made partakers of his flesh and blood of the sacrament of the aultar without any transubstantiatiō of the bread into the body of Christ Vt ante can 8. sacramentally really are a tearmes contrary yet cōfounded More ouer they hold that Christ is eaten there sacramentally really which two tearmes as they vtter them are very opposit for if there be nothing to be eaten but the reall substātiall body of Christ what is eaten sacramentally Wee affirme that Christ is there sacramentally is eaten sacramentally by his spirit present by his grace as hee is in the sacrament of baptisme that is properly sacramentall Againe speaking of the vse and profite of that sacrament Cap. 8. de vsu admirabilis hu ius sacramenti 1. Sacramentally they say there be three sorts of Receiuers some that receaue it only sacramentally as sinners others spiritually in desire by a liuely faith thirdly those that receaue it sacramentally spiritually both together Which three waies may bee taken for sound Orthodoxall 2. Spiritually who cannot for the time communicate if we could cause them to tell vs what they meane by sacramentally If by sacramentally they mean really fleshly and substantially as at the first they treated of his presence there 3. Sacramentally spiritually who doe cōmunicate as they ought Ioh. 6.54.56 Sacramentally Spiritually so say the Protestants how doe they make good that sinners and wicked persons doe eate his verie flesh and drinke his verie blood as they saie they doe since the worde of life it selfe that mouth which neuer spake guile hath said He that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood hath eternall life I will raise him vp at the last daie And hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me I in him And by the third waie described that those eate him sacramentally spiritually who doe duly prepare themselues puting on the wedding garmēt doe come vnto that holy table doth breed an other scruple how sacramentally can stand with spiritually vnderstanding by sacramentally Really substantially may stād to gether but spiritually cannot as they did before really fleshly substātially those two tearmes being also vsed of the Protestants who say the wicked doe eate sacramētally only that is the sacrament of his body and bloud the godly sacramentally spiritually that is bread and wine with the hand mouth the body blood by faith and noe otherwise which are the right vse of the words sacramentally spiritually Againe I may demand of them why they doe not describe the presence of Christ to be spiritual sacramental aswel as describe him so to be eaten they saie he is eaten by on of those three waies of al men in generall good bad and to al men good bad they describe him presēt really truly substantially body soule diuinitie and al yet eaten only sacrementally spiritually now it is not possible to be thought but that the spirituall eating of Christ in the sacrament excludeth the corporall as his spiritual presence wil his corporall or substantiall nether can noe one meat be fit both for the body and soule as al men knowe And therfore if they will dissent from vs not from themselues also they must dispute either of a corporall eating of the flesh of Christ De manducati one corporis domini sit ne illa vera antropica sensibilis an insensibilis modo corporeo an spirituali l. 4. chron fol. 790 Fallacia alia aliā trudit Ter. in And. act 4. scen 4. De sac euc l. 1 c. 11. fol. 92. c. 14. fol. 117. l. 2. c. 8. fol. 163 or of a spiritual only as Genebrard confesseth was brought in about Bertrams time almost 800. yeares since not to a corporall to adde a spiritual of one the same thinge nor confound the tearmes of sacramentall spirituall reall Againe it is alwaies seene one absurditie draweth on an other I demand how their tearme of receauing spiritually doth agree with Bellarmine whoe saith that the body of Christ is verily properly eaten in the Eucharist by our body sent frō the mouth into the stomake that the body of Christ entreth in at the mouth of the communicants and is verily receaued by the mouth of the body small spirituall receauing is there by the instruments of the mouth belly Faith must haue other food if it were so it should not be said Crede manducasti beleiue thou hast eaten but lay hold with thy hand thou art safe The next in authoritie to the Trent Fathers is the Romish Cathechisme gathered by their decree Catec Rom. p. 1. art 6. c. 7. fol 57. The right sēce of the article ouerthroweth Transubstantiation published by Pius quintus the Pope The catechisme intreating of that article of our beleife He ascended into heauen and suteth one the right hand of god the father almightie doe say the right sense of that article is that the faithful without al doubt ought to be leiue that Christ the mysterie of our redemption being perfected and finished vt homo est in coelum corpore animâ ascendisse as he is man is ascended in body and soule into heauen For as hee is God hee was neuer from thence Vt qui diuinitate sua loca ominia cōpleat The causes why hee ascēded ib. fol. 59. The benefits of his ascention ibid. fol. 61 filling al places with his diuinitie And speaking of the causes whie Christ our sauiour would ascend vp into heauen one is beecause by ascending say they hee would bringe to passe that wee should mount vp thither in minde and affection and amongst many benefits which come vnto men by his ascention into heauen they reckon this a great one quod amorem nostrum ad coelum rapuit ac diuino spiritu inflammauit that it draweth our mindes and loue to heauen inflameth them with a diuine spirit for it is truly said There our harte is Marc. 6. where our treasure is surly if Christ our Lord were conuersant in earth omnis nostra cogitation in ipso hominis aspectu consuetudine defixa esset al our cogitations would be placed in the looking maner of him we shold behold him only as man becaus he had don so great things for vs But ascending into heauen it maketh our loue heauenly and causeth that whom wee think of being absent him we worship and loue as God which doctrine of theirs being very sound and Catholike cannot chuse but ouerthrowe their owne opinion of Transubstantiatiō Catec p. 2. c. 4. fol. 181. which bringeth the same body of Christ that same that was borne of the Virgin which is ascended and sitetth now euer shal at the right hand of his father in heauen to bee transubstantiated into bread to bee contained in the sacrament
hee commanded his disciples to eate in somuch that in the deliuerie of the cup he said Drinke yee all of this for this is my body In vaine therfore after the coÌ„mandement of drinking had hee added the word for Two bloods one in the veines of his body the other in the chalice if the blood which hee then shewed had bin beleiued to haue bin then only in the vaines of his body not exhibited giueÌ„ to haue bin drunke In this last sentence of the 4. thinges in the supper which Christ did that is his taking blessing breaking giuing Saunders seemeth to allow 3. of them to appertaine to the bread taking blessiag Deinde cum Christus subiunxit hoc facite non soluÌ„ praecepit vt id ageremus quod illepaneÌ„ accipiendo be nedicendo fraÌ„ gendo distribuendo egit vetum etiam vt opus quoddam relinque remus in mensa domini post nostras actiones finitas fol. 634. Saunders com meth to the distributing of bread then must they needes eate bread Ibid fol. 637. The substance which I shew what substaÌ„ce This is my body that is behold my body where are the wordes which make the chang Ibid fol. 639. This is my body worketh the Change Note breaking but not his giuing their cating yet in the next leafe he commeth som what nearer for hee confeseth that Christ did not only commande that we should doe that which hee did by taking the bread by blessing the bread by breaking the bread and by distributing the bread but that wee should leaue a certaine worke done at the table of the Lord after we haue finished all So commeth hee now to the distributing or giuing of bread what should they eate but what hee distributed which was euen bread After this findinge the ill conclusions of some of his owne speeches where hee referreth the word this to the body there presently made he doth deny that they resolue the sentence thus hoc corpus meum ost corpus meum this body is my body but thus the substaÌ„ce which I shew is the substaÌ„ce of my body as if it should be said Behold the substance of my body or Behold my body vnder these accidents of this bread Why mince you so finely with substantia quam demonstro the substance which I shew what substaÌ„ce is that if the bread theÌ„ Christ spake of the bread which once you affirmed if the body then the speech must needes bee maugre al gaine saiers This body is my body which nowe you denie Take your foote out of which fetter you will our of both you cannot Againe where he resolueth or expoundeth the words of Christ this is my body as if hee should haue said behold the substance of my body or behold my body vnder these accidents I demande where are the words of Transubstantiation or that turned or made the bread the body of Christ For according to Saunders opinion here these wordes this is my body are but demonstratiue as if hee should haue said Behold the substance of my body then of necessitie the wordes that made it so must goe before But where nether they nor he can tell But to my seeming he falleth vpon his old Bias againe which he did before where he saith Itaque olla verba Hoc est corpus meum therfore those worde this is my body being directed to the bread taken blessed doc change the substance of bread into the body of Christ If they bee directed to the bread the speech must be this bread is my body This bread is my body how can they bee directed to the bread else And if it remaine bread till those wordes of this is my body come what neede they feare to say he gaue bread for those words coÌ„e last of al yea after giuing eating He tooke saith he at first Ibid fol. 645. Accepit eniâ—… ab initio non quideÌ„ corpus suum sed paneÌ„ velut materiaÌ„ elementum c. Saunders Ibid. fol 658. 659. He breaketh bread theÌ„ the reall body is not there not his body but bread as it were a matter element whervnto his worde was to bee ioined that it might be made a sacrament did he not speake of the bread then when he said this is my body Furthermore going about to proue that the body blood of Christ are in the eucharist although it bee neither eaten nor drunken he beginneth with S. Paule who saith 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not a partaking of the blood of Christ and the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of Christ and inferreth we break the bread before we deliuer it or giue it to be eateÌ„ For the breaking is both to reuiue the memory of the passion wherin the flesh of Christ was rent torne with whipps nailes and speares as also that to every communicant a part morcell Hee distributeth the bread in peeces the real body of Christ is not yet there theÌ„ Prius ergo quaÌ„ iste panis frangatur c. At the first then when the bread is broken it is the partaking of the body of Christ for the blessing causeth that the bread bee the partaking of the body of Christ the blessing I saie of the Lord wherby he giuing thankes said This is my body and commanded vs to doe it in his remembrance Here is a gallimaufery of fustiaÌ„ tearmes wouen Lincy-wolsy fashion He speaketh of breaking distributing of bread yet the reall body must be there according to his accompt beefore the breaking come for that is his drift here and then will he say it is the reall body of Christ Noe by his own confession it is but the breaking panis benedicti of the coÌ„secrated bread as he calleth it before Againe he saith the blessing is don by sayrng this is my body but the order of the Evangelists is contrary they place that blessing last of al. The wordes are Hee tooke bread blessed it after the blessing commeth the breaking He tooke 1. Hee blessed 2. He brake 3. He gaue 4. after that the distributing then this is my body So that except he wil interrupt the narration of the EvaÌ„gelists and confounde those tearmes which are distinct and refuse that for a blessing which the Gospel pointeth calleth a blessing on the other side call that a blessing which the Gospell doth not Instit l. 5. c 3. he can neuer iustifie his report Haec est mendaciorum naturae vt cobaerere uon possint This is saith Lactaâ—tius the nature of lies that they cannot agree to gether cap. 6. Valet enim visua veritas but the truth doth preuaile of her own force whosoeuer resisteth If one or two of them did thus dote or dreame in their discourses it might be excused by the insufficiency of the meÌ„ but since amongst
b Stephen Gardiner wil not haue the accideÌ„ts to be broken I would saith hee in other tearmes aunswere thus That thou seest is broken then if any aske further what that is I would saith he tel him the visible matter of the sacrament O marvailous matter you said plainly before that the bread was broken Gardiner darke contrary to himselfe Detection fo 15. b. Answere to M. Iuell art 23. f. 227. Allen de euch sacra l. 1. c. 37. fol 435. will haue somwhat broken besidâ— the body of Christ Christs glorious body mingled with our sinfull flesh And in the detection of the Deuills sophistrie you confesse contrarie to your selfe in both these places That the forme of bread only is said to be broken which doctrine D. Hardinge taking to be the sounder relieth vppon saith The forme only of the sacrament is broken and chewed of the receaner D. Allen forceably as it were against the haire erecting a new opinion touching this breaking wherof we now speake faulting many Catholikes for saying that the accidents only are chewed broken seene affirmeth himselfe that not only those things doe properly truly agree appertaine to the body of Christ which did before agree vnto the bread although by meane of the formes But also by the meane seruice of those formes accidents wee handle the body and bloud of Christ truly eate him carrie him about with vs mingle his body and bloud with our flesh teare him with our teeth can place him in this or that vessell and can shew by the small peeces where he is here or now can sacrifice him sensibly in the accidents can propose him visibly to the eie to be adored c. All which things whether they fall out saith hee to the body of Christ in the sacrament in respect of it selfe or by meanes of the accidents it skilleth not so wee firmly beleeue that these things are truly and properly done to the body of Christ no lesse then if he were in his owne shape forme no lesse then they might be done to the very bread indeed Although saith hee I am not ignorant that Thomas Aquinaâ— followeth an other opinion especially touching the very sight of Christs body in the Eucharist granting that the verie bodie may be touched and not the accidents only P. 3. q. 80. art 4 ad 4. Allen leaueth Aquinas but that the accidents formes are onlie seene and not the body of Christ But as this mans opinion is not cleare by no meanes agreeable to reason for it is most certaine that the body of Christ is no more obuious comprehended by meanes of the accidents of one of our senses then of an other so is the doctrine teaching of other some schoolmen touching the mouing sight place breaking eating of the body of Christ ful of curiosity danger De motu tactu viâ—u loco fractione comestione Here you haue from D. Alten that what the rest of his fellows haue fearefully doubted to affirme he doth not sticke positiuely to deliver affirming every action and thing to be done verily and really to the body and bloud of Christ vnder the shew of bread and wine after consecration as coulde be verised of the bread it selfe before consecration yea that the bodie of Christ should be mingled most groslie with our flesh Corpus sanguis Christi carninostrae immiscentur L. Wâ—nton dialo against the lesuits p. 4 fol. 770. 771. A position as voide of all religion so without all warrant saue theirs that deliuer it and not to sinke into a wise mans head that euer they would deliuer such doctrine A positioÌ„ which maketh our bodies to be fed and nourished with the natural and substantial body of Christ as we are with other meates A position that ioineth the body of Christ with our bodies in one and the same substance For foode doth go into the substance of that thing which it nourisheth and besides D. Allen Hard. Reioyn fol. 150. Rhem. annot 1. cor 10. v. 16. Harding averreth That the flesh of man is fed nourished with the body and bloud of Christ and what more Caparnaitical So the Rhemists say That we are made a peece of Christs body blood But denied vtterly and expresly by the fathers Nostra Christi coniunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias Cypr. de caeâ—… domini sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates The coniunction saith Cyprian that is betweene vs and Christ neither wingleth persons nor vniteth substances but ioineth affections knitteth wils The mixture of his bodily substance with ours Hooker l. 5. pa. rag 56. ecclespolit is a thing which the ancients disclaime Yet the mixture of his flesh with ours they speake of to signifie what our very bodies through mistical coniunction receiue from that vital efficacy which we know to be in his and froÌ„ bodyly mixtures they borrow diuerse similitudes rather to declare the truth than the maner of coherence betweene his sacred and the sanctified bodies of Saints but this is sundry other waies performed besides than by the Eucharist as by his taking our flesh on him in his nativity and by our regeneration in the water of baptisme by faith and the word preached so that you see when Allen wrote as before is set downe he thought to out-bid those former schoolemen whose doctrine hee taxeth with curiositie and danger verifying that of the Poet Oâ—…llo scelus credibile in avo quodque posterit as noget That no age Senec. in Thyest act i. 4. iaÌ„ nostra sub it stirpe turba quae suum vincat genus ac me innocenteÌ„ faciat in ausa audeat De sacra euch l. 1. c. 2. fol. 28. contrarieth D Allen. ever saw the like and whereof posterity wil be ashamed making those that haue gone him even innocent as Tautalus said of his nephewes But see how it happeneth to those that so peremptorilie and by their only authority abate the credit of others even their credits wil be againe abated Bellarmine handling the same matter affirmeth that it is a doubt of certaine amongst themselues whether those things that are verified of Christ by reason of the accidents may be spoken of him truly and properly or by a trope Some there be saith he and it may be secretly he meaneth Allen though he name him not that will haue all those things verified of Christ truely and properlie in the same manner as they might of the bread if it were present For the bread is verilie and properlie seene handled and broken by meanes of the accidents so will they haue Christs body in the Eucharist to be verily and properly seene handled by meane of the accidents Then those that AlleÌ„ checketh did teach well Peraliquem tropam But the common opinion of the divines doth teach the contrary that is that those
wordes againe so plainly delivered Ibid. fol. 20 a. 21. b Har. vt ante 136. How oft doth Gardner tell vs that but by faith hee knoweth not howe Christ is present in the sacrament God doth vs to vnderstand by faith the truth of Christs presence And Bellarmine himselfe within fowre howers reading after Athanasius vseth the word spiritually answering to the ancient father Athanasius who saith the flesh of Christ is our spiritual nourishment and spirituallie distributed is driven to say that it is most rightly called our spirituall foode Christs body is food for the spirit and not for the body Bellar de sacr euch l. 2. c. 11. fol. 186. because it is given for the food of the spirit and not of the bodie and distributed spirituallie And that Christ made mention of his ascension to shew that his flesh is not to be eaten as other meates are which was the carnall vnderstanding of the Caparnaites sed spirituals quodam modo but after a certaine spirituall maner Is not Bellarmine come to that terme which hee was so much a fraide of If the Caparnaites were grosse and fleshly in thinking that Christs flesh was to be eaten more aliarum carnium as other flesh is I am well assured Bellarmine is a Caparnaite also he hath as grosse a conceipt of Christs flesh Bellar vt ante l. 1. c 2. fol. 28. 2. c. 8. f. 163. l. 1. c. 11. fol. 92 most grosse absurditie as they could haue for hee saith the flesh of Christ is transferred from the hand to the mouth from the mouth to the stomacke which I vnderstand to be as the manner of other meate is and this he inculcateth more than once And if Really be opposed and set to exclude our terme by faith as Bellarmine saith it is let him shewe why it is not opposed against spirituallie and spirit and spirituall manner which they and he vse also We say it is receiued by faith he saith it is meat for the spirit and not for the bodie most absurdly sutting that thing out from being meate for the body which is taken into the hand mouth and stomacke and making that a spirituall food and nourishment and which is receiued after a spiritual manner and apprehended by faith to goe into the mouth and downe into the stomacke by humane natural instrumeÌ„ts as the hand tongue and palate And then againe hee doth most strangely leaue himselfe in ioining the hand mouth tongue pallate and stomacke in the eating of the body of Christ Attritio denti bus facta Bellar. ib. f. 29. and yet deny the chewing or grinding of the teeth which necessarily accompanieth the rest especially having told vs before that infigimus dentes carnichristi we fasten our teeth in the flesh of Christ Neither is this Bellarmines case alone when he is pressed with any authority of the fathers to fly to our very termes and to vse our phrases but al others of theÌ„ also do the like Vt ante ratio 2. fol. 106. A spirituall kind of eating a naturall and substantiall thinge If reall be vsed in oppositioÌ„ to spirituall how can real inter pret spirituall as Dureus saith Dureus being vrged with S. Augustines authority touching the eating of Christ in the sacrament saith that S. Augustine accounted it an horrible thing to eate the flesh of Christ as we do other meates that are solde in the shambles and that therefore he calleth vs from that kinde of eating ad spiritualeÌ„ alium to an other kinde that is spiritual such an one as is agreeable to that sacrament but yet a true and reall eating Here he both commeth to our terme spirituall and yet confouÌ„deth it with reall which S. Augustins whose minde he interpreteth neuer vsed which Bellarmine saith the counsel vsed in opposition to that other A third Iesuite is mightily busied like a builder of the tower of Babel vsing a contrary language to that Torrens conf Au l. 3. de sacr Euch c. 4. fol. 318. b. in gloss CarneÌ„ christi sacramento panis valetaÌ„ with which he began his work for being troubled as his fellow Iesuit was with answering to S. Augustine a father who is most plaine against them is fain to expresse that manner of eating which S. Augustine â—speaketh of to be done dentibus fidei with the teeth of our faith but the body is hid vnder the shewe of bread which latter clause S. Augustine never vsed to shew the maner of Christs body in the sacrament That is only the Iesuits couler to avoide S. Augustine With the teeth of our faith with the eies of our faith Lud. Granat de freq commun fol. 100. vt ante f. 20. a. 21. b. 55. 40. 41. 72. a. But in a spiritual maner I knowe by faith that I haue it in my hand A grosse dull speech The presence is only spirituall and no part of his meaning The teeth of our body caÌ„ doth as they say eate Christs flesh in the shew of bread what need we vse the teeth of our faith or the eies of our faith either to see it there as an other of them saith if hee be really and substantially present in the host the same flesh that the Virgin Marie did beare and the Iews crucified Stephan Gardiner as is before noted vseth the same I knowe by faith Christ to be present we acknowledge by faith Christs bodie present Christs bodie there is present but in a spirituall manner It is called a spirituall maner of presence And yet in receiving that sacrament men vse their mouthes and teeth being by faith instructed that they doe not teare consume or violate that most precious bodie and bloud Onlie faithfull men by faith can vnderstande this misterie of eating Christs flesh in the sacrament And the manner of presence is onlie spirituall What need faith What need spiritual manner onlie What needes faith to bee the instructor when the Councell as Bellarmine saith hath deuised those strong able termes of truelie reallie and substantiallie and opposed theÌ„ against our imaginary termes of spirituallie and by faith which imaginary termes they vse also Tom. 2. trac 2. c. 3. 5. annexed to the 1. p. of Tho. Aquin. soÌ„time to the 3. The body of Christ is taken spiritually in the Eucharist Cardinal Caietane in excuse of those divines who drew the forme of Beringarius confessioÌ„ which was most grosse touching the eating of Christ in the sacrament vseth no other word but spirituallie and saith it is most false to affirme that they held that the body of Christ is taken corporallie for it is taken spirituallie in the Eucharist by beleeing and not by receiving it Againe he saith They eate the true body of Christ in the sacrament not corporally but spiritually The corporal eating is but of the sacrameÌ„tal signes but the spiritual eating which is performed by the soule obtaineth the flesh of
into his blood the showes of bread wine only remaining which conuersion the catholike Church doth aptly call Transubstantiation let him be accursed Can. 8. gaine if anie man saie That Christ is exhibited or set forth in the Eucharist to the intent to bee eaten spiritually not also sacramentally really let him be accursed Not to speake heare how blasphemous contrary this their doctrine is to the holy institution of Christ at his last supper the verie manner of their handling seting downe their opinions is by their leaues erronious yet not vnder stood by their owne Doctors For first it must follow of their words if the whol substāce of the bread be turned into Christs body then is the body of Christ made of bread as is verified in the decrees which saith The bodie of Christ his blood by the power of the holy ghost is made of the substance De Cons dist 2. can vtrum sub figura of bread and wine Then will it follow that it is not that bodie which was made of the flesh blood of the virgin Mary Hard. cont Iu. art 12. fol. 168 D. Harding seeing this impietie of making our sauiour Christ haue two contrary bodies both avoideth his own authorities ouerthroweth his Transubstantiation for thus he saith Where the bodie blood of Christ is said to be made of bread wine beware thou vnlearned mā thou thinke not them therof to bee made as though they were newly created of the matter of bread and wine nether that they be made of bread wine as of a matter but that where bread wine were before This is noe trāsubstantiation after consecration there is the verie bodie blood of Christ borne of the verie substance of the Virgin Mary To say where bread was before there is the bodie of Christ as M. Harding saith is a departing or annibilation of the bread a comming of it as it were to nothing not a transubstantiation a turning of the substance of the bread into the substance of the bodie of Christ as the Trent fathers define Againe if bread be made the body of Christ or is the bodie of Christ as they are willing to grant why shoulde it not be said to be made of bread as of a matter If it bee made of the substance of bread why not made of bread as of a matter Againe They themselues teach vs Lumb l. 4. dis 1. b. Alan de sac in gener l. 1. c. 2. Dureus cont Whit. rat 2 fol 103. Hard. cont Iuell art 8. f. 144. b. Tonstal l. 1. fol 33. Allen de Euch sacra l. 1. c. 3. fol 217 Bellar. de euch sac l. 2. c. 9. fol. 151. ex Iren l. 4 cont haer c. 34 that a sacrament is a signe of an holy thinge or a visible signe of an invisible grace so that on two things doth a sacrament consist by both our cōsents Now least there should be anie strife what those two things are they teach moreouer that the on is earthly the other heauenly so they al teach our of Ireneus that ancient father who saith this being not commō bread but the Eucharist after consecration consisting of two things earthly heauenly what that earthly thing is al men may vnderstād that wel to be verie bread the substance of bread except he bee driuen to say as al they doe in those places quoted that by the earthly thing named by Ireneus is ment not the substance of bread but the accidents that is the tast colour waight show sauour fashion of bread What earthly thinge the tast colour shew waight and sauour of bread can bee I appeale to anie indifferent iudge So that to say as the Trent fathers saie that noe substance remaineth after consecration Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the nature of a sacrament They keepe it in the one and destroy it in the other Tons l. 1. f. 30. 48. b. ex cā conc Nicen. considera divinā vim quae in aquis latet Step. Gardin fol. 8 b. but the real and substantial bodie of Christ is to ouerthrowe the nature of a sacrament and to take awaie the earthly part of it instead of exhibiting the Grace of Christ putteth the Person of Christ God man in the roomth But see how they retaine the true nature definition of a sacrament in the one destroy it in the other They saie there remaineth the nature and substance of water the invisible grace of the spirit the holy Ghost commeth down halloweth the water there we cōsider the diuine spirit which lieth hid in the water there wee consider our baptisme not with the eies of our flesh but with the eies of our soules And as in the sacrament of Christs most precious bodie and blood we receaue Christs verie flesh drinke his verie blood to cōtinue augmēt the life receaued so in baptisme we receaue the spirit of Christ for the renuing of our life's And therfore in the same forme of words Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme In both sacraments Christ is exhibiteth himselfe vnto vs. Andra. Ortho. expl l. 3. f. 239. that he spake of the eating of his body drinking of his blood in both sacraments giueth dispenseth exhibiteth indeed those celestiall guifts in sensible elements In both sacraments the blood of Christ is included the sprinkling of our bodies with the water of Baptisme is nothing but that the soule be washed rinced with the blood of Christ If all this bee verified of the sacrament of Baptisme if Christ can giue exhibite himselfe as he doth indeed vnto vs without anie transubstantiation retaining the substance of the element of water we cannot but say so of the sacrament of the supper Lumb l. 4. dist 9. a Torren l. 3. c. 6. parag 3. fine vide tale a liquid apud Aug. tom 7. de peccat merit remiss l. 3. c. 4 that there we maie feed on Christs flesh drink his blood without anie transubstantiation of the bread wine Nay in more plainer maner they tell vs that Saint Augustine doubteth not to say of infants other faithfull people Nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum Noe man may in anie wise doubt but that euerie faithful man is then made partaker of the body blood of Christ when in baptisme he is made a member of Christ that he is not without the fellowship of that bread the cup although before hee eate of that bread and drinke of that cup he depart this world beeing in the vnity of Christs bodie for he is not made frustrate of the communion and benefit of that sacrament whiles hee findeth that thinge which is signified by the sacrament If infants and other faithfull people may be made partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of Baptisme I demand of our Trent fathers why we may not be
ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt And by reason of this similitude they vsually take the names of the things themselues This is without glose or ambiguitie Christ saith S. Augustine was once offered in himselfe And is offered daily in a sacrament for that the speech should be vnderstood how once how daily it is added in a sacrament and in himselfe And why when it is done now but in a sacrament may it yet be truly said Christ is offered because sacraments haue the names of the thinges them selues for a certaine resemblance that is betweene theÌ„ This doth the words immediatly following shew Sieut ergo secundum quendam medum Therfore after a certaine manner of speech the sacrament of Christs body is Christs body the sacrament of Christs blood is Christs blood the sacrament of faith is faith this he illustrateth afteriby the sacrameÌ„t of Baptisme out of S. Paule Rom. 6. whoe saith by Baptisme wee bee buried with Christ into death he saith not we signifie buriall but he saith plainly wee bee buried so that the sacrament of so great a thinge is not called but by the name of the thing it self Cip. tom 2. de vnct Chris mat fere fine Thus far Augustine S. Cyprian was before S. Augustine certaine huÌ„dreds of yeares hee telleth vs without any scruple or bone cast in of doubt both what Christ did at his last supper and what on the crosse in sound words few Dedit dominus noster in mensa Our Lord at the table wherat hee receaued his last supper with his disciples with his own hands gaue bread wine But vpon the crosse he gaue his own body with the souldiers hands to be wounded This is by S. Cyprian the sacrifice of the table the sacrifice of the crosse at the one he gaue bread wine vpon the other he gaue his body Here is noe vailing of him vnder formes and shewes of bread and wine nospeaking of quantitieâ— qualities without substaÌ„ce nor offering vp of him to God his father In an other place he saith in most plaine words Tom. 2. de bap tism Christi manif trinit fine Nec sacerdotij eius paenituit deuÌ„ It neuer repented God saith he of Christs preisthood For the sacrifice that he offered vpoÌ„ the crosse is so acceptable in the goodwil of God so standeth in continuall strength virtue that the same oblatioÌ„ is noe lesse acceptable this day in the sight of God the Father then it was that daie when blood water ranne out of his wounded side semper reseruatae in corpore plaga salutis humana exigant pretium obedieutiae donatiuum requirant And the skarrs teserued stil in his body doe suffice for the redemption of man and doe require a fauour because of the obedience This is plaine according to the scriptures Heb 7.23.27 10. v. 12. 9 v. 28. that once Preist by one sacrifice once offered that is our sauiour by giuing himselfe to death vpoÌ„ the Crosse hath reconciled vs to God sanctified vs for euer cuteth of their many Preists to offer ofteÌ„ as though there were left now after the death of Christ an offering for sin or his pretious blood were of noe greater value then the blood of Bull Goates which were offered often because they coulde not purge sinne There is a Master amongst them called the Master of the esnteÌ„ces Vide Genebr Chron l. 4. an 1159. fol. 932. P. Lumbard or Longobardus who collected a breife of doctrine out of the Greeke latine Fathers ancienter by far then the counsel of Trent Allen Canus or the Rhemists and before any Protestant if they saie true that are accustomed to lie who liued in the yeare of our Lord Bishop of Paris anno Paris 1160. vpon whose bookes suruey hath bin made although they haue gathered noe Index vpon him as they haue done vpon others yet they haue noted him in manie places where they mislâ—ke him with a non tenetur the master is not allowed here Magister hic non tenetur This Catholike Doctor much renowned amongst them taught euen as the ProtestaÌ„ts doe in this quaeâ—stioÌ„ of the sacrifice of Christ in the Masse yet hath escaped froÌ„ amongst them without so much as an item for it which manifestly sheweth that though they haue vs offenders in that matter they haue their cheife Master also a ringleader therin themselues or brethreÌ„ accessary therto because they haue not taxed him therfore And howsoeuer we maie be faultie the case standing as it doth our aunswere is the same with the womans in the poet Nam si ego digna hac contumelia sum maximè Terenc in Eunueh act 5. scen 2. Senec. in Medea act 3. at tu indignus qui faceres tamen For although I be neuer so wel worthy to be so spitfully handled yet were you no meete man to doe it saith shee And as Medea saith to IasoÌ„ Omnes coniugem infamem arguant solus tuere solus insontem voca Tibi innocens sit quisquis est pro te nocens Let others defame me with infamie yet doe thou only take my part doe thou call me iust vndefiled let him be an innocent to thee who for thee doth transgresie The words of Lumbard are these Sent l. 4. dis 12 parag 7. Christ is not now really offered but the memorie of his sacrifice is celebrated Post heac quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos propriè dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidie immolatur vel semel tantum immolatus sit I demand saith he whether that which the preist doth be properly called a sacrifice an oblation or not and whether Christ bee daily offered or else were offered only once To this saith he our answere in breif is that that which is offered consecrated by the Preist is called a sacrifice oblation because it is a memory representation of the true sacrifice holy oblation which was made on the aultar of the crosse Et semel Christus mortuus in cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipse Christ also died once on the Crosse there was he offered himselfe quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento but hee is offered daily in a sacrament because in the sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once don on the Crosse And this is not Peter Lumbardes opinion only but his strong proofe collection out of all the Fathers Greeke and Latine noe one of theÌ„ euer dreaming of sacrificing the sonne of God to his father or of making the same sacrifice vnbloody which Christ made bloody or to haue the sacrament both the thing it selfe and a remembrance of it selfe al at one time Wherfore although the sacrifice be a true proper soueraigne propitiatorie sacrifice as it is defined by the Trent Fathers yet