should I that cannot tell how who can doo it my body is nourished by the ordinary meat and drink I take yet is that familiar and in vse euery day When Christ gaue it he said This is my body Saint Paul repeating the Institution saith This is my body It was neuer denied to bee his body it is affitmed still to be his body Mad Papist that imputest to poor Protestants an Idoll a Chimaera of thy owne brain that The bread is but a figure and no more of Christs body Protestants say it not they neuer said it As commonly it happeneth that all Reformations or Innouations are vpon and into extremes so some happely haue that departed long since from the Church of Rome But what is that to our Church that publiquely priuately all and som directly maintains the clean contrary Your great Aduiser C. W. B. hath said enough could he see what himself hath said or you vnderstand what hee alledgeth to stop the mouth of such Gabblers as you and he for euer in the coÌ„trary assertions of the Protestants But the diuell bred you in a Faction and brought you vp in a Faction and sent you abroad to do him seruice in maintaining a Faction otherwise acknowledge there is there need bee no difference in the point of reall presence See your Fathers if I doo I shall doo more than you haue done for I auow it you neuer read Ignatius for this Read that Epistle ouer vnto the Smyrneans and see if you finde any such thing there if you doo then trust not mee again if you doo not what descrueth that impudent imposture S. Ignat. in his Epist ad Smyr But I can shew you better euidence for Bread and Wine out of Ignatius pag. 125. edit Paus Maestrei The flesh of our Lord Iesus Christ is one His Bloud one which was shed for vs also one Bread was broken for all one Cup distributed vnto all Bread and Wine after consecration Both distributed to all against your halfe Communion And againe pag. 261. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Breaking one Bread which is the medicine procuring Immortality Thus I finde nothing in Ignatius for you this I haue and happly more could against you were I desirous with you to maintaine a faction Iustin Martyrs testimony I acknowledge in the end of his Apologie and willingly make his words our owne For wee doe not receiue these things as common Bread or common Drink but euen as our Lord Sauiour Iesus Christ by the Word of God becomming flesh had flesh bloud for our sakes so are we taught that the food which was blessed by him in the Word and Prayer through which food beeing altered and changed our flesh and bloud is sustained becommeth the flesh and bloud of him that Iesus who took our flesh in his Incarnation Thus that antient Father not fully represented by your director who saith not any thing that Protestants deny For they confesse They eat the flesh of the Sonne of God and drink his bloud they are one with him and hee with them but commeth not home to the Papists Resolution that wee eate it and drink it by Transubstantiation but the contrary for but foure lines before hee calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration Those saith hee whom wee call Deacons doe giue to euery one that is there present part of the Bread Wine and Water consecrated Saint Cyprian Serm. 5. de lapsis Now good Sir Gagger can you tell how many Sermons de lapsis Saint Cyprian wrote ignorant Asse and yet bold Bayard Saint Cyprian wrote no Sermons de lapsis hee wrote a booke de lapsis diuided into sections by some or other But Reader see the audacious Dunsery of this Ignaro C. W. B. had in his Catalogue of the Fathers of the third Age for transubstantiation cited Cyprian thus Ser. 5 de lapsis for Sect. 5. de lapsis vnlesse he also took his Authors by tale vpon trust and Ser. de coena Domini This blunderer stumbled vpon the first false or true to purpose or not all was one to him and set it downe the second quotation hee left out yet that is it which hee should haue taken for in the first Sect. 5. de lapsis there is nothing in the second Ser. decoena Domini as he will haue it though it bee no Sermon Sect. 6. there is thus The Bread which our Lord reached vnto his Disciples beeing changed not in appearance but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh Saint Cyprian said as much as this once or twice before No man denyeth a change an alteration a transmutation a transelementation as they speake no man otherwise beleeueth but that the naturall condition of the Bread consecrated is otherwise then it was beeing disposed and vsed to that holy vse of imparting Christ vnto the Communicants Stay heere be contented with That it is and doe not seeke nor define How it is so and we shall not contest or contend with you Hoc Sacramentum aliquando corpus suum aliquando carnem sanguinem aliquando panem Christus appellat portionem vitae aeternae cuius secundum haec visibiâ—ia corporali communicauit Naturâ— Panis iste communis in carnem et sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam et incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum et non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione Christo nos vniri Thus the same Saint Cyprian so we we confesse it we beleeue it we cannot comprehend it Saint Ambrose saith no more then wee will subscribe Lib. 4. de sacramentis Before consecration it was Bread common ordinary meere Bread but after consecration it becommeth the flesh of Christ because then the Sacrament is consummate But doth Saint Ambrose tell you how it is so made That I finde not that I expect that I must finde or I finde nothing to your purpose One Father yet you adde Saint Remigius saith but you cannot tell where your Director told you it was in his comments vpon the 10. Chap. 1. ad Corinth The flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgins wombe and the Bread consecrated in the Church are the same body And yet beeing consecrated he calleth it Bread How can your Saint Remigius make that good Hee should haue said for doubtlesse hee meant so The Bread which was beeing consecrated in the Church is transubstantiated into that flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgins womb and becom the same body This Remigius saith not a great signe hee meant not And indeed hee did not meane it hee goeth no further then Reality he determineth not modum praesentiae at all And yet this Remigius is not peraduenture the man you would haue him namely Saint Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes who conuerted King Clouis of France to the Christian Faith who liued within 500
be Our Sauiour had formerly discoursed of eating his flesh and drinking his blood His very Disciples supposing as you doe that he meant they should eate his Flesh as they did the Fishes or vsed to eate the Paschall Lambe were here it offended Our Sauiour vnderstanding this their scandall replyeth in these words according to your Latin Authenticall edition Hoe vos scandalisat spiritus est qui viuificat caro non prodest quicquam verba quae ego locotus sum vobis spiritus vitasunt You remember an allegation you brought out of S. Paul If these things be hidden they are hidden vnto those that perish I put it to you if this be obscure it is obscure to him that will not see or to him who iustly God hath abandoned and giuen ouer Nothing can be more direct and plaine then that our Sauiour telleth them his speech of eating his flesh was Sacramentall not carnally but spiritually to be vnderstood This is it saith Chrysostome which he meaneth You must conceiue of me spiritually For he that taketh this carnally is not benefitted thereby nor getteth any good therewith It was a carnall thought to make a doubt in what sort he came downe from heauen And to suppose him the sonne of Ioseph And to dispute how can he giue vs his flesh to eate All these were carnall thoughts which must be mystically and spiritually vnderstood The words that I speake vnto you are spirit and life that is are diuine and spirituall hauing nothing carnall not any inference or consequence naturall But are freed from all such necessity as this surpassing legal tyes and conditions below conteining another sense and meaning then is literally set downe If this be not an important passage goe gagge Saint Chrysostome and other ancient Fathers that put this saying into the Protestants mouths as plaine a text of Scripture as in the beginning God made heauen and earth Plaine or obscure yet to no purpose For it affirmeth nothing lesse then that which they pretend to prooue thereby And what is that are you aware of it That the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing It is plaine the flesh profiteth nothing It is plaine the passage is of Christs flesh Therefore the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing This you say is absurd And so say I nay I adde this is impious For his Flesh is life and giueth life and therefore nothing profiteth so much as that If the passage be not of Christs flesh of what is it can you tell I beleeue you cannot But your instructors can tell you they would haue it taken that Carnalis intelligentia non prodest Good And so say I. But Intelligentia cuius of a certaine indiuiduum vagum abstrahendo from all subiect or obiect whatsoeuer Idle and absurd But Carnalis intelligentia of that which must bee taken spiritually And so of this place and principally and primarily of this place as giuing occasion vnto this Axiome of our Sauiour The flesh profiteth not This is not vrged by Peter Martyr or any Protestant against Hoc est corpus meum This is my body but against This is my body by this means This way that is by Transubstantiation Which is carnally to take that which was spoken and intended spiritually onely It is easily granted you by the Protestant and you might haue made your friends of this aduice that way That it is doubtlesse better to explicate an obscure passage by one that is cleere then one that is cleere by a passage obscure For reason it selfe and commonsense will dictate this that the proofe must be more euident then the thing prooued The epexegesis more manifest then that which is explaned The Protestants obserue this course they say You in this so small a Pamphlet as I haue let you see are culpable that way more then once It is much more cleere and euident what our Sauiour meaneth by Flesh and Spirit Then how This can be my body Sic etiamsi carnem ait nihil prodesse ex materia dicti dirigendus est sensus Nam quia durum intolerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasset vt in spiritu disponeret statum salutis praemisit spiritus est qui viuificat Atque ita subiunxit caro nihil prodest ad viuificandum scilicet Tertul. de Resur cap. 37. Intanglements and obscurities in this place if there be any proceede from your glosses not the places nor yet the Resolutions of antiquity Were your rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That one text shold giue place to many rather then many vnto one or fewer yet apply that rule you may where it will or neede be fitted here no neede of any such aduise at all where Alterius sic alter poscit opem locus conspirat amicé The fourth will hardly come vnder the title of aduice it is rather a vaunt at most and best an Information what is obserued in the Gagge concerning texts out of Scriptures Apocryphall to make good the assertions against the Protestants The man supposed exception would sometime be put in against some of his witnesses though for my part I haue passed them all without putting backe any as homines legales to say what they could for he knew well enough they were exceptiue and not passeable in strict tearmes and iust exception Therfore to preuent what he feared their credit is salued as much as may be that is they are brought in as o in cypher to enhaunce the number onely so as they with others may make vp a tallie Others beside them passe currant and with weight They without others carry no credit Know saith he that to preuent this obiection viz. that the testimonies are authenticall no such scriptures as they call and haue prooued and will maintaine to be Apocrypha are here produced but still they goe accompanyed with others that are Canonicall by their owne confession Which I grant is obserued for the most part at least Nor will we refuse a testimony of Aristotle or Demosthenes that agreeth with and commeth in with subordinate dependance vpon Scripture Where Scripture is apparant and consent incident and manifest But non feremus as in the point of Purgatory is obtruded a plainer and more obuious place of Toby to interlope betwixt two Canonicall Texts the hardest two in Saint Paul and all agree in one as well as harpe and harrow nor any correspondency in the vinculo communi as is pretended to make vtraque vnum and all speake for that which is farre enough from all or any state of Purgatory after death The second branch of your fourth point I mislike not at all for the matter of it Scripture is not in the words but in the sense and meaning of the words that is in the notions and intents of the Spirit of the highest intimated vnder the couert of words There are moe things then words to expresse those things by Hence doubts and ambiguities doe
faciunt quod secus Christus c. The Cup of the Lord communicated to the Laity And again Quomodo possumus propter Christum sanguinem fundere qui sanguinem Christi erubescimus bibere By which reason of Saint Cyprian no Roman Lay-Catholique can shead his bloud for Christ that neuer drank the bloud of Christ Which argument he vseth in another place Epist 54. Sect. 2. With what ground can we teach or exhort them to shead their owne bloudin confessing the Name of Christ if putting them forth vpon that seruice wee denie them the bloud of Christ or how can wee dispose and fit them to drink the cup of Martyrdome vnlesse wee first admit them to their right of communication in drinking the Lords cup in the Church Let our good Catholiques answer this who so punctually forsooth and precisely follow the steps of Antiquity without any swaruing These are all within 300 yeers after Christ and all expresse for the Cup. Athanasius in his second Apologie being accused for breaking a Chalice writeth thus What manner of cup or when or where was it broken In euery house in euery shop there are many pots any which if a man break hee committeth not sacriledge But if any man willingly break the sacred chalice he committeth sacriledge but that chalice is no where but where there is a lawfull Bishop This is the vse destined to that chalice none other wherein you according to institution do drink vnto and before the Laity This was the custome in Athanasius time this in all the Fathers times as I could deduct almost out of euery one This is euery where the custome in all the world vnto this day but in the Roman exorbitant Church as Cassander saith and was not quite abolished in that Church till about 1300 yeeres after Christ and by much art colluding and fine forgery was retained from being cast out of that Church in the late Conuenticle of Trent onely kept-in for a faction but mightily opposed by learned honest and conscionable Catholiques For why who can alter Christ's Institution who dare change that which he hath ordained Sacrificium verum plenum tune offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri si sic incipiat offerre secundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse saith Saint Cyprian But saith he again and we knowe it is true Constat Dominum obtulisse calicem in commemorationem Passionis Et quia Passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs omnibus facimâ—â— nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus Why Because otherwise wee offer not the Sacrifice as wee should Nec sacrificium Dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebramus nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum responderit Passioni and that cannot be without powring out of wine that representeth the sheading of his bloud But your Church hath altred it presumptuously done Who gaue your Church such authority Heare Saint Cyprian again Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum putauerit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Nam si Iesus Christus Dominus Deus noster ipse est summus Sacerdos Dei Patris sacrificium Patri seipsum primus obtulit hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit vtique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur sacrificium verum ac plenum tunc offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri si sic incipiat offerre secundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse You doo not this therefore in Saint Cyprian's iudgement your sacrifice is neither full nor true Much more in that Epistle Saint Cyprian hath and also elsewhere vnto the purpose But you haue Scriptures for the nonce expresly in our Bibles contrary to that we teach and practice to iustifie what you practise and teach touching this sacriledge and perfidiousnesse in altering Christs institution Maruell you should haue Scripture against Scripture Christs institution beeing so direct for Drink you all Produce your Scriptures Ioh. 6. 51. If any man eat of this Bread hee shall liue for euer And the Bread which I will giue is my flesh Heere is eating of Bread and that same Bread Christs flesh but heere is no such matter as wee ought to receiue Bread onely or that Bread alone sufficeth Yes for Lo euerlasting life attributed by our Lord himselfe to eating onely vnder one kinde I grant for doe they in your countrey vse to eat vnder two kindes Is Wine eaten with spoones there I haue heard of communicating and receiuing vnder one kinde but neuer till now heard talke of eating vnder one kinde Goe learne to speake and then write In the Interim I take your meaning Christ that mentioneth onely eating doth not exclude drinking doth not say nor meane eating onely sufficeth Bread is not exclusiue heere no more then where our Sauiour went to eat Bread with a Pharise at which time in your Learning and Logick he did not drink all dinner-time or supper-time because he went onely to eat Bread But Sir your wisdome must knowe that hee which eateth Bread according to the Scripture phrase drinketh also Bread importing necessaries for mans life and to eat Bread is both to eat and drink as to eat his Body is as well to drink his bloud So anon the same Euangelist Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his bloud you shall not haue life in you Lo heere euerlasting life not had without drinking Looke you to this if you looke to haue euerlasting life Iohn 4. 14. Christ promiseth Water to drink of which water whoso tasteth shall thirst no more therefore say you He promised no Wine therefore say I By your reason hee gaue not Bread Therefore if needs you will haue one kinde and no more haue it in Wine not Bread Againe hee telleth his Disciples else-where that hee would drink no more of the fruit of the vine vntill hee drink it new in the Kingdome of God hee maketh no mention of any Bread Therefore in Heauen belike Wine is drink and onely Wine drunk but they eat no Bread there And yet wee read of Angels food which I can tell you who take it literally I might say our Sauiour speaketh heere of Bread and not of Wine in regard of that fore-going occasion which was the first motiue vnto this his Discourse namely his miraculous feeding 5000 men with fiue loaues so that hee kept him to the Subiect and occasion But this wise mans obseruation is cleane cashierd by our Sauiours Epexegesis afterward ver 53 54. hee plainely and expresly maketh it plaine that hee meant not to exclude bloud speaking of flesh nor shut out Wine where he mentioned Bread Euerlasting life to returne your owne words vpon your self is attributed by our Lord not to eating onely vnder one but both kinds Except you eat the flesh