not therefore inferre any corporall feeding 2. That this whole Discourse of our Sauiour is not to bee vnderstood of any Sacramentall or corporall but of spirituall eating onely it is likewise apparent For 1. None are saued but such as so feede on Christ as is there spoken of Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man saith our Sauiour and drinke his blood you haue no life in you He hath not therefore life eternall saith Augustine that eateth not this bread and drinketh not this blood For temporall life men may haue without it but eternall life without it in no wise can they haue But many are and shall be saued by Christ that neuer Sacramentally fed on Christ in the Eucharist yea that neuer eate at all of the Eucharist or saw it or knew of it as not onely the ancient Fathers that liued before Christs Incarnation who yet as Augustine well obserueth did eate the flesh of Christ spiritually as well as we doe now and were saued by the death and passion of Christ which as Bernard speaketh was effectuall euen before it was actuall and the Thiefe on the Crosse that passed thence to Paradise the same day that he dyed but many Infants also that die ere they come to yeeres of discretion as the Councel of Trent acknowledgeth accursing all those that hold mis-expounding the words of Christ in that place that all Infants are damned that receiue not Christs body and blood in the Eucharist Which yet one of their owne Popes sometime held and maintained and which would necessarily follow if that place were to be vnderstood of the Sacramentall eating of Christ in the Eucharist It is not therefore the Sacramentall eating of Christ in the Eucharist that is there spoken of 2. All that feede on Christ so as is there spoken of are sure eternally to bee saued For so our Sauiour himselfe saith If any man eate of this bread he shall neuer dye but liue for euer And whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day And He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And As I liue by the Father se He that eateth me shall liue by me It is not saith Augustine with this meate as with our bodily foode That vnlesse a man take he cannot liue but take it he may and yet not liue he may die after he hath taken it But in this foode of our Lords body and blood it is not so For both he that taketh it not can not liue and he that taketh it liueth eternally For As if one poure melted waxe vpon other waxe the one is wholy mixed with the other so it must needs be saith Cyril that if any man take Christs body and blood he be so ioyned with him that he be found in Christ and Christ in him and consequently that he be saued by Christ. But many feede vpon that that is giuen in the Eucharist that yet are eternally damned Many take it and die saith Augustine yea many die in the taking of it He eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe saith the Apostle And was not the morsel that Christ gaue Iudas poison to Iudas that tooke it And againe The Sacrament hereof is taken at the Lords Table by some to saluation by others to destruction Whereas the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is taken to saluation by euery one that is partaker thereof to destruction by none If all be saued then that eate of Christs flesh in that manner that Christ speaketh of in that place But all are not saued that eate corporally what is offred them in the Eucharist it must needs follow that Christ speaketh not of any corporall eating of him in the Eucharist in that place But we neede not insist longer vpon the proofe hereof For that our Sauiours whole discourse in that place is not to be vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of feeding on Christ spiritually is confessed and acknowledged not by one or two only but by many Popish writers of great note Cardinals Schoolemen Canonists Professors Iesuites and others as by name by Cardinal Cusane Cardinal Cajetan Gabriel Biel a great Schooleman Astesanus a Canonist Ruard Tapper and Iohn Hessels Professors of Diuinitie at Louaine and Cornelius Iohnson a great Iesuite the most of them by Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe alleadged and acknowledged to hold as we doe that those words of our Sauiour speake onely of a spirituall eating and not of any corporall yea or sacramentall either According whereunto it is acknowledged not by Augustine onely but by Iohnson the Iesuite who at large disputeth and confirmeth that which we say both grounding vpon the words of our Sauiour himselfe that to eate Christs flesh in the manner there spoken of is nothing else but to beleeue in Christ. Since then the places produced to prooue this corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament are by our Aduersaries their owne confession such as either doe not necessarily prooue the point or are otherwise to be vnderstood we haue little reason to yeeld vnto them therein Hitherto we haue shewed that no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue as those of the Romish Church hold concerning the reall conuersion of the outward Elements in the Eucharist into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ and a corporall presence of either necessarily flowing there from Now 2. that the Bread and Wine remaine in substance and nature still the same and are not so conuerted into the very Flesh and Blood of Christ we further thus prooue 1. We reason from the very course of the Context in the Story of the Institution Iesuâ— tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and said Take eate This is my Body Whence I thus reason Looke what our Sauiour tooke that he blessed what he blessed that he brake what he brake he deliuered to the Disciples what he deliuered to them of that he said This is my Body But it was Bread that he tooke the Euangelist so saith and Bread therefore that he blessed bread that he brake bread that he deliuered and bread consequently of which he said This is my Body And hence are those speeches so frequent in the Auncient Fathers The Bread that hath beene blessed saith Irenaeus is its owne Lords body God in the Gospel saith Tertullian calleth bread his Body The Bread saith Augustine is the Body of Christ. The Bread saith Hicrome that the Lord brake and gaue his Disciples is the Lords body And if we aske how Bread is or can be Christs body as we may well doe and v it is no new Question It was long since asked by the Auncients and answered by them The Author of that worke in Cyprian of Christs
For Commenting on the storie of the Institution of this Sacrament The old Paschall solemnity saith hee being ended which was celebrated in memorie of the deliuerance out of Egypt Christ passeth to a new one which hee would haue the Church vse in memory of redemption by him instead of the flesh and blood of a Lambe substituting a Sacrament of his body and blood in a figure of bread and wine c. And hee breaketh himselfe the bread that he deliuereth to shew that the breaking of his bodie to come was by his owne will and procurement And againe because bread strengtheneth the flesh and wine breedeth blood the one is mystically referred to Christs body and the wine vnto his blood Where is any tittle here that may stand well with their Transubstantiation much lesse that soundeth ought that way A Sacrament of his body and blood a memoriall of his redemption bread broken and giuen and both bread and wine hauing a mysticall reference to the body and blood of Christ. It was well and aduisedly therefore done by Bellarmine to leaue Bede cleane out of the Catalogue of his Authors though a writer of the greatest note in those times because he could finde nothing in him that might seeme but to looke that way which if he could we should be sure to haue heard of Yea that long after Augustines time the same beleefe of the Sacrament that we at this day hold was commonly taught and professed publikely in this Iland notwithstanding the manifold monuments by that Popish faction suppressed appeareth by some of them in ancient Manuscripts yet extant and of late published also in print Among others of this kinde are the Epistles and Sermons written in the Saxon tongue of one Aelfricke a man of great note for learning that liued about the yeere 990. wherein the same doctrine is taught concerning the Sacrament that we hold at this day and the contrary Popish doctrine is impugned In an Epistle of his written for Wulfsine then Bishop of Shyrburn to his Clerks bearing title of a Sacerdotall Synode he saith that The holy Housell is Christs bodie not bodily but ghostly Not the body that he suffered in but the body of which he spake when hee blessed bread and wine to housell and said by the blessed bread This is my body and by the holy wine This is my blood And that the Lord that then turned that bread to his body doth still by the Priests hands blesse bread and wine to his ghostly body and his ghostly blood And in another Epistle to Wulstane Archbishop of Yorke that The Lord halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery And yet notwithstanding that liuely bread is not bodily so nor the selfe same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy wine is the Sauiours blood which was shed for vs in bodily thing but in ghostly vnderstanding And that that bread is his body and that wine his blood as the heauenly bread which we call Manna was his body and the cleere water which did then run from the stone in the wildernes was truely his blood as S. Paul saith And that stone was Christ. And in the Paschall Homily by him translated out of Latine and read commonly then on easter-Easter-day Men saith hee haue often searched and doe as yet search how bread that is gathered of corne and through fires heat baked may be turned to Christs body or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords blood To which he there answereth that it is so by signification as Christ is said to be Bread a Rocke a Lamb a Lion not after truth of nature And againe hauing demanded Why is that holy housell then called Christs body and his blood if it be not truely that that it is called Hee answereth It is so truely in a ghostly mysterie And then explicating further the manner of this change As saith he an heathen childe when hee is Christened yet hee altereth not his shape without though hee be changed within and as the holy water in Baptisme after true nature is corruptible water but after ghostly mystery hath spirituall vertue And so saith he The holy Housell is naturally corruptible bread corruptible wine but is by might of Gods word truely Christs body and blood yet not bodily but ghostly And afterward hee setteth downe diuerse differences betweene Christs naturall body and it Much is betwixt the body that Christ suffered in and the body that he hallowed to housell 1. The body that hee suffered in was bred of the flesh of Mary with blood and bone and skin and sinewes in humane limmes and a liuing Soule His ghostly body which we call the housell is gathered of many cornes without blood and bone limme and soule And it is therefore called a mystery because therein is one thing seen and another thing vnderstood 2. Christs body that he suffred in and rose from death neuer dieth henceforth but is eternall and impassible That housel is temporall not eternall corruptible and dealed into sundry parts chewed betweene the teeth and sent into the belly 3. This mysterie is a pledge and figure Christs body is truth it selfe This pledge doe we keepe mystically vntill we come vnto the truth it selfe and then is this pledge ended Truly it is as we said Christs body and blood not bodily but ghostly And yet further he addeth that As the Stone in the wildernesse from whence the water ran was not bodily Christ but did signifie Christ though the Apostle say That stone was Christ so that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeeres and that water that gushed from the Stone had signification of Christs body and blood and was the same that wee now offer not bodily but ghostly And that As Christ turned by inuisible might the bread to his body and the wine to his blood before he suffred so he did in the wildernesse turne the heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water to his owne blood before hee was borne That when our Sauiour said Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life He bad them not eate the body wherewith he was enclosed nor to drinke that blood which hee shed for vs but he ment that holy housel which is ghostly his body and his blood and hee that tasteth it with beleeuing heart hath euerlasting life That As the sacrifices had a sore-signification of Christs body which he offered to his Father in Sacrifice So the housell that wee hallaw at Gods Altar is a remembrance of Christs body which he offered for vs and of his blood which he shed for vs which suffering once done by him is daily renewed in a mystery of holy housell Lastly that This holy housell is both Christs body and the bodie of all faithfull men after ghostly mysterie and so
place thus speaketh The heauenly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which truly representeth the slesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly and therefore is it said In it owne manner but not in the truth of the thing but in a significant mystery So that the meaning is It is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth the body of Christ. Thus word for word the Glosse Thus you see what our very Aduersaries themselues graunt vs concerning the exposition of these words This is my body and that which may be gathered from them The wordes of Christ prooue not necessarily saith the Romish Cardinall that the bread is turned into Christs body And when the bread is called Christs body the meaning is saith the Popish Canonist that it signifieth Christs body And what is this but the very same that we say To conclude as Augustine well obserueth Christ saith Iohn is Elias and Iohn himselfe saith I am not Elias and yet neither of them crosse the other because Iohn spake properly and Christ figuratiuely So Christ saith This bread is my body in one sense and we in another sense that it is not his body and yet wee crosse not Christ because wee speake properly hee figuratiuely as the Glosse it selfe confesseth And on the other side they were false witnesses though they alledged Christs owne words mis-expounded of the materiall Temple which hee meant of the mysticall Temple his humanity And so may others be though they alleadge Christs owne wordes of the bread being his body vrging that as spoken properly that by him was figuratiuely spoken If it be obiected that by this our deniall of Transubstantiation and of Christs corporall presence we make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread I answer that notwithstanding such Transubstantiation and corporall presence bee denied yet it maketh the Sacrament no more to be but bare bread then it maketh the water in Baptisme to be but bare water because all deny any such conuersion or corporall presence in it A piece of waxe annexed as a seale to the Princes Patent of pardon or other like deed is of farre other vse and farre greater efficâ—cy and excellency then other ordinary waxe is though it be the very same in nature and substance with it and with that which it was it selfe before it was taken vnto that vse And so is the bread in the Lords Supper being a seale of Gods couenant and of Christs last will and Testament of faire other vse and of farre greater efficacie and excellencie then any other ordinary bread is though it be the same still in nature and substance with it and the same with that for substanse that it was before it was so consecrated That which Pope Gelasius and Theodoret both expresly anouch Surely the Sacraments saith Gelasius which wee take of Christs body and blood are a diuine thing and thereby therefore are we made partakers of the diuine Nature and yet ceaseth there not to be there the nature or substance of bread and wine but they abide still in the propriety of their owne Nature And certainely an image and similitude of Christs body and blood is celebrated in those mysteries And The mysticall signes saith Theodonet after the sanctification doe not forgoe their owne nature but retaine still their former substance and figure and forme And againe the same Theodoret He that called that which is by nature his body wheat and bread and againe named himselfe a vine he hath honoured the symbols and signes which we see with the titles of his bodie and blood not changing the nature of them but adding grace to it Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood nothing but bare bread and wine The latter place vsually alledged to this purpose is that large Discourse our Sauiour hath concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Ioh. 6. 51-58 True it is indeed that if the bread and wine in the Eucharist be transubstantiated into the naturall body and blood of Christ and there bee such a corporall presence as Papists imagine it must needs follow that Christs very flesh is eaten and his very blood it selfe is corporally drunke in the Sacrament And to this purpose also Pope Nicholas in that solemne forme of recantation that hee enioyned Berengarius inserted into the body of the Canon auoweth that the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands and torne in pieces with mens teeth not sacramentally only but sensually and that all that hold the contrary deserue to be eternally damned A sensuall indeed and a senslesse assertion yea an horrible and an hideous speech full fraught I may well say though it proceeded from a Pope who they say cannot erre with extreame impiety and blasphemy and such as Christian eâ—res cannot but abhor to hear In so much that their owne Glosser vpon the place well warneth vs to take heed how we trust him Lest 〈…〉 fall into a worse heresie then Berengarius euer held But thus one monstrous opinion breedeth and begetteth another And this indeed must needs follow vpon the former The corporall presence of Christ in the thing eaten must needs inferre and enforce a corporall eating of him and to prooue the same they presse commonly our Sauiours words in that place of eating his flesh and drinking his blood Which as with some of the Ancients indeed they vnderstand of the Eucharist so they expound though without their consent therein of a corporall and carnall eating of Christs flesh But neither are those words of our Sauiour to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking nor doth Christ at all in that whole Discourse speake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was not then as yet instituted but of feeding on him spiritually by faith which is done not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also And first that the place is not to bee vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking it is aparent For it is a good and a sure Rule that Augustine giueth If in any precept some hainous or flagitious thing seeme to be enioyned you may thereby know it to be a figuratiue speech I need not apply this generall Rule to the point in hand Augustine doth it for mee Hee instanceth in that very particular that wee now treate of Vnlesse you eate saith he the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you It seemeth to enioyne an hainous and flagitious thing It is a figuratiue speech therefore commanding vs to communicate with Christs passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. So that this place by Augustines Rule and his owne application of it is to be vnderstood figuratiuely and doth
of God And againe We are said to drinke Christs blood not in the Sacramentall rites onely but when we receiue his word wherein life consisteth as he saith The words that I speake are Spirit and Life And Hierome also vnderstandeth those words of our Sauiour He that eateth not my Flesh and drinketh not my blood not of the Sacrament of the Eucharist onely but more specially or as he speaketh more truly of Christs word and doctrine and addeth therefore that t When we heare the word of God both the word of God and the Flesh of Christ and his Bloud is powred in at our eares If in the Sacrament of Baptisme then and in the Ministery of the word we truly receiue Christ and become partakers of Christ yea we eate and drinke Christ in either as well as in the Eucharist what needeth any such reall transmutation more in the one then in the other 6. We reason from the Qualitie of the Communicants in the Eucharist If Christs body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist then all that eate of the Eucharist must of necessitie eate Christ in it But many eate of the Eucharist that yet eate not Christ in it For none but the faithfull feede on Christ none eate him as we shewed before but those that liue by him yea and in him that are liuing members of his mysticall Body Whereas many wicked ones eate of the Eucharist many eate of it that are out of Christ. The other Disciples saith Augustine did eate that Bread that is the Lord Iudas did eate the Lords Bread against the Lord. And disputing against those that hold that wicked men should be saued if they liued in the Church because they fed on Christ in the Eucharist saith that such wicked ones are not to be said to eate Christs body because they are not members of his body And that Christ when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I i◠him doth thereby shew what it is truly and not sacramentally onely to eate Christs body and to drinke his blood and that no man eateth his body and drinketh his blood that abideth not 〈…〉 Christ and Christ in him And againe he saith He receiueth the Bread of Life and drinketh the Cup of eternitie that abideth in Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth But he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood though to his owne iudgement for his presumption he daily receiue indifferently the Sacrament of so great a thing And againe They that eate and drinke Christ eate and drinke life To eate him is to be made againe to drinke him is to liue That which is taken visibly in a Sacrament is eaten and drunke spiritually in the truth it selfe For This meate and drinke maketh those that take it truly immortall and incorruptible This is therefore to eate that flesh and drinke that drinke for a manto abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in him And consequently he that abideth not in Christ nor Christ in him without doubt doth not eate his flesh nor drinke his blood spiritually though carnally and visibly with his teeth he crush the Sacrament of Christs Body To Augustine I adde Origen who hauing spoken what shall anone be related of Christs typicall and symbolicall Body as he calleth the Sacrament Much saith he might be said more of the Word it selfe that became Flesh and true Foode which whosoeuer eateth shall surely liue for euer and which no euill man can eate of For if it were possible that any man that continueth euill still should eate of the Word that became Flesh since it is the liuing Bread it had neuer beene written Whosoeuer eateth of this Bread shall liue for euer It is impossible then that any wicked man or any that are damned should eate Christ But many wicked men eate of the Eucharist many are damned that eate of it The Eucharist therefore is not really Christ. Lastly we reason from those things that are done about or may be fall those Creatures that in the Eucharist are consecrated which cannot be done to or betide now Christs glorified Body 1. The Eucharisticall Bread was broken in pieces and diuided into parts by our Sauiour at his last Supper And the like rite was obserued by the Apostles in the administratiof the Eucharist And is in the Romish Church also not vnusuall But as Christ saith the Apostle is not diuided so Christs Body is not diuided into parts as they themselues confesse nor broken into pieces His Body indeede is said to be broken not that it was really broken into pieces but as by the Prophet it is said that It pleased God to breake him and to put him to griefe which was fulfilled in those paines and torments that for vs he sustained and as we vse to say of men that with griefe and care they are broken Otherwise it was neuer broken much lesse is it now broken being wholly quit euen of all those infirmities that it was so broken with before Yea the Papists themselues not daring to auow that of Christs verie bodie are enforced to affirme that euery Communicant receiueth the whole and entire body of Christ. Yet they receiue but a part saith their owne Canon as you shall heare anone of the Element in the Sacrament That therefore that is so diuided there is not Christs naturall Body And here the Popish Glosser is strangely troubled to salue and reconcile the words of their Canons and to make their owne doctrine agree with the sayings of some of the Ancients there cited There is inserted into the Canon this saying of Augustine We doe 〈…〉 make parts of Christ when we eate him Indeede in the Sacrament we doe so and the faithfull know how we eate Christs flesh there Each one taketh his part and the Eucharist it selfe is therefore called their Parts Christ is eaten by parts in a Sacrament and yet remaineth whole in Heauen and yet remaineth whole in thy heart On which place saith the Glosser This is contrary to that which Pope Nicolas saith in Berengarius his Confession And so it is indeede for therein as before you heard it is said that not the Sacrament onely but Christs very Body it selfe is broken by the Priest But that cannot be saith the Glosse for a glorified Body cannot suffer any such maime or harme And therefore saith the same Glosse The Body and Blood of Christ is called by the name of Parts or the Species that are diuided are called the Body and Blood of Christ in a significant mysterie that is as we say because in a mysterie they signifie Christs Body and Blood That then which is taken in the Sacrament is diuided into parts and eaten by peece-meale But Christs naturall Body is not so diuided or taken corporally That therefore that is taken in the Eucharist
Will is contained and his legacy conueighed vnto vs which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deâ—â—â—t soules Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to bee no other then bare signes and types of Christs true body and blood as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person as Circumcision is called the Couenant because it was a signe thereof c. either not vnderstatding like a dull Scholler his Master Caluines doctrine or ouer sawcily willing to contradict him who towards the end of his booke de Coena Domini expressely denieth bread wine to be empty signes of our Sauiours body and blood but such signes as haue the signified substances of our Sauiours body and blood conioyned with them For Christ saith hee is no deceiuer to delude vs with bare figures c. According to which doctrine of Caluine it will be easie for my Adversarie himselfe to salue many of his owne obiections that for example which he maketh out of Tertullian page 3. saying The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his body saying This is my body that is a figure of my body For as Caluines former words import so also Tertullian meaneth the sacramentall symbols not to be naked signes of Christs absent body and blood as the Minister would haue them but such signes as haue the signified substance conioyned vnto them as smoake is the signe of fire warme blood of life the fiery tongues ouer the Apostles in that day of Pentecost and the Doue ouer our Sauiour in his Baptisme were signes of the holy Ghost present c. Which manner of being signes of Christs body and blood doth not exclude but suppose the Accidents of bread and wine to containe the true substances of our Sauiours body and blood in them So is Saint Augustine to be vnderstood where he saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when hee deliuered the signe of his body And when out of Gratian my Aduersary citeth those wordes The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ c. is a Sacrament of Christs body visible palpable mortal and pierced on the Crosse c. So when Theodoret and Gelasius affirme the substance and nature of bread and wine still to remaine in the Sacrament they meane not physicall substances and nature of bread and wine still to remaine after the consecration but onely the accidents to remaine vnaltered in their nature signifying and containing our Sauiours body and blood vnder them And if hee had cited the place of Theodoret fully out he had vtterly ouerthrowne his hereticall and fraudulent purposes of citing him His wordes are these Neither do the sacramentall signes after consecration depart from their nature for they remaine note how hee speaketh of the signes not of the substances of bread and wine remaining in their former substance figure and forme to be seene and touched as before but they are by our vnderstanding conceiued to be as they are made and they are beleeued and adored according to our faith of them So iudicious and learned is mine Aduersarie here and in other places in the choise of his Arguments and Authorities alleadged against vs. But howsoeuer he faileth in that he will be sure to helpe out the matter by maiming and corruptly citing such testimonies I haue iust cause to suspect his like dealing in citing Gratians Glosse on S. Augustines wordes in the precedent page and Caietans words cited by him page 2. But I haue not these Authors now by me to examine the places in themselues And they are of so small esteeme with vs especially Caietan in his dangerous and inconuenient manner of expounding Scripture with more subtilty many times then truth as I cannot but wonder to see the Minister so to magnifie him as if hee were the Oracle of our Church and his ipse dixit and bare assertion so certaine a proofe as it could not be denied by vs. IN the next place therefore skipping ouer this Confession of Caietan that there is nothing in the Gospell that may inforce vs to take those words of our Sauiour properly This is my body but that they may for ought that is in the Text be taken figuratiuely as well as those wordes The Rock was Christ. As also leaping quite ouer the Answer giuen to that Obiection that we are bound to beleeue our Sauiour when hee saith This my body as if wee could not beleeue those wordes of his vnlesse wee beleeue Transubstantiation whereas their owne writers grant that the words of our Sauiour may be true though no such thing be He picketh out here and there some by-matter to bee nibling vpon that hee may seeme to say somewhat though hee keepe aloofe off from the maine matter And first because hee thought hee had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet which hee was desirous to vent He saith I make a great stirre in asking how the Chalice may bee called the New Testament in Christs blood I halfe suspect that some body hath sometime pusâ—ed him with this Question and he is willing therfore here to explicate it for the saluing of his owne credit the rather hauing lighted vpon a new deuice that hee thinketh wil easily helpe out For I mooue no such Question much lesse make such adoe about asking it but say onely We must beleeue our Sauiour as well when he saith This Cup is the new Testament or This Cup is my blood as wee must beleeue him when he saith This is my body and that either may bee true though there be no such reall conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament or Christs blood in the one or of the Bread into his body in the other And his part had beene if he ment to keepe to the point to shew why the one may not be true in a figuratiue sense as wel as the other But let vs heare how learnedly though it bee beside the matter he explicateth our Sauiours wordes This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Thus forsooth My blood in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed and the eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood Did any man in his right wits thinke wee euer expound Scripture on this manner Yea but he hath a singular piece of Schollership by himselfe to iustifie his Exposition For all learned men saith hee know that the word Testament is apt to import not the dying mans Will onely but the deed wherein it is contained and the legacy conueighed by it which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deuout soules c. If he had beene himselfe inebriated when hee writ this hee could not lightly haue beene more absurd For 1. By this
you are they Signes of Heretike Of the Lords Body and Blood Orthodox Of a body that is truly or of one that is not truly Heretike Of one that is truly Orthodox Very well For of the Image there must needs be some Originall For Painters imitate nature and draw Images of such things as are seene Heret True Orthodox If then the diuine mysteries represent that that is truly a body then the Lords body is a true body still not changed into the Nature of the Deity but filled with Diuine glorie Heret You haue in good time made mention of the diuine Mysterie for euen thereby will I shew you that the Body of our Lord is turned into another Nature Answer you therefore my Question Orthodox I will Heretike What call you the gift that is offred before the Priests Inuocation Orthodox I may not tell openly because it may bee there be some here that are not yet initiated Heretike Answere then aenigmatically Orthodox The foode that is made of certaine graine Heret The other Signe how call you it Orthodox By that common name that signifieth some kinde of drinke Heret But after sanctification how doe you call them Orthodox The body of Christ and the blood of Christ. Heret And doe you beleeue that you are made partaeker of Christs body and blood Orthodox I doe beleeue so Heret As then the Signes of the Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests prayer but after it are changed and become another So the Lords body also after his Assumption is changed into a diuine Substance Orthodox You are taken now in a net of your owne weauing For the Mysticall Signes doe not after Sanctification depart from their owne Nature For they remaine still in their former Substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be that which they are made and they are beleeued and adored or reuerenced as being those things that they are beleeued to be Compare then the Image with the Originall and you shall see the Similitude For it is meete that the Figure bee like to the Truth For that Body hath indeede its former forme and figure and circumscription and to speake in a word bodily Substance But since the Resurrection it is become immortall and such as no corruption or destruction can befall and it is vouchsafed to sit at Gods right-hand and is worshipped of euery creature as being called the Lords naturall Bodie Heretike Yea but the mysticall Signe changeth his former Name For it is not any more called as it was before but it is called a Body In like manner therefore should the Truth be called God and not a Body Orthodox Me thinkes you are very ignorant For it is not onely called a Body but it is called Bread of Life So the Lord himselfe called it And moreouer the Body it selfe we call a diuine Body and a quickning Body and the Lords Body and teach that it is not the common Body of any man but the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ who is God and Man For Iesus Christ is yesterday and to day the same and for euer Will you heare more yet of Theodoret In his first Dialogue out of which I cite also one or two Sentences which this scambling Answerer hath not list it seemeth to take notice of he bringeth in the same Parties thus discoursing together Orthodox Do you not know that the Lord called himselfe a Vine Heretike I know that he said I am the true Vine Orthodox And how call you the juice of the fruite of the Vine Heretike Wine Orthodox When the souldiers opened Christs side with a speare what saith the Euangelist did then issue on t Heretike Water and Blood Orthodox The Patriarch Iacob then calleth Christs blood the blood of the Grape For if Christ be called a Vine and the frnite of the Vine and streames of blood and water issuing out of Christs side trickled downe his whole Body he is fitly said by him to wash his coate in wine and his raiment in the blood of the Grape For as we call the mysticall fruite of the Vine after sanctification the Lords blood so doth he call the blood of the true Vine the blood of the Grape Heretike That which was propounded hath both mystically and cleerely beene shewen Orthodox Though the things said be sufficient yet I will adde another proofe Heretike You shall doe me a pleasure because the more profit in so doing Orthodox Doe you not know that God called his body Bread Heretike I know it Orthodox And else-where againe hee called his Flesh wheate Heretike I know that too For vnlesse the wheate corne saith he fall into the ground c. Orthodox Now in the deliuery of the Sacraments he called Bread his Body and that which is poured into and mixt in the Cup Blood Heretike He did so call them Orthodox Yea but that which by nature is his Body is also iustly tearmed his Body and in like manner his Blood Heretike It is acknowledged Orthodox Our Sauiour indeede hee changed the Names and imposed that Name on his Body that was the Name of the Symbole and Signe of it and on the Symbole or Signe he imposed that Name that is the Name of his Body And so hauing named himselfe a Uine he called that that was a signe Blood Heretike It is true that you say But why did he thus change the Names Orthodox Because his will was that those that are partakers of those diuine Mysteries should not attend the nature of the things that they see but for the change of the Names beleeue the change that by grace is wrought For hee that called that that by Nature is his Body wheate and bread and againe named himselfe a Vine he honoured the Symboles and Signes that we see with the appellation of his Body and Blood not changing Nature but to Nature adding Grace And at length the Orthodoxe Diuine thus concludeth It is cleere that that holy Foode is a Symbole and a Signe of Christs body and blood the name whereof it beareth For our Lord when he had taken the Symbole or Signe said not This is my Deitie But This is my Bodie and againe This is my Blood and else where The bread that I will giue is my Flesh that I will giue for the life of the world You haue heard Theodoret at large It remaineth now to consider how he ouerthroweth that which I produce him for to wit that the bread wine in the Sacrament remaine for substance still the same and that the Bread is called Christs body figuratiuely as his body is else-where called Bread and the wine his blood figuratiuely as himselfe is tearmed a Vine Or to consider rather if you please because that any one at the first sight may see how fitly this mans explication of Theodoret agreeth with
same Or doth not Baptisme the like you may be pleased to consider what out of their owne Ambrose was before said of it as also out of Gregorie Nyssene is here after related For it is nothing to the purpose that Bellarmine obiecteth that no man would say that the water of Baptisme consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heauenly For neither doth Irenaeus say that the bread of the Eucharist but the Eucharist it selfe of such two things consisteth But I would faine know how the Eucharist according to their doctrine should when the bread is once consecrated consist at all of any earthly thing when the substance thereof is as they say thereby vtterly abolished Sure Irenaeus his Eucharist consisting of matter in part earthly and theirs hauing none at all such are not one and the same Thirdly Irenaeus saith that our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are no more now corruptible in regard of hope and expectation he meaneth of their future resurrection which thereby they are assured of and sealed vp vnto for otherwise who seeth not that they are not yet incorruptible as he afterward expoundeth himselfe And what is said more here of the Lords Supper then Tertullian and others say of Baptisme to wit that by it the Flesh also hath its assurance of resurrection to life eternall yea let them looke backe but a line or two and they shall soone see how little Irenaeus fauoureth their cause How saith he say they that the flesh perisheth and liueth not euerlastingly that is nourished with the body and blood of Christ He affirmeth our flesh to be nourished with that which hee calleth the body and blood of Christ. And else-where more plainely When the Cup mixed and the bread broken receiueth the word of God it becommeth the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ of which the substance of our bodies groweth and consisteth Now how deny they the flesh to be capable of life eternall that is nourished with Christs body and blood And againe That part of man that consisteth of flesh sinewes and bones is nourished by the cup that is his blood and groweth or is encreased by the bread that is his body The same with that which out of Iustine wee shall hereafter further consider of that our flesh and blood are nourished by the Eucharisticall foode by a change thereof that is it being changed and turned into them But to say so of the very body and blood of Christ is by these mens owne grants most absurd That in the Eucharist therefore that Irenaeus and before him Iustine speake thus of is not the very flesh and blood of Christ it selfe but the creature sanctified as he himselfe tearmeth it or the first-fruits of Gods creatures which in way of thankefulnesse with thankesgiuing he saith they offer vnto God why so tearmed is out of Augustine and others shewed else-where The third allegation is as he saith out of the voices of the Fathers in the first Nicene Councel Where I might well out of Cardinal Baeronius except that there are noâ— Acts of that first Nicene Councel now extant and that the worke out of which this allegation is taken is no record of those Acts but a story onely of that Councell written by one that liued long after it whom they themselues account to be but a sorry obscure fellow and one of no great credite But let the Author or the Relator rather passe and let vs heare his relation Those holy Confessors saith hee will vs at the diuine Table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed but to eleuate our minde by faith and be holde on the holy Table the Lambe of God c. by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to be symboles and pledges of our resurrection Heere is nothing at all that any way hurteth our cause First they acknowledge bread to be and abide in the Euchaerist which these men vtterly deny Secondly they will vs not basely to regard therein the bread and cup or the elements onely And the very same in the same place of Baptisme they say that wee must not so much regard in it the water that wee see as the power of God accompanying it of which wee shall speake more vpon another the like occasion hereafter Thirdly they will vs to lift vp our minde and by faith to consider for so their words are the Lambe of God lying on the Table And by faith we grant that hee is not seene and considered onely but receiued also in the Eucharist Fourthly they say not as this man translateth it that hee is vnbloodily there sacrificed but that hee is without sacrificing there sacrificed that is not really but mystically and symbolically sacrisiced or not in truth of the thing but in a mystery signifying the same as out of Pope Pascasius and Augustine in their Canons themselues speake Fiftly they say that wee receiue his bodie and blood in the Encharist yea they are reported to say which hee omitteth here that wee doe truely receiue them which that we doe truely also and effectually according to our doctrine though spiritually and not corporally hath already beene shewen and shall in his due place againe bee further confirmed And lastly that these are symboles or pledges of our resurrection which how they was are was before shewed out of Tertullian who from those Sacraments and sacred rites and exercises in generall as well other as these that the body partaketh in draweth Arguments to confirme the faith of the resurrection of it The next allegation is out of S. Ephrem whose both praises and speeches he hath borrowed from Bellarmine which Bellarmine when hee hath cited addeth withall in a brauery as if the proofes were so pregnant that there were no gainesaying of them To this testimonie our aduersaries neither doe answer nor indeede can answer ought That none had then answered was not much to be maruelled as Harding saith of their Cyrill few had yet the sight of him One of that name indeed wrote many things in the Syriacke tongue long since hauing no skill at all in the Greeke And vnder his name our Popish Fatherbreeders haue of late set out a many of Sermons and Treaeises that haue no testimonie at all from antiquity the most of them translated as they tell vs out of Greeke which hee good man neuer spake quoting some of them Greeke Authors at large whom hee neuer vnderstood wanting all of them that subtilty and sublimitie of wit that Ierome commendeth in Ephrems workes and appeared euen in the trarslations of them as both hee and others affirm of them very sorry and silly things a great part of them not free from grosse vntruths and contradictions yea and ridiculous too if not impious
is a deale of durt indeede and mud raised to trouble Augustines cleere water The Question is whether our Sauiours words be to be vnderstood properly or figuratiuely They say properly and not figuratiuely Augustine saith figuratiuely and so consequently not properly which is as much as is here required Christs body saith Bellar mine is with the body properly eaten in the Eucharist But it is no proper but a figuratiue eating saith Augustine that Christ speaketh of Iohn 6. It is no such eating of Christs body therefore as they imagine to be in the Eucharist Yea so contrary to them and so pregnant for vs is that passage of Augustine that in Fulbertus his workes where those words of his are related they haue with a foule insertion branded them for hereticall Yea but saith mine Aduersarie there are many plaine places in Augustine cited by Bellarmine for the reall receiuing of Christ which my superficiall Aduersarie taketh no notice of Bellarmine is still much in this mans mouth and the superficialnesse of his silly and vnlearned Aduersarie But this I am sure is a very vnlearned slender and superficiall proofe of points questioned to turne his Reader ouer still for satisfaction to some other Yet I will doe him the couttesie since he telleth vs of other plaine places in Augustine to present him with one of them though such an one it may be as will not easily goe downe with him Augustine speaking of this place in Iohn on Psal. 98. saith that Christ hauing vsed those words Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you When some vnderstood them foolishly and carnally he taught them to vnderstand them spiritually saying It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speake are Spirit and life As if he should haue said vnderstand you spiritually what I haue spoken You are not to eate that body which you see and to drinke that blood which they will shed that shall crucifie me I haue commended a kinde of Sacrament vnto you which being spiritually vnderstood will quicken you Though it must be visibly colebrated yet is it inuisibly to be vnderstood Thus Augustine in plaine tearmes and yet if we beleeue these men the very same body of Christ that was then seene and that very same blood that was shed on the Crosse is orally eaten and drunke in the Eucharist ANd surely if the Authoritie of holy Fathers might preuaile with the Minister further then himselfe listeth he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that all the auncient Doctors expounding or treating of Christs words Ioh. 6. haue literally vnderstood them of the Sacrament as learned Tolet Saunders Bellarmine and other of our diuines haue particularly prooued collecting from them inuincible Testimonies also to prooue the verity of our Sauiours body and blood really in the Sacrament conteined and receiued Insomuch as S. Austin affirmeth S. Iohn purposely to haue emitted all mention of the Sacrament in our Sauiours last Supper because he had in the 6. Chap. of his Gospell so particularly expressed the promised excellency and heauenly fruits thereof and many euident and vnanswerable Arguments are by Catholike expositors of that Chapter made to prooue the same which with silence my Aduersarie ouerpasseth First for example our Sauiour from the 31. to the 60. verse of that Chapter maketh a difference betwixt the gift which his Father had giuen to the Iewes louing the world so as to giue his onely begotten Sonne for it and the gift which himselfe meant to giue to them speaking of the one as a gift already past but of the other as of a gift afterwards to bee giuen vnto them Secondly He compareth the eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna in the desert which was a corporall food really eaten by them Thirdly If by eating his flesh and drinking his blood our Sauiour meant no other thing then that they should beleeue in him it had beene a strange course in him who so thirsted after the saluation of soules by an obscure manner of speaking to driue away so many such persons especially as had formerly followed him without any word added which might open this obscure doctrine vnto them as Card. Tollet excellently relateth there the whole processe of our Sauiours doctrine § 5. MY second Proposition is that Christ in that whole Discourse Iohn 6 doth not speake of the Eucharist That Augustine and diuers others of the ancient Fathers doe expound it of feeding on Christ yet not corporally but spiritually in the Sacrament for so Bishop Iansenius also ingenuously confesseth that Augustine holdeth it to be vnderstood of seeding on Christ spiritually not corporally yea and so Pope Innocent himselfe witnesse Durand and Biel and Peter Lombard also witnesse Bonâ—uenture expound it I deny not nor doth it at all impeach our cause in the maine point here in question of Christs corporall presence Yet the rather herein wee are inforced together with diuerse Popish writers to depart from them in that their exposition so farre forth as they vnderstand the same as directly speaking of the Eucharist as for the one moitie of that discourse also euen Bellarmine himself doth in regard of some erronious consequences that they were by that meanes enforced vnto which euen the Papists themselues now condemne and for other weighty reasons as in my first writing I shew Yea but Catholique Expositors saith this Answerer by many euident and vnanswerable Arguments haue prooued that it is so to be vnderstood which his Aduersarie also saith hee euerpasseth with silence And say I A Catholique Expositor in their language to wit Corn. Iansenius no Iesuite now for so this Answerer hath informed me and yet a Bishop of Flanders in a worke of his by common consent of the learned among them well approoued of they are the Popes owne Censurers wordes of it hath by euident and vnanswerable Arguments prooued that it cannot so bee vnderstood which this mine aduersarie also ouerpasseth with silence And the like also doth Frier Ferus and Gabriel Biel at large in the place aboue recited But hee will at length I hope say somewhat himselfe 1. Our Sauiour saith he maketh a difference there betweene the gift which his Father had â—iuen the Iewes and the gift that himselfe ment to giue speaking of the one as past of the other as to come This out of Bellarmine I maruell where this man learned his Logicke He neuer is luckie in the framing of his Consequences There is a difference betweene the gift that God the Father had giuen and the gift that Christ would giue Ergò Christs wordes must needs be vnderstood of his corporall presence in the Eucharist How hang these things together or by what necâ—ssity of consequence doth the one follow from the other For first Are they diuerse gifts that God
who I pray you doubteth of or denyeth ought that is here said who teacheth men to speake otherwise then Christ euer taught but they that tell vs of bread transubstantiated and of a body of Christ made of bread of Christs flesh contained in bread or vnder the accidents of bread and of his blood in the bread and his body by a concomitancie in the Cup c Who doubteth with vs of the truth of Christs body and blood For of the corporall presence of either in the Sacrament Hilarie hath not heere a word Or who denyeth but that by the receiuing of those venerable mysteries Christ is spiritually in vs and we in him Doth not the Apostle say of Baptisme that by it we are ingraffed into Christ and Chrysostome that by it we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Hilaries scope is to shew that Christ is one with God and his Father and we one with him not by consent of will onely as some Heretikes said but by a true and reall vnion yet spirituall as his words implie when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Vpon whinch wordes their owne Bishop Iansenius They saith hee that thus eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood either by such faith alone or in the Eucharist are said to haue Christ abiding in them and to abide themselues in him in regard of the true vnion of our nature with the diuine nature by the spirit of Christ whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature Yea those words of our Sauiour cannot be meant of Christ corporally receiued in the Eucharist nor could Hilarie so meane if he were otherwise of their minde appeareth For Christs body so taken as they imagine doth not abide long in those that so receiue it but by their owne doctrine goeth away againe I know not whither a while after Whereas by vertue of such receiuing Christ as our Sauiour there speaketh of We doe abide in him and he in vs that is we are most inwardly and inseparably knit vnto Christ and he vnto vs they are still Iansenius his tearmes and Hilarie also saith the same and obteine therefore thereby not a transitorie life as we doe by the eating of corporall meate that passeth est-soones away and abideth not in him that eateth it but life permanent and eternall Whence it is manifest also saith the same Author that all are not in this place said to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of his body and blood since that all such haue not Christ abiding in them But they eate his flesh and drinke his blood as he there speaketh who beleeuing that his flesh and blood were giuen on the Crosse for the Saluation of mankinde and that by vertue of the hypostaticall vnion they haue a power to giue life do either by such faith alone or in the holy Eucharist also receiue the Lord himselfe within themselues imbrace him and by faith fast clasping him so keepe him within them as one by whom whatsoeuer we desire commeth to vs and is conferred on vs. Thus he by whose words it plainely appeareth that our abiding in Christ and Christ in vs which Hilarie from our Sauiour speaketh of dependeth not vpon any such corporall presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament nor doth necessarily require the same which by their owne doctrine also it doth not effect Diuision 9. HIS next Argument drawen from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments is idle and forcelesse For wee denie not as there he supposeth the Sacramentall Signes containing the bodie of Christ vnder them to signifie somewhat distinct from themselues to wit the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace that worthily receiue them They signifie likewise Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion And so a thing considered in one manner may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured represented his owne bodie as now it is in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem on Palme Sunday figured his owne entrance into heauen afterwards as Eusebius Emissenus and other Fathers teach and as an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victories c. MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments whose nature is to signifie one thing and to be another The Argument is this No Signes or Sacraments are the same with that that they signifie But the bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood in the Eucharist They are not therefore essentially either To this idle and forcelesse Argument as he pleaseth to style it he thus answereth 1. That the Sacrament all Signes signifie the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace as also Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his Passion Now 1. what is this to mine Argument was this man thinke we euer a disputant that answereth Arguments on this wise which part of my Syllogisme I pray you is this Answer applied to I had thought that a Syllogisme being propounded the Answerer should either haue denied or distinguished of one of the former Propositions 2. It is not true that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are signes of these things Some affections of them and Actions vsed about them indeede are The bread and wine themselues are signes of spirituall nutriment not nutrition The eating and drinking is a signe of it Signes they are of Christs body and blood not of the dolorous seuering of them in the passion though their being apart is a signe of it also 3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen and an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie But 1. If signum res signata the Signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues as without all Question they are a Father may as well be a father to himselfe as a signe may be the signe of it selfe Not to adde that the Ancients as hath formerly beene shewen are wont to call the Sacraments pictures and pledges and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture or a pledge of it selfe 2. I might well put this Defendant to prooue that Christs transfiguration was a representation of his present glorification or that his entrance into Ierusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heauen whatsoeuer his bastardly Eusebius Emissenus say of it whose authoritie is no better then his owne 3. Let him haue what he would that the one was a type of the other Doth it follow Christs transfiguration was a type of his glorification therefore Christ was a type or a signe of himselfe 4. An Emperour and his victorie I suppose are not all
and thighes too And seeing hee had all the members of the body hee must needs haue a whole body that consisteth of those members Let vs reason backward as well wee may If Christ haue an entire body consisting of those limmes then he hath all those limmes whereof such a body consisteth And then let vs say to these as he then to them You heare of flesh and feet and hands and other limmes And doe you forge vs some Stoicall round bals and aiery dotages As these doe little round wafer-cakes which they beare vs downe to be Christs body He alludeth to the Stoicks who held that the Gods had some shape and that shape was as a body but yet no body and had as it were blood and yet no blood Wherein the Marcionites also in a manner agreed with them and our Romanists at this day with either imagining our Sauiour saith Tertullian to haue flesh hard without bones solide without muscles bloody without blood clad without coate speaking without tongue eating without teeth c. Whereupon Tertullian concludeth that since Christ had all his limmes when hee shewed them to his Desciplâ—s they that imagined such a Christ as this that deceiueth beguileth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings and taste too hee might haue said we at least may say should not bring him from heauen from whence the Marcionites said their Christ had his body though the Papists dare not say they haue theirs from thence but fetch him rather out of some iuglers box the Popish pyx or the like not to worke saluation but to make sport with This I haue the rather insisted vpon to shew how the Papists iump in their conceits about this their breaden God and strange fantasticall body that hath all parts of a mans body and yet none at all to be seen felt heard yea or vnderstood with the Hereticks of old time and to confirme these their dotages vse and vrge the very same Arguments that they then did by the ancient Fathers long since answered As also that the ancient Fathers vsed then the very same Arguments against them that we doe now against these which yet it pleaseth this vaine trifler to tearme grossely carnall and vnworthy to be answered § 2. Oh but saith hee it is a grosse kinde both of diuinity and philosophie fit for such a stupide Professor to hold that locall extention visiblitie palpability and other naturall accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by Gods omnipotency be severed from his owne body without the destruction of it 1. Yea and to omit that it is a very sorry shift to haue recourse to Gods omnipotency for the iustifying of such monstrous fictions and forged miracles as either in this their prodigious dotage or in their lying Legends they haue endeauoured to obtrude vpon the world To say that God can make Christs body to remaine still in his full stature and yet at the same time to be no bigger then to enter in at a mans mouth or goe downe a childs throat or to make a mans body consisting of flesh blood and bone to haue no dimensions or extention at all not other accidents and properties of a naturall body is manifestly to say that God can make a thing at the same time to be and not to be to be a body and no body which implyeth contradiction And those things that imply contradiction they theÌ„selues grant that God cannot doe For it were to make falshood truth which hee that is Truth it selfe can neuer doe 2. In this very manner also did the Heretickes reason as appeareth by Theodoret to maintaine their absurd dotages against the Orthodox Christians who likewise answered them then as wee doe these now There is nothing saith the Hereticke that God cannot doe Wee say that all things are possible with God And Iob saith that God can doe all things and there is nothing impossible with him There is nothing therefore but he can doe that is able to doe all things Now how doth the Orthodoxe disputer answer this God saith hee can do whatsoeuer he will But God neither can doe nor will any thing which is not agreeable to his owne nature As for example he cannot sin hee cannot ly nor do any vniust thing being iustice and truth it selfe Many things there are therefore that God that can doe all things yet cannot doe Yea it is a part of his power that he cannot doe them no argument at all of any impotency in him This was deemed a sufficient answere to those Heretikes then and may as well now be returned our Popish Adversaries fighting with the same weapons that they then did for points as absurd as euer any of them held Diuision 11. ANother Argument is by my Aduersarie tediously prosecuted pag. 12. wherein from Christs locall being still in heaven hee argueth and endeauoureth to prooue an vtter impossibility of his bodily being in the Sacrament Of which kinde of disputing I may fitly say with Saint Augustine Behold with what manner of Arguments humane infiâ—mity possessed with vanity contradicteth Gods omnipotency As if naturall vnder standing were able to comprehend the vtmost limit and extention of Gods power which is in it selfe infinite and inforutably manifested in many of his wonderfull miracles of which as I haue said no other reason can be giuen but that hee is omnipotent that did them and cannot deceiue vs when hee is pleased to testifie them Can wee conceiue for example the creation of the world of nothing at all preexisting the resurrection and repaire which God will make of all bodies so vtterly by frequent and successiue conuersions into other things altered and consumed the personall vnion of man with God the torment of soules and diuels wholly spirituall by corporall fire the consubstantiall subsisting of the divine nature simply one of it selfe in three distinct persons and other like mysteries of faith not conceiuable more then the bodily being of our Saviour in the Sacrament yet vpon the warrant of Scripture and doctrine of Christs Church faithfully by vs beleeued Can this Minister tell me to come more neerely to our purpose how our Sauiour appeared visibly to S. Paul on earth as diuerse plaine texts import particularly by Bellarmine produced and discussed and yet as himselfe will not deny still remaining in heauen Or can he tell me how our Sauiours body went out of his Sepulcher without remoouing that huge stone rolled afterward by the Angell from it Or how hee entred the house the doores being and remayning still shut vpon his disciples as for a great miracle the Euangelist recounted Or how he pierced the solide and huge Orbes of heauen in his ascension without making any hole in them Sithence it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place as for one bodie to be in many places And if according to
figuratiuely meant as where he saith that Christ suffereth that in the Sacrament that he did not suffer vpon the Crosse to wit the breaking euen of his bones which there he did not that the altar is bloodied with Christs blood as hee saith else-where that the people are all died red with it that the bread is Christs bodie which in propriety of sense saith Bellarmine is impossible and that by taking it we are not onely vniâ—ed to Christs body and become one body with Christ or Christs body and all of vs one body but that wee our selues are that selfe same bodie that we take Not vnlike that which Haimo hath that Christs naturall bodie and the Eucharisticallbread and the Communicants themselues are all but one and the same body Yea that he is to be vnderstood figuratiuely appeareth as by that that hee addeth there that like Eagles we must soâ—re aloft vp to heauen and not flagge downeward nor creepe below vpon the ground if wee will come at Christs body so by that which hee saith elsewhere that it was wine that Christ deliuered when hee deliuered this mystery that which hee prooueth also by the wordes of our Sauiour himselfe in the place before discussed I will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine Chrysostome saith that the Altar is bloodied with Christs blood and his body suffereth that there which really it doth not as the Apostle faith that Christ was crucified in the sight of the Galatians who in likely hood many of them neuer saw peece of his Crosse and as August saith he lies not that saith that Christ is immolated on easter-Easter-day in regard of the similitude that that Sacrament hath of his passion that that day is celebrated and in like manner may it very well be vnderstood when hee saith that Christs blood is in the Cup. Nor hindreth it but that this speech of Chrysostome may be taken tropically because he saith That that flowed out of Christs side as Augustine also though no friend to Transubst antiation is reported to say the same no more then it would haue hindered but that the Apostles words might haue bin takeÌ„ figuratiuely as Caietan also well obserueth hough of the Rocke hee should haue said That Rocke was that Christ that was crucified and died and rose againe from the dead § 10. In the next wordes hee commeth to prooue a Sacrifice there The very manner saith hee of Christs speeches Quod pro vobis datur quod pro vobis effundetur which is giuen for you which shall bee shed for you import plainly a Sacrifice which he hath as all that euer he hath almost out of Bellarmine As if those wordes had not a manifest relation to his passion which is a true Sacrifice indeed and a most perfect yea the full complement of all other that which their owne vulgar Translation also plainely importeth yeelding the wordes as they are also in the very Canon of the Masse by the future tense Tradetur effundetur shall be giuen shall be shed as hauing an eye to the passion then neere at hand wherein his body was to bee giuen and his blood to be shed So Gregorie of Ualence That is or shall be giuen or broken that is that shall bee offered by me for you being slaine or sacrificed on the Crosse as saith hee the Apostle himselfe also expoundeth it So Cardinall Hugh h He tooke bread and brake it thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Crosse and that hee did himselfe expose it to be so broken and crucified And when he said that shall bee shed he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue Yea so Card. Caietan who addeth also not vnfitly that Christs body is said then to be giuen and his blood to be shed because his passion was then in a manner begun l a plot being now laid for his life and his bodie and blood already bought and sold by them And to omit that Christs words concerning his bodie do no more intimate a present act of deliuering it then those wordes of his the like else-where n I lay downe my life for my sheepe Let him but shew vs how Christs blood is shed in this Sacrifice For as for Bellarmines bold assertion that bread is said to be broken when it is giuen by whole loaues and wine is said to bee poured out when it is giuen by whole hogs-heads or rundlets at least not by pots or pitchers full onely it is most senselesse and abfurd But why doth not this eager disputer vrge rather that which many of them doe that Christ bad them r Doe this that is as they senselesly expound it Sacrifice this For that is a maine pillar that they pitch much vpon Which expositioÌ„ yet as Bellarmine is almost ashamed of and blameth Caluin wrongfully as if he had wronged them therein by charging them with such expositions and arguments as they make not nor alleadge so Iansenius acknowledging ingenuously that some did so argue as indeede not a few doe yet confesseth that that is but a weake argument and granteth in effect that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be prooued that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice And is faine therefore to runne to tradition for it and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would haue it to be For Irenaeus saith he that liued neere the Apostles times calleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offred as types of Christs body and blood as also in regard of the thankesgiuing therein offred as well for the worke of our Creation as for the worke also of our redemption And howsoeuer this doughty Doctor say that our Sauiours words so plainly import it yet is their graund Champion Bellarmine where at large he debateth this businesse euill troubled to finde it out either in Christs Institution or in their owne Masse booke or to shew wherein it consisteth Where it is not indeede hee can easily tell vs but he cannot so easily tell vs where it is It is not he saith he in the oblation that goeth before Consecration for then not Christs body but bare bread should be sacrificed It is not in the Consecration for therein appeareth no oblation nor no sensible immutation which is needfull in an externall sacrifice It is not in the Oblation that commeth after Consecration for that oblation neither Christ nor his Apostles at first vsed It is not in the breaking for that is sometime â—mitted nor doe we saith vse such breaking as Christ did now adaies It is not in the peoples communication for then the
not taken nature away from it According to this forme he is not euery where For we must take heede that we doe not so maintaine the deitie of the Man that we ouerthrow the veritie of his Body In a word As the Angel reasoneth speaking to the women that sought Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe So reasoneth the same Augustine concerning Christs bodily presence reconciling those two places that might seeme the one to crosse the other Behold I am with you till the worlds end And Me shall you not haue alwaies with you ' ' In regard saith he of his Maiestie his prouidence his grace we haue him alwaies here But in regard of his flesh which the word assumed which was borne of the Virgin nailed on the crosse c. We haue him not alwaies And why so Because he is gone vp into heauen and he is not here And againe speaking of Christâ— being on earth and not in heauen as man and yet in both places as God Man according to his body is in a place and passeth from a place and when hee commeth to another place is not in that place from which he came But God is euery where and is not contâ—ined in any place So that the Romanists if they will haue Christs Body in the Eucharist they must fetch it out of Heauen and indeed as if they had so done they doe in their Masse request God to send his Angels to carry it vp againe thither And their Glosse saith that so soone as men set their teeth in it it retireth instantly thither though that crosse their common tenent Or rather they must frame a new body and so make Christ haue two bodies one that remaineth whole still in heauen and another that the Priest maketh or createth here vpon earth But what speake I of two Bodies Christ must haue as many seuerall Bodies as there be consecrated Hoasts for the whole Body of Christ they say is in each Hoast yea more then so there is an whole entire mans body flesh blood and bones with all limmes and lineaments for so it must needs be if it be Christs naturall Body not in euery Communicants mouth onely but in euery crum of the Hoasâ— that they breake of it when they crush it betweene their teeth as they also flatly and precisely affirme And by this reason the whole body of Christ against all reason For it is a principle in Nature that The whole is euer greater then any part shall be lesse in quantitie then the least limme or member of his Body then a nailes paring of his little finger then which nothing is more absurd and senselesse Euen an immortall body saith Augustine speaking of and instancing euen in Christs body is lesse in part then it is in the whole For a body being a substance the quantitie thereof consisteth in the greatnesse of bulke And since that the parts of a body are distant one from another and cannot all be together because they keepe each one their seuerall spaces and places the lesse parts lesser places and the great greater there cannot be either the whole quantitie or so great a quantitie in each single part but a greater quantitie in the greater parts and a lesser in the lesse and in no part at all so great a quantitie as in the whole But if their opinion be true any part of Christ is in quantitie as great and greater then his whole body and his whole body lesse then any part of it is But how will you say is Christs Body and Blood conneighed vnto vs or how is his flesh eaten and his blood drunke then in the Eucharist if it be not really there present I might with Aug. well in a word answer this Question How saith he shall I hold Christ when he is not here How can I stretch mine hand to Heauen there to lay hold on him Send thy faith thither saith he and thou hast him Thy forefathers held him in the flesh hold thou him in thy heart You haue him alwaies present in regard of his Maiestie but in regard of his Flesh as himselfe told his Disciples not alwaies But for fuller satisfaction I answer 1. Sacraments are seales annexed to Gods couenant And as a deede being drawne of the Princes gift concerning office land or liuelyhood and his broad seale annexed to it and that deede so drawne and sealed being deliuered that office or that land though lying an hundred miles of is therein and thereby as truly and as effectually conueighed and assured vnto the party vnto whom the same deede is so made and to whose vse and behoofe it is so deliuered as if it were really present So these seales being annexed to Gods Couenant of grace concerning Christ his Flesh and Blood and his Death and Passion and our title too and intereâ—t in either the things themselues euen Christs body and blood themselues though sited still in Heauen are as truly and as effectually conueighed with them and by them vnto the faithfull receiuer when they are to him deliuered as if they were here really and corporally present 2. We receiue Christ in the Eucharist as in the Word and Baptisme wherein also we doe truly receiue him yea and feede on his flesh and blood as well as in the Encharist albeit he be not corporally exhibited in either We are buried together with Christ saith the Apostle by Baptisme into his Death And h As many of you as haue beene baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. We are dipped in our Lords passion saith Tertullian Sprinkle thy face with Christs blood saith Hierome speaking of Baptisme that the destroyer may see it in thy forehead Thou hast Christ saith Augustine at the present by faith at the present by the signe of him at the present by the Sacrament of Baptisme at the present by the meate and drinke of the altar Yea No man ought to doubt saith Augustine but that euery Faithfull one is made partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ and that he is not estranged from the communion of that Bread and Cup though he depart out of this life ere he eate of that bread and drinke of that Cup because he hath that which that Sacrament signifieth And for the Word Christian men saith Origen eate euery day the flesh of the Lambe because daily they receiue the Flesh of Gods word And The true Lambe is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world for Christ our Passeouer is offred for vs. Let the Iewes in a carnall sense caete the flesh of a Lambe but let vs eate the flesh of the Word of God For he saith vnlesse ye eate my flesh ye shall haue no life in you This that I now speake is the Flesh of the Word
the praier added to it and the word spoken of it that maketh it profitable to the worthy receiuer But to say so or to thinke so of Christs blessed and glorious Body were most hideous most horrible Well therefore saith Ambrose It is not this Bread that goeth into the belly but the Bread of eternall life that sustaineth the substance of our soules And Augustine expressely telleth vs that We are not to eate that body that the Iewes saw nor drinke that blood which they shed that crucified Christ but there is a Sacrament commended vnto vs which being spiritually vnderstood will put life into vs. There can nothing be imagined more absurd saith Bellarmine himselfe then to thinke that Christs Body should nourish the mortall substance of mens bodies and so should be the foode not of the minde but of the belly But by the Popish doctrine this it must needs doe and worse then this the Popish doctrine therefore is most absurd Lastly what can be more horrible then to imagine that Christs body or any part of it should be not in the belly of a man but in the belly of a beast Christian eares saith Benauenture abhorre to heare that Christs body should be in the draught or in a mouses maw Yet by this Popish doctrine both the one the other too must needs be if a mouse chance as he may to meete with a consecrated Hoast Nor doe the Popish writers ordinarily make daintie of it to acknowledge as much If a pigge or a dogge saith Alexander of Hales should swallow downe an whole consecrated hoast I see not why or how Christs body should not passe into its belly And Thomas Aquinas A brute beast may by accident eate Christs body And Though a Mouse or a Dog eate a consecrated Hoast yet the substance of Christs body ceaseth not to be there no more then it doth if the Hoast be cast into the durt If it be said saith the Glosser that a mouse eateth Christs Body there is no great inconuenience in it since that the most wicked men that are receiue it Nene eateth Christs flesh saith Augustine but hee that first worshippeth it And I doubt much whether any of these dogs pigs or mice euer adored it howsoeuer Cardinal Bellarmine and some others tell vs either of an Horse or an Asse that worshipped the Hoast But let them and their brutish miracles and imaginations goe together Yet so necessarily doth this follow vpon their doctrine of the Eucharist that whereas some of their Doctors seeme to doubt what the mouse eateth when she meeteth with an Hoast and maketh a good meale of it And the great Master of the Sentences saith God knoweth for he knoweth not but he enclineth rather to thinke that the mouse eateth not Christs body though shee seeme so to doe whereupon the Masters of Paris giue him a wipe for it by the way and said the Master is out here And others of them to salue the matter would coine vs a new miracle and say that so soone as the mouses mouth commeth at it or her lips kisse it Christs Body conueigheth it selfe away and the bread miraculously commeth againe in the roome of it and this say they is the commoner and the honester opinion Here is miracle vpon miracle such as they are Yet Thomas Aquinas their chiefe Schooleman and one that could not be deceiued herein for they say that his doctrine of the Sacrament was confirmed by Miracle a woodden Crucifix miraculously saluting him with these words Thou hast written well of me Thomas telleth vs peremptorily that it cannot be otherwise if Christs body be in the Eucharist but that Mice and Rats must eate it when they meete with the Hoast and make meate of it Some say saith he that so soone as the Sacrament is touched by a dogge or a mouse Christs Body ceaseth to be there But this opinion derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament Thus you may see what hideous horride and horrible conclusions this carnall and Capernaiticall conceite of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist hath bred and brought forth and must needs breede and bring forth with all those that vphold it The Summe of all that hath beene said 1. THat there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may not be figuratiuely vnderstood is by Cardinal Caietan confessed 2. That our Sauiours words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be vnderstood not corporally but spiritually is acknowledged by many Popish writers of great note and is beside other Reasons by a Rule giuen by Augustine euidently prooued 3. That the Elements in the Sacrament remaine in Substance the same and are not really transubstantiated into Christs Body and Blood is euinced by diuers Arguments 1. From the Course of the Context which plainely sheweth that Christ brake and deliuered no other then he tooke and blessed 2. From the expresse words of Scripture that calleth the one Bread and the other Wine euen after consecration 3. From the Nature of Signes whose propertie it is to be one thing and to signifie another thing 4. From the Nature of Christs Body that hath flesh blood and bones which the Eucharisticall bread hath not that which our taste our sight and our sense informeth vs by which our Sauiour himselfe hath taught vs to discerne his body 5. From the nature of euery true Body such as Christs is which cannot be in many places at once nor haue any part of it greater then the whole 6. From the qualitie of the Communicants good and bad promiscuously feeding on the Elements in the Eucharist whereas none but the faithfull can feede vpon Christ. 7. From these infirme and vnseemely yea foule and filthy things that doe vsually or may befall the Elements in the Eucharist which no Christian eare can endure to heare that they should befall Christs blessed and glorious body Whence I conclude that since this Corporall presence such as the Church of Rome maintaineth hath no warrant from Gods word as their owne Cardinal confesseth and is besides contrary to Scripture to nature to sight to sense to reason to religion we haue little reason to receiue it as a truth of Christ or a principle of Christianitie great reason to reiect it as a figment of a mans braine yea as a doctrine of the diuell inuented to wrong Christ and Christianitie It is the Rule of a Schooleman We ought not to adde more difficultie vnto the difficulties of Christian beliefe But rather according to that which the Scripture teacheth we should endeauour to cleere that that is obscure And therefore since that the one manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist is cleerely possible and intelligible whereas the other is not intelligible yea nor possible neither it seemeth probable that that manner of his presence that is
that is the meate that I will giue is my flesh it selfe that is to be crucified and staine for the saluation of mankind And he addeth that peraduenture our Sauiour called his flesh sometimes bread to shew that vnder the species of bread it was to be eaten So that all the force of Bellarmines Argument is but meerely coniecturall and dependeth vpon a peraduenture which hee cannot certainely auerre But without all peraduenture hee affirmed before that the bread of which our Sauiour said My Father giueth you the true bread from heauen and The bread of God is hee that came from heauen and giueth life to the world and I am the bread of life hee that commeth to mee shall neuer hunger and hee that beleeueth in mee shall neuer thirst and I am the bread that came downe from heauen and againe I am the bread of life and This is the bread that came downe from heauen that whosoeuer eateth thereof should neuer die and I am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer that the bread I say of which hee said all this was not the Encharist or the sacramentall bread and none of all this directly and properly concerneth it And well may wee put it out of peraduenture that the bread of which our Sauiour saith it is his flesh that he wil giue for the life of the world and whosoeuer eateth of it hath life euerlasting which no man also can haue without it is no other then that of which hee had before said that it is himselfe and that it giueth life to the world and life euerlasting to euery one that eateth of it the rather also for that our Sauiour himselfe so informeth vs when he saith not passing as Bellarmine would haue it from a second bread to a third but more particularly expressing what the second bread was and repeating more fully what before hee had said I am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer and the bread that I will giue what bread thinke we but the same that he was euen then speaking of which yet was none of the sacramentall bread saith Bellarmine is my flesh that I will giue for the life of the world Those ensuing passages therefore are not meant of the sacramentall bread or the Eucharist no more then the former But leaue wee Bellarmine and returne we to this our Defendant whom we are principally now to deale with His last Argument out of Tolet is not so much for the Eucharist as against the spirituall eating Christs flesh and drinking his blood by faith If our Sauiour had meant nothing but that they should beleeue in him it had been a strange course by such an obscure manner of speaking to driue away so many that had formerly followed him and beleeued in him without any word added that might open this darke doctrine To omit that here againe he departeth from Augustine who saith thus expresly Our Lord being about to giue the holy Ghost called himself bread exhorting vs tobeleeue in him For to beleeue in him is to eate that liuing bread He that beleeueth in him feedeth on him he is fatted inuisibly because he is inuisibly bred againe he is there filled where he is renewed And again They that shed Christs blood drank his blood whē they beleeued in him and they drank it by beleeuing in him 1. It pleased our Sauiour sometime as to Nicodemus and to the people oft-times to speake things in obscure Parables which yet to them he did not explicate Nor may any taxe the wisedome of Christ without impiety for so doing Yea so saith Augustine he spake that here which he would not haue all to vnderstand 2. Those that went away from him vpon it were as our Sauiour himselfe intimateth such as followed him onely to be fed and did not beleeue in him 3. If his meaning had beene that they were to eate of his very flesh it selfe miraculously made of bread as these men would make vs beleeue had it not beene as obscure and as difficult for them to haue conceiued it 4. It is not true that our Sauiour added nothing to explicate himselfe Augustine in the place before cited sheweth that he did And both in the beginning when hee first told them of this bread and d they desired him euer to giue them of it he maketh them answer in these words I am the bread of life Hee that commeth to me shall neuer hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst and in the processe of his speech againe Uerely verely I say vnto you Hee that beleeueth in mee hath life euerlasting Whereby saith Iansenius they might well haue vnderstood in what manner hee would giue them his flesh to eate Who also thence gathereth agreeably to Augustine and other of the Ancients that it is all one to feed on Christ and to beleeue in him As also in the Conclusion and shutting vp of all when hee saw how they mistooke him It is the spirit that quickneth the flesh availeth nothing the wordes that I speake are spirit and life In which wordes saith the same Iansenius out of Chrysostome Theophylact and Augustine hee sheweth how they should vnderstand what before he had said MY Aduersaries Arguments to the contrary are meerely topicall and prooue nothing For first it is false that the faithfull Iewes before Christ did sacramentally receiue our Sauiour as well as we which hee barely affirmeth and prooueth not page 7. Secondly those words of Christ Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you was a precept respectiuely giuen and onely obliging such persons to an actuall receiuing of the Sacrament as they were to whom it was vttred such persons to wit as are by age capable of Sacramentall manducation And surely if Christs words be onely vnderstood as my Aduersarie would haue them of spirituall eating Christ by faith they must necessarily import a precept more impossible to be fulfilled by children then sacramentally to receiue him For sooner may children receiue the Sacrament especially drinke of the consecrated Chalice as anciently in the Greeke and Latine Churches they were went to doe then actually beleeue in him His next Argument pag. 8. maketh more if this Minister had wit to discerne the force thereof against his owne exposition of Christs words then it doth against our vnderstanding of them For as all that receiue Sacramentally Christs flesh and blood are not saued no more are all that spiritually and by faith eate him This being sufficient for the veritie of our Sauiours speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce those excellent and
one no more then Christs body and the glorification of it nor againe the transfiguration the present glorification The Argument therefore is neither idle nor forcelessâ— for ought that he hath yet shewed Diuision 10. HIs next Argument pag. 13. is grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered For who but a babbling ignorant Person would as he doth there make such an inference Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his passion which tediously and needelesly he prooueth But they are not so in the Eucharist Ergo the naturall parts of Christs bodie are not at all in it For if the Argument were good we might rightly inferre that Christ had no body at all when in Emaus for example after he had blessed and brake bread he vanished out of the Disciples sight when he hid himselfe from the Iewes who would haue stoned him in the Temple not by running into a corner as this grosse fellow peraduenture may of Christ basely and vnworthily imagine but by becomming vndiscernable by them as he became also inuisible and impalpable to the Nazarites holding and drawing him towards the hill on which there Citie was built whence they ment to tumble him As if locall extension visibilitie palpabilitie and other naturall Accidents and sensible properties could not by Gods omnipotency be seuered from his owne bodie without the totall destruction thereof This is a grosse kinde of Philosophie and Diuinitie fit for such a stupide Professour MY fourth Argument was taken from the Nature of Christs Body which hath slesh blood and bones is an organicall body endued with limmes and lineaments yea and life too Whereas that which is giuen and receiued in the Eucharist is as Epiphanius well obserueth liuelesse and limmelesse c. Now here according to his vsuall manner he letteth the Argument goe and falleth to raile downe right that it is an argument grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered of a babbling and ignorant person and a stupide professour He sheweth where his shoe wringeth him Yet that he may not seeme to say nothing to it he frameth me an Argument of his owne on this wise Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his Passion But they are not so in the Eucharist ergò Whereas I tell him that Christs body hath flesh blood and bones and sense and life and limmes and lineaments of a body organicall But their silly sorry wafer-cake hath none of all these And then he telleth vs that I might as well affirme that Christ had no body when at Emaus hee vanished out of the sight of his Disciples when he hid himselfe from the Iewes that would haue stoned him in the Temple when he passed through the midst of them that would haue thrown him downe head-long c. 1. Let him prooue vnto vs that at any of these times those that had Christs body in their hands to feele at their pleasure as his Disciples had when hee appeared vnto them after his passion and resurrection which in prosecution of mine Argument I produce also and presse did finde it and feele it to haue neither hands nor feete flesh blood nor bone life nor limme and the consequence shall then bee granted him but neuer till then And looke what limmes and lineaments our Sauiour then had when hee was here on earth the same he retaineth still Augustine demanded whether Christs body had bones and blood still and other bodily limmes and lineaments I beleeue saith he that Christs body is now in heauen as it was on earth when he went vp into heauen For so when the Disciples doubted whether it were a body or a spirit that they saw he had them see and feele his hands and feete for that a spirit had not flesh and bones as they saw that hee had So he was on earth so he was seene to be when he went to heauen and so shall he as the Angell told come againe from thence But such wee are sure their little breaden God is not It is none of Christ therefore 2. Looke how this man argueth so did the Heretâ—kes of old to prooue our Sauiour Christ to haue an aiery spirituall aad fantasticall body Let it not deceiue you you simple sots saith Iohn of Ierusalem when you reade that Christ shewed Thomas his hands and his side or when you heare him say that he hath flesh and bones These things he made some shew of indeede to strenghthen the saith of his doubting Disciples But he shewed that hee had an aiâ—ry and spirituall body in truth when he came to his Disciples while the doores were shut and hee vanished out of their sight And to the like purpose did the Marciâ—nites vrge his escape froÌ„ those of Nazareth Now what do the ancient Fathers hereunto answer That Christs body saith Tertullian is no fancy euer hereby appeareth in that it endâ—red violent handling when hee was taken and held and haled to the hill-brow For albeit hee made an escape through the midst of them being first forcibly held and after let goe either the throng being dissolued or forcibly broken through yet was it not by any fantasticall delusion For he had a true body still and hands that hee touched others still with and were by them felt and then his body belike was not impalpable as this fellow saith it was And againe when Christ sheweth his Disciples his hands and his feet without doubt he hath hands and feet and bones which a spirit hath not And Ierome refuting Iohn of Ierusalem As Christ shewed his Disciples true hands and a true side so hee ate truely with them spake with his tongue truely to them and with his hands truely brake and reached them out bread For that he suddenly vanished out of their sight as before his passion also at Nazareth he passed through the midst of them that is he made an escape out of their hands it was done by his diuine power not by any fantasticall delusion Could not Christ doe as much as some Magitians haue done Apollonius as he stood in the Court before Domitian vanished suddenly out of sight Yet doe you not therefore match Christs power with Magicians iuglings in making him seeme to bee that that hee was not to eate without teeth breake bread without hands walke without feet speake without tongue shew a side without ribs And whereas it might be demanded how it came to passe that those two Disciples did not know him till a little before hee left them Ierome maketh answer out of the Text it selfe that it was not because his body was not the same it had beene but because their eyes were held that they might not know him And the same Ierome else-where dealing against the same dotages Christ saith hee had hands and sides had breast and bellie too he that had hands and feete had armes
Bodies without bignesse Parts bigger then the whole The whole lesse then the least part A growne mans entire body with all limmes and toynts of it couched and cooped vp in a thinne wafer-cake and in every crum of it The same body that is entire in heauen still in a thousand places entire too at the same time here on earth and yet never stirre an inch from the place that in heauen it still holdeth These are magicall mysteries indeed which it is no maruell if this ignorant Minister cannot conceiue 2 Yea but our Sauiours wordes of a Camell passing through a needles eye sheweth that a body may be freed from it exterior bignesse and locall extension that is as much as if hee had said they shew that a bodie may become no bodie and yet be a body still The speech is hyperbolicall and no more prooueth a possibility of the thing therein spoken as Piscator well obserueth answering Bellarmine from whom he here hath it then of many other things spoken commonly in speeches of the like kinde Quantitie saith Bonaventure is of the verity of a body and a true bodie consequently cannot bee without it And though it were granted that some substance might bee without quantitie yet it cannot be that any quicke or organicall body such as a Camels is and such as hee granteth Christs to be should be without it Yea and therefore also not the veritie onely as this fellow would haue it but the quantity also as Bonauenture auoweth and this fellow denieth that is the exterior bignesse of Christs body must needs bee with it in the Sacrament if it bee at all there 3. To conclude this wilde discourse indeed because we are in it compelled to follow one that turneth round till hee be giddy againe when wee reason thus from the nature and property of a true body to be but in one place wee reason no otherwise howsoeuer hee esteeme it a wilde kinde of reasoning then wise and learned men yea Angels too haue taught vs to reason For as the Angell reasoneth with the nomen that came to seeke Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe which were no good Argument if his bodie might haue beene in two places at once So the ancient Fathers also reason in their disputes against Heretikes where it stood them vpon to speake warily and not to argue wildly as this giddy braines tearmeth it Christs body saith Theodoret albeit it be now glorified yet is a bodie still and hath the same circumscriptiō that before it had Which as the Angels teach shall come in the same manner as it was seene goe to heauen But they saw it then circumscribed Yea our Lord himselfe saith You shall see the Son of Man come in the clouds But that nature cannot be seene that is not circumscribed He sheweth then that his body is circumscribed It is not therefore changed into another nature but it remaineth still a true body though filled with divine glory So Fulgentius One and the same Christ saith hee is both locall man of man and God infinite of his Father One and the same according to his humane nature absent from heauen when he was here vpon earth and leaving the earth when he went vp into heauen but according to his divine and infinite nature neither leaving heauen when he came downe from heauen nor forsaking the earth when hee went vp into heauen Which may most certainely bee gathered from his owne wordes who to shew that his humanity was locall said I goe vp to my Father c. Now how went he vp into heauen but because hee was locall and true man Or how is hee yet present with his faithfull ones but that hee is infinite and true God And Uigilius most euidently against Eutyches to passe by all other places which are more then one in him If the Word saith hee and the Flesh were both of one nature how should not the flesh bee euery where as well as the word For when it to wit Christs flesh or his body his humanity was on earth it was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen it is not on earth for that according to it we expect Christ to come from heauen whom according to the Word that is his Deitie we beleeue to be with vs on earth It is apparent therefore that the same Christ is of a twofold nature and is every where indeed according to the nature of his diviniti◠but is cōtained in a place according to the nature of his humanity And hee concludeth his discourse thus This is the Catholike Faith and Confession which the Apostles haue deliuered Martyrs haue confirmed and the faithfull keepe to this day And if this be so then sure the Popish doctrine that affirmeth the cleane contrary to it is not Diuision 12. PAge 16. and 17. My Adversarie wisely after his accustomed manner vndertaketh by comparisons to declare the true manner of Christs body and blood being conveighed vnto vs in the Sacrament and that so easily as if there were no difficulty at all in the explication thereof whereas Caluin himselfe accounteth it an inconceiuable and vnexplicable mysterie worthy with wonder and astonishment to bee by vs beleeved how to wit Christs body so remotely distant as heauen is from the earth can be eaten and receiued by vs. Wee confesse it saith Beza to be an incomprehensible mystery wherein it commeth to passe that the same body which is and still remaineth in heauen and is no where but there should be truely cōmunicated to vs who are now on earth and no where else This indeed is a mystery and true Iewell of Protestanticall doctrine harder to be conceived as Caluin Beza and other chiefe Calvinists seeme sometime to meane it then to conceiue all those true miracles which we teach to be wrought by God in the consecration and vse of this wonderfull Sacrament Yea surely it implyeth an evident contradiction that Christs body should be truely given together with the sacramentall signes as Caluin expressely affirmeth and so by vt eaten that is no neerer then the top of heauen is to the mouth of such as receiue him If by faith onely and a gratefull memory of his passion we eate Christ in the Sacrament as this Minister solueth the former riddle no more present therein nor in any other manner conioyned with the sacramentall signes then the land conveighed by an Indenture sealed is present or conveighed with the seale thereof or then he is present in the water of Baptisme they are his owne comparisons then is their Sacrament a bare signe and figure of Christs body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration in it For what wonder is it for a man to eate one thing thinking vpon another bread for example remembring our Saviours passion And then are Caluin Beza
eate vnworthily of it as some did of the Manna and eternally died But heare we Augustine in a word what hee saith hereof and so learne we to expound Augustine and other the Ancients not by this idle fellowes friuolous conceits but by Augustine himself The Sacrament hereof saith hee to wit of Christs body and blood and our vnion with either is taken at the Lords table by some to life by some to death But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is taken by euery one that partaketh thereof to life by none to death And if of all to life by none to death then vndoubtedly not vnworthily or vnprofitably of any Diuision 14. LAstly when pag. 19 20 21 22 and 23. hee argueth that Christs body cannot be in the Eucharist first because then it should be broken as the bread is broken Secondly it should be subiect to many vndecencies as corruption putrefaction mice-eating and other foule abuses apt to happen to the bread and wine of the Sacrament I answer him that Christs body being in it selfe now glorious and impossible and after a spirituall and indivisible manner present in the Sacrament cannot be in it selfe broken or otherwise abused then Angels in assumped bodies can bee wounded or then the Maiesty of the diuine person in Christ was by thornes torne nayles pierced or other torments defaced for all such indignities and painfull alterations were immediately onely inflicted on the corporall nature of our Sauiour defaced vtterly by them and touched not immediately the diuine person albeit personally therein subsisting So all indignities and alterations happening to the sacramentall signes touch not at all the body it selfe of our Sauiour impassibly and iudiuisibly vnder them more then the maiesty it selfe of the diuine nature-present in all creatures is defiled in fonle places c. Such Arguments as these made against our Sauiours reall true presence in the Sacrament by our inconsiderate Aduersaries are like to those other Arguments wont to bee made by the Eutycheans Nestorians Arians and other ancient Heretickes against the diuinity of our Sauiour and personall vnion of two natures in him as that it was not fit or reasonable to be conceiued that either God so vnited with man or man deified by personall assumption should be torn with whips thornes and nayles spet vpon buffeted and finally die in agonies and torments that fleas and flies should sucke the blood of God bite his flesh c. which indeed is more then can be done vnto the same as it is here in the Sacrament euen when mice eate the sacramentall signes or when in our stomacks wee receiue them or by fire wee consume them or â—…wise abuse theÌ„ Christ being not quantitatiuely and corporally with them extended and so not to be touched or altered by any corporall action done about them And holy soules considering with what humility and effusion of his bounty the Son of God was pleased to institute this great Sacrament affording therein for his glory and our great good his owne comfortable presence vnto vs haue iust reason to cry out his mercy and to admire his wisedome power and goodnesse wonderfully manifested in this second exhiminition of himself as I may iustly call this Sacramentall presence or hiding of himselfe in this Sacrament to become thereby an heauenly food and diuine refection of soules deuontly receiuing him as also a louing spouse visiting embracing delighting adorning and enriching them with his presence daily triumphing himselfe in his victory ouer Sathan and our redemption solely and abundantly purchased by his passion and making vs also to triumph with him And whereas the Diuell once by his ministers Iewes and Gentiles caused his blood to be separated from his body he deuised to haue that real separation mysteriously continued and daily exhibited to the fâ—ce of his eternall Father for vs which is the declaring of the Lords death till he come mentioned by the Apostle MY last Argument is taken from those things that are done aboâ—… or may befall the consecrated creatures which if they be Christs body and blood must needs befall Christ as fraction corruption putrefaction mitebreeding mice eating c. To this he answereth 1. That though these things be done to or befall the Sacrament yet Christs body being now glorious and impassible and after a spirituall and indiuisible manner present it can no more thereby be broken and abused then Angels in assumpted bodies can be wounded or Christs Deity was wounded or pierced on the Crosse. 1. We take what hee granteth Christs body is now glorious and impassible and therefore not subiect vnto such indignities as these creatures are and the one consequently is not the other Yea is Christs body it self impassible What is it then that as Origen speaketh goeth into the draught c. which this Defendant taketh no notice of because hee knoweth not what to say to it Or let him resolue what those ashes that they will to be reserued for reliques or what those mites are made of that breed in the consecrated bread when either they burne it and so deale with it as they doe with Heretickes or reserue it ouer long 2. It is present in a spirituall manner Had hee but added onely he had marred all hee had beene a foule Hereticke and perchance might fare no better if he would stand to his words then this their little God almighty doth when he groweth hoary But is hee come to that now Christ is spiritually in the Sacrament What is become I maruell of that carnall and corporall presence then that they prate so much of and for want whereof they so much vilifie the Protestantical CoÌ„munion Or what is the reason why hee could not endure to heare that those wordes of our Sauiour of eating his flesh Iohn 6. should be spiritually vnderstood 3. If these things cannot befall Christs body because it is after a spirituall manner present then belike these things may befall it yea must needs befall it when they doe fall out if it be present in a carnall or corporall manner which Bellarmine granteth it is and they sticke not vsually to afifrme 4. If Christs body bee in an indiuisible manner there what is it that is there broken Or what did our Sauiour breake at his last Supper at which time also his body was not indiuisible or impassible Or how doth Pope Nicholas tel vs that Christs body it selfe is sensually broken Where marke I pray you how the Arguments and Allegations produced to prooue the thing broken in the Sacrament to be bread and to shew the absurdity of their doctrine in this point as well of Pope Nicholas that saith that Christs very body it selfe is broken and torne in peeces as also of others that say that nothing is broken at all or nothing but accidents only here is not a word answered The hoast they say is Christs body and the Priest breaketh the hoast and yet he