPLE the Eucharist dipped in wyne for a full communion They receiued not this from the Gospell where Christ betooke his body and blood to the Disciples For there is recited the deliuering the bread by it selfe and the cup by it selfe Let therefore all such error and presumption cease least inordinate and peruerse diuises weaken the soundnes of fayth If the communion bee neither perfite nor agreeable to Christes institution and Apostolike prescription except the people receiue both kinds seuerall and asunder the bread from the cup and the cup from the bread as Christ ordayned and the Gospel declareth Ergo your excluding the people cleane from the cup is altogether repugnant to the manifest intent of our Sauiour and right imitation of his Apostles And what if the first authors of your drie communion were the Manichees are you not wise men and well promoted to forsake the precept which Christ gaue you the president which Paul left you the course which the christian world for so many yeeres obserued and followe so pestilent and pernicious a sect of heretikes reprooued and long since condemned by the church of Rome for that very fraude and abuse in the Sacraments which you bee nowe fallen vnto The Manichees sayth Leo to couer their infidelitie venter to bee present at our mysteries and so carie them-selues in the receiuing of the Sacraments for their more safetie that they take the body of Christ with an vnwoorthy mouth but in any wise they shunne to drinke the blood of our redemption Which I would haue your dâ—uoutnes speaking to the people learne for this cause that such men might bee knowen to you by these markes and when their sacrilegious simulation is founde they may bee noted and bewrayed by the Godly that they may bee chased away by the priestly power Against this disorder of Manichees wrate Pope Gelasâ—â— as your friende Master Harding confesseth Wee haue intelligence that certaine men receiuing onely a portion of the sanctified body abstaine from the cup of the sacred blood who for that it appeareth they be entangled with I knowe not what superstition let them either receiue the whole Sacraments or be driuen from the whole because the diuiding and parting of one and the same mysterie can not bee without grieuous sacrilege The sense is plaine To take the Lordes breade and not drinke of the Lordes cup is a seuering and distracting of this mysterie which by the iudgement of these two Popes is open sacrilege ergo neither Catholike or christian What shift nâ—we Philander to saue your selues from sacrilege Spake Gelasius of the Manichees as Master Harding resolueth Graunt it were so Then what was sacrilege in them can it bee catholike in you If that auncient church of Rome condenmed this in the Manichees howe commeth your late Church of Rome not onely to suffer but also to commaund the same Can you turne darkâ—nes to light and sacrilege to Religion That were a marueilous alteration But Siâ—s your minds may change wee knowe Christes institution can not changâ— The contempt thereof in Manichees in Papistes as then so still was and will be sacrilege Spake Gelasius not of the Manichees but of certaine Priestes that receiuing the bread at the Lordes table neglected the cup Yet Leo speaketh of the Manichees by name and â—hose Laymen and mingled with the people and calleth their forbearing the Lords blood a sacrilegious sleight reason were you should prooue that onely Priesâ—es are ment in this place of Gelasius and not suppose what you list at your pleasures as the gloze doeth and others of your side that stand on this answere The woordes are indefinite and touch as well people as Priest but let vs imagine that Gelasius spake of Priestes first then you commit sacrilege in restraining all Priestes from the communion of both kinds except they say Masse themsâ—lues Next if it bee sacrilege in the Priest why not in the people The precept of our Sauiour drinke ye all of this compriseth all both Laymen and Priestes His Apostle extendeth the same to the whole Church of Corinth Chrysostome sayth the Priest differeth nothing from the people in receiuing the mysteries but one cup is proposed to al In Chalice nobiscum vos estis You sayth Austen to the people are in the Lordes cup no lesse than we The cup was deliuered to all men Priest and people with like condition as Theophilact affiâ—meth Drinke yee all of this that is sayth Paschasius as well other beleuers as Ministers Hence wee frame you this argument The cup was by Christ deliuered to Priest and People with like condition and like precept the refusing of the Lordes cup is sacrilege in priests by the position of Gelasius and the confession of your friends it is therefore no lesse than sacrilege for the people to refraine the same What then is it for you to pull the Lordes cuppe out of their handes by rigor and force for so trifling respectes as you pretende but apparent violent and wilfull sacrilege Phi. It was sacrilege then for the people to refuse or refraine the cup because the church was content to admitte them to it But now the church is otherwise resolued it were sacrilege to expect or demand it Theo. What shall the man of sinne and sonne of perdition when he commeth if hee bee not already come and you his supporters to hold vp his seate in the temple of God say more than you now say that you at your lists may breake the commandements of the great and euerlasting God and alter his ordinances and to blame you for
is the liuely sacrifice whereof it is written Offer to God the sacrifice of praise your coūtinances hang as did that homicides which slue his brother Phi. This nothing infringeth our assertion Theo. But this declareth the meaning of Malachie Phi. Our oblation is a sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing Theo. Had you kept your selues there and not runne farther to fansies of your owne framing and Uictimes as you call them of your own presuming you might haue offered that cleane sacrifice foretolde by Malachie which nowe you doe not Phi. You will not haue his wordes pertaine to the Eucharist Theo. You will neuer speake trueth so long as you may shift with facing Phi. Confesse you thē that Malachie spake of the Eucharist The. With all our hearts Phi. You bee nowe ouer the shooes in your owne cestern The. But it doeth me no hurt for I feele no wet Phi. You graunt the Eucharist to be a sacrifice which your fellowes will be angrie with you for Theo. Neither they nor I euer denied the Eucharist to be a sacrifice The verie name inforceth it to be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing which is the true and liuely sacrifice of the new Testament Phi. I thought you woulde backe againe Theo. I am nowe as farfoorth as euer I was or as any of these ancient fathers are which haue expounded the wordes of Malachie Phi. Then you must affirme it to be a sacrifice Theo. Leaue this foolish repeating and often inculcating that which neither benefiteth you nor annoyeth vs. The Lordes table in respect of his graces mercies there proposed to vs is an heauenly banquet which we must eate not sacrifice but the duties which he requireth at our handes when wee approch to his table are sacrifices not sacramentes as namely to offer him thankes and praise faith and obedience yea our bodies and soules to bee liuing holy and acceptable sacrifices vnto him which is our reasonable seruing of him Phi. This must bee doone when wee receiue the sacrament but this is no part of the Sacrament Theoph. These bee the conditions without which God will not haue vs come to his Table and for these respects the Eucharist hath his name thereby to put vs in minde of our duties Phi. Wee do not deny these sacrifices to bee good and holy and then most requisite when wee drawe neerest vnto God as at his table but we adde that the very sacrament it selfe is a sacrifice and the celebration thereof is a continuance of that oblation which Christ made in his owne person on the Altar of the crosse Theo. This wee graunt to bee most true in that sense which Sainct Augustine and other auncient and Catholike Fathers doe auouch it that is because Sacramentes haue the names of those thinges whose Sacramentes they are And since this is the Sacrament of the Lords death and a passion we do not sticke to say that Christ is dayly crucified and sacrificed for the sinnes of the world mary not really or corporally but by way of a mysterie that is his crosse and bloodshedding are proclaymed and confirmed in the eyes of all the faithfull by these signes of his death and seales of his truth by which hee first witnessed that his bodie should bee broken and his blood shed for the remission of our sinnes Philand Why then refuse you the fathers expressing their opinion of this sacrifice Theo. Nay why doe you abuse their wordes to support your errors and wheresoeuer you find the names of sacrifice and oblation in them referred to the Lordes supper why alleadge you the places with such confidence as if the fathers were at your commaundement to meane nothing but your reall sacrificing the sonne of God vnder the formes of bread and wine Phi. What other meaning could they haue Theo. I haue already shewed you by their owne writinges what other meaning they had Phi. You say they call it a sacrifice because it is a signe and memoriall of his death on the crosse Theo. That is sufficient to shew their meaning Phi. But their words are so weightie that a cold and naked signification doth not answere the force of them The Lambe of God laide vpon the table conc Nice The quickning holy sacrifice the vnbloody host and victime Cyril Alex. in conc Ephes. Anath 11. The onely inconsumptible victime without which there is no religion Cypr. de caen Dom. nu 2. Chrys. hom 17 ad Heb. The sacrifice of our price Aug. confess lib. 9. cap. 13. Theo. What a patching you keepe to no purpose Phi. Dare you attribute these speeches to the creatures of bread and wine Theo. Dare you attribute them to the Priestes externall gestures Is his act the lambe of God or the price of our ransome or the holy and quickning sacrifice Phi. No but the fleshe and blood of Christ are which the Priest offereth as wee say to God for the sinnes of the people Theo. To what ende then alleadge you these places for the Priests act which shewe the worthinesse of Christes sacrifice and the power of his death Phil. Our sacrifice worketh those effectes Theo. And so doth ours Phi. Then you bee of our opinion Theo. As though we did resist you touching the thing that is offered and not touching the manner of offering That Christ is the lamb of God laid on the Lordes table before the eyes of our mindes that his flesh wounded and bloud shed for our sinnes are an holy quickning and euer during sacrifice and the most sufficient price of our redemption we vrge this against you you neede not vrge it against vs wee fully and faithfully teach it The question betweene vs is howe this sacrifice once made on the Crosse is daily renued in our mysteries You will haue a reall corporall and local profering of Christs fleshe to God the father vnder the formes of bread and wine made by the Priestes externall actions and gestures for the sinnes of such as he lift this is we say a wicked and blasphemous mockerie His passion is the true oblation of the church his flesh wounded and blood shedde are the only sacrifices for sinne which oblation that it might be alwayes in our hearts and sights he hath commaunded vs to continue in his church by a memoriall of his owne erecting and to applie the same to our selues by a stedfast hope in his mercies humble prayer vnto his holynes as often as wee approach to his table to bee partakes of his death merites And therefore the Priestes act can no way bee auailable for those that stand by looke on and neither communicate with him in praier or in the participation of the mysteries And your alleadging four and twentie places of the fathers for this kinde of sacrifice of which they neuer thought sheweth what fidelitie and sinceritie you haue vsed in the rest of your Rhemish obseruations which you sent ouer but to occupy mens
heades whiles you were working an other feate Phi. What feat could we haue in hand but the testifieng of trueth to our Countrie men that wee haue done to the vtter confutation of your hereticall doctrine The. You must needs coÌ„fute vs for besides abusing of scriptures which you wind like a withe about your fingers where the Fathers will not serue your turnes you will force them euen by skores tâ— depose what you list and though they vse but generall and indifferent wordes yet you will by and by quote them to be of your opinion Phi. Where haue we so done Theo. Omit the places that are past in this beadrole of Fathers which here are brought shewe but one that euer mentioned your kinde of sacrifice wee will trouble you no farther you shall set vp your Masse againe Phi. What wee shall not Theo. I will helpe you the best I can Phi. Any of the places which wee bring is sufficient to iustifie our sacrifice Theo. As well euery as any They cal the Lordes Supper ministred according to his institution an OBLATION and SACRIFICE or as your pen runneth an HOST and a VICTIME what then Phi. Then wee say trueth when we teach it to be a sacrifice not only a sacrameâ—t The. Then you lie the more when you say that you really corporally sacrifice the Sonne of God vnder the formes of bread and wine and that the Priestes act though the people neither vnderstand what he saith neither know what he doth but gaze on him whiles he alone murmureth to himself in a touÌ„g vnknown maketh that priuat to one which should be common to al by Christs institution is notwithstanding very profitable before God for such as hire his paines or please his humour to bee had in minde when hee rubbeth his memory Phi. You peruert our doctrine Theo. It may bee my termes doe not please you but I tell you the thinges which wee reiect in your sacrifice Leaue your presumptuous and meritorious application of Christes death as pleaseth the Priest leaue your reall and corporall inclosing of Christ vnder accidentes and shewes of bread and wine confesse the Lords Supper to be a publike actioÌ„ pertinent to the whole church as it was ordained and let your prayers instruct and direct the hearts of the simple and haue their open euident assent as for the name of sacrifice and oblation it shall not offend vs. Phi. The chiefe occasion of your hatred against the dayly sacrifice is this that you do not acknowlege the real presence of Christ in this sacrament that maketh you neither to offer him nor to adore him as we doe yea skant to abide the fathers wordes wherein they witnesse that he is offered and must bee adored vnder the formes of bread and wine Theo. We hate your follies we hate not their speeches and yet there are reasons why wee doe not thinke our selues bounde to take vppe the frequent vse of their termes in that point as wee see you doe For first they bee such wordes as Christ and his Apostles did forbeare and therefore our faith may stand without them Next they be darke and obscure speeches wholy depending on the nature and signification of Sacramentes which the simple doe hardly conceiue Thirdly wee finde by experience before our eyes howe their phrases haue entangled your senses whiles you greedily persued the wordes and omitted the rules that shoulde haue mollified and directed the letter These causes make vs the warier and the willinger to keepe to the wordes of the holy Ghost though the fathers applications if you therewithall take their expositions doe but in other termes teach that which we receiue and confesse to bee true and sincere Philand Woulde you make vs beleeue that the sacrifice of the Altar hath no warrant in the Scripture Theo. Shewe mee the place where it is so called and then will I graunt that in the worde I was deceiued Phil. First you hearde the worde OBLATION in Malachie Theo. I did but I heare him not applie it to the Sacrament Philand Melchisedec by his oblation of bread and wine did properly and most singularly prefigurate this sacrifice Theo. But the Scripture doeth not say that either Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine or that Christ at his last supper did imitate Melchisedec Phi. Hee was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec Theo. Saint Paul sheweth in what thinges Melchisedec resembled Christ as in that hee was the king of righteousnesse and peace without father without mother hauing neyther beginning of his dayes nor ende of his life and remaining a Priest for euer without partner or successour but of sacrificing bread and wine as you say Melchisedec did Saint Paul saith nothing Phil. The Fathers do almost euerie one of them Theo. I doe not deny the resemblace to be both tolerable and vsuall among the fathers but I say the scriptures haue no such thing Phil. Sainct Paul himselfe maketh an whole discourse to proue the Sacrament to bee the Sacrifice of Christs body and blood in the church Theo. Where In his Apocalypse which your law mentioneth Phi. No Sir I alleadge his canonicall writinges Theo. Where may a man seeke to finde it Phil. Looke our obseruations vppon his 10. chapter of the first to the Corinthians Theo. Nay in your obseruations I knowe wee shall finde many thinges that are not in the scriptures they were purposely made that where your religion stood not in the text at lest it might stand in the gloze but I would heare Saint Paul saye so much or but halfe such a worde and then I were aunswered Phi. In all that discourse you may obserue that our bread and chalice our table and Altar the participation of our host and oblation bee compared or resembled point by point in all effectes conditions and proprieties to the Altars hosts sacrifices and immolations of the Iewes and Gentiles Which the Apostle would not nor could not haue doone in this Sacrament of the Altar rather than in other Sacramentes or seruice of our religion if it onely had not been a Sacrifice the proper worship of God among the Christians as the other were among the Iewes and Heathen Theo. Tel me not what I may obserue but what you can conclude Is the worde sacrifice attributed to the Lordes Table in that chapter Phi. By resemblaunce and comparison it is Theophil Speake first whether so much bee expressed by the Apostle in plaine wordes and then after wee will examine what may bee collected Philand In plaine wordes it is not but point by point it is compared in all effects conditions and proprieties to the altars hostes sacrifices and immolations of the Iewes and Gentiles Theo. Where is this resemblaunce of your bread and Chalice table and altar host and oblation point by point in all effectes conditions and proprieties to the altars hostes sacrifices and immolations
Christ then you giue them diuine honor as if they were Christ but if they be creatures still howe doth your false imagination excuse you from idolatrie Phi. Wee be sure they be not For Christ saide of them This is my bodie and this is my blood and therefore honoring that which the Priest holdeth in his hands and lifteth vp after consecration we be sure we honor Christ and not the creatures of bread and winâ— Theo. So S. Paul said The rocke was Christ and yet to worship that visible rocke with diuine honor had beene idolatrie Phi. The speeches be nothing like Theo. Then tell vs the difference Phi. Christ spake the one actiuely and presently the other was but a collectioÌ„ of things past long before made by S. Paul And again the one is in the new Testament the other in the old Theo. You might haue added that the one was stone the other bread the one in the desert the other in the city Philand Keepe your trifling distinctions for your selues Theo. They wil no way but be ioyned cheek by cheek with yours Christ you say spake the one who spake the other in Paul but Christ Paul said of himselfe that Christ spake in him and Christ saieth of his Apostles It is not you that speak but the spirit of your father that speaketh in you And therefore you must receiue that which Paul spâ—ke not as the word of men but as it is in deed the word of god that cannot went trueth because the word of God is truth Phi. We do not deny but he spake truth Theo. Then haue we plainer proofe that the stony rock in the desert waâ— Christ than you haue that the bread on the Lords table is Christ. For Christ doth not say in precise terms that the bread was his body but only this is my body And as for the diuersitie of the two testaments that maketh nothing to this issue For if the rocke of the old test were Christ the bread of the new Test. can be no more and therfore diuine adoration was as due to the rocke then as it is to the bread now Phi. By no meanes For the rocke was not transubstantiated into Christ as the bread is The. If Pauls words be true without chaÌ„ging the rock into Christ why may not the words of Christ be likewise true without turning the substaÌ„ce of bread into the substance of his body Phi. We tell you the reason The one is substantially conuerted into Christs flesh and so was not the other Theo. This is your fansie to dreame of a difference where none is the affrmations be like why should not the adorations bee like And if you could not worship the rock without coÌ„mitting idolatrie though the rock were Christ how can you giue diuine honor to the bread and wine since they bee Christ euen after the same sort that the rock was Or if that comparison do not please you why do you worship the pixe wherein the bread is so the chalice wherein the wine is not the priest that by your doctrine doth create eate Christ Phi. We worship neither the pixe nor the chalice but Christ that is contained in them both Theo. And is not the same Christ that was contained in them both inclosed in the priests body when he eateth and drinketh your sacrifice Phi. Yeas Theo. And as really contained in his body as in your golden boxe or gilden chalice Phi. But yet we adore not the flesh of christ after it is once entered the mouth of man Theo. You do not I know but why should you not Why suffer you Christ in any place to be without the honor that is due vnto him Wil you serue him where please you ourskip him at your discretions Phi. Should we adore him when we know not where he is The. You be as sure he is in the Priest as in the pixe for you see him in neither Why then do you adore him in the one and not in the other Phi. I think you would not haue vs adore our sauiour The. I would not haue you adore him wheÌ„ where you only list much lesse to adore a peece of bread in his steed be first sure you haue him then adore him wheresoeuer you find him Phi. So we do Th. You do not You adore him not in the priest Phi. We see him not The. Wil you not adore him till you see him How then do you see him in the chalice or in the pixe Phi. There we be certaine he is Theo. You be as certaine of the other Phi. The fathers wil vs to adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries but not in other meÌ„s bodies The. Do they wil you to adore the mysteries themselues I mean the mystical sacramental signes Phi. Not the signes theÌ„selues they bee but accidents not to be adored but the sacrament it self they teach vs to adore The. With diuine honor Phi. With what els The. Adoration if it be attributed in any father to the mystical signes is that kind of reuerence which we yeeld to things that be sanctified for Gods vse not godly honor Phi. I smel a rat The. You were best then looke to your host for that of all others that is a most dangerous beast to your deuotion Phi. Why The. I wil tel you that anon in the mean time what was it that troubled your wits Phi. With a sly distinction of twofold adoration you think to slip the fathers which we will bring against you for the worshipping of the blessed sacrament The. Is that al your feare Phi. That is a way to wrangle to make the people beleeue our doctrine touching adoratioÌ„ of the sacrament is not catholik The. Set aside one father whom your selues shall not deny but that he speaketh of the substaÌ„ce of bread wine in the rest which you bring we wil vse no such aduaÌ„tage Phi. What wil you not do The. We wil not choke you with that second acception of adoration shew that the fathers adored the sacrament or taught the people to so doe wee require no more Phi. That I will presently S. Austen saith ep 118. c. 3. that it is he that the Apostle saith shal be damned that doth not by singular veneration or adoration make a difference between this meat al others And again in Psa. 91. No man eateth it before he adore it And S. Ambro. li. 3 c. 12. de spi. sanct We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries S. Chrysost. hom 24. in 1. Cor. We adore him on the altar as the Sages did in the manger S. Nazianzene in Epitap Gorgon My sister called vpon him which is worshipped vpon the altar Theodoret Dial. 2. In coÌ„fes The mystical tokeÌ„s be adored S. Denys this Apostles scholer made solemne inuocation of the sacrament after consecration Eccl. Hierar ca. 3. part 3. in princip before the
receiuing the whole church of God crieth vpon it Domine noÌ„ sum dignus Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori Lamb of god that takest away the sins of the world haue mercie on vs. And for better discerning of this diuine meat we are called from coÌ„mon profane houses to Gods church for this we are forbiddeÌ„ to make it in vulgar apparel are appointed sacred solemne vestments Hier. in Epitap Nepot li. 2. adv Pel. ca. 9. Paulinus ep 12. ad Seuer Io. Diac. in vit D. Greg. li. 3. ca. 59. For this is the hallowing of Corporals chalices Ambr. 2. off ca. 28. Nazian Orat. ad Arianos Optatus li. 6. in initio For this profane tables are remoued altars consecrated Aug. Serm. de temp 255. For this the very priests themselues are honorable chast sacred Hier. ep 1. ad Heliodor ca. 17. li. 1. adv Iouin ca. 19. Ambr. in 1. Tim. 3. For this the people is forbidden to touch it with common hands Nazian orat ad Arian in initio For this great care solicitude is taken that no part of either kind fall to the ground Cyril Hieros mystag 5. in fine Orig. ho. 13. in ca. 25. Exod. For this sacred prouision is made that if any hosts or partes of the Sacrament doe remaine vnreceiued they bee most religiously reserued with all honour and diligence possible and for this examinatioÌ„ of consciences confession continencie as S. Augustine saith receiuing it fasting Thus do we catholiks the church of God discerne the holy body blood by S. Pauls rule not only from your prophane bread wine which not by any secrete abuse of your Curates or clearkes but by the verie order of your booke the Minister if any remaine after your Communion may take home with him to his own vse and therfore it is no more holie by your own iudgement than the rest of his meates but from al other either vulgar or sanctified meates as the catechumens bread our vsual holy bread Theo. I had thought we should haue had adoration of the sacrament proued here commeth hallowing of coapes corporals chalices Altars priestes pixes and not at al or last of al the hallowing of soules which in wisemens account deserued to goe alone or at least first in the Kalender For your often curious clensing of the outsides of coates cups stones handes such like implementes sauoreth of the Pharisees holines who supposed then as you do now that God is highly serued with such solemne prouision sacred solicitude though this be more than euer Christ at his last supper had care for or mind of for ought that we find by report of the Gospell Mary this is not our purpose You must proue your adoration of the sacrament let hallowing of Uestments and Altars alone till an other time and persue that which is denied Phi. So we do Haue you not here S. Austen S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Nazianzene Theodorete S. Denys that the sacrament should bee adored Theo. Theodorete is not in your bookes that he is not sainted with the rest yet is he an ancient learned writer but take your pleasure The rest well deserue it and therefore I am not angrie with it though S. Paul extende the name sainct to the hearers as well as to the â—eachers to the liuing aswell as to the dead Phi. You would be saints The. God grant vs to be his seruants Phi. You must change your faith first The. Why We worship no creatures in steed of Christ as you do Phi. Wil that lying neuer be left Theo. Would God for your own sakes it were a ly but I feare it is 〈◊〉 true Phi. Christ wee adore creatures we do not Theo. The sacramentes you adore and those be creatures as in Baptisme the water in the Lords supper the bread wine Phi. We adore the B. sacrament of the Altar as wee learned of the catholike fathers creatures we adore none Theo. Of what fathers did you learn it Phi. I haue told you of S. Austen S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Nazianzene Theodorete S. Denys Theo. Set Theodorete aside who writing in greeke vseth the word adoration for an externall regard reuerence such as we giue to the books vessels that are sanctified to diuine vses though more amply to the sacramentes ordained by God himself saith that the mystical signes themselues remaining in their former earthly substance are adored that is reuerently religiously handled as becommeth so great mysteries I say set him aside not one of the rest so much as toucheth that which you should proue Phi. They say the sacrament must be adored Theo. They say Christ must be adored Phi. Yea but in the mysteries and on the altar Theo. So Christ is to bee adored in heauen in his church most of al in our own hearts bodies will you thence collect that either heauen or the Temple or our selues are to be adored Phi. But neither heauen nor the temple are sacraments Theo. Yet Christ is adored in them though they be not in like sort with him so may Christ be adored in the misteries though the mysteries themselues may haue no such honor Phi. S. AusteÌ„ saith It is he that the Apostle saith should be damned that doth not by singular veneration or adoration make a difference betweene this meate all others Theo. S. Austen in that place speaketh not one word of adoration He saith The Apostle affirmeth it to be vnworthily receiued of theÌ„ qui hoc non discernebaÌ„t à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita which did not discern it from other meates with the veneration that was properly or singularly due vnto it Phil. Uery wel Singular veneration is al one with diuine adoration Theo. In your corrupted iudgemeÌ„ts Phi. What els is it Theo. VeneratioÌ„ is a word that S. Austen fourdeth al the signes sacraments of the old new Testament adoratioÌ„ he reserueth only to God Of veneratioÌ„ he saith Qui veneratur â—ignum vtile diuinitus insâ—itutum non hocâ— vèneratur quod videtur transit sed illud potius quo talia cuncta referenda sunt Hee that reuerenceth a signe that is profitable and ordayned by God reuerenceth not the thing which is visible and transitorie but that rather to which all such signes are referred And so concludeth namely of baptisme and the Lordes Supper Quae vnusquisque cuÌ„ percipit quâ— referantur imbutus agnoscit vt ea non carnalâ— seruitute sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur Which two Sacramentes when euerie Christian receiueth he knoweth being once partaker of them whither to refer them that he may reuerence them with a spirituall libertie rather than with a carnall seruitude And least you should not vnderstand what difference he putteth betweene the corporall creature and the heauenly brightnesse in this and so in other sacramentes he saith farther
And therefore though the wordes cary a double sense yet we admit them both so you adore Chriâ—t and not the creatures of bread and wyne in his steed which Nazianzene was farre from allowing and his sister from doing For speaking in the same place of the mysticall elements which you woulde haue the people to adore as Christ he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any where about her she found part of the figures of the sacred body and blood which her hande had layd vp in stoare watering that with teares not adoring it with diuine worshippe shee departed presently cured of her disease That which you affirme to bee the real and natural flesh and blood of Christ shee had about her as many men and weomen vsed in the primatiue church to carie the same about them and yet shee did not adore that which she had in her hand but him that is serued and honored on the Altar or table of the Lord. Phil. You pare these places with certaine circumstances I know not how But S. Denys the Apostles scholer made a solemne inuocation of the Sacrament after Consecration in these woordes But thou O diuine and most holy Sacrament shewe thy selfe plainely to vs and brighten the eyes of our mynde with thy singular light that can not bee couered You aske proofe for adoration of the Sacrament wee shewe you where the Apostles scholer prayed to the blessed Sacrament in expresse woordes and higher adoration than prayer there can bee none What woulde you more Theo. Wee woulde haue you regard if not your consciences before God yet your credites before men Phi. Doe wee not so thinke you when wee ioyne with Saint Pauls scholer and teach the people to doe as hee did Theo. O wicked and wilfull corruption Phi. Corruption Why What Wherein Theo. The prayer which hee maketh to the sonne of God you wrest to the corporall and externall creatures Phi. No sir that shift will not serue His woordes bee But thou O diuine and most holy Sacrament which hee spake after consecration and yet you will not acknowledge them you bee so furiously bent against the blessed Sacrament Theo. After consecration what 's that Was hee at masse when hee made this prayer Phi. Hee made this inuocation of the Sacrament after Consecration Theo. Did ye euer read the woordes Phi. Twenty times Theo. Where was the host when hee made this prayer Phi. What can I tell To the host he made it Theo. Was he praying at the Altar or writing in his studie when he vttered these wordes Phi. What is that to vs Theo. You say hee prayed to the host and that after Consecration where hee good man was busie at his booke and beseeching God to lighten his vnderstanding that hee might write the trueth Phi. Wheresoeuer hee was hee sayth O thou diuine and most holy Sacrament Theo. Did hee write in Latin or in Greeke Phi. In Greeke What then Theo. The woorde Sacrament is not Greeke Phi. No. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Greeke woorde but that in Latin is the Sacrament Theo. Graunt the Greeke woorde were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are there no mysteries besides the Sacrament Philand Yeas There are mysteries that are not the Sacrament Theoph. You shall otherwise not only enlarge the limits of your masse to containe your seuen Sacramentes but also multiplie the number of your seuen sacramentes to seuen thousand times seuen For al secrets and wonders in heauen earth and hel which passe the reach or knowledge of the naturall or regenerate man bee mysteries Phi. In deede a mysterie is a secrete as well as a Sacrament Theo. And that in euil things as well as in good As the mysterie of iniquitie the mysterie of the woman and beast on which the whore of Babylon sate Phi. All this is true Theo. And as in euill so in good thinges Saint Paul sayth often The mysterie of God and of Christ. As when hee signifieth to the Colossians his care for them to know the mysterie of God euen the father and of Christ and so the mysterie of fayth of the Gospel of Godlynes and such like Phi. Uery wel Theo. As these be mysteries because they be secrets aboue our natural capacitie though reueiled vnto vs by God in his word so is the nature of God a most incomprehensible mysterie namely the mysterie of the blessed trinitie which is neither expresseable in our words nor conceiueable with our heartes Phi. This we doubt not of Theo. So is there the mysterie of Christes incarnation of his death and passion of his resurrection and ascension and of a thousand such which Christ calleth the mysteries of the kingdome of God and Paul meaneth when he saith Let a man so esteeme vs as the Ministers of Christ and disposers of Gods mysteries And for that cause the whole Gospel is called a mysterie hid since the world began and from all ages but nowe made manifest to his Saints Phi. This is not to our purpose Theo. I thinke it bee not you haue vtterly peruerted the wordes of Dionysius if that bee his worke and those were his wordes which you alleage and nowe you are loth to see it Phi. Conuince vs before you condemne vs. Theo. What other conuiction neede wee than your own conclusioÌ„ Dionysius speaking to Christ saith at lest as you suppose Thou diuine and most holy mysterie replenish the eyes of our soules with thy singular and vnextinguished light You because the word mysterie when it is applied to corporall and externall creatures doeth sometymes signifie a sacrament haue robbed Christ of his honor and giuen it to the element of bread and slaundered that writer whatsoeuer hee was for an open Idolater like to your selues Are not the people well holpe vp to trust such gamsters as you bee that leade them to so daungerous impietie with such manifest impudencie Phi. Your railing vayne is come vpon you Theo. And what vaine is come on you that will rather make a shipwracke of your owne and other mens saluations than you will seeme to relent from your errors Phi. It is no error The. It is an impious and haynous error and you bolster it vp with as euill wicked meanes that is by corrupting and forcing other mens writings to beare out your doings Phi. Dionysius in that whole chapter treateth of nothing but of the Sacrament Theo. And the Sacrament consisting of two partes an earthly and an heauenly the heauenly part of the sacrament is Christ. Why might hee not therefore make his prayer vnto Christ to direct his pen before hee assayed to treat of those mysteries Phi. So hee did but yet intending to pray to Christ hee speaketh to him in the Sacrament Theoph. It is one thing to pray to the sacrament as you though falsely say S. Denys did and an other thing to pray to him that is euery where present in that hee
tooke a stocke for their father and a stone for their maker They thought they worshipped God and not the Image Philand But wee bee sure that Christ made this to bee him-selfe when hee sayde this is my body Theo. He sayd I am the doore I am the vyne and yet neither doore nor vyne are really and personally the sonne of God Philand Hee spake those things in parables and by way of resemblance this he spake in plaine trueth without all figures and therefore this must bee substantially turned into Christ though that bee not Theoph. You make your reall and corporall presence a refuge for your erroneous and absurde assertions But if that bee false as well as the rest then are you plunged ouer head and eares in the myre and sinke of sinne and heresie Phi. If God bee not in heauen wee shall neuer come there but if hee bee wee can not misse our way For hath the whole Church thinke you lyen in sinne and heresie till your newe doctrine came lately from Geneua Theo. In deede I thinke this reason is euen as good as the most of those which your friendes haue freshly sent vs from Rhemes but abuse not your selues with such stately follies GOD may well bee in heauen and is no doubt and yet you neuer come there for refusing the right way thither Philand Wee goe the same way that the whole church since Christes time went before vs. Theoph. This pride so bewitcheth you that you can not see howe farre you bee fallen from the fayth of Christes Church which was in auncient and vncorrupted ages Philand As though wee did not ioyne with them in this and all other poyntes of Religion Theoph. You ioyne with them as darke-night doeth with day-light Philand Haue wee not their full consent for those thinges which you impugne Theoph. As namely for adoration of the sacrament where you pretend the whole Church and shewe not one man that euer taught of the Sacrament that It should bee adored Philand Was not the whole Church taught to say vnto It and crie vpon It Domine non suum dignus Lorde I am not woorthie Theo. Prooue that this or any other inuocation or adoration was vsed TO IT as you say and you shall goe free for all Phi. Origen ho. 5. in diuers When thou eatest sayth hee and drinkest the body and blood of our Lorde hee entereth vnder thy roofe Thou also therefore humbling thy selfe say Lord I am not woorthy So sayde S. Chrysostome in his Masse Theoph. This they were taught to say but to what were they taught to say it Philand To the Sacrament Theo. Who sayth so besides you Phi. Origen and Saint Chrysostome Theoph. Perhaps they taught the people that kinde of prayer when they did communicate at the Lordes Table but did they teach the people to say so to the Sacrament Philand Euen thus to crie VPON IT and thus to say VNTO IT Lorde I am not woorthie Theo. We would gladly heare that of their owne mouthes wee trust not yours Philand Looke the places and you shall find it to bee as wee say Theo. We haue viewed the places and find you to be Lyars Phi. Are not those Origens words which we rehearse Theo. Origen hath the words which you cite but he teacheth not the people to direct them to the Sacrament Philand To whome then Theoph. To whome but to christ the sonne of God Phi. And he is in the sacrament Theo. Their assertions not your additions are the thinges we aske for That these and all other partes of diuine honor are due to christ no christian maie doubt but that the same maie be directed and applied to the host that is your blasphemie no father â—uer taught it Origen discussing the Centurions fact and faith telleth his audience that Christ entereth vnder the roofes of all beleeuers two waies first by his ministers then by his mysteries Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum Credentium duplici figura vel more The Lorde euen at this daie entereth the roofe of those that beleeue after two sortes or manners For when holie and acceptable pastours of the Church to GOD enter our howsen euen then and there the Lord entereth by them and be thou so affected as if thou receiuedst the Lorde himselfe An other waie is when thou receiuest that holy meate and eatest and drinkest the bodie and blood of the Lord for then the Lorde entereth thy roofe also Thou therefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and saie Lord I am not worthie that thou shouldest come vnder my roofe This must be said as well when the preacher entereth our house as when we receiue the sacrament for it is plaine by Origen that christ commeth vnder our roofe in both these cases and we are not worthie in either of them or in any other case that the sonne of God should come vnder our roofe As then it were madnes to deifie the Preacher because Christ voutsafeth to come in him and with him or to salute him with the diuine honour due to christ and to say to a mortall man Lord I am not worthy so can it be no lesse impietie to saie to the dead creatures in which or with which we receiue christ from his table Lord I am not worthie Phi. Doe you thinke that Christ is none otherwise in the Sacrament than he is in a mortall man Theo. He is more truelie reallie and naturallie in those men that be his members than he is in the elements that be vsed at his table Phi. O shamefull heresie Is anie mortall man transsubstantiated into Christ as the elements are by power of consecration Theo. That which I saie is most true men are the members of Christ bread is not Christ abideth in them and they in him in the breade he doeth not he will raise them in the last day the breade he will not they shall raigne with him for euer the breade shall not And therefore take backe your shamefull error of transsubstantiating the elements into christ since he is more really in vs than in the pixe or the chalice and yet we are not substantiallie conuerted into him Phi. I will neuer beleeue this whiles I haue a daie to liue Theo. Neither doe I meane in this place to enter that discourse yet for the confirmation of it I send you to Chrysostome Cyrill and Hilarie who will teach you so much in plaine wordes that christ is in vs reallie naturallie corporallie carnallie substantiallie which of the Sacrament you shall neuer be able to prooue For the sacrament is no part of his mysticall bodie as we are and therefore we are knit vnto him euen by the trueth of his and our nature flesh and substance as members of the same bodie to their head the Sacrament is not but onelie annexed as a signe to the heauenlie grace and vertue of Christ mightilie present and trulie entering the soule of euerie man that
name than the body and blood of Christ not that in earthly matter or essence they be really conuerted into those diuine things as you falsely gather but for that remaining in their former vsual both nature and substance they haue in them cary with them the fruite effect and force of Christs flesh wounded blood shed for the remission of our sinnes And because the people shoulde regarde not the creatures which they see but the graces which they beleeue therefore the Fathers euery where without exception call the elements by the names of the inwarde and heauenly vertues that are annexed to them and conferred with them by the trueth of his word power of his spirit This is the first rule which you should haue obserued The next is that whensoeuer they teach and propose the dignitie proprietie or efficacie of the Sacrament they meane not the creatures which our eies and tasts doe better iudge of than their tongues or wittes can teach vs but that other diuine lyfe-giuing and soule-sauing part of the sacrament which our heartes by fayth take holde on and possesse more really and effectually than if it were chammed in our mouthes or buried in our stomackes as you grossely conceiue of those thinges which bee most high and heauenly These two Rules remembred a very meane scholer may soone discharge the burden of all your allegations For either you mistake the one part for the other supposing that to bee corporall which in deede is spirituall or else you vrge the name which the signe beareth for similitude as â—arnâ—stily to all intents as 〈◊〉 were were the thing it selfe which causeth you to 〈◊〉 so many texâ—es and to straie so farre from trueth that no sound can recall you Phi. Away with your new found obseruations The catholike church hath the spirit of trueth promised for her direction and therefore the wil none of your wise inuentions to qualifie the fathers speeches Learne you rather at her handes to beleeue the wordes of Christ who first appointed this Sacrament and pronounced it to be himselfe without signe or figure when he saide this is my body and this is my blood not spirituall or metaphoricall but the same body which was broken and the same blood which was shed for remissioâ— of sinnes and that I trust you will confesse was his naturall and locall hath body and blood Theo. The question is not whether that were his naturall body which suffered on the crosse but when hee saide of the bread this is my bodie whether he substantially changed the dead element into himselfe made the creature become the creator or whether he annexed his trueth to the signe and grace to the Sacrament which required both the word of Christ to make the promise and his power to perfourme the speech And therefore we beleeue and acknowledge the wordes of our Sauiour to bee very needeful in ordaining this Sacrament euen in such manner and order as they were spoken that the signes might haue the fruites and effectes of his body and blood But that hee chaunged substances with the bread and wine or deified the creatures that his speech doth not inferre and that as yet we doe not beleeue except you can shewe vs howe the fleshe of Christ which was first made of a woman is nowe become to be made of bread and a dead and senslesse creature exalted to bee the son of God Phi. We do not say the bread is substantially conuerted into Christ or made the sonne of God but the bread is abolished in the place thereof commeth the glorious flesh of our Lord and Sauiour who is the Sonne of God And in that sense we hold the creator is now where the creature was but the dead element is not made the Sonne of God you woulde faine catch vs at such an aduantage Theo. How you can auoide it I yet perceiue not for if the bread bee nowe Christ which before it was not ergo the bread is made Christ and by consequent a dead element is nowe become or made the Sonne of God which I thinke will hardly stand with the very first groundes of Christian religion Phi. You presse the letter against both reason and trueth For the one is sayd to be conuerted or chaunged into the other because the one displaceth and succeedeth the other so is it a chaunge rather of the one for the other than a conuersion of the one into the other if you take conuersion properly as the Philosophers do Theo. Christ dâ—eth not say where the bread was there is nowe my body but this bread is my body And since before consecration it was not his body and now by repeating the wordes is become his body the conclusion is euident that by your opinion the bread is made Christ and so become the sonne of God Phi. You thinke to snare vs with schoole-trickes but setting your sophismes aside we plainly beleeue the Sacrament is Christ. Theo. You must beleeue the bread is Christ which as yet the Articles of our Creede will not suffer vs to doe I meane not to thinke that a dead and dumbe creature may bee God Phi. Do we say the bread is God Theo. You must auerre it if you stick to the letter of Christs words for he said of the bread as you inforce it this is my selfe now he was God Phi. I thought I should be euen with you at Landes end Christ did not say this bread is my bodie but this is my bodie where now is the force of your argument Theo. Euen where it was Phi. Why Christ sayd this is not meaning bread or any other creature Theo. That this must be somwhat else nothing was the body of Christ so you loose not only the bread but also the body Phi. Nay he said this is and that must needs be somwhat it can not be nothing Theo. It is well you haue found it I said so before you Then this is my body What this Was it bread that he spake of or somthing else Phi. He spake of that which he had in his hands Theo. You meane not long before Phi. In deede you say he had at that present when he spake the wordes nothing in his handes and so you would haue nothing to be his body Theo. Hinder not our course with matter impertinent to this place The demonstratiue THIS noteth that which Christ then gaue to his Disciples as wel as that which you thinke he then held in his hands Choose whether you wil of force the thing must be all one For that which hee helde that he gaue and of that which he first helde and after gaue hee saide this is my body Phi. He did so Theo. What was it Phi. Somwhat it was whatsoeuer it was Theo. What somwhat do you say it was Phi. What if I cannot tell Theo. Then must you seeke farther for your chaunging of substances The words of
hoc It is a common question what is ment by the pronoune THIS whether bread or the body of Christ Not bread for that is not the body of Christ nor yet the body of Christ for it appeareth not that there is any transubstantiation till the wordes be all pronounced To this demaund I say that by the word THIS nothing is ment but it is there put materially without anie signification at all Thus you turned and tossed the wordes of Christ so long till you brought all that the Lord did and saide at his last supper to plaine NOTHING With such vnchristian toyes were your scholes fraughted and the worlde deceiued such monsters you hatched when once you left the direction of the Scriptures and Fathers and fell to broaching your owne gesses But you must either admit our explication this breade is my body for the right ordering and perfitting of Christes wordes or else dissent from the manifest Scriptures from al the catholike Fathers and with shame enough from your owne fellowes and fansies Phi. Wee sticke not so much at the filling vp of the wordes which Christ spake as at the constering and expounding of them You delude them with tropes and significations as if Christ had beene speaking parables and not ordaining sacramentes Wee say there must be a reall truth and actiue force in them to perfourme the letter as it lieth For in Scripture so long as the letter may possibly be true we may not fly to figures Theo. In that you say right We must imbrace the sense which is occurant in the letter before all others if it agree with faith and good maners but if it crosse either of them we must beware the letter lest it kill and seeke for an other and deeper sense which must needes be figuratiue That direction S. Augustine giueth to al men when they read the Scriptures Iste omnino modus est locutionis inueniendae propriáne an figurata sit vt quicquid in sermone diuino neque ad morum honestatem nec ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest figuratum esse cognoscas This is the perfect way to discerne whether a speech be proper or figuratiue that whatsoeuer in the word of God can not be properly referred either to integritie of maners or verity of faith thou resolue thy selfe it is figuratiue Phi. That prescription is very sound but it furthereth not your figuratiue sense For the letter of these wordes which we stand for is neither against faith nor good manners Theo. The literall acception of these words as they lie this bread is my body is first impossible by your owne confession next blasphemous by the plaine leuell of our Creede and lastly barbarous by the verie touch and instinct of mans nature Phi. Charge you Christ with so manie foule ouersightes in speaking the wordes Theo. The wordes which Christ spake be gratious and religious we know but where there may be brought a double construction of them a carnall or a spirituall a literall or a SacrameÌ„tall the literall construction which you will needes defend to deface the other is we say reproued as no part of our Sauiours meaning by those three barres which we proposed Phi. You propose much but you proue litle Theo. I should proue euen as much as you do if I should proue nothing but that which I proposed shall not want proofe The first your owne friendes will helpe me to proue Your Lawe saieth Hoc tamen est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi Yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Why striue you then for that which your selues grant is not possible to be true Why forsake you the mysticall interpretation which is possible what greater vanitie can you shewe than to cleaue to that sense which you see can not stande If it be bread how can it be Christ If it be Christ how can it be bread The second is as cleare For if breade in proper and precise speech bee the flesh of Christ ergo bread is also the feede of Dauid ergo breade was fastned to the crosse for our sinnes ergo bread was buried rose the third day from death and now sitteth in heauen at the right hand of God the Father nay no questioÌ„ if bread be Christ then is bread the Sonne of God and second person in the sacred Trinitie which how wel your stomaks can digest we know not in truth our harts tremble to heare an earthly dead and corruptible creature by your literall carnall deuotion aduaunced to the Lord of life grace the maker of heauen and earth yea the liuing and euerlasting God and yet if bread be truely and properly Christ these monsterous impieties you can not auoide Thirdly what could you deuise more iniurious and odious to christian mildnesse maners than the letter of these words eate you this is my flesh drinke you this is my blood Had you bin willed in as plain termes to cruciâ—ie Christ as you bee willed to eate his fleshe you woulde not I trust haue presently banded your selues with the Iewes to put him to death but rather haue staggered at the letter and sought for some farther and other meaning Yee be now willed to eate his flesh drinke his blood which is a precept far more hainous horrible in christian behauiour and religion if you follow the letter as AusteÌ„ affirmeth It appeareth more horrible to eate mans flesh than to kill it to drinke mans blood than to shed it And againe The Capernites were more excusable that coulde not abide the wordes of Christ which they vnderstood not being in deede horrible in that they were spoken as a blessing not as a cursing They thought saith Cyrill Christ had inuited them to eate the raw flesh of a man and drinke blood which thinges be horrible to the verie eares Why then presse you the letter which is hainous forget that the speech can not be religious except it be figuratiue Uerily S. Austen concludeth the speech to be figuratiue for this only reason If the scripture seeme to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue Except ye eate the fleshe of the son of man and drinke his blood you shall haue no life in you facinus velflagitium videtur iubere Christ seemeth to command a wicked sinfull act figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion sweetly profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified wouÌ„ded for vs. If then the real eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes and actuall drinking of his blood with our lips be wicked and hainous why presse you the letter of these wordes eate you this is my body drinke you this is my blood against truth against faith against nature neither possibility nor christianity nor coÌ„mon honestie suffering your exposition to be good S.
my way Phi. Al these fathers affirme the bread to be a signe figure of Christs body This we grant and thereto adde that it is both a figure and the trueth it selfe You may be gone you haue your errand Did I not tell you I would soone dispatch you Theo. You be very pleasureable whatsoeuer the matter be but had you no better skill to dispatch men of their liues than you haue to defeate vs of ouâ— authorities many a thowsand should now liue that you haue slaine Philan. You would runne to by-quarrels but I must hold you to the stake Theo. In deede that was alwayes the surest answere that you gaue vs. The rest was nothing no more is this For first it is apparently false that in Sacraments the signe the truth may be all one thing Next if that might be yet doth it not disappoint any one of these testimonies For they do not only witnes that the bread is a sign of christs bodie but also that christes wordes were figuratiue and that in deliuering the mysteries he called the bread his body by way of signification similitude representation after the maner of Sacramentes in a signe not according to the letter but in a spirituall and mysticall vnderstanding and if you respect the precise speech improperly and figuratiuely And though the signe might happily be one thing with the truth it self as you affirm wtout al truth yet may not a figuratiue speech be properly takeÌ„ nor the letter vrged against the spirituall meaning least that which was spoken to quicken the inward man subuert the faith and indanger the soul which in mistaking a figure of speech must needs insue as S. Augustine sheweth In principio cauendum est ne siguratam locutionem ad literam accipias Ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait Apostolus litera occidit spiritus autem viuificat Cum enim figurate dictum sic accipitur tanquam proprie dictum sit carnaliter sapitur Neque vllamors animae congruentius appellatur The first thing that you must beware is this that you take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter To that belongeth the Apostles admonition the letter killeth the spirite quickneth For when wee take that which is figuratiuely spoken as if it were properly spoken it is a carnall sense Neither is there any thing more rightly called the death of the soule In vaine then doe you thinke to shift off the matter with this foolish conceite that one and the same thing may be both a trueth and a figure For were that so yet can not a figuratiue speech bee literally taken without killing the soule and the Fathers which I produced affirme the minde and speech of our Sauiour in calling the bread his body was spirituall figuratiue and mysticall by way of signification such as is vsed in Sacramentes not literall nor carnall according to the strict sâ—und and order of the wordes Marie now your answere besides that it is altogether idle is vtterly false For in this sacrament as in al others there is great difference betwixt the signes and the things theÌ„selues and the distinct properties of ech are so sensible that if your wits be not laid vp for holy daies you can not but perceiue theÌ„ The signes are visible the things inuisible the signes are earthly the things heaueÌ„ly the signes corruptible the thinges immortall the signes corporall the thinges spirituall The signes are one thing the trueth is not the same but an other thing and euen by plaine Arythmetike they be two things and not one The Eucharist as Ireneus teacheth Consisteth of two things an earthly an heauenly This is it that wee say this is it that we seeke by all meanes saith Austen to approue to wit that the sacrifice of the church is made of two and consisteth of two thinges sacramento re sacramenti of the sacred signe and the thing it selfe For sacramentes are signa rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia signes of truthes being one thing in themselues and signifieng an other It were no figure saith Chrysostome if all thinges incident to the truth were to be found in it much lesse if it were the truth it selfe Sacraments haue a certaine similitude but no identitie with the thinges whose signes they be If therefore To take the signes for the thinges bee a miserable seruitude of the soule as Austen noteth what is it to affirme the signes to be the things themselues but a wilfull blindnesse of heart choosing rather to rush into any brake with daunger both of credit and conscience than to acknowledge the truth once disdayned and refused Phi. I haue yet an other answere in stoare Theo. If that be no better than this your stoare is little worth Phi. The most part of the Fathers which you bring speake not of Christes wordes when hee did institute the Sacrament but declare his meaning in the sixth of Sainct Iohns Gospell when the Capernites stumbled at his doctrine Theo. You may keepe this still in stoare for the goodnes of it Tertullian Austen Cyprian Ambrose Hierom Chrysostom Theodorete Prosper Bede Bertram Druthmarus and your own law speake directly of the sacrament and so doth Origen when he calleth the bread on the Lords table the typicall and figuratiue body onely that place of his mentioneth the sixt of Iohn where he saith If you take this saying according to the letter this letter killeth Phi. Mary Sir that place is the chiefest how closely you could conuey it in amongest the rest to make men beleeue he spake that of the sacrament which is nothing so Theo. Why doth not the 6. of S. Iohn foretel and declare the same kinde of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloode which was after perfourmed by Christ at his last supper wheÌ„ he said This is my body this is my blood Phi. Doth it say you Theo. I do not say Christ speaketh in the sixth of Iohn of the materiall elementes of bread and wine which were then first ordained to bee pledges of his inuisible graces when the Supper was first instituted and therefore not spoken of before that time but this is it which I affirme and in this the learned and auncient Fathers agree with mee that where this mystery consisteth of two partes an earthlie matter and an heauenly vertue the sixth of Sainct Iohn treateth not of the signes but of the thinges them-selues not of the figures representing but of the trueth represented not of that which is corporally proposed but of that which is Ghostly receiued in the Lordes supper which is the better and diuiner part of this Sacrament and that the Disciples there learned in what sort themselues and all the faithfull after them should eate the Lords flesh and drinke the Lords blood at his table to be thereby quickned norished and incorporated with him as members of his mysticall body So that if any
on his flesh and that they might thenceforth learne that the flesh of which he spake was celestiall foode from heauen and spirituall nourishment which hee giueth Augustine Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy bellie BELEEVE AND THOV HAST EATEN To beleeue in him this is to eat the liuing bread HE THAT BELEEVETH EATETH He is inuisibly fedde because hee is inuisibly regenerated He is inwardly a babe inwardly new In what part he is renewed in that part is he nourished Bernard that in respect of antiquitie liued but yesterday can teach you the meaning of this place When they heard him say except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud they saide this is an hard speach and departed from him And what is to eate his flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and imitate that conuersation which he ledde here in flesh The text it selfe doth in sight conuince so much The Lord often times expoundeth his owne wordes purposly to this effect Worke not for the meate which perisheth but for the meate which dureth to eternall life and this is the worke of God that you beleeue in him whom he hath sent I am that bread of life he that commeth to me not by walking but by beleeuing shal not hunger he that beleeueth in me shal neuer thirst Hunger and thirst are no way quenched but with eating and drinking Then how can the beleeuer but still hunger and still thirst except we graunt that he which beleeueth both eateth and drinketh Verily verily I say vnto you except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you He then which hath life per consequence eateth the flesh of christ and drinketh his bloud but he that beleeueth hath eternall life as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place with no lesse vehemencie Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life ergo he that beleeueth eateth the flesh and drinketh the bloud of Christ. For if eating and drinking in this place were referred to the mouth and teeth how could Iudas or any other of the wicked that is once partaker of the Lordes table perish The wordes of Christ be plaine Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and are dead If any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life But the wicked notwithstanding the corporal chamming of this Sacrament die the death of sinners ergo they neither eat the â—lesh of Christ nor drink his bloud not because their teeth or iawes faile them but by reason they want faith which is the right and proper instrument of spiritual eating Since then man beleeueth with his heart vnto righteousnes as Paul teacheth not with his iawes nor lippes ergo the soul of man which only beleeueth only doth eate the flesh of Christ and our bodies which haue no meanes to beleeue can neither eate nor drinke in that sort and sense that our Sauiour there speaketh of You cannot with honestie steppe from so manifest both Scriptures and Fathers as these bee that I haue brought or if you can dally with so good and graue witnesses in so weightie matters I trust the Godly will bee fully resolued that the manner of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloud which the Lord himselfe first proposed in the sixt of Iohn was not LITERALL NOR CORPORALL as the Capernites vnderstand him and were deceiued but ALLEGORICALL AND SPIRITVALL ALLEGORICALL in respect of the words which be not there precisely taken in their vsuall signification for grinding with the teeth and straining downe the throate but figuratiuely spoken and import as much as confessing imbracing with hart and inward affectioÌ„ SPIRITVAL because not our mouths but our minds not our bellies but our spirites are nourished with the flesh and bloud of Christ and that not by chewing or swallowing but by remembring and beleeuing that his bodie was wounded and his bloud shedde for our perfect and eternall redemption Now the Lords Supper is correspondent not contrarie to the first of Iohn as we saw before by the verdit of the fathers confession of your selues therefore the Lords table teacheth no literall nor carnal but a spirituall mysticall eating of the â—lesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud which you cannot obserue so long as you presse the letter of these wordes Take eat this is my body For taking and eating in the Supper bee corporall actions euen as breaking the bread and deliuering the cup are Then if the wordes this is my bodie bee literall the consequent is ineuitable that the flesh of Christ is really taken with hands actually brused with teeth corporally lodged in the belly But this error the Lorde in his own person confuted and the Catholike fathers refell as impious irreligious and haynous ergo the wordes of the Supper this is my body bee not literall but rather aunswerable to the doctrine proposed in the sixt of Iohn which is nothing lesse than literal Phi. You make but a double manner of eating Christes flesh where you should make a triple A carnal spirituall and Sacramentall A carnal which the capernites dreampt of when they supposed they should haue eaten raw flesh to sight and tast as they did other meates A spirituall by faith and vnderstanding in which sort euery good man may eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud at any time without the mysteries A Sacramentall as when wee eate the flesh of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine though we neither see nor â—ast flesh or blood Of these three sortes the sixt of S. Iohns Gospell refelleth onely the carnall which the Capernites grossely fell to when they heard our Sauiour speake of the Sacrament Theo. I blame you not if you bee loath to be counted Capernites They were reproued by our Sauiour as grosse mistakers of his speach and lewde forsakers of his fellowship but would God you were as willing to leaue their error as you be to refuse their name Phi. Wee be farder than you from their opinion And you be rather Capernites that aske how can he giue vs his flesh to eate and will not beleeue any eating of Christes bodie with the mouth except your eyes and tongues maie first discerne and tast the same Theo. We aske not him how he can doe anie thing that he will but wee aske you how you know that both his will and his worde are changed since he rebuked the Capernites for their grossenes Phi. We doe not say that either his will or his word are chaunged Theo. Then the doctrine of eating his flesh and drinking his blood which he delâ—uered in the sixt of Iohn remaineth in the same force and strength that it did at first when he reuealed it to his disciples Philand It doth
of a corporal substaÌ„ce for your shewes without substance were not yet known but by secret efficiencie prouing the presence of the diuine vertue This common bread chaunged into flesh and blood procureth life and groweth to our bodies so by the vsuall course of these things the weakenes of our faith is succoured and â—aught by a sensible argument that the effects of eternal life is in the visible SacrameÌ„ts that we be vnitâ—â— to Christ noâ— so much by a corporal as by a spiritual transitioÌ„ Ambrose Perhaps tâ—ou wilt say I â—ee the likenes I see not the truth of blood But it hath a resemblaÌ„ce For as thou tookest a resemblance of his death so doest thou drink a resemblance of his precious blood to this end that there should be no horror of blood and yet it might worke the price of our saluation and the grace of our redemption might remaine Therfore for a similitude thou receauest the Sacrament sed ver ae naturae gratiaÌ„ virtuteÌ„que consequeris but thou obtainest therby the grace vertue of the true nature Gelasius By the sacraments which we receiue wee be made partakers of the diuine nature they truely represent to vs the vertues and effects of that Principal mysterie Hilarius These things tasted taken bring this to passe that Christ remaineth in vs this is The vertue of that table to quicken the receiuers Leo In that mystical distribution of the spirituall nourishment that is giuen this is taken that receiuing the vertue of the heauenly meate we may be chaunged into his flesh who was made flesh for vs. Chrysostom Let vs come to the spirituall dugge of this chalice and suck thence the grace of the spirit Austen The Sacrament is one thing the vertue of the Sacrament is an other thing Euery man receiueth his part whereby grace itselfe is called parts and where the Sacraments were common to all grace was not common to all which is the vertue of the Sacraments And againe The Capernites thought he would haue giuen them his body but he told them hee would ascend to heauen no doubt hee ment whole When you shall see the sonne of man ascendingâ— where hee was before surely then shal you see that he doth not giue his body that way which you imagine surely then shal you perceiue that his grace is not consumed with biting Euthymius He doth change these things vnspeakably into his very body that quickneth and into his very precious blood and into the grace of them bothâ— We must therfore not looke to the nature of the things proposed at the Lords table but vnto the vertue of them Wherefore Theodoretes wordes are most true The signes which are seene Christ did honor with the names of his body and blood not chaunging the nature or substance of them but casting grace vnto nature And so did Ambrose meane when hee sayde If there bee so great strength in the word of the Lord Iesu that all thinges beganne to bee when they were not howe much more shall it bee of force that the mysticall elementes should be the same they were before and yet bee chaunged into an other thing The same in earthly matter and substaunce which they were before chaunged in vertue power and working whereby wee see they beare not onely the names but also the fruites and effectes of those thinges whose Sacraments they bee This is their doctrine touching the visible part of this Sacrament which is seene with eyes felt with handes and â—rused with teeth of that there is no doubt but it entereth our mouthes and resteth in our bowels and that for the causes which I before rehearsed aâ—â—er consecration is euâ—ry where called by thâ—m the Lordes body but that the naturall fleshe of Christ which is thâ— other and inwarde part of the Sacrament entereth the mouth or abideth the teeth or passeth downe the throate or loâ—geth in the stomack this is a position wholy repugnant both to Fathers and Scriptures Doe you not know sayth Christ that whatsoeuer thing from without entereth into a man can not defile him because it entereth not into his heart but into the beâ—lie Then by the iudgement of our Sauiour nothing can enter â—oth the hâ—aâ—t the bâ—lly but the flesh of Chrisâ— entereth into the hâ—art ergo 〈…〉 The bellie saieth Paul is for meates meates for the bellie and God will destroy both it and them the bodie of Chrâ—st Gâ—d wâ—ll not destroy it is therefore no meate for the bellie If not for the â—â—lliâ— then not for the mouth because eueâ—ie thing that entereth the mouth goeth into the bellie and so foorth to the â—raught But so basely to thâ—nk of the flâ—sh of Christ is apparent and 〈◊〉 wickednesse eâ—go the fleshe of Christ neither fillâ—th our bellies nor â—ntâ—râ—th ouâ— moâ—â—â—â— For nothing that entereth the mouth can either defile or sanctifie Meatâ—s saith Paul whiâ—h passe by the mouth doe not commend vs vnto â—od neither doeth the kingâ—om of God which is our sanctificationâ— conâ—â—â— of mâ—ats and drinkes but Christ with his blood doeth sanctifie the people and hee that â—atâ—th my flâ—sh drinketh my blood saith â—e remaineth in mee and I in him and hath eternall life ergo neâ—ther his fleshe nor â—â—s blood enter ouâ— mâ—utheâ— To be short Christ dwelleth not in bellies by locall comprehension but in our hearts by faith his flâ—he seedeth not â—ur bodies for a tiâ—e but our soules for euer his wordes were spoken not of our mouthes which beâ—leâ—ue not â—ut of our spirites which haue no fleshe nor boanes and consequently neither teeth to grinde nor iawes to swallow but onely â—aith and vnderstanding Lette all this bee â—â—â—de if the learned and auncient Fathers doe not conclude the same Chrysostome Care not for the nourishment of the bodie but of the spirit Christ is the bread which â—eeâ—â—th not the bodie but the soule and filleth not the belly but the minde Ambrose Christ is in that sacrament because it is the bodie of Christ. It is therefore no bodily but Ghostly meate NOT THIS BREAD which entereth into the bodie but the bread of eternall life is it that vpholdeth the substaunce of our soule Cyprian As often as we doe this wee wheâ— not our teeth to bite but we breake the sanctified bread with a sincere faith Cyril Let vs therefore as our Sauiour saith labour not for the meate which goeth into the bellie but for the spirituall foode which confirmeth our harts and leadeth vs to eternall life Austen It is not lawfull to deuoure Christ with teeth Prepare not your iawes but your harts We take but a morsel our hart is replenished Therfore not that which is seen but that which is beleued doth feed Why prouidest thou thy teeth thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten Beâ—traÌ„ At
would conâ—uâ—e my selâ—e Theo. No the clearenes of trueth was such that you could not shadowe the beames of it and therefore in a brauerie you did admit it though now you would to your owlelight againe Phi. This is counsell to me I know not what you mean Theo. Dâ—d you not confesse it to bee very true thâ—t in this sacrament the signes after consecration did carie the names and effects of the things themselues Phi. Yeas I did Theo. Recaâ—t you that Phi. I doe not Theo. Then are the places which you brought for the reâ—l eating of Christs fleshe with your mouthes and teeth returned backe without your conclusiâ—n For the signes which are called after consecration by the names of â—hrists bodie and blood do enter our mouthes and passe our throates the true flâ—sh bloud of christ do not but â—re eaten at the Lords table only of the inward maÌ„ by faithful deuâ—tion and affâ—ctiâ—n preparing the hart that Christ may lodge there dwâ—ll there where hee dâ—lightâ—th and not in the mouthes and â—awes of men which is no place for him that sitâ—eth in heauâ—n whither we must flie with the spirituall wings of our soules and spirites before we can be paâ—takers of him Phi. You shall not so delâ—de me The Rule â— granted was veâ—y true but how proue you that these speeches muâ—t be so constâ—â—ed In other cases it may be true though not in this Theo. If the Rule which I laide downe be very true then your places can inâ—erre nothing â—or so much as the wordes which you brought may be spoken as well of the signes as of the things themselues and in that case the promises receiuing a double consâ—â—uction by your own confessâ—on how can your conclusion stand goâ—d importing that sense which is not only most doubted and least proued but â—laâ—ly denied by the same fathers in other places as I haue shewed Phi. Tutâ—e I will not be mocked wiâ—h such iâ—stes you shall answer thâ—m place by place as I cite them or els I wil not speake one word more Theo. You importune mee to spende time which nowe waxeth short but it will be the worse for your selfe your egernes without trueth will be your owne discredit and the more paâ—ticularly the more plainly it will appeare Phi. I haue aduantages in their wordes against your euasion which I will not omit Theo. In Augustine Chrysostome and Tertullian you haue vtterly none Austen saith that in honour of so great a Sacrament as this is it hath pleased the holie Ghost that the sacred and sanctified bread which after a sort is called the Lords bodie though indeed it be the signe Sacrament of his bodieâ— should enter the mouth before other meats that sâ—â—ue onely to feed nourish ouâ— fleshâ— Chrysostome saith It is no small honour that our mouth hath gotten by receiuing the sanctified bread after consecration countâ—d worthy to be called the Lords body though the nature of bread still remainâ— And indeed so is it no small both comfort and honour that God hath vouâ—saâ—ed to confirme and â—eale his mercies vnto vs with these elements that are câ—nuerted into our fâ—â—sh to shew vs that we are as reallie inuâ—sted strengthned with his grace and â—rueth as our bodies are nourisâ—ed and encreased with the sâ—gnâ—s and Sacraments of his grace And to that end Tertullian saith Our flâ—sh seedeth on the bread which Christ called his bodie and hath in it the â—ffâ—cts of his body that our soules might be replenished with God Phi. These be your corrections oâ— their speaches they be not their intentions Theo. Looke better to them and you shall finde that I haue added no wordes but such as them selues in other places haue delâ—uered to declare their owne both meaning and speaking Phi. The rest doe make for vs. Theo. Cyril saith nothing but that as the soul hath faith and grace to clense it and prepare it to eternall life so it was needfull that our rude and â—arthlie bodie should be brought to immortalitie by corporal and earthlie food that our bodies touching tasting and feeding on creatures like themselues might take them as pledges of our resurrection Gregorie comparing the two Passeouers the Iewes and ours and alluding to the storie of theirs â—aith The blood of our Passeouer is sprinckled on both Posts when it is drunke not onelie with the mouth of the bodie as the cup is which after the manner of Sacramentes is the Communion of Christes bloode but also with the mouth of the hart which is the true drinking of Christes blood Phi. We will none of that by your leaue you must graunt that in strict and precise speach according to the woordes the blood of Christ is drunke by the mouth of the bodie as well as by the mouth of the soule Theophil Hath the soule a mouth in strict and precise speach or hath shee lips to drinke according to the letter Phi. Would you make me such a foole as so to thinke Theo. Then if one part of the sentence be figuratiue why not the other If that which hee doth most vrge be not literall why shal the letter be eracted in the harder and vnlikelier part of the comparison If the whole be but an allusion whie eract you that strictnes and precisenes of the speach in either part It is not possible that one and the same thing should be reallie drunke by the mouth of the bodie and the mouth of the soul. If it be corporall how can it enter the soul If it be spirituall how can it enter the mouth And if those be Gregories wordes which your ownâ— Lawe assigneth to him in the verie same homilie his exposition shaketh your real presence more than all the authorities you can bring shall settle it Quidam non improbabiliter exponunt hoc loco carnis sanguinis veritatem ipsam eorundem efficientiam id est peccatorum remissionem Some not amisse doe expound the trueth of Christes flesh and blood in this place to be the verie efficience of the same things that is the remission of sins Take this construction with you bring out of Greg. or Leo what you can it wil not help the tight of a barely corne Phi. S. Leo saith You ought so to communicate at the sacred table that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the bodie and blood of christ Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur For that is receiued with the mouth which is beleeued by our faith and in vaine doe they answer Amen which dispute against the thing that themselues receiue O noble Lion and such as all the heretikes in Europe will neuer encounter Theo. You speake like a Lion but the spite is your eares are too long to be taken for a beast of that metal You foolishly
the rest of his Doctrine and to himselfe in other places This is not to turne the fathers whither we will but to take heede we fall not into the pitte which they warne vs to auoide Phi. If you would neuer vse that rule but in that case you were not so much to be blamed marie your pretences bee verie faire when your perfourmances be farre vnlike Theo. Doe you lacke eyes to see or tongues to speake when we tread awrie Phi. Trust to it wee doe not The. We would not you should Our dealing in Religion must be such as not only you may not â—â—sprâ—â—â— but God may nor disâ—ike Phi. Thâ—s shâ—â—â—ng and 〈◊〉 of Fathers neither God nor man can like Theo. A lower saiâ—e were â—â—â—er â—or your smâ—ll bottâ—m 〈…〉 you gathâ—r so much wind and weather that yoâ— can neuer gâ—t â—o shoâ—re Phi. â—ou speake parables Theo. â— can 〈◊〉 â—nâ—erprete The â—â—niâ—y oâ— your 〈…〉 oâ— your harts is such that you can not soâ—eâ—ly discusse and 〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉 Phi. Who can â—e â—aâ—ent and see so much 〈◊〉 plâ—y â—â—â—ered Theo. 〈…〉 to tâ—ke wâ—â—g whâ—â—soeuâ—r you be to offer 〈◊〉 Phi. â—s 〈…〉 The. You must tâ—l vs what before we can redrâ—ssâ— it Phi. I alleaged sixâ— Fathers to proue that the flâ—sh of Chrâ—sâ— is eaten in the sacâ—ament corporally with our moutheâ— You come in with a new trick of Trenâ—hmore tel vs they spaâ— of the signes caâ—led by tâ—ose names after consecration not of â—he things theâ—selues Theo. Is this such wrong Phi. I promise you it moueth me to the very hart to see you so delude them Theo. I blame you not You thought you had some great hold in the Fathers for your corporalâ— eating of Christ with your teeth and I remember you would burn all to your shirt if euer they were answered and now the wâ—ight of them is seene they are but grâ—sse mystakinges if not peruertinges of the Fathers and you must seeke for an other pedegree Your real coueâ—ing of Christ with the shewes of bread and wine and corporall eating him with your teeth hath no deduction from â—he ancient Fathers Phi. If you may be suffered to gloze them as you doe Theophil Howe often must I tell you it is their owne gloze and not mine Philand The rule is theirs but why doe you applie it to these places Theo. I haue tolde you that also because they shoulde otherwise contradict both themselues and others Phil. Contradict why Tâ—eophil The selfe same Fathers aâ—ouch that the fleshe of Christ entereth not the bodie is not bitten with teeth filleth not the bellie they say it is not pietie to eate him with teeth wee must not prepare teeth iawes or bellies for him your owne â—awe sayeth hee descendeth not into the stomacke and the West church for 800. yeares confâ—ssed that Christ is not corporally taken of vs not chammeâ— with teeth not swallowed with iawes not closed in the compasse of the bellâ—e our Sauiour himselfe decideth that nothing can enter both the heart and the bellie and that the fleshe of Chrâ—st enterâ—th the heart and feedeth the soule he câ—n be no christian that doubteth This apparent negatiue not wâ—thstanding when they sometimes treaâ—ing of other mâ—tters happen to say Our mouth receiueth the body of Christ the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth oâ— his bodie and blood you would haue vs interprete these sayings of the very same things whâ—ch they denied to passe that way and not of the signes which in the perpetuall vse of speech amongest all Diuines after consecration were called by thâ—se names and none other leauing their own direction which they giue vs to charge them with a flat contradiction and hayâ—ous assertion as themselues agâ—ise if the letter bee vrged and the speech not mollified with a spiritual and mysticall exposition Phi. Nay Sir wee doe not say that the substaunce of our fleshe is increased or consisteth of Christes bodie and blood that were a wicked assertion in deede the body of Christ is glorious and impassible and not reallie mixed with our flesh much lesse conuerted into the substaunce of our bodies as that speech importeth Theo. But yet the Fathers that affirme the one affirme the other and certaine it is that nourishing is the principall ende of eating so that eating the flesh of Christ is vtterly superfluous if wee bee not therby norished Phi. Our souls are norished not our bodies with that heauenly food Theo. Then must our souls eate it not our bodies Phi. Our bodies eat it that our soules may be nourished by it Theo. Eating digesting and nourishing be consequent and coherent actions and therefore they must all three be either corporall or spirituall If the soule be nourished the soule must eate digest that which is eaten If the body eat the body must digest and be norished by that food Phi. Would you haue our bodies norished substantially increased with the flesh of Christ Theop. The Fathers I say auouch the one as well as the other If then you can expounde the one why doe you peruert the other Phi. What doe they auouch Theophil That the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth of the bodie and blood of Christ. Philand Proue that By your leaue I thinke you vse multiplication with the Fathers Theop. Then when I produce them I trust you will come foorth with your diuision Philand Let mee heare them Theophil You shall Iustinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The foode sanctified of which our blood flesh are nourished by conuersion we are taught to be the flesh blood of that Iesus which took our flesh on him Ireneus Quomodo dâ—cunt carnem in corruptionem deuenire non percipere vitam quae à cortore Domini sanguine alitur How say they that our flesh shall perish and not be partaker of life since it is nourished of the verie bodie and blood of our Lord And again Fit Eucharistia corporis sanguinis Christi ex quibus angetur coâ—sistâ—t carnis nostrae substantia There is made the Eucharist of the bodie and blood of Christ of which the substaunce of our fleshe is increased and consisteth And therefore hee concludeth Quomodo negart carnem capâ—cem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna quae corpore sanguine Christi â—â—tritur How doe they deny our flesh to bee capable of the gift of God who is eternal life since it is noâ—â—shed of the body blood of Christ. And after so Chrysostome Phi. Repeate no more If I beleeue not this that which coÌ„meth after whatsoeuer it be will not preuaile Theo. How think you must this be referred to the naturall true body blood of Christ or else to the signes bearing those names when once they bee sanctified Philand No doubt to the fignes Theop. And were it not open madnesse to auouch it to bee really true of
Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera manducare corpus Christi eius sanguinem bibere The Lord sheweth what it is to eate the flesh of christ drinke his bloud not by way of a sacrament but in deede As if he had said hee that remaineth not in me and in whom I doe not likewise remaine let him neuer say nor thinke that he eateth my flesh or drinketh my bloud That which here he calleth Sacramento tènus before in the same Chapter hee called solo Sacramento opposing against it reuera maÌ„nducare prouing that neither heretikes nor wicked Christians do in deede eate the bodie of Christ but only the Sacrament that is the sacred signe of his bodie They rightly vnderstand that he must not be said to eate the bodie of christ which is not in the body of christ as heretikes be not and of wicked liuers though they keepe in the Church he saith Nec isti dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quia nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Neither are these that liue wickedly to bee saide to eate the bodie of christ since they must not be counted the members of Christ. Phi. Not spiritually but Sacramentally they do eate the bodie of Christ though they be wicked and so Sainct Augustine teacheth Theo. Keepe the wordes and sense which S. Augustine hath you shall be free from this error which now you are in He that remaineth not in Christ and in whom Christ abideth not without all doubt doth not spiritually eate his fleshe nor drinke his bloud though carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie and bloud Sacramentall eating is the carnall and visible pressing with teeth the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud it is not the reall eating of Christ himselfe Phi. The Sacrament is Christ we say Theo. But so said not Sainct Augustine He diligently distinguisheth Sacramentum rem Sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing which is the other part of the Sacrament interpreting the Sacrament to be Sacrum Signum a sacred Signe and the thing it selfe to be the bodie of Christ. The Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two parts Sacramentâ— re Sacramenti id est corpore Christi of the sacrament the thing of the Sacrament which is the bodie of Christ. There is therefore the Sacrament the thing of the Sacrament to witte the body of Christ. Of the Sacrament he saith It is receiued at the Lordes table of some to life of some to destruction Res vero ipsa cuius Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit But the thing it selfe whereof that is a Sacrament is receiued of all men to life and of none to death whosoeuer is partaker of it The rest ioyne with him in that assertion Heretikes saith Hierom doe not eate his fleshe whose fleshe is the meate of the faithfull Whosoeuer saith Ambrose eateth this bread he shall not die for euer and it is the bodie of Christ. None is partaker of this lambe saith Cyprian that is not a right Israelite The worde saith Origen was made fleshe and true meate the which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer Quem nullus malus potest edere whom no wicked person can eate The Sacraments that is the sacred signes of Christes bodie and bloude the wicked doe eate Christ him-selfe they doe not And why The Sacraments are carnally pressed with teeth which they are partakers of as well as the Godlie but Christ him-selfe is not eaten with teeth and therefore the wicked wanting both spirite and faith by which he is receiued cannot possibly eate his fleshe or drinke his bloud though they come to his table neuer so often Phi. If Christ be really contained in the visible Sacrament how can they receiue it but they must receiue him also Theo. If hee were locally and substantially there inclosed it could not be auoided but receiuing the one into their mouthes they must needs also receiue the other into the same passage but because neither he is eaten with teeth nor entereth the bodies of the wicked as where hee abydeth not therefore wee rightly conclude that hee is not corporally couered with the accidentes of bread and wine as you grossely conceiue Phi. The lambe of God lieth on the Altar by the very profession of the first Nicene Councel we aske you now where and how if not vnder the forms of bread and wine Theo. The best handfast you haue in fathers or Councels for this cause is a few speeches wrested and forced from the inward man to the outward from the soul which they ment to the bodie which you vrge thereby to settle your reall and bodily presence but all in vaine For as we doubt not that Christ is alwaies present on his table in trueth grace vertue and effect if we open the eyes of our faith to beholde him and mouth of our spirites to receiue him so the local and corporal hiding of his humane substance vnder the shewes of breade and wine was neuer taught by any Catholike father or councel least of al by the first Nicen Synode exhorting vs in those mysteries or on that sacred table by faith to consider the lambe of God that tooke away the sinnes of the world Whâ—ch if any doe not both professe and perfourme he is not worthie to be counted a Christian. Phi. How saith S. Chrysost wilt thou stand before the tribunal of Christ which inuadest euen his own bodie with wicked hands and lippes Theo. This is not the way to seeke for trueth but to shadowe the same with phrases of speeches And yet in these and al other your allegations out of Chrysostom and others you coÌ„mit these two grosse ouersightes You vnderstand that of the sensible creatures in the sacrament which was spoken of the insensible grace you refer that to the visible parts of our bodies which was inteÌ„ded to the inuisible powers of the mynd with these false fouÌ„dations you run along the fathers peruerting euerie place that you quote as a meane diuine may soone perceiue Phi. These be your shifts to auoide the fathers which we bring because you will not acknowledge the real corporal presence of christ in the sacrament Theo. First proue that Christ is really and corporally present vnder the forms of bread and wine then reproue vs if we do not â—cknowledge it Phi. Doubt you that Theo. Can you proue that Phi. What That Christ is present in the sacrament Theo. Is that the thing which we deny Phi. For ought that I see you graunt not so much The. God forbid we should deny that the flesh bloud of christ are truly present truely receiued of the faithfull at the Lords table It is the doctrine that we â—each others and comfort our selues with Wee neuer
doubted but the trueth was present with the signe the spirite with the sacrameÌ„t as Cyprian saith We knew there could not follow an operation if there went not a presence before Set a side your carnal imaginations of Christ couered with accidences his flesh chammed betweene your teeth and say what you will either of his inuiâ—â—ble presence by power and grace or of the spiritual and effectuall participation of his flesh and bloud offered and receiued of the faith-full by this Sacrament for the quickening and preseruing of their soules and bodies to eternall life we ioyne with you no wordes shal displease vs that any way declare the trueth or force of this mysterie Your locall compassing of Christ with the shewes and fantasticall appearances of bread wine your reall grinding of his flesh with your iawes these be the points that we deny to be Catholike these doe the fathers refute as erroneous and in these your owne fellowes be not yet resolued what to say or what to hold Phi. Be not we resolued what to hold of Christes reall being in the Sacrament and the corporall eating his flesh with our mouthes Theo. How you be secretly resolued I know not your iudgementes laid downe to the world in writing are cleane contrarie Phi. Ours Theo. Whose said I but yours Phi. Howsouer in other thinges we retaine the libertie of the Schooles to dispute pro con yet in this you shall finde vs all together Theo. Together by the eares as dogges for bones Omit your contentions what the pronowne H O C supposeth what the verbe E S T â—ignifieth when and how the bread is abolished whether by conuersion or annihilation what bodie succeedeth and whether with distinction of parts and extension of quantity or without what subiect the accidents haue to hang on whether the aire or the body of Christ what it is that soureth and putrifieth in the formes of bread and wine whether it be the same bodie that sitteth in heauen and if it be how so many contradictions may be verified of one the same thing Omit I say these with infinite other like contentions the corporall eating of christ with your mouthes are you all agreed about it Philan. We are Theo. Your two Seminaries are perhaps because they hearken rather for sedition in the realme than for Religion in the Schooles But the great Rabbins of your side are they in one opinion concerning this matter Phi. Great and small consent togither against you Theo. Against trueth they doe but in their owne fantasticall error they doe not The cheefest Pillours of your church when they come to that point which is now in handling wander in the desert of their owne deuises as men forsaking and forsaken of trueth Your Gloze is content if a man gape wide that the body of christ shall enter his mouth but he holdeth it for an heresie that the teeth should touch the same and therefore when the iawes beginne to close he dispatcheth away the body of christ in post towards heauen Certum est It is no coniecture but certaine that as soone as the formes of bread be pressed with the teeth tam cito presently the bodie of christ is caught vp into heauen Durandus is more fauourable to the teeth and will haue christ present in the mouth chamme he that list till his â—awes ake but hee is as strait laced against the stomack as the glozer is against the teeth and wil by no meanes haue the bodie of christ to passe thither building himselfe on these wordes of Hugo Christ is corporally present in visu in sapore whiles wee see or tast the sacrament As long as our bodily senses are affected so long his corporall presence is not remooued but when once the senses of our bodie beginne to faile that we neither see nor tast the formes then must wee seeke no longer for a corporall presence but retaine the spirituall because christ passeth from the mouth neither to heauen as the Gloze said nor to the stomack as the rest affirme but to the hart And better it is that he goe straight to the mind than descend to the stomacke Others is whome Bonauenture more inclineth will no way but Christ must take vp his lodging as wel in the stomacke as in the mouth maâ—y thence they suffer him not to wagge neither vpward nor downward whatsoeuer become of the accidentâ—l forms of bread and wine And lest it should be â—hought as Durand and Hugo say that the bodie of Christ goeth to the hart he repâ—ieâ—h that Quantum ad substantiam corporis certum est quod non vadit in meâ—tem sed vtrum sic vadâ—t in ventrâ—m dubium est propter diuersitatem opinionum as touching the substance of his bodie it is cleare that he passeth not to the mind but whether he so come that is in the substance of his bodie from the mouth to the belliâ— this is yet in doubt by reason of the diueâ—sitie of opinions in so great varietie what to hold is haâ—d to iudge Yet he liketh not that Aut mus in ventrem traijceret aut in cloacam descenderet the bodie of Christ shuld goe into the bellie of a mouse or be cast foorth by the draught because the eares of well disposed persons would abhorre that sidiceremus haeretici infideles deriderent nos irriderent and if we should defend that the heretiks and infidels would iest at vs and laugh vs to scorne This notwithstanding Alexander de Hales in spiâ—e of al heretikes and infidels â—entereth on it If a dog or an hogge saith he should eat the whole consecrated host I see no cause but the Lords bodie should goe therewithall into the bellie of that dog or hog Thomas of Aquine sharpely reprouâ—th them which thinke otherwise Some haue saide that as soone as the Sacrament is taken of a mouse or a dog streight way the bodie and bloud of Christ cease to be there but this is a derogation to the trueth of this Sacrament In â—auour of Thomas Petrus de Palude Ioannes de Burgo Nicolaus de Oâ—bellis with the whole sect of Thomists neither few in number nor mean in credite with the church of Rome defend the same yea where the master of the sentences seemed to shrinke from this loathsome position It may wel be said that the bodie of Christ is not receined of brute beasts the facultie of diuines in Paris with full consent gaue him this check here the master is refused And for feare lest the field should be wonne without him in steppeth Antonius Archbishoppe of Florence and recompenseth his late comming with his lewd writing First hee telleth how Petrus de Palude dressed the Glâ—ze for saying that Christ is caught vp to heauen as soone as the formes of the sacrament are pressed with our teeth Quod dicere est haereticum which
to say is hereticall And therefore they ioyne both in this that the bodie of Christ may not only be eaten of a Mouse but also it may be vomited vppe by the mouth and purged downe by the draught say Bonauenture what he will or can in detestation of their folke These be their words Igitur corpus Christi sanguis tam diu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu species manet Et si specieâ— incorruptae euomuâ—tur illa autem qâ—andoque non corrùpta emâ—ttuâ—tur vt in habentibus fluxum ibi est vere corpus Christi Therefore the bodie and bloud of Christ remaine in the bellie anâ— stomacke or in vomite and in whatsoeuer course of nature so long as the shewes of bread and wine remaine And if they be vomited or purged before they be altered as sometimes in those that are troubled with the fluxe euen there is the true bodie of Christ. O filthie mouthes and vncleane spirites What Capernite what heretike what Infidel was euer I say not so carnall and grosse but so barbarous and brutish Is this the reuerence you giue to the sacred and glorious flesh of Christ Is this the corporal presence that you striue for Shal Mice Dogges and Swine haue eternall life that you bring them to eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of our Sauiour The rest of your sluttish diuinitie no religious hart can repeate no Christian eares can abide let your neerest frindes be iudges whether this kinde of eating doe not match not only the Capernites but also the Canibals This vile and wicked assertion you will beare men in hand you did euer detest and so think to discharge your selues but you cannot scape so The church of Rome whose factours and attournies you be must answere to God and the worlde for suffering admitting and strengthning this sacrilegious blasphemie For when these things were first broched what did she Did she controle the doers and condemne the filthines of their error Did she so much as note the men or mislike the matter No Philander she proposed the question in her sentences Quid igitur sumit mus vel quid manducat What then doth the mouse take or what doth he eate And with her colde and indifferent answer Deus nouit God knoweth she set the schoole men on work she laid vp the ashes of those mice next her altars for reliques she fauored aduanced and canonized the spredders of it Thomas of Aquin was her only Paramour Hugh of Cluince who commended a Priest for eating the sacrament which a leaper had cast vp Cum vilissimo sputo was Saincted of her she made Antonius no worse man than an Archbishoppe What Call you this the quenching or kindling the suppressing or increasing of heresies No maruaile if you recken Rebels for Martyrs your holy mother the Church of Rome hath the cunning to make saints of blasphemers Returne returne for shame to grauitie trueth and antiquitie Learne to distinguishe that which is seene in this Sacrament from that which is beleeued I meane the visible creature from the grace which is not visible HADST THOV BEENE saith Chrysostome WITHOVT A BODIE Christ WOVLD HAVE GEEVEN THEE HIS INCORPORALL GVIFTS NAKEDLY that is without any coniunction of corporall creatures BVT NOW BECAVSE THY SOVL IS COVPLED WITH A BODIE THEREFORE IN THINGS THAT BE SENSIBLE THINGS INTELLIGIBLE ARE DELIVERED THEE AS BREAD saith Cyril of this sacrament SERVETH FOR THE BODIE SO THE WORD SERVETH FOR THE SOVL. It is neither nouâ—ltie nor absurditie to say that the bread of the Lorde as touching the material substance may bee deuoured of beasts digested of men and will of it selfe in continuance mould and putrifie Such is the condition of all creatures that serue to nourish our bodies and this is a creature well knowen and familiar to our senses But the word of God which is added to the corporall elements the grace which is annexed to the visible signes and the flesh of Christ which quickneth the soul of man by faith these thinges I say be free from all violent and vndecenâ— abuses and iniuries For they be no corporall mortall nor earthlie creatures but spirituall eternall and heauenly blessings and therefore in no case subiect to the greedines of beasts vncleanes of men or weaknes of nature The element is one thing saith Ambrose the operation is an other thing That which is seene in all Sacraments is temporall that which is not seene is eternall If wee looke to the very visible thinges wherein Sacraments are ministred who is ignorant saith Austen that they be corruptible But if wee consider that which is wrought by them who doth not see that that cannot suffer any corruption Of the Lordes Supper Origen affirmeth that the bread as touching the matter or materiall partes thereof goeth into the bellie and forth by the draught but the praier and blessing which is added doeth lighten the soule according to the portion of faith The sacrament that is the sacred element is one thing saieth Rabanusâ— the power of the Sacrament is an other thing The Sacrament is receiued in at the mouth with the vertue of the Sacrament the inwarde man is filled the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the bodie by the vertue of the Sacrament wee attaine eternall life This doâ—trine your schoolemen either wilfullie reiected or foolishly peruerted to make Christ substantiallie present in your Masses and for that onely cause felâ— thâ—y to the locall shutting of him within the formes of bread and the corporall eating his flesh with their teeth Which grossenes once preuailing in your Church of Rome Thomas Alexander Antonius and the greatest Clarkes of your side were by the consequent of your reall presence forced to conâ—â—sse that the flâ—sh of Christ might be subiect to the teeth and iawes as well of beastes as of vnbeleeuers For wickednes is worse than sluttishnes and the bodies of sinnefull men God more detesteth than he doth the bowels of vnreasonable creatures Since then by the generall consent of your Church Christ doeth not refuse the bellies and intralles of faithlesse persons why say they should he not be verily contained in the capacities and inwardes of brute beastes if by mischaunce they deuoure the Sacrament This hold fast your gloze layeth hands on Si dicatur quodmus sumat corpus Christi non est magnum inconueniâ—ns cum homines sceleratissimi illud sumant If it be said that a mouse taketh the bodie of Christ it is no great inconuenience seeing most wicked men doe receiue the same and this Bonauenture setteth downe for the chiefest motiue to that vile assertion Phi. To tel you truth I like not that position Theo. So long as you defend Christs humane substance to be locally present in your host you cannot for your hart auoide it but either by mocking your sâ—lues and deluding your senses or
the faithfull stand in to this day This faith and confession if you infringe of violate you ioyne handes with Eutyches against the church of God and against the groundes of our common creede and this you must needes impugne if you defend the naturall body of Christ to be euery where present as you would gather out of Ambroses and Chrysostomes wordes Philand Wee say not euerie where but in the Sacrament Theoph. But their wordes are euerie where Vnus vbique est Christus one Christ is euerie where Philand That is in the Sacrament Theophil That is your additament They say generally one Christ is euerie where Phil. To say that his humane nature is euerie where without any restraint were in deede a braunch of Eutyches errour Theophil And since they say so you must either vnderstande it of his diuine nature which is rightly and truely sayde to bee euerie where present without addition or else of the spirituall and effectuall presence of his bodie which entereth the soules and strengthneth the hearts of all the faythfull by the power of his grace and trueth of his promise And either of these wayes their wordes are verie sound your locall presence no part of their speech Phi. S. Chrysostom saith Omnium manibus pertractatur he is eueÌ„ handled with al men fingers Theo. You do that father very much wrong to wrest his eloquent and figuratiue speeces to your carnall and grosse surmises The verie tenor of his wordes wil declare that hee meaneth nothing lesse than your corporal and locall touching With our bodily hands wee neither can nor doe touch Christ. S. Ambrose saith Non Corporali tactu ChristuÌ„ sed fide tangimus We touch not Christ with our fingers but with our faith And so S. Austen Ipsum iam in caelo sedentem manu contrectare non possimus sed fide contingere We cannot handle Christ with our fingers sitting now in heauen but with our faith we may In this sense Chrysostomes wordes are very true but nothing to your corporall vbiquitie of Christs flesh Phi. How shall wee know that this was his meaning finding no words of his to direct vs to that sense Theo. His speech is otherwise so false that none but Iesuits would make any doubt of it And yet the very next wordes before these are a plain admonition to the hearers what to conceiue of this such like places Annon euestigio in caelos transferris annon carnis cogitationem omnem abijâ—iens nudo animo mente pura circumspicis quae in caelo sunt Art thou not presently caried vppe to heauen Doest thou not casting all cogitation of thy fleshe aside with a pure mind and soul seuered from the bodie looke round on the things which are in heauen In this spirituall and yet hyperbolicall vehemencie he goeth on amplifieng euery poinct saying that Christ is handled with al their fingers and that in the open sight of all that stoode about concluding no corporall or locall comprehension of Christ in the Sacrament by any of these mysticall and figuratiue speaches whereof he is ful but only that grace flowing into the Sacrifice should inflame all their hearts and make them cleaner than siluer purged and tried in the fier This is the presence of Christ which Chrysostome auoucheth euen the influence of his heauenly grace that spiritual force and grace as Gregorie saith may very wel be constered to be the trueth of his bodie and bloud in the mysteries So that the same christ is euery where present not by local or corporal diffusion but by mysticall operation and one bodie is proposed to all not to â—ill their mouthes but to clense their hearts and to giue them assurance of eternall life Phi. May not the body of Christ in the sacrament bee such as wee defend though his bodie in heauen be not Theo. If the body of Christ in the sacrament be the very same that is in heauen how can it so much differ from it If it be an other how can it be his since he hath but one naturall bodie and that by no meanes capeable of such contrarieties as you imagine Phi. Is not Christ omnipotent Theo. Almightie hee is in working his will not in changing his nature Phi. Wil you limite his might Theo. The christian faith is not repugnant to his might but agreeable to his trueth which you may not subuert with a pretence of his power at your pleasures Tertullian saith very wel If in our owne presumption we abruptly vse this reasoâ— nothing is hard to God wee may faine what we list of God as though he had doone it because he could do it We must not because he can doe all things therefore beleeue he hath doone that which he hath not But we must search whether he hath doone it or no. For this respect some things may be hard vnto God himselfe to witte that which he hath not doone not because he could not doe it but because he would not Phi. Can not the power of Christ alter the nature of his manhoode Theo. Were it possible that the manhoode of Christ might be changed and altered in his essentiall proprieties which assertion the Church yet alwayes reiected as hereticall why stand you so much on this what Christ can doe when you plainly perceiue by your Creed what Christ will doe Shal his power ouerthwarte his will Or his arme disappoint his mouth We neede not dispute whether it be possible or no this sufficeth vs that the Lorde himselfe saith he will leaue the world and be no more in the worlde Whatsoeuer he can doe this we be sure he will doe his worde is trueth and his will knowen against that if you stand and oppose his power to make him a lyar assure your selues hee hath power enough to be reuenged on your obstinacie for vrging his power which is no part of your care against his wil which he hath commanded you to beleeue and obay Phi. It is you that neither beleeue his wil nor agnise his power we build our selues on both Theo. His wordes by which you gather his will you â—rame and inuert to your owne purposes and when we would reduce you from the misconstruction of his speach by the very tenor of the Christian faith you pleade his power to delude his trueth and ouerflorish a lewd heresie with a shew of his omnipotencie Phi. We do not pretend that power of God for any vntrueth Theo. If the Christian faith bee trueth you vrge his power against his trueth Phi. Go we against the Christian faith Theo. Confesse you the distinction of two natures in Christ after his ascension Phi. We do Theo. And the proprieties of either to remaine without confusion conuersion or alteration Philand What els Theophil This then is the Christian faith that hâ—th natures in Christ now doe and euer shall keepe and continue their seuerall and different proprieties without
depart because he that is the author of the gift is also the witnesse of the trueth For the inuisible priest turned the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie and bloud with his word and secret power saying take eate this is my body and repeating the sanctification he saide take drinke this is my bloud Therefore as at the Lordes becke commaunding the high heauens the deepe waters the wide earth were made on the suddaine of nothing so with like force in the spiritual Sacraments when his power commandeth the effect followeth These words be plaine enough if either truth or authority can content you The. Either shal content me if I may be sure of either Phi. Here you find both Theo. Who wrate this sermon which you cite Phi. Eusebius Emissenus Theo. When liued he Phi. Why doe you aske Theo. Reason we knowe his age before we receiue his testimonie Phi. His age I can tell you is as ancient as his doctrine Theo. I thinke both of one antiquity For neither the maÌ„ nor the matter were knowen in the church of Christ for 900. yeares and vpward Phi. How you be deceiued S. Hierom maketh mention of Eusebius Emissenus that wrate short homilies vpon the Gospels somewhat before his time Theo. And that made your fellowes put his name to certaine latine homilies that were none of his and to beare men in hand he was a frenchman but when he liued they can not tell Phi. Yes S. Hierom saieth hee died vnder Constantius more than twelue hundred yeares ago Theo. Eusebius Emissenus then wrate and then died but who wrate these latine homilies that were extant in his name Phi. Himselfe Theo. What countriman was he Phi. I thinke a Frenchman Theo. So Canisius both your collegue and the compiler of your huge chaos or catechisme sayeth marie when he liued that hee could not tell and therefore of his owne authoritie placeth him 200. yeres after S. Hierom with a perchaunce least if we should aske him for his proofe he might be taken with a lie His wordes are Eusebius Emissenus Gallus cuius habentur homiliae hoc fortè tempore claruit Eusebius Emissenus of Fraunce whose homilies wee haue extant perhaps liued at this time that is 500. yeres after Christ. Phi. And so it may be The. But this is not he that S. Hierom speaketh of For he died vnder CoÌ„stantâ—us whose raign and life ended 343. after Christ. Phi. The elder hee was the better his credit for this question Theo. But the worst is that Eusebius Emissenus was a Bishop in Syria wrate in greeke and therefore to assigne him latine homilies and to suppose him to bee a frenchman was a very grosse corruption and such as children will deride Phi. Might there not be an other of that name Theo. Ye as in that place but in Fraunce there could bee none Phi. Why not Theo. Because Emesenus doth signifie Bishop of Emesa in Syria where this Eusebius liued and as S. Hierom writeth was buried at Antioch the chiefe Metropolis of Syria Phi. But this is Eusebius Emissenus which Gratian alleadgeth Theo. It is not the first word by fiue hundred that Gratian hath altered For Eusebius Emesenus Sainct Hieroms certificate is verie good for Eusebius Emissenus the first record that we finde is in Gratian where by the verie stile periods casures members and agnominations you may perceiue him to be a latinist as Canisius addetâ— a Frenchman Now in what age he liued in what place he preached we require some proofe before we can or will admit these things to be his which you haue forged in his name Emissenus must be a deriuatiue from some place shew any such place in Europe and then you saie somewhat for the likelyhood though not enough for the certainty of this writer Philand What if we can not Theophil Then hee that hath but halfe an eye may soone discerne 〈◊〉 treacherie Your Monks Friers seeking to colour their fained holines late sprong faith with the reuereâ—d titles of aâ—cient fathers prâ—fered the names of Austen Ambrose HieroÌ„ Cyprian Isidore others before diuerse of their own dâ—â— fe◠〈…〉 finding in S. Hierom Eusebius Emesenus to be an old writer gaue him a new liuerie with the rest and ascribed certaine latin homilies such as they had vnto him whom themselues or Gratian that first lighted on this old new writer corruptly called Eusebius Emissenus And because the forgerie did hardly hang together the right Eusebius beeing a Gretian and of great antiquity Canisius the generall Atturnie for your religion hath deuised twoe more of that name one a french-man that perchance he saith florished in the fift Centurie and an other that wrate after Gregory the great and expounded the ghospels but when either of them liued or where they taught neither he nor you can bring vs any proofe besides your bare and vaine supposals Phi. Wil you not trust the inscription of the worke it selfe Theo. That were the way to let euery frier and forgerer create new fathers at his pleasure It is as easie for them that copie out other mens workes to make false as true inscriptions and so haue your Monkes plaied with euery father that was ancient as the most partiall of your owne side doe confesse and in this is too apparent For how many mens names thinke you did this homilie beare which you alleadge not yet two hundreth yeres ago Phi. What can I tel Theo. Then I can Looke in Walden and in one Chapter you shal find this very sermon beare three mens names Phi. Is that possible Theo. The lesse possible the thing the more palpable your forging In the 67 chapter his aduersarie alleaged the woordes which you bring out of Isidore in his sermon beginning with Magnitudo caelestium That Walden doth not much impugne but very often so calleth him and yet at length remembring himselfe he or some man for him yeeldeth to the decrees and calleth that writer Eusebius Emisenus by Gratians authority marie with a single s where now a double is gotten both into the worde and into Gratian and yet in the 68 chapter forgetting what he him selfe or others for him had done he citeth an other part of the same sermon vnder Anselmus name Ratificat eandem coÌ„parationem in sermone sâ—pe dicto qui incipit Magnitudo caelestiuÌ„ Anselmus dicens This comparison Anselmus doth ratifie in his sermon often spoken of which beginneth Magnitudo caelestium though afterward in the same chapter he returne againe to his former staggering and call the writer of your wordes Isidore or rather Eusebius Phi. Let him be Isidore or Eusebius we care not whether Theo. Since the Sermon is not his whose name it beareth we may not suffer you to choppe names as you list neither neede we so much as regard the words before wee know the author lest we reuerence lewd and late
of them is the popish Sacrifice August de side ad Peâ—â— cap. 19. The Catholike Church offeâ—eth bread and wine to God for a thankesgiuing in remembrance of his sonnes death Our Sacrifice is the giuing of thankes and remembring of his death b Irineus lib. 4. cap. 32. c Ibidem cap. 34. The Church offereth to God of his creatures with thanksgiuing sanctifying that which the faithfull receiue at the Lords table d Clemens Apost constitutio lib. 8. cap. 17. e Liturg. Chrys. Basil. f Lib. 4. cap. 34. g Offertorium Missae Their owne Masse-booke is against the sacrifice which they defend to be in their masse h Ibidem i Ibidem k Ibidem By their owne bookes it is euident that they doe not sacrifice Christ but the creatuâ—es of bread and wine Marke this contradiction in their masse-booke to the sacrifice which the Iesuits pretend l Aug. ad Bonif. epist. 23. Christ is offered not in substance but in a Sacrament or representation of his death Christ slaine for our sinnes is the true sacrifice of the Lords table a Cypr. li. 2. ep 3. b Ambros. in 10. ca. epist. ad Heb. c Euseb. de demonst Euang. lib. 1. cap. 10. d Chrys. in Mat. hom 83. e Aug. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 21. The actions and elements of the supper resemble his death f De cons. dist 2. § cum frangitur g 1. Cor. cap. 11. As Christ is crucified in the mysticall supper euen so is he offered h Hier. in ps 95. i Chrysost. in acta Apost hom 21. k De cons. dist 2. § quid sit sanguis l Aug. Euang. quaest l. 2. ca. 38. m De cons. dist 2. § hoc est quod alâ—imus n Glossa de cons. dist 2. § quid sit sanguis o Chrysost. in 10. cap. episâ—â—d Hebr. p Ambr. in 11. ca. epist. 1. ad Cor. q Eusebale demonstra Euangelic lib. 1. ca. 10. r August 83. quaest cap 61. Christ is offered at the table that is a sacrament similitude of his death is celebrated s De cons dist 2. § quia corpus This is Christian comfortable doctrine Theod. in cap. 8. ad Hebr. Theoph. in 10. cap. ad Hebrâ—os What sacrifice the fathers taught and offered * Canon Missae supra § propitio ac sereno vultu a Liturgia Basilij b Cypr. li. 2. epist. 3. August 83. quaest ca. 3. c Dionys. eccles hierach cap. 3. d Paschal de cons. dist 2. § iteratur The true exposition of the Sacrifice at the Lordes table How long the Church was without their kind of sacrifice Sententiarum lib. dist 12. The master of the sentences is against the Iesuits in the sacrifice of their Masse f Glossa de cons. dist 2. ¶ semel g § in Christo. h § Iteratur Thom. part 3. quâ—est 83. art 1. * The latter schoolemen since Thomas mistaking the former turned these words to opus operatum and taught the Priests act to be the right meane to applie Christes death to the quick and the dead Can their doctrine be Catholike that so latelie was vnknowen to their own fellowes 24. places cited by the Iesuits in their testament to no purpose and so 14. by the maker of their Apologie Their reall actuall sacrifice must needes be made with handes and so the gestures of the Priests hands is all the sacrifice the Iesuites haue What Sacrifice it is that God regardeth The Rhemish Test. fol. 447. Malac. 1. The prophesy of Malachie discussed 1. Pet. 2. What sacrifices the newe testament teacheth vs to offer vnto God a Hebr. 13. The Sacrifice of praise Of mercie b Phil. 4. c Rom. 12. Of our selues d Psal. 115. Eccles. 35. Psal. 50. These be the sacrifices of the new testament which God requireth at our handes and of which Malachie speaketh The Iesuites in alledging the fathers vse such cunning that a man caÌ„ hardlie perceiue to what end they name them Three fathers abused by the Iesuits to peruert the words of Malachie Cyprian in that place which they cite doth not so much as speake of Malachie Cyp. ad QuirinuÌ„ lib. 1. cap. 16. Iustinâ—â—n Dial. cum Tryphone aduers. Iudaeos Iustinus restraineth the words of Malachie to praiers and thankes other sacrifice he acknowledgeth none in the Lords supper Irenae li. 4. ca. 33 * Ibidem cap. 34 Ireneus expoundeth Malachies wordes of praier obedience and thankesgiuing as we doe Iren. lib. 4. ca. 34 Ireneus teacheth not the offering of Christ to his father but of creatures for a signe of thaÌ„kfulnes Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34 The rest of the fathers interprete Malachies wordes after the same manner a Tertul. aduer lud eos b Tertul. aduer Marc. lib. 4. c Euseb. de demonst Euang. lib. 1. cap. 6. d Cyril contra Iuliaâ—â—m â—i 10. e Hie. in Zachariam lib. 2. ca. 8. f August contr liter Petilia li 2. cap. 86. We striue not for the worde sacrifice which the Iesuites verie diligentlie prooue but for their kinde of sacrifice which they cannot proue by the testimonie of any one father In what sense the Lords supper is both a Sacrament a Sacrifice Our duties to God are our sacrifices FroÌ„ these sacrifices the Eucharist hath his name This sacrameÌ„t hath the similitude and therefore the name of Christs death and passion The Iesuits are verie plentifull in heaping impertinent allegations The Rhe. Test pag. 447. All these fathers speake of Christs bodie broken and blood shed on the cross which are resembled in this sacrament The power of Christs death the Iesuits attribute to the Priests act The Iesuites sacrifice How the death of Christ is both offered and applied Your feate was to prepare the peoplâ— against a daie A man maie soone peâ—uerâ— the fathers by skores as the Iesuits haue done in their Testament What sacrifice it is the Iesuits woulde establish They produce the name of sacrifice vsed by the fathers and vnderstand thereby their owne fansies The reason whie we doe not vse the worde sacrifice so often as the fathers doe The fathers phrases beguiled the Iesuits whiles they were too eger on them The name of sacrifice hath no warrant in the Scripture The Rhe. Test fol. 447. Heb. 7. A man shall finde manie thinges in the Rhemish obseruations which are not the text of the Scripture The Rhe. Test. fol. 447. The Iesuites would prooue if they could tell how that S. Paul calleth the lords Supper a Sacrifice * This point by point is not worth a blew point Their misconstering of S. Paul examined The faulte which the Apostle reprooueth in the Corinthians This was partaking with Idols and dishonoring of God S. Pauls reason against it by waie of comparison or opposition Though Saint Pauls reason be â—ramed by waie of comparâ—son yet the Iesuits illation is not necessary Eating of thinges consecrated vnto Idols is fellowship with diuâ—lâ— though they be not sole â—â—elie sacrificed vnto them The Iesuites prooue by the
meaning is plainer as shall appeare when we come to the drift of their conclusion Neuer Catholike father saide the substance of bread was abolished by consecration as the Iesuits saie If the signes bâ—aâ—e tâ—e nâ—mes of the things themseluâ—â— â—hen the leâ—â—â—s authâ—â—â—ties are vnâ—uâ—ficient to conâ—lude thâ—t Châ—â—st is eaten wiâ—h our teeth We must ascâ—nd to heauâ—n before we eate Christ which with our mouthes we cannot If the fathers of â—â—ne that Christ is not eaten wâ—th teeth as they do â—hen these plâ—â—es must be â—nderstood of â—he signes and noâ— of the thâ—â—gs themsâ—lâ—es As many as theâ—e be â—â—â—es in the ball of myne eye 〈…〉 â—18 b 〈…〉 23. 〈◊〉 a â—dimant cap. 12. d 〈…〉 29. 〈◊〉 2 Cor. e Idâ—â— aâ— Câ—sar Mâ—nach f g Idâ—â— contra 〈◊〉 lâ—b 4. The Iesuâ—â—s hâ—ue no hold in these â—athers but only because they call theÌ„ signes by the names of the thingâ— which is as commoÌ„ with them as sand with the Sea h Cyriâ—l lib 4. cap. 14. in Iâ—h By cognato tacti◠〈…〉 ciâ—o Cyâ—il meaneth the suâ—stance of bread and wine nâ—t of Christs bodie i De censâ—â—râ—t â—ist § 2. quid sit * As â—â—ough in strict and 〈…〉 any thing could be druÌ„k both by the soule and the bodie k De cons. dist 2. ¶ species in hom Pascha l â—eo de ieiunio 7. mensis sermo 6. * Leoes wordes examined * But Eutiches against whome Leo spake imagined that Christes body had neither shape quantitie nor circumscription and so doe the Iesuites dreame of Christ in the Sacrament If Leo refel Eutiches he must also refel the Iesuits for they spoile Christ of the naturall conditions of a bodie as Eutiches did By this argument it is euident in what sense Theodoret Gelasius vse the word substaÌ„ce when they saie the substance of bread remaineth The Iesuites reiect the maior minor conclusion of the auncient fathers against Euâ—iches be they not then quarter masters in his shippe Gelas. contra Eutich If Christ consist of two substances diuine and humane the sacrament likewise coÌ„sisteth of two substaÌ„ces an heauenlie and an earthly Theod. dialog 2. If the sacrament be traÌ„ssubstantiated so must the humanitie of Christ be likeâ—wise changed Theodorets conclusion against Eutâ—ches Theod. dial 2. If Christs humane nature in heaueÌ„ keep his former substance so doth the bread which is an Image of that mystery Both their Seminaries cannot answâ—re this aâ—gumeÌ„t but by condemning Gelasâ—us and Theodoret foâ— hereâ—ikes or at least themselues De consecrat distinct 2. hoc est quod dico Therâ— must be two different substancâ—s in the Sacrament as there are in the peâ—son of Christ. Leoes words wâ—râ— intended against the Eutichians Hoc doth not signifie the selfe same bodie but the selfesame pointeâ— of â—aith or propoâ—tion of the image and the original The real presence had beene the next way to help Eutiches error The substaÌ„ce of it you affirme in wordes but you spoile â—t of all naturall shape quantitie and circumscription Christs bodie in the Sacrament is euen such a bodie as Eutiches did imagine Leo doth not saie that Christs bodie was enclosed in the host but they ought to beleeue that of Christs bodie in heauen which they saw in the elements receiued with their moutheâ— to wit the perfect continuance of their former substance We doe not interpret the fathers as pleaseth vs but we take heede that we subuert not their maine doctrine by some of their phrases which by their owne rules maie be reuoked to a good sense * If this be not lawfull in expounding the fathers I maruell what is You are angry because the fathers doe not serue your follies no better It cannot be now mistaâ—iâ—g they have so often beene tolde of thâ—ir error they still deferâ—d it as they did before Vide supra fol. 760. This is spoken of the thinges theÌ„sâ—lues ergo the Iesuitâ—s places must be ment of thâ— signes called by â—he names of Chrâ—sts bodie and blood â—r elâ—e there is a maniâ—â—st contradiction in the fathers Weâ—e we not wisely occupied to followe the Iesuits in this pointâ— Eating is in vaine without nourishing If then Christes flesh doe enter our mouthes it must nourish our bodies * We would not haue it so but if you vnderstand the fathers when they say the one why doe you peruert them in the other a Iust. Apol. 2. b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. c Idem lib. 5. d Ibidem * So Cyprian saith panis in carnem sanguineâ— mutatus 〈◊〉 vitam increâ—entum corporiâ—â—â— A man would thinke this were plaine enough for farre yonger scholers than the Iesuites would seeme to be Our resurrection doth not depend vpon the touching of Christes flesh with teeth for then the wicked should â—ise to eternal life Concil Nicen. 1. c Hom. 45. in Iohannem f Chrysost. hom 45. in Iohan. As Christ is seene touched so is he eaten and digested Both these speaches the flesh of Christ entereth our mouthes and increaseth the substance oâ— our flesh haue oâ—e and the selâ—esame construction Ambros. in 9. Lucae li. 6. § 〈◊〉 vir cui nomen Iairus h Idem in precatiâ— praeparaÌ„t ad Mâ—ssaâ—â— i Cypr. de caena Domini That eating of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t which wee teach the Church helde for a 1000. yeares theirs is not yet agreed on amongst themselues What manner of eating Christ in the Sacrament the fathers taught k Origen tract 35. in 26. Mat. l Idem in Leuit. hom 9. m Idem tract 35. in 26. Mat. n Athana in illud quicunque dixerit verbuÌ„ * Not corporally lodged in the stomacks but spiritually distributed to your soules o Cypr. de caena Domini This nourishment is proper to the spirit ergo not common to the bodie p Ambros. in oratio praeparan ad Missam 1. How hapned S. Ambrose had quite forgotten his mouth and his iawes in all this long praier before his approching to the mysteries q Aug. in psal 103. * Not the stomack nor the bellie r Idem tract 26. in Iohan. * The bodie is not regenerated the body therefore is not fed with the true flesh of Christ. s Idem in serm de corp saâ—guine Domini Ciâ—â—tur à Beda in 1. Cor ca. 10. t Aâ—st in serm de verbis Euangelij Citatur à Beda ibidem Idem in Euang Luc. serm 33. x Macar ho. 27. Euseb. Emissenus de cons. dist 2. ¶ quia corpus * Not with the hand of thy bodie * What shall the mouth haue if the inward man must swallowe the whole a Bertram de corpor sang Domini * Not accidents without a subiect b Ibidem c Ibidem d Ibidem e Ibidem The flesh of Christ then is neither pressed with teeth nor broken in peeces Ibidem g Paschas de corp sang Domini ca. 9. h Cap. 11. i Cap. 12. k Cap. 14. * Doe the Angels eat flesh
of this this is my blood and as for the men of your side they run all to this issue that the sixt of Iohn not only treateth of the sacrament but also strongly concludeth your reall presence and externall eating of Christs flesh with bodily partes as with teeth throte and such like in so much that if you goe that way which you were about you goe alone Your friende Master Harding with a present courage as his manner is saith We can not finde where our Lord perfourmed the promise which he made in the first chapter of Iohn the breade which I will giue is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the world but only in his last supper Steuen Gardiner his Master vttered euen the very same wordes before him Promisit Dominus se daturum nobis in pane carnem suam dicens panis quâ—m ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Sed quod promisit Christus noÌ„ legimus cum praestitisse nisi in coena The Lord promised that he would giue vs his flesh in bread when he said the bread that I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world But that which Christ promised wee doe not read that he perfourmed except it were in the Supper And though they both ouerlash when they say he performed it only in the supper yet in this you may not vary froÌ„ them that he performed that promise of his verified that doctrine of his in the supper For so the fathers said before them as I haue proued and so your late Testament vpon the sixt of S. Iohn saith of al their side The catholikes teach these wordes to be spoken of the sacrament Phi. We do so The. Then what exposition the learned ancient fathers made of Christs words in the 6. of Iohn the same they inteÌ„ded referred to the words of the supper But the words of christ teaching vs in the 6. of Iohn that we must eate his flesh drinke his blood before we can haue my life in vs are by the coÌ„mon consent of all the fathers Allegoricall mysticall figuratiue ergo the figuratiue interpretatioÌ„ of Christs words in the supper is catholike Phi. Think you we are so foolish as to beleeu that the fathers were the autors of your figures Th. Chuse whether you wil beleeue vs or no we speak no more thaÌ„ we mean to proue Clemens Alexan. The Lord in the gospel of Iohn when he said eate ye my flesh drink ye my blood he called that by an alegory meat drink which is euideÌ„tly meÌ„t of our faith his promise Tertul. He pronounced his flesh to be that heaueÌ„ly bread vrging theÌ„ al along that dicourse with an allegory of needefull foodes to remember their fathers that preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt before the diuine vocation Origen Our Lord and Sauiour saith except you eate my flesh and drinke my blood you shall not haue life in you My flesh is truely meate my blood is truly drinke He that can no skill of these things may perhaps turn his eare from them as they did which said how can he giue vs his flesh to eat who can heare it they departed froÌ„ him But you if you be the children of the church if you acquainted with mysteries Sacraments of the Gospell acknowledge the thinges that wee say they be the Lords Acknowlege that there be figures in the diuine books therefore examine theÌ„ as spirituall men not as carnall vnderstand what is said If you conster these thinges as carnall men they hurt you they doe not nourish you Chrysostom The words that I speak to you are spirite that is spirituall hauing nothing that is carnall in them If a man should carnally take them he should gaine nothing What is carnally to vnderstand theÌ„ Simply as they be spoken neither to seek any farther For the things that we see must not so be iudged of but all mysteries Sacraments must be considered with the inward eyes that is spiritually Phi. Spiritually we grant we must vnderstand them but not figuratiuely Theo. What is spiritually but figuratiuely Eating and drinking are corporall actions not spirituall and properly perfourmed with the partes of our bodies not with the powers of our soules Since then by the constant confession of all the fathers the Lord throughout this chapter did not refer eating drinking to the bodies of his Disciples but vnto their soules and ment their faith not their teeth it is apparant that the wordes of our Sauiour are allegoricall and figuratiue I meane translated and deriued by an allegorie from the body to the mind from chamming to beleeuing from swallowing to remembring to be short from the flesh of his Disciples to their spirites and in that respect called spirituall The manner of eating there specified is spirituall the wordes there vsed are mysticall to wit not literall but allegoricall and so the Fathers mainly teach Basil Tast see how sweete the Lord is We haue often marked that the powers of the soul are called by the same names by which the members of the body are Because then our Lord is the true bread his flesh is meate indeede it must be that the sweetnes of that delicious bread be felt of vs by meanes of spirituall tast There is a certaine mouth of the minde and â—oule within man which is nourished by the word of life the bread I mean which came from heauen Origen To euery part or power of the soule Christ becommeth euerything Therefore he is called the true light that the eyes of the soule may haue wherewith to be lightned therfore the word that the eares of the soule may haue what to heare therefore the bread of life that the tast of the soule may haue what to relesse Tertullian The wordes that I haue spoken to you be spirit and life Making his word to quicken by reason his word is spirite and life hee called the same word his flesh because the word was made flesh and so for the procuring of life was to bee desired yea TO BE DEVOVRED WITH HEARING CHEWED WITH VNDERSTANDING AND DIGESTED WITH BELEEVING Cyprian The master of this ordinance and feast saide that except we did eate his flesh and drinke his blood we should haue no life in vs directing vs with a spirituall instruction and opening our wittes for the conceiuing of so great a matter thereby to let vs vnderstaÌ„d that our abiding in him is eating our drinking is as it were an incorporating with him in that mutual seruices are yeelded wils ioyned and affections vnited The eating therefore of this flesh is a certaine coueting and desiring to abide in him Athanasius Therefore doth he mention his ascending into heauen to pull from them their corporall cogitations and thinking
The bread hauing the inuocation of God is nowe no common bread but an Eucharist or thankesgiuing consisting of two things a terrestriall a celestiall So Ambrose The Sacrament is not that which nature hath framed but that which blessing hath halowed They do not auouch the Sacrament to bee simply no bread they teach it to bee no naturall nor vsuall bread because the vertue power and force of Christes flesh is vnited to it and receiued with it though to sight and taâ—â— it keepe the shewe of nothing else but bread Phi. What is species panis which the Fathers speake of but the vtter appearance of bread when the substaunce is altered Theo. Doeth species signifie a â—hape without substaunce Philand It signifieth the shape and not the substaunce Theo. Euerie creature hath his substaunce ioyned with his sensible shape and forme and therefore though the one doe not signifie the other yet the one inferreth the other by the verie necessitie of nature neyther hath GOD giuen vs any perfecter triall of substaunce than by sight and sense which is sure enough because shewes without substaunce are no creatures Philand But this in the Sacrament is miraculous and that is the reason why species in the Fathers doeth signifie a shewe without substaunce or as our Schooles rather like to say for perspicuities sake accidentes without a subiect Theophil Your Schooles were perspicuous as the Lande of Aegypt was light-some when it was couered with palpable darkenesse but where doeth any Father speaking of the Saâ—rament take species for a shewe without substaunce Philand That is â—uerie where the meaning of the word when they applie it to the Sacrament Theo. How proue you that Phi. It needeth no proofe the very word doeth â—o signifie Theophil The worde species doeth no more exclude the subâ—taunce of breade and wine in the Sacrament than species humana the shew shape and forme of a man which you haue doth take from you the â—ubstance truth of mans nature Which if you thinke it doeth looke what answere you will make to him that shall aske what lieth vnder the shape of a man in you it must be the substance of a man or some worse thing And if you can keepe both the shape and substaunce of man why may not the bread and wine do the like for all the word species which is verified of men and other creatures aswel as of the bread and wine in the mysteries Phi. The comparison is not like For the bread is changed and so am not I. Theophil Doe you not often change both the inward and outward man I meane the state of body and soule Phi. I change as others doe Theo. You can be no christian if you be not changed from the state in which you were born You were born the child of Gods wrath and seruant of sinne if you be renewed and freed from that then are you wholy changed Phi. This is no substantiall change such as we affirme to be in the bread Theo. If you would proue that which you affirme you might happen to conclude that which now you can not Phi. That is soone prooued Theo. I maruell then you stay long before you doe it and faint so often when you begin it You auouch that the word species in the Fathers signifieth your shewes without substance and accidents without subiect and when the very shew of men which you beare about you conuinceth that follie you presume a substantiall change to be in the bread to helpe foorth the vse of the word which you imagine against all learning reason was their meaning For the worde species though it bee diuersely vsed among the Fathers and often iterated in this matter of the Sacrament yet shall you neuer bring vs any one place where it is taken for a shew without substance and therefore by that worde you can hardly inferre the bread to be changed in substaunce and nothing to be left besides the accidentes Sainct Ambrose sayeth it importeth as much as an euident sight and trueth Speciem pro veritate accipiendam legimus Specie inuentus vt homo Wee read this word species to bee taken for the verie trueth of a thing As Christ was found not in shew but in trueth like a man And of the Lordes cuppe Perhaps thou wilt say speciem sanguinis non video sed habet similitudinem I see not the trueth of blood but it hath the resemblance Which obiection Ambrose repeateth shortly after in these words Similitudinem video non video sanguinis veritatem I see the resemblance I see not the truth of blood Where note that species is not onely contrary to the onely likenesse and appearance of any thing but equiualent with the trueth and nature of euery thing Then are shewes without substaunce your fansies without iudgement you neuer receiued any such doctrine from the Catholike Fathers your selues haue deuised it of late since barbarisme preuailed in your Schooles and Antichrist was exalted in your churches Philand So species is nowe and then vsed but doeth that inferre that this is the generall signification of the word wheresoeuer we finde it Theo. This sufficeth to exclude your shewes without substaunce vnlesse you can bring some better inforcement than the very word which you can not And yet Sainct Ambrose giueth an other vse of the worde and that treating of the Sacramentes which vtterly subuerteth your accidental shewes Creaturae non potest esse veritas sed species quae facile soluitur at que mutatur No creature can bee said to be a trueth but a shew or appearance which is soone dissolued and abolished In this sense species is all one with any creature or substaunce which soone decaieth as euerie mortall thing doth and the learned Fathers writing of the Sacrament continually vse the worde to signifie the nature and kinde of euerie creature and not the naked shewes or accidentes Sainct Ambrose Ante benedictionem alia species nominatur before it be blessed it is called an other not shewe but kinde Grauior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The kinde or nature of Iron not the shewe of yron is weightier than the liquor of water If the word of Elias were able to fet fire from heauen non valebit Christi sermo vt species mutet elementorum shall not the word of Christ be of strength to change the kindes not the shapes of these elementes So doeth Augustine likewise Non sic habendam esse speciem benedictione consecratam quemadmodum habetur in vsu quolibet the kinde or element consecrated with blessing must not be so reckoned of as it is in common vse Idem cibus illorum qui noster sed significatione idem non specie the Fathers of the old Testament had the same food which we haue but the same in signification not in external kinde Aliud illi aliud nos sed