without Christ are vnprofitable neither can they be fruitfull at any time but onely in Christ who alone is the Substance and Foundation of them all Wherevpon I conclude that those ancient Sacraments of the Iewes directly looked vnto Christs and prefigured him but were not properly Figures of ours No were What say you then to the Fathers who affirme they were I say two things first that their Authoritie is not a sufficient ground to build our Faith vpon as we haue elsewhere shewed at large For it is but Humane testimonie and argueth as your owne Thomas saith not necessarily but only probably Neither is it reason seeing your selues so often sleight and reiect it even in those points wherein many times they consent that you should so peremptorily vrge it vpon vs and binde vs absolutely to beleeue all they say I say secondly that the Fathers calling the Sacraments of the old Law Figures of ours meane not that they were bare and naked signes without the truth but that in them the thing signified was more darkly and implicitly shadowed then in ours Or rather that they were Figures corresponding vnto ours in the same sense that the Apostle S. Peter intendeth it when he calleth Baptisme the Antitype of Noahs Arke For vnderstanding whereof you are to knowe that Types or Figures are sometimes compared with that truth or thing whereof they are Samplars as where the Holy place of the Tabernacle is said to bee the Antitype of Heauen figured thereby Sometime with some other Secondary samplar and Figure of the same thing as in this place of Peter where Baptisme is made the Antitype of that deliuerance which befell the Church by the Arke in the generall deluge of waters So that the Arke properly was not ordained to be a Figure of Baptisme but both it and Baptisme represent vnto vs our Salvation from the danger both of sinne and death by Christ Iesus therein mutually respecting and answering one the other The same may you also say of the Cloud and the Passing through the Red sea of Manna and the Rock and all the rest And that thus the Fathers heare one for all who to vse your owne words spake in the sense of them all This Bread saith S. Augustine which came downe from heauen Manna signified this Bread the Altar of God signified They were Sacraments divers in signes but in the thing signified alike Heare the Apostle I would not saith hee haue you ignorant Brethren that all our Fathers were vnder the cloud and all passed through the sea and all were baptized by Moses in the â—loud and in the sea and all eat the same spirituall meat The same spirituall I say but another corporall because they Manna We another thing But the same spirituall that we yet our Fathers not their Fathers to whom wee are like not to whom they were like And hee addeth And they all dranke the same spirituall drink They one thing we another as touching the visible nature yet the selfe same in the signifying spirituall vertue For how the same drinke They dranke saith he of the spirituall Rock following them and the Rock was Christ. Thence the Bread thence the drinke The Rocke Christ in the signe true Christ in the Word Flesh. Thus S. Augustine But if the Fathers serue not your turne you haue the Fathers of the Fathers even Christ himselfe and his holy Apostle S. Paul who both affirme that Manna was an expresse figure of this Sacrament And if Manna why not by the same proportion other Sacraments also Indeed now you dispute not Topically but Apodictically you cannot but prevaile if it be true that you say But what are the words I pray you wherein this may appeare Certainely none at all For neither the one nor the other either expresly or implicitly make it a Figure of this Sacrament but of Christ himselfe and his Flesh. For as for the sixt of Iohn it is cleare that our Saviour speaketh not therein of the Eucharist or of Sacramentall Manducation but only of the Spirituall eating of his Flesh by Faith I saith he am the Bread of life hee that commeth vnto mee shall not hunger and hee that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst Where although to continue the Allegorie hee might haue said He that eateth me shall not hunger and he that drinketh me shall not thirst yet hee chose rather to vse the words of Comming and Beleeuing to teach vs that hee speaketh not of an Oral eating and drinking by the Mouth but only of a Spirituall by Faith And this is so plaine that Bellarmine himselfe confesseth these words Properly not to belong vnto the Sacrament but to the faith of the Incarnation Againe that Eating is meant without which there is no life Except saith hee yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his Blood there is no life in you But without Sacramentall eating a man may haue life in him Spirituall eating therefore is meant And thus also doe sundry of your owne Rabbies vnderstand this place as namely Gabriel Cusan Cajetan Tapper Hesselius Iansenius and others As for that place of S. Paul it is evident that the Apostle putteth no difference betweene the old Sacraments and the New saue only in regard of the externall signes for otherwise he affirmeth the same thing to be Signified and Exhibited in both to wit Christ. And so doth S. Augustine vnderstand it They did eat the same spirituall meat saith he it had sufficed to haue said they did eat a spirituall meat but he saith the same I cannot finde how we should vnderstand the same but the same that wee doe eat And againe Whosoeuer in Manna vnderstand Christ did eat the same spiritual food that we doe But whosoever sought only to fill their bellies of Manna which were the Fathers of the vnfaithfull they haue eaten and are dead so also the same drinke for the Rock was Christ. Therefore they drank the same drinke that we doe but spiritual drink that is which was receiued by Faith not which was drawne in with the Body If happily you stand vpon those words These things are types vnto vs you may knowe that hee saith not they were types of our Sacraments but Examples to vs that we sin not as they did For as they perished in the wildernesse notwithstanding their Sacraments so may we doing as they did notwithstaÌ„ding ours Which argument if that you say be true would be of no force at all For the Corinthians might thus haue replied though their Sacraments availed not them yet ours may vs because ours are Substance theirs but Shadows But enough of the Antecedent Yet before I proceed to the Consequence some of your By-speeches are also to be examined First you say that Bread aud Wine was mysteriously offered to Almighty God by Melchizedeck But both the Original and your Vulgar translation made authenticall by the Councell of Trent
say that he brought forth Bread and Wine and not to God as an Oblation but to Abraham for his refection If he had offered vp Bread Wine as a Sacrifice to God how commeth it to passe that the Apostle comparing the Priesthood of Christ and Melchizedeck so particularly maketh no mention at all thereof For certainly the point being so materiall and the place so fit it must needs bee great ignorance or negligence to omit it To say nothing that if your owne reason be good the Sacrifice of Melchizedeck shall be inferiour to that of Aaron Bread and Wine being of lesse value and not so evidently representing the death of Christ as the slaying of Beasts doth Secondly you say that the true Flesh of Christ is contained in this Sacrament and that the ancient Fathers with one consent testifie the same which in your sense and meaning is vtterly false For neither is the Flesh of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread by Transubstantiation neither doth any of the ancient Fathers testifie it as in the sequele God willing shall more plainely appeare Thirdly where you say and many others as my Author setteth downe it seemeth that in this point you beleeue but by an Attornie pinning your Faith vnto the credit of I knowe not whom The true flesh of Christ say you is contained in the Sacrament How knowe you that By the ioint consent of Fathers And how know you they consent therein My Author tells me so And what may he be Peter or Paul or one of them vpon whom clouen tongues descended I trow no but some equivocating Priest or Iesuite A sure rock I promise you to stay your faith vpon You say lastly that the Bloud of the Testament described Exod. 24. Heb. 9. was fulfilled when Christ said This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud False For then hee did but institute the Sacrament of his death and fulfilled it the day following when really hee suffered death vpon the Crosse. And what reason haue you to thinke it was performed in a Commemoratiue sacrifice wherein your selues confesse there is no effusion of Bloud rather then in the true Sacrifice vpon the Crosse wherein the pretious bloud of the sonne of God was plentifully shed N. N. Out of all which Figures is inferred that for so much as there must bee great difference betwixt the Figure and the thing prefigured no lesse if we beleeue S. Paul then betweene the Shadow and the Body whose Shadow it is it cannot be imagined by any probability that this Sacrament exhibited by Christ in performance of the Figures should be only creatures of Bread and Wine as Sacramentaries doe imagine for then should the Figure be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured it selfe For who will not confesse but that Elias his Bread made by the Angell that gaue him strength to walke fortie daies vpon the vertue thereof was equall to our English Communion Bread and that the Manna was much better I. D. The Antecedent being as we haue shewed vntrue it is no matter what Consequence soeuer you deduce from it Neverthelesse let vs for the present suppose it to be true What inferre you therevpon The Real Presence and Transubstantiation How so I pray you Because otherwise the Figure would be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured which is absurd and contrary to the rule of S. Paul This indeed I confesse would bee absurd but how doe you shew it to be so in this particular By a double instance of Elias his bread and Manna whereof you say the one was equall the other more excellent then our English Communion Bread But still I deny the consequence the weaknesse whereof if you see not in this I hope you will in the like Argument The Cloud the Red sea and Circumcision were all as you say Figures of Baptisme and the Figure is euer inferiour to the thing Figured If therefore Baptisme be only Water and suffer no Transubstantiation at all the Figure is equall or more excellent then the thing Figured For the Water of the Cloud the Red sea was equall to the Water of Baptisme and the Foreskin in Circumcision is much better as being part of the Flesh of man What say you now Doth this Argument follow yea or no If yea then haue wee a Real Presence also in Baptisme by Transubstantiation of Water which I suppose you will not admit If no then neither doth it follow in the Eucharist for the reason is exactly the same in both Would you yet more plainely see your errour It is this your Disiunction is not sufficient either there is a Real Presence or the Iewish Figures equall our Sacraments For there are diuers other waies wherein our Sacraments excell theirs although there be no such Presence at all What waies will you say Verily not in the worth or value of the outward Elements for therein they may be exceeded nor in the thing signified for it is one the same in both even Christ Iesus Wherein then Even in these particulars First their Sacraments respected Christ yet to be exhibited in the flesh our Christ alredy exhibited Now as the Faith of things future is ever more languid and faint then of things past so is the adumbration and shadowing of them vnto Faith more obscure also Secondly although Flesh may perhaps seeme better to expresse Christs body then Bread the killing of the sacrifice his death then the breaking of Bread yet in regard of the word annexed vnto ours plainly declaring what they are to what end instituted and what proportion there is betweene the signe and the thing signified ours must needs be more evident and cleare then theirs Even as a Picture to vse S. Chysostomes similitude when it is perfected and set forth with liuely colours better representeth the person of the Prince then when no more but the first lineaments thereof are drawne or it is yet but darkly coloured Thirdly in the Eucharist are figured two things the Death of Christ our Communion with him That without this availes no more to our soules health then the sight of meat without touching it to the nourishment of our bodies That is shadowed by the breaking of Bread and powring out of Wine Not so expresly will you say as by the Leviticall sacrifices Suppose it though in regard of the Sacramentall words the cleare knowledge we haue of this mysterie it is far otherwise Yet this I meane our Communion with Christ is as exactly represented by the Eating of Bread and Drinking of Wine as nothing can be more Finally seeiâ—g the Iewes were strictly commanded to abstaine from Bloud and we on the other side are charged Sacramentally in the Wine to drinke Bloud and in the Bread to eate Flesh our Sacrament even in regard of the externall ceremonie is to bee preferred to the Iewish And thus you see wherein our Sacraments excell theirs Now where you affirme that
for the Transformation of Bread into Flesh which he speakes of though still it seeme Bread it is plaine hee meanes not that of Transubstantiation for in this Bread ceaseth to be but in that he confesseth it still to remaine and that it is Bread which is eaten by vs in the Mysteries Which yet he more plainly expresseth where hee saith God in mercy condescending to our infirmity preserueth the Species or Nature of Bread and wine but trans-elementeth or changeth it into the vertue of his flesh blood where it is farther to be obserued that hee saith not into flesh and blood but into the vertue thereof intimating a Change not of Substance but of Operation and Efficacy Your next witnesse is Magnetes an author to me vtterly vnknowne saue that Gesner in his Bibliotheca reporteth that he was very ancient and that about thirteene hundred yeares since hee wrote in the Greeke tongue certaine bookes in defence of the Gospell vnto Theosthenes against the Gentiles that flandered it and that he is quoted by Fr. Turrian By which words it seemes that hee never yet saw the Presse and what is alledged out of him is warranted only by Turrians testimony But Turrian is one that deserues no credit at our hands as being a Iesuite and knowne to haue plaid many foule tricks this way Yet if to make your author agree with the rest of the Fathers you will giue the same construction to his words that aboue is giuen vnto Theophilact you may Otherwise his authority is as easily reiected as alledged N. N. St Hilary vseth this kind of argument If the word of God were truly made flesh then doe wee truly receiue his flesh in the Lords supper and thereby he is to bee esteemed to dwell in vs naturally St Cyril proueth not only a Spirituall but also a Naturall and Bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eating his flesh in the Sacrament I. D. That Hilary speaketh of the Lords Supper or of our Coniunction with Christ by Eating thereof I thinke it will hardly be proved Had he so meant how cometh it to passe that he never alledgeh those words of the Sacrament This is my body which would haue made more for his purpose but ever voucheth the sixt of Iohn which maketh little to the Sacrament Howbeit if you will needs vnderstand him so I will not striue Know then that in those bookes St Hilary disputes against the Arians To them he obiected that saying The Father and the Sonne are one One answered they as wee are with Christ by Will not by Nature wherevnto he replied that wee are even by Nature one with Christ. And this he proues first because both in Christ and vs there is the same Humane nature by the Incarnation of the Sonne of God which hee calls the Sacrament of perfect vnion Secondly because the Faithfull are ioyned vnto him by his Spirit dwelling in them which regenerateth quickneth sanctifieth them and not only conformeth them vnto him but also transformeth them into him And for proofes hereof hee alledgeth divers passages of St Iohns Gospell such as your selues confesse no way to belong vnto the Sacrament Thirdly for that by Baptisme we are ioyned vnto Christ and that not only by consent of will but naturally according to that of Saint Paul As many as are baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. Whereunto lastly if you please you may adde for that also in the Lords Supper wee are vnited vnto him by Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood All these waies saith Hilary are wee Naturally ioyned vnto Christ. If so then not only by the Eucharist And if for the establishing of the other meanes there needeth no Transubstantiation at all as of the Sonne of God into Man of Faith into the Spirit of Christ or of Baptismall water into the Bloud of Christ neither is it necessarie for this that bread be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. Or if to bring Christ into vs and our mouth you will needs transubstantiate the bread into his body I wonder what Transubstantiation you will devise to bring vs into him and his mouth For Hilary affirmeth that by the same Mysticall coniunction not only is Christ in vs but also wee are Naturally in him The same Answere may serue for Cyril also wherevnto for farther explication of the word Naturally and Naturall so often vsed both by Cyril and Hilary I adde that in them Naturally signifieth Truly Naturall True if wee may beleeue him who best knew their meaning even Cyril himselfe For thus he Not according to naturall vnity that is true vnity By nature wee are the children of wrath where by nature we are to vnderstand truth So that Naturall vnion is true vnion and naturally to be vnited is truly to be vnited which I hope may bee without Transubstantiation N. N. Theodoret doth proue that Christ tooke Flesh of the blessed virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwise hee could not giue vs his true Flesh to eat if his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carried vp and retaineth in heauen I. D. I marvell much not one of the Fathers being more expresse against Transubstantiation then Theodoret that yet you durst to praise him in the maintenance thereof Evē for this cause doth the Preface to the Roman Edition goe about to weaken his authority and Gregorie of Valentia flatly condemneth him It is no wonder saith he if one or two or more of the Ancients haue thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly Adde herevnto that Theodoret was noted by the Councell of Ephesus for some other errours besides But how much Theodoret maketh against Transubstantiation you shall heare hereafter Now you may be pleased to knowe that in the place by you cited he disputeth against an Eutychian Hereticke who held that the Humanitie of Christ was abolished and absorpted by his Deitie This hee would proue by the Eucharist that as the Symbols before Consecration are one thing but after it are changed and become another even so the Body of Christ after the Assumption thereof is chāged into the Divine Substance Now if Theodoret had beene Transubstantiator hee had beene finely taken for Transubstantiation abolisheth the substance of Bread and turneth it into the substance of Christs Body But hee taketh the Heretike in his owne nets affirming the Mysticall signes after their sanctification doe not depart from their nature and that therefore Christ after the Assumption thereof retaineth his Humanity still Whereby you may see that although it be yeelded that Christ giueth vs his true Flesh in the Sacrament yet in the iudgement of Theodoret he so giueth it that the Mysticall signes retaine their Nature still which vtterly overturnes your Transubstantiation N. N. S. Irenaeus S. Iustin and S.
Chrysostome doe proue not only this but the Resurrection also of our Bodies by the truth of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament for that our Flesh ioyning with his Flesh which is immortall shall bee immortall also I. D. The truth of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament and the Coniunction of our Flesh with his Flesh neither is nor ever was by vs denied And therefore to heap vp Fathers for the proofe thereof is but to spend your labour to no purpose That you should proue is the Presence of Christ by Transubstantiation Which hitherto you haue but little aymed at In the Sacrament say these Fathers our Flesh is ioyned to Christs Flesh Ergo our Flesh shall rise againe The Antecedent is true and the sequele is good But what ioyning doe they meane The taking of Christs flesh into the mouth They neuer dreamt of it And if it were so it would follow that all they that eat Christ Sacramentally among whom how many Reprobates are there shall rise againe vnto life everlasting For I hope you will not say that the sacred Flesh of Christ doth quicken any vnto everlasting death How then is it By eating him not only Sacramentally but also spiritually and by Faith For by this meanes Christ becomes the food of our soules which redounding vpon the Flesh by making it the Temple of the Holy Ghost and an instrument of righteousnes fitteth and prepareth it to a glorious Resurrection Hence our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath life everlasting and I will raise him vp at the last day And the Apostle S. Paul If Christ bee in you the Body indeed is dead because of sinne but the spirit is life because of righteousnesse But if the spirit of him that raised vp Iesus Christ from the dead dwell in you hee that raised vp Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortall bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you And that this is the meaning of the Fathers appeares by that they say Our bodies come not into corruption but partake of life by being nourished with the body bloud of the Lord. For that our bodies in litterall sense should be nourished with Christs body is to make it the food of the belly not of the minde then which saith Bellarmine nothing can bee deuised more absurd And what I pray you is Nourishment properly Only to take meat into the mouth No but the alteration and conversion of the substance thereof into the substance of that which is nourished which to affirme of the Body of Christ is horrible impiety Of force therefore must the Fathers be vnderstood to speake of such a Nourishment by the body of Christ as is spirituall Now if the Nourishment be spirituall such is the Eating also and it is as absurd to say that the soule is nourished by bodily eating as that the body is nourished by spirituall eating Will you haue all in a word The things that wee eat with our mouth in the Sacramēt are not the causes but the pledges of our Resurrection So saith the great Councell of Nice We must beleeue these things to be the symbols or pledges of our Resurrection N. N. And the same S. Irenaeus doth proue farther that the great God of the old Testament Creator of heauen earth was Christs Father For proofe whereof hee alleageth this reason that Christ in the Sacrament did fulfill the Figures of the old Testament and that in particular wherein bread was a figure of his Flesh which he fulfilled saith Irenaeus making it his Flesh indeed I. D. The Marcionites whom Irenaeus confuteth taught that the God of the old Testament was not the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ and that the Creator was knowne but the Father of Christ was vnknowne Against this hee endeauoureth to proue that the Father of our Lord was he who created the world That this he intendeth manifestly appeareth by those words where hee saith Others saying that another besides the creator is his Father and offering vnto him those creatures that are here amongst vs shew that he is greedy and covetous of that which is anothers And among other arguments this he vseth for one Bread and Wine are the creatures of the Creator of the world which creatures Iesus Christ vseth in the Sacrament the one to be his Body and the other to be his Bloud and therein are they offered to his Father Ergo the Creator is his Father Were he not his Father he would never haue takē that which belongs vnto another or whervnto he had no right and convert it to his owne vse So that here your Author hath notably deceaued you For Irenaeus proueth Christ to bee the sonne of the Creator not by his omnipotence in turning Bread and Wine into his Flesh and Bloud a thing that neuer came into his thought but from his right and title to the Creatures which maketh nothing for Transubstantiation Touching the Figures of the old Testament and how they prefigured our Sacraments we haue spoken enough already N. N. What is so sacrilegious saith Optatus Milevitanus as to breake downe scrape and remoue the altars of God on which your selues haue sometimes offered and the members of Christ haue beene borne c. What is an altar but the Seat of the Body and Bloud of Christ And this monstrous villanie of yours is doubled for that you haue brokē also the chalice which did beare the Bloud of Christ himselfe When the mixed chalice and the Bread broken taketh the word of God the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ is made Bread receauing the calling of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one earthly another heavenly the earthly thing is the old forme of bread the heavenly is the body of Christ newly made vnder that forme Let vs now consider also the persons to whom this Commandement was giuen they were those twelue Apostles whom Christ at his last Supper taught the new Oblation of the new Testament giuing them authority by this precept to consecrate to make present and to offer to God his body and bloud I. D. Where little or nothing is objected the answer is soone made Optatus saith that the altar is the seat of Christs body and bloud and that the chalice beareth his bloud Irenaeus saith that after consecration the Eucharist of the body and bloud is made that in it there is a heavenly thing and the Apostles had authority to make present the body of Christ. Ergo the body and bloud of Christ is really corporally locally and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament A poore and silly consequence which all the wity our author hath wil neuer be able to make good For those words of the Fathers may be salued and verified if Christ be Present any other way And Present hee is Sacramentally to the signes and spiritually to the Faith of
enough to be numbred among the ancient Fathers In regard whereof as also because of those many shamefull errors and fabulous narrations every where appearing in his writings hee is one of little or no authority in the Church of God He was the first that removed the bounds of the ancient Doctors in this matter bringing in sundry new strange terms never heard of in former times the misvnderstanding of which by little and little prepared a way to that deformed monster of Transubstantiation Neverthelesse it is certaine that howsoever many of his speeches may seeme harsh and inconvenient and great advantage hath beene taken of them that way yet himselfe was cleane of another mind Let vs therefore heare what hee saith It is made saith hee by the Holy Ghost even as our Lord made for himselfe a body out of the Virgin mother If so then is it not made by Transubstantiation for Christ assuming a body turned not his Deity into it Yet was the worke of the Holy Ghost necessary for he alone is able to sanctify the Naturall element and to invest them with Supernaturall graces The same saith he of Baptisme He hath ioyned the Grace of the Holy Ghost to oile and water and hath made it the washing of Regeneration And Leo yet more fully vsing the selfe-same comparison Christ gave vnto water that which he gaue vnto his mother for the power of the most high and over shaddowing of the holy Ghost which made that Mary brought forth the Saviour hath made water to regenerate the beleeuer Whereby you see that the same power of Gods Spirit by which the blessed Virgin conceived may be emploied in a Sacrament without that change and conversion that you imagine of And that Damascen though hee aknowledged a change of the Bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ yet was not acquainted with your change may appeare by these words Because it is the manner of men to eat bread and to drinke wine with water he hath conioyned his divinity with them and made them his body and blood that by vsuall things and which are according to nature we might be setled in these things that are aboue nature Here you see hee conioyneth the Divinity with bread and wine Now coniunction is only of those things that are and haue a being Bread and Wine therefore still are If they be then are they not abolished And if they be not abolished then is Transubstantiation gone Adde herevnto that Accidents without Substance are not Vsuall things nor according to Nature and therefore not they but true bread and true Wine are the things which in Damascens judgement raise vs vp to those things that are aboue Nature But of him enough N. N. The perishing meat and pleasures of this world please me not I long for Gods Bread the heauenly Bread the bread of life which thing is the flesh of Christ the Sonne of God I. D. That Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Romans both Eusebius and Hierom testify and that this which now passeth vnder that title may be the right Epistle I deny not Howbeit it is confessed of all that those Epistles which are granted to be his are not come vnto our hands perfect For some passages are cited out of them by some of the ancients as Hierom Theodoret and others which now are not found in them and some are manifestly corrupted and depraved as appeareth So that if Baronius and Bellarmine might challenge them of corruption in those places which make for Saint Pauls marriage and against halfe Communions I hope I haue as much liberty to challenge the place by you alleaged if it made any thing against vs. But it needs not for Ignatius speaketh not there of the Sacrament and therefore it maketh nothing to the purpose Neither doth it follow The bread is flesh Ergo by Transubstantiation N. N. We ought so to communicate with our Lords table that wee doubt nothing of the verity of his Body and Bloud seeing he said Except yee eat the Flesh of the Son of man c. I. D. Leo disputeth in this place against the Eutychians who denied the truth of Christs body and thus he argueth The Eucharist is a symboll of the body of Christ Ergo Christ hath a true body and whosoever will rightly communicate must nothing doubt thereof So reasoneth also Theodoret. For Orthodoxus demanding whether Bread and Wine were Symbols of the true body blood of Christ or no and being answered yea he thus concludes If the divine mysteries be samplars of the true body then the body of the Lord is now also true and not changed into the nature of the Divinity Hence may you see the weaknesse of your Argument Communicants may not doubt that Christ hath a true body or if you will that the true body of Christ is in the Eucharist Ergo bread is transubstantiated into body Ridiculous N. N. As therefore our Baptisme is made by reall washing with water and reall renewing of the Holy Ghost so now in the Supper of Christ it behooueth wee bee really fed with the fruit of the tree of life which is none other thing besides the flesh of Christ. I. D. If we yeelded Euthymius vnto you the matter were not great For he liued vpward of eleven hundred yeares after Christ and your owne Chronologers place him after Gratian and Peter Lombard Yet what saith hee It behooueth that in the supper wee be really fed with the flesh of Christ. Really fed Who doubteth of it But you are to know that Reall doth not necessarily import your Carnall manner For Spirituall is also Reall vnlesse you will say a spirit is no thing N. N. It is a remembrance of Christs death by the presence of the body which died It is the Body and Bloud of Christ covered from our eyes revealed to our Faith feeding presently our body and soule to everlasting life I. D. This Nicephorus also liued eleauen hundred yeares after Christ and therefore is none of the Fathers nor of any great authority Neither doth that which hee saith conclude your purpose For Christs Body may bee and is present Sacramentally and to our faith and presently feed both soules and bodies to everlasting life and yet Bread and Wine remaine still in the Sacrament Else where hee calleth the outward Elements symbolls and signes of the Passion of Christ. If symbolls and signes then not the Body it selfe N. N. They receiue not the fruit of Saluation in the eating of the healthfull sacrifice They eat the healthfull Sacrifice which surely is nothing else but the naturall body of Christ but the frute they receiue not As many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies bee evill affected it proueth not healthfull to them I. D. Thus you reason The healthfull Sacrifice is the naturall body of Christ Ergo Bread by Transubstantiation is made the body of Christ. How
Heavenly Corruptible and Immortall to bee all one neither shall you ever be able to make the signe and the Thing signified in any Sacrament to be the same Adde herevnto that the Fathers not only say that Bread is a Figure of Christs body but also that when wee are commanded to eat his Body or drinke his Bloud the speech is Figuratiue For as Saint Augustine saith Hee seemeth to command an evill and wicked act it is a figure therefore instructing vs to communicate with his passion c. Now to vnderstand a Figuratiue speech literally is very dangerous for the letter killeth and it is the Death of the soule If therefore Figuratiue and Proper cannot bee the same and in Sacraments when the thing signified is affirmed of the signe the speech be Sacramentall that is Figuratiue it followeth necessarily that the signe and the thing signified are not the same And if not the same then haue you wronged the Fathers saying they are so to bee vnderstood as if they were the same N. N. I will now conclude with two authorities more The first Counsel of Nice one of the foure Counsells allowed by Protestants for sound The words of the Counsell are these Let vs faithfully beleeue with an exalted mind that there lyeth on the holy table the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world which is sacrificed by the Priests I. D. This Canon here by you alleaged came but very lately to light for it is found neither in Ruffin nor in Balsamon nor any of the Tomes of the Counsells heretofore published except those of the newest impression And in them it is set forth in a different letter signifying that it was but newly found and that in the Popes Vatican Library vnder the name of one Gelasius Cyzicenus All which cannot but breed great suspicion and much weaken the authority thereof But what saith the Canon There lyeth on the Table the Lamb of God What Corporally and Really No but Symbolically and Sacramentally Neither doth it say as you translate Let vs faithfully beleeue with an exalted mind that the Lamb of God lyeth on the table But thus Let vs not basely attend the Bread and the Cup set before vs but lifting vp our mind by Faith vnderstand the Lamb of God vpon the table which rather maketh against Transubstantiation then for it For first he plainely telleth vs it is Bread that is there then secondly it commandeth vs to lift vp our mind which needed not if Christ himselfe were there Really on the table where obserue by the way that it is a table not an altar And thirdly that wee are to conceiue Christ Sacramentally to be on the table though Really hee bee there whether wee are to advance our thoughts The last clause of the passage is cut off by the wast and mangled by you I thinke to intimate that the Masse is a Sacrifice truly and properly so called But the words at full are these which is sacrificed by the Priests without being sacrificed manifestly insinuating that it is not Properly a Sacrifice but Representiuely and by way of commemoration Not much vnlike to these words is that of Saint Chrysostome which may serue insteed of a commentarie vnto them teach you that all which the Fathers say speaking of this Sacrament is not alwaies litterally to bee vnderstood What doest thou o man saith he at the houre of the mysticall table Didst thou not promise to the Priest who said lift vp your hearts saying wee lift them vp vnto the Lord And fearest thou not nor blushest that in that very houre thou art found a Lyar The table is furnished with mysteries and the Lamb of God is sacrificed for thee the Priest is troubled for thee a spirituall fire flowes from the sacred table the Seraphins stand by couering their faces with sixe wings all the incorporeall vertues together with the Priest make intercession for thee a spirituall fire comes downe from Heaven the Bloud in the cup is drawne out of the immaculate side for thy purification Thus he N. N. Saint Cyril saith that in this mystery wee should not so much as aske how it can bee done for it is a Iewish word and cause of everlasting torment From which good Lord deliuer vs. I. D. In this mystery wee may not inquire How What of that Ergo Christ is present by Transubstantiation Indeed if the doubt had beene how Bread might be made the body of Christ or how the substance of bread might be turned into substance of his body and then resoluing that it is so Cyril had advised in any case not to inquire How as being derogatory to Gods omnipotence here you had a pregnant testimony for Transubstantiation But Cyril handling those words The bread which I will giue is my Flesh exagitateth the Iewes for demanding How hee could giue his flesh to eat For seeing Christ by his miracles had demonstrated himselfe to be God it was their duty simply to beleeue his words and to know that hee who had spoken them was able to find a meanes by which to make them good and that without such immanity and anthropophagy as they imagined Now if in these Mysteries wee may not be so sawcie malapert as to demand How how cometh it about that your selues take vpon you so magistrally to define it that it is done after an Orall manner and by way of Transubstantiation Your Cutbert Tonstall saith Perhaps it had beene better as touching the manner how it is done to haue left every one that would be curious to his owne coniecture even as it was free before the counsell of Laterane Yet I must doe you to wit that the Question how is not alwaies evill and forbidden The blessed virgin her selfe demanded of the Angell How may this be seeing I know not man And Saint Ambrose This therefore wee say How can that which is bread be Christs body Saint Augustine some may thinke with himselfe how is bread his body Neither did they offend in asking How because firmely beleeuing the thing it was only out of admiration or desire of learning that they moued that Question That How Which is forbidden is that which is demanded ouâ— of Incredulity Such as was this of the Iewes who beleeued not Christ but reiected his saying as requiring some savage or inhumane thing to be done Hence Cyril It had beene meet that they had first set the roots of Faith in their minds and then to haue enquired those things that are to bee â—uquired but they before they beleeued enquired out of season For this cause our Lord did not expound how that thing might be brought to passe but exhorteth that it be sought by faith By all which you may perceiue that these words of Cyril are obiected to little purpose For your words are not Christs words neither hath he taught vs any such Reall Presence by Transubstantiation His words wee stedfastly
called his bloud What words can bee more plaine And yet againe the Bloud of Christ cannot seeme to be in the cup when wine is wanting to the cup whereby the bloud of Christ is declared Athanasius He distinguished the spirit from the flesh that wee might learne that the things hee spake are not carnall but Spirituall For how many men would his Body haue sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world But therefore hee made mention of his ascension into heaven that hee might draw them from corporall vnderstanding and then might vnderstand his flesh whereof he spake to be meate from aboue the Heavenly and spirituall food which he would giue Here expresly he reiecteth the Corporall eating of Christs Body and acknowledgeth none other but that which is spirituall Eusebius Bishop of Cesaâ—ia Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that haue followed in all nations celebrating the spirituall divine service according to the ordinances of the Church signifie vnto vs by the Bread and Wine the mysteries of his body and bloud If they signify them they are not the same Macarius They knew not that in the Church Bread and Wine was to be offered as the anti-type of his flesh and bloud and that those who partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord. A knot of arguments Bread Wine are offered they are Anti-types of Christs Flesh and Bloud they are receiued of vs and the eating of Christs flesh is spirituall Your Cyril of Hierusalem As the Bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so this holy ointment is no more bare and common ointment after it is consecrated but the gift of Christ. Not common bread saith hee yet bread and the body as the Ointment is the Grace of Christ. But Grace it is not by conversion into it for it remaineth ointment still but by accession of Grace vnto it Ambrose speaking of the miracles of the Prophets who changed the Nature of things and comparing therewith that which is done in the Sacrament as being nothing lesse at length concludeth It is no lesse to giue new natures vnto things then to change their natures plainely intimating that in the Sacrament Nature is not changed but some thing is added aboue Neture Wherefore else where hee saith in expresse tearmes If there bee so great force in the word of the Lord that they should beginne to bee what they were not how much more operatiue are they that they bee what they were and yet be changed into another thing Lo bread and Wine are changed yet remaine what they were changed therefore not in substance but in vse and signification Saint Basil in his Liturgy for him you make the author thereof He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of thy Maiesty on high who shall also come to render vnto every one according to his workes But hee hath left these Memorialls or monuments of his healthfull passion which wee set forth according to his commandement Hee is gone and hath left vs Memorialls of himselfe Ergo himselfe is not here For remembrance is of things past not present Gregory Nazianzen Now we shall bee partakers of the Passeouer but as yet in a figure though more cleare then in the old Law for the passeouer of the Law I will not be a fraid to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure The Passeouer therefore in proper speech is not a figure of the Lords Supper but both of them are Figures of the death of Christ. Gregory Nyssen declaring the change of Water in Baptisme expresseth it by three similitudes of an Altar which being dedicated vnto Gods Worship of a common stone is made a holy table of Bread in the Eucharist which by Consecration is no longer common bread but the Body of Christ and of a Priest who of a vulgar and ordinary man is by the blessing made a teacher Prelate of divine mysteries Bread therefore is no more transubstantiated then Water in Baptisme the stone of the Altar or the Priest Cyril of Alexandria Doest thou say that our Sacrament is the eating of a man and doest thou Vrge our minde vnto the grosse thoughts that beleeued so and doest thou attempt with humane thoughts to handle those things which cannot bee receiued but only with a pure and exquisite faith The Flesh of Christ therefore is not eaten with the mouth for that were to eate a man but only with a pure Faith Epiphanius After he had given thankes he said This of mee is that and wee see that it is not equall nor like neither to the incarnate image nor the invisible Deity nor to the lineaments of his members For this is oblong or of roule fashion senselesse as concerning power If it bee vnequall to Christ and void of Sence then is it not Christ. Saint Chrysostome before consecration wee call it bread but Divine grace through the ministry of the Priest sanctifying it it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the appellation of the Lords body although the nature of bread continue in it Behold the nature of bread remaineth after Consecration and yet it is called the Body of Christ. And againe If therefore it be dangerous to convert vnto private vses these sanctified vessels in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of Christs body is contained how much more the vessels of our body which God hath prepared to be an habitation for himselfe ought wee not to giue way vnto the Divell to doe in theÌ„ what he pleaseth Not the Body but the mysteries are contained in the vessels if so what becomes of your Reall presence Hierom The wicked nor eate the flesh of Iesus nor drinke his bloud But they eat and drinke the Eucharist Ergo it is not the Flesh and Bloud of Christ. Againe Wee may eate of that Sacrifice which is wonderfully made in commemoration of Christ but of that which Christ offered vpon the Altar of the Crosse no man may eate The Sacrifice then of the Sacrament is not that of the Crosse and the Body offered on the Crosse is not eaten in the Sacrament Saint Augustine The Apostles ate the Bread the Lord Iudas the bread of the Lord against the Lord. Againe He that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth the Flesh of Christ nor drinketh his Bloud although he daily receiue the Sacrament of so great a thing to iudgement Obserue the Bread of the Lord not that which is the Lord and the Sacrament of Christs Flesh and Bloud not his Flesh and Bloud So againe you shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that bloud which my crucifiers shall shed I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament which spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you And yet againe
Now the power here meant not being that Essential must needs be this Oeconomicall For other power hee hath none and this he hath receiued thereby to giue eternall life But let vs enquire a little farther into the nature of this power There is a double created Power the one Secular and Mundane the other Heavenly and Spirituall Is this Power of Christ Secular and Mundane Surely such a Power the Iewes expected in their Messias and the Apostles themselues were for a while swaied with the like hope concerning Christ. And now also some Papists there are who for the easier advancement of the Pope therevnto would faine haue it so because as here hee saith Power so else where our Saviour saith All power is given vnto me But for these Bellarmine himselfe may suffice to confute them For saith hee every kingdome is acquired by one of these waies either by Inheritance or Election or Conquest or Donation But Hereditary kingdome Christ had none For although he were descended from David and so was of the blood royall yet that he was next of blood vnto the crowne doth not appeare And besides as touching the kingdome the seed of Iecon David had long before determined in Ieconiah neither was any of his race ever after King King also by Election he was none as appeares by that of Iohn that when he perceiued they would come and take him by force to make him a King he departed from them into a mountaine himselfe alone And when he was requested to divide the inheritance betweene two brothers he refused for said he Man who made me a iudge or a divider over you Neither was he so by conquest for he neuer made warre vpon any mortall Prince but only on the prince of darkenesse Nor finally by Donation from God for my kingdome saith he is not of this world and againe my kingdome is not from hence as if he should say a King I am but no secular King Neither did he at any time exercise any kingly power but â—ame rather to minister and to be iudged then to iudge to be ministred vnto Furthermore Kingly authority was neither necessary nor profitable vnto him but superfluous and vnprofitable For the end of his comming was the redemption of mankind wherevnto temporall power was not necessary but only spirituall And whereas it was his office to perswade from the loue of worldly glory wealth and pleasures vnto the contempt thereof temporall power would haue beene not only vnprofitable but also a great let and hinderance therevnto Lastly all the Prophets foretell only of a spirituall and eternall kingdome which should be restored to Israell But temporall is not eternall and how can such a kingdome bee said to be restored seeing it continued still in the hands of the Romans vntill by them they were rooted out from being a nation vpon earth Secular and worldly power therefore our Saviour had none What then Heavenly and Spirituall And this appeareth first by the end of Christs comming and the authority bestowed vpon him For this was Spirituall namely to deliver mankind from spirituall Egypt and Babylon the bondage of Sinne and Satan and to bring them vnto the eternall fruition of God wherein standeth everlasting life Secondly by the meanes appointed for the atchieving of this end For the weapons of his warfare are not carnall but spirituall Outwardly hee worketh through the eare by the preaching of the Gospell inwardly vpon the spirit conscience by the power of his divine spirit wherevpoÌ„ saith the Apostle St Paul The kingdome of God is not meat drinke but righteousnesse and peace and ioy in the Holy Ghost In a word what more frequent in Scripture then to call this power of Christ the kingdome of Heaven Which what other doth it import then that it is no way earthly but altogether heavenly and spirituall But you will say wherein standeth this Spirituall authority of Christ I answere in two things whereof the first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the enacting of wisdome and good lawes For without lawes no kingdome or state can stand And to him alone it belongs to command lawes who is the soveraigne The soveraigne in this kingdome is Christ. He therefore is Legislator the law maker yea as St Iames saith Vnus legislator the only law maker And by vertue of this power hee prescribeth vnto the subiects of his kingdome both credenda what articles we are by Faith to beleeue facienda what duties we are in life to performe All which least any should pleade ignorance he hath caused publikely to be proclaimed both by word and writing And to perswade the readier obedience to them after the manner of all law-makers he annexeth both promises and threatnings promises of rich and plentifull reward to them that shall be obedient threatnings of rigorous and severe punishment to all that shall be rebellious and disobedient To descend to farther particularity would bee infinite I forbeare therefore and passe to the other part of his power which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 righteous iudgement For lawes without due execution are vaine and to no purpose duly executed they will not be vnlesse there be a superior to looke vnto it As therefore Christ is the Lawmaker so is he also Iudge ordained by God according as we beleeue in the Articles of the Creed to be the Iudge both of quick and dead A soveraigne Iudge from whom lies no appeale A righteous Iudge who accepteth the person or none but pronounceth sentence precisely according to the worke According I say to the worke For herein standeth his power of judicature namely in dispencing rewards and punishments according to the observation of his lawes or the transgression of them which ever he doth vpon due cognizance of the cause and conviction of the party A power farre aboue the reach of any other creature and incident only to him who subsisteth in the person of the sonne and that by vertue of such personall vnion So that as the Priesthood of Christ is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which cannot passe from him vnto another by the same proportion his kingly power is so proper vnto him as it is vncommunicable to any other whatsoever And thus much of the first poynt Quid what is given Whence wee may obserue first seeing the Power of Christ as he is man be farre aboue all created Powers yet is not infinite it makes against all those who either swallow vp the humane nature into the divine and so turne it into God such as were some of the ancient Heretikes and among them the Eutychians or who shed and poure out all the divine attributes and so the omnipotence and infinite power of God into the humanity such as are if yet now adayes such there be some of the rigider divines in Germanie If there be such I say For perhaps all the late quarrell risen betwixt them and vs grew
it is bread saith he but after consecration of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. And againe before the words of Christ be vttered in the consecration the Chalice is full of Wine and Water but when the words of Christ haue wrought their effect there is made the bloud that redeemed the People I. D. Whether those bookes of the Sacraments here cited by you vnder the name of Ambrose be his or no is not agreed vpon by all Possevine the Iesuite affirming that all almost together with Cardinal Bellarmine hold them to be legitimate plainely insinuates by the word almost that some are of another minde Their reasons are first because the stile much differeth from that of Ambrose his being cleare perspicuous florid and elaborate this oftentimes negligent harsh rude savouring of Monkish barbarisme Secondly because no writer before Lanfrank Guitmund who liued six hundred yeares after Ambrose quote them which were strange if they be his especially considering the matter of these bookes and how commonly the rest of his writings were alleaged Lastly because repeating the Lords Prayer hee deliuereth the sixt Petition in these words And suffer vs not to bee led into temptation whereas the words of Christ are And lead vs not into temptation which it is not to bee thought that S. Ambrose either was ignorant of or meant to amend As touching the other booke de Imitandis you should say de mysterijs initiandis the same iudgement haue they as of the former But if you will let them bee Saint Ambroses For I meane not to be peremptory herein What would you conclude out of him That hee denies it expresly to bee bread after consecration Certainely in expresse tearmes he doth not All he saith is that after consecration bread is made flesh and wine bloud out of which it followeth not that it ceaseth to be bread and wine for S. Ambrose himselfe affirmeth that this notwithstāding they still remaine what they were If saith he there bee so great power in the word of the Lord Iesus that they should beginne to bee that which they were not how much more effectuall is it that they be what they were yet be changed into another thing But how may this be will you say that it should remaine bread and yet be made flesh Let S. Chrysostome resolue you The grace of God saith he sanctifying the bread it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the name of the Lords body Yea and S. Ambrose himselfe also The Lord Iesus himselfe saith he cryeth this is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly words it is named another kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He saith his Bloud Before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud Where by the way I cannot but marvel at the fore-head of your Cardinall Bellarmine who vouching this place changeth that clause the body of Christ is signified into this it is the body of Christ. Happily he did not brooke the word signifie because it cleareth this point of the Real Presence more then willingly he would But hereby it is evident how bread may be made flesh and yet still remaine bread namely because it is made so only typically and in a signifying mystery N. N. Whereas Christ hath said of the Bread This is my Body who will dare to doubt thereof And whereas hee hath said of the Wine This is my Bloud who will doubt or say it is not his Bloud He once turned Water into Wine in Cana of Galilee by his owne will which Wine is like vnto Bloud And shall we not thinke him worthy to bee beleeued when he saith he hath changed Wine into his Blood Our Lord Iesus Christ doth testifie vnto vs that we receiued his Body and Bloud and may we doubt of his credit or testimonie Those things that are written let vs read and what we read let vs vnderstand so shall we perfectly performe the duty of Faith for that these points which wee affirme of the naturall verity of Christs being in vs except we learne thē of Christ himselfe we affirme them wickedly and foolishly c. Wherefore whereas he saith My Flesh is truly Meat and my blood truly drinke there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of Christs body and blood for that both by the affirmation of Christ himselfe and our owne beleefe there is in the Sacrament the flesh truly and the blood truly of our Saviour Eusebius bringeth in Christ our Saviour speaking in these words For so much as my flesh is truly meat and my Blood truly drinke let all doubtfulnesse of infidelity depart for so much as he who is the author of the gift is witnesse also of the truth thereof And Saint Leo to the same effect Nothing at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and those doe in vaine answere Amen when they receaue it if they dispute against that which is affirmed And finally St Epiphanius concludeth thus Hee that beleeueth it not to bee the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament is fallen from grace and Salvation I. D. Your Argument Christ saith This is my Body This is my Blood True no man denieth it The Fathers say He is worthy to be beleeued and wee may not doubt of his testimonie True also and he is an infidel whosoever questioneth any thing he saith What then Ergo by the judgement of the Fathers the flesh of Christ is Really and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament It followeth not For Christ saith not so and his Flesh without Transubstantiation may be present Sacramentally and Spiritually Saint Paul expresly saith The rocke was Christ and he is worthy to be beleeued neither may wee doubt of his credit Yet I hope you will not inferre thereupon Ergo in S. Pauls iudgement the Rocke was transubstantiated into Christ. No more can you conclude the like Change out of Christs words for the case is exactly the same In a word to argue from the Thing to the Manner It is Ergo it is so or so is meerely ridiculous With this generall answere might I at once quit all your authorities but to three of them I haue somewhat more to say in particular Christ saith Cyril hath said of the bread This is my Body and who will dare to doubt thereof Verily no true beleever Yet Papists dare For that Bread should bee Christs Body tropically figuratiuely they iest flout at and that it should be so literally and properly they flatly deny It is impossible saith your law that Bread should be the Body of Christ. And Bellarmine which sentence this is my body either must be vnderstood tropically that bread is the body of Christ significatiuely or it is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot be that bread should
be the body of Christ. Now if bread neither tropically nor literally be Christs Body then doe not Papists beleeue Christ who according to Cyril saith of the bread This is my body Yea but Cyril farther saith Christ hath changed wine into his blood I grant but every change is not Transubstantiation Whatsoever the holy Ghost toucheth is sanctified and changed saith Cyril So is Water in Baptisme changed and so is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist yet neither by substraction of substance but addition of Grace as saith Theodoret. To Saint Hilary I answere that in the place by you quoted he speaketh not of the Eucharist and that therefore those words in the Sacrament inserted by way of Parenthesis into the text are but a Glosse not expounding but corrupting it Had he meant it of the Sacrament hee would never haue said No man shall be in him but he only in whom himselfe is hauing only taken his flesh into him who hath taken his What No man to be in him but hee only in whom himselfe is by the Sacrament God forbid for then all are out of Christ that receiue not the Eucharist and your selues hold not such an absolute necessity thereof Of the Mysticall Vnion therefore betweene Christ and vs doth he speake as also of the Spirituall eating of his Flesh and Drinking of his Blood whereby it is wrought and which as you know is as well done out of the Sacrament as in it Lastly to your Eusebius Emissenus I answere that if it be that ancient Bishop of Emesa in Syria mentioned by Saint Hierom in his Catalogue hee who florished vnder the Emperour Constantius and wrote many short Homilies vpon the Gospels then is his authority of no value For your owne Bellarmine and Possevin haue observed out of Hierom that he was a ring-leader of the Arian faction But indeed it is not the same Emissenus as the foresaid Bellarmine and Possevin together with Baronius and Canisius testify For the one wrote in Greeke the other in Latine the one died a good time before the Pelagian heresie sprang vp the other writeth against it If it be not he who is it then It is vncertaine saith Bellarmine Some Latine writer saith Sixtus Senensis who stitched these Rapsodies together out of the Latine Fathers and whose stile savoureth of Bede or Rabanus or some one like vnto them A Frenchman saith Canisius and Possevin and others yet can they not finde either in France or any part of Europe a place whence he should be called Emissenus One suspecteth him to be Faustus Rhegiensis another Caesaries Bishop of Arles a third ascribeth some of his Homilies to Eucherius some to Maximus and some to others Frier Walden citeth this very Homily here by you quoted vnder three severall names Isidore Eusebius Emisenus Anselme All which are but meere coniectures and there is no certainty either of his name or the time when he liued So that for ought wee know he may be some Monke or Frier who finding Emissenus to be an ancient writer thought good for the gracing of his doings to set them forth in his name a practise not vnusuall among them Howbeit be he never so Orthodox never so ancient that which he saith is little to your purpose For all he saith is but this wee may not doubt that Christs flesh is truly meat and his blood truly drinke forasmuch as himselfe affirmeth it So saith Ambrose so Leo so Epiphanius and it is already answered in the generall to which I referre you N. N. And the Fathers farther affirming that not by Faith only or in figure or image or spiritually alone the flesh of Christ is to be eaten by vs but really substantially and corporally Not only by Faith saith Chrysostome but in very deed he maketh vs his Body reduceing vs as it were into one masse or substance with himselfe And Saint Cyril not only by faith and Charity be wee spiritually conioyned vnto Christ by his Flesh in the Sacrament but corporally also by communication of the same flesh And Saint Chrysostome againe Not only by loue but in very deed are wee converted into his flesh by eating the same And Saint Cyril againe wee receauing in the Sacrament corporally and substantially the Sonne of God vnited naturally vnto his Father wee are clarified and glorified thereby and made partakers of his supreame nature Thus they I. D. That which you would or should proue is that Christs body is in the Sacrament after a corporall manner and by way of Transubstantiation That where by you endeavour to proue it is the testimony of those Fathers who affirme that Christs flesh is really substantially and corporally conioyned vnto vs by the Sacrament But betweene these two there is great distance neither doth that any way follow vpon this Wee all saith the Apostle S. Paul are by one spirit baptized into one body Wherevpon Saint Augustine baptisme availeth to this that they which are baptized be incorporated into Christ. And Leo he that is receaued of Christ and receaueth Christ is not the same after washing that he was before baptisme but the body of the regenerate man is made the flesh of him that was crucified In regard whereof the foresaid Apostle sticketh not to say wee are Christ. And accordingly Saint Augustine Let vs reioyce and giue thankes that wee are made not only Christians but Christ. By all which it is evident that we are as really substantially and corporally vnited vnto Christ in Baptisme as we are in the Lords Supper And yet I hope you will not therevpon inferre a Reall presence in Baptisme If not why should you presume to doe it in the Lords Supper For there is no more reason for the one Sacrament then for the other Certainly if the only way of vniting vs really vnto Christ be by receauing this Sacrament then woe vnto all those who being Baptized dyed before they could receaue it For it is impossible for any man to be saued by Christ vnlesse first he be really made one with him But let vs breefely examine your witnesses Saint Chrysostome saith Not by faith only but indeed he maketh vs his body and Not only by loue but indeed are we converted into his flesh What literally and in proper signification so as wee are reduced into one masse or lumpe with him Or that by receauing the Communion wee are really substantially and corporally transubstantiated into the very Body of Christ I know you cannot conceaue so rudely and grosly of him and least you should he himselfe qualifieth and tempereth the vehemence of his speech with an as it were reducing vs as it were into one masse In which words alluding to that of the Apostle we are one loafe and one body and explicating the same What speake I saith he of communication wee are that selfe-same body For what is bread The body of Christ. And what are they made
and vnheard of vntill this time and example whereof you cannot find in any writer Neither finally is the body of Christ it For that is the thing signified and by your rule the signe and the thing signified must be two differing and distinct things not the same Which also perfectly agreeth with right reason For seeing nothing is opposite vnto it selfe the signe and the thing signified are opposed one vnto another by way of Relation they being Relatiue tearmes it cannot bee that the thing signified should bee one and the same with the signe and consequently that Christs body should be a signe of it selfe The conclusion of all is that if neither bread nor the Accidents of bread nor the body of Christ be the signe in the Eucharist then there is no signe at all therein and if no signe then is the Nature of the Sacrament destroyed a signe being necessary to the constitution thereof Secondly the signe as you say ought to be visible and sensible which is very true For the Sacrament being a Representation of the Death of Christ it can no more be expressed by Insensible signes then a Picture be drawne with Invisible colours But in the Eucharist there is no sensible signe Not the bread for ceasing to be it ceaseth also to bee visible Not the Accidents of bread for though they be visible yet are they not signes as we haue shewed but only of their proper subiect Nor the body of Christ for that being covered from our sight vnder the Accidents of bread cannot be seene of vs. What Seraphicall and piercing eyes some of your Illuminates may haue I knowne not but sure I am ordinary men see it not and what they see seemes to them rather bread then flesh Your owne men confesse so much and therefore the more shame against their owne rule to make it a signe that I say which is Invisible and cannot be seene so that which is visible and may be seene Thirdly lastly you acknowledge that in every Sacrament there ought to be a Proportion and agreement betweene the signe and the 2 signified 1 thing But in the Eucharist as you order it there is no such Proportion For there is nothing that resembleth vnto vs either the Passion of Christ or the nourishment of our soules by his Flesh and Bloud or our mutuall Vnion and Coniunction in his mysticall body Wherein the Analogie and agreement principally standeth Bread indeed would every way be answerable therevnto if according to Christs institution you would suffer it to bee there For the Breaking of the one resembleth the Suffering of the other and the nourishing of our bodies by the one the nourishment of our Soules by the other and our Participation of one Bread our Vnion and Communion in the same mysticall body But you haue banisht it out of the Sacrament and therefore this Analogie also together with it Besides it there remaineth nothing but Christs body and the Accidents of bread Christs body is one and the same for he assumed not more Bodies And to seeke a similitude in an Identitie or betweene the same thing and it owne selfe is meere phrenzie It resteth therefore to make vp the Proportion that the Accidents be broken that they be composed of divers graines and grapes and that they are able to feed and nourish our Bodies or else neither is Christs passion nor our mysticall coniunction nor the spirituall nourishment of our soules by his body resembled by them But this is a foule heresie in Philosophy and whosoever affirmes it deserues to haue his braine purged with a good quantity of Hellebore For if Accidents nourish then are they turned into our substance and if so then haue wee here a stranger Transubstantiation then of bread into Christs body for that is of one substance into another this of Accidents into substance If your Monks for tryall hereof might for a while be fed with nothing else but Accidents I thinke the swaging of their fat paunches would soone put an end to the controversie and force them to confesse that nothing but substance can keepe them from staruing It may be you will say though the Accidents of bread feed not yet they seeme to feed which is sufficient Wherevnto I answere that God vseth not to mocke his Church with vaine shewes and illusions but as he truly and really feedeth our soules with the body and bloud of his Sonne so hath hee ordained true and reall Symbols and resemblances thereof Thus haue wee learned Christ and no otherwise Fourthly it gainesayeth the perpetuall consent of Antiquity And here to avoide tautology I omit all those passages of the Fathers already quoted wherein is affirmed either that bread is the body of Christ or that it is the Figure of his Body Out of both which as wee haue shewed it necessarily followes that bread remaines and that the words of Institution This is my body are to bee vnderstood not literally but tropically Neither will I alleage such frivolous broken and impertinent sentences as your Author furnished you with for your Reall Presence and Transubstantiation But among many I will select a few choice ones such as shall be pregnant and direct to the purpose For I desire to be breefe and to beare you downe not so much with the number as the weight of them Iustin Martyr affirmeth that by the sanctified foode of the Eucharist our Flesh and bloud is nourished by the change thereof and Irenaeus that the substance of our flesh is nourished and augmented thereby It is bread therefore for the true bread of Cstrist neither nourisheth our bodies nor is converted into them The same Irenaeus saith that the Eucharist consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heavenly Take away bread and there remaineth no Earthly thing therein vnlesse you will say that the Accidents are Earthly Clemens of Alexandria proueth against the Encratites who abhorred wine that our Saviour himselfe dranke it because he dranke of the blessed cup. But the argument followes not if there were only bloud in the cup and no Wine Tertullian What then he would haue bread to signify he sufficiently declared calling bread his body If bread signifies his body then is it not his body Origen That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer as touching the materiall part thereof goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught This cannot possibly be vnderstood of the Accidents for they are not materiall nor of the Body of Christ for that were too vnworthy of bread therefore which in the same place hee calleth the Typicall and Symbolicall Body of Christ distinguishing it from his true Body Cyprian The Lord offered Bread and the cup mixt with Wine That which is offered is Consecrated Ergo after Consecration it is Bread and Wine Againe Wee finde it was a mixt cup which the Lord did offer and that it was wine which he