taken in the nettes which thou thy selfe hast wouen For as the bread and wine albeit in vertue and power they implie the bodie and blood of Christ yet retaine still the substance truth of nature which they had before so the bodie of Christ albeit it be glorified and aduanced to high and excellent dignitie yet remaineth still the same in substance and propertie of nature as it was before Which saint Austen expresseth thus speaking of the bodie of Christ To August ep 57. which indeed he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken away the nature thereof If Euâ—yches were now aliue he would surely be a Papist Your new and grosse heresie of Transubstantiation had bene a good neast for him to shroude himselfe in For he might and would haue said that as the bread and wine in the sacrament after consecration do leaue their former substance and are changed into another so the bodie of Christ although it were first a true and naturall bodie yet after his ascension and glorification was chaunged into another nature and substance of the Godhead A meete couer cyp de caena domini for such a cup. You may remember that I shewed you how Cyprian doth exemplifie the matter of the sacrament by the diuinitie humanitie of Christ that as Iesus Christ though truly God yet was not letted thereby to be truly man so the sacrament though it implie sacramentally not only the vertue power but also the truth of the bodie and blood of Christ yet is not therby hindered from hauing in it the substance and nature of bread wine And as Christ was changed in nature not by leauing his former nature of Godhead but by taking to him the nature of man so bread and wine were chaunged in nature not by leauing their former nature substance but by hauing vnited vnto them by the working of the holie Ghost in such maner as I haue said the substance and effect of the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ But you cannot sée how the words of Christ This is my bodie c. can be vnderstood otherwise but of your Transubstantiation There is M. Spence a veile of preiudice lying before your heart which blindeth your eyes that you cannot sée it Otherwise you might know by the very spéeches of the auncient Fathers to whom you referre your selfe that Christ called bread and wine his bodie and blood and that after the same maner of sacramentall speaking which I noted vnto you before out of saint Austen Sacraments because August ep 23. of the resemblance do most commonly take the names of the things themselues which they do resemble Whereof he saith for example in the same place The Sacrament of Christes bodie is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ But Cyprian telleth you Our Cypr. ll 1. ep 6. Lord called the bread made by the vniting of many cornes his bodie and the wine pressed out of many clusters and grapes hee called his blood And Chrysostome saith of bread in the sacrament The bread chrysost ad caesar Theod. dia. 1. is vouchsafed the name of our Lords bodie And Theodoret as before Christ honored the visible signes with the name of his body blood And S. Austen The bread is the bodie of Christ And Theodoret againe Aug. apâ—d Bâ—dam in 1. cor 10. Our Sauiour chaunged the names and gaue vnto his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his bodie And Cyprian againe Our Lorde gaue at the table with his owne handes bread Theod dial 1. Cypr. de vnct Chrismatis and wine and bread and wine are his flesh and blood The signes and the things signified are counted by one name And if you wold know the cause why Christ did vse this exchaunge of names Theodoret telleth you straightwaies after He would haue those that are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things which are seene but because of the changing of the names to beleeue the chaunge which is wrought by grace namely that our mindes may be fixed not vpon the signs but vpon the things signified therby as he that hath any thing assured vnto him by hand and seale respecteth not the paper or the writing or the seale but the things that are confirmed and assured vnto him hereby By these you may vnderstand that it was bread which Christ called his bodie and as Cypr. lib. 2. epâ—st 3. Aug. cont Adâ—m c2 12. Tertul cont Marcionem lib. 4. Cyprian saith That it was wine which he called his blood And let S. Austen tell you the same Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the sign of his body So Tertullian The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie saying this is my body that is to say a figure of my bodie Wherby you may conceiue that bread and wine are not really chaunged into the bodie and blood as you teach but remaining in substance the same they were are in vse and propertie the signes and figures of the bodie and blood of Christ And as Gelasius addeth to the words before alleaged The image and resemblance of the Lords body and blood is celebrated in the exercise of the Sacraments Yet they are not naked and bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill but substantiall and effectuall signes or seales rather assuring our faith of the things signified thereby and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruite and benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ But you will vrge perhaps that Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his bodie which words your men are wont to alleage out of the former part of the sentence guilefully concealing the end of the same Tertullian declareth his owne meaning that he vnderstandeth a figure of the bodie But you may further Ioh. 1. 1â— remember that the Gospell saith The word was made flesh and yet it ceased not to be the word so the bread is made the bodie of Christ and yet it ceaseth not to be the bread S. Austen saith August apud Bedam in 1. cor 10. Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his body blood which also he made vs to be and by his mercy we are that which we do receiue yet we are not transubstantiated into the bodie blood of Christ Vnderstand therefore that the bread is made the bodie of Christ after a certain maner and not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie As touching the bodily and Popish eating drinking of Christs flesh and blood grounded on this point of transubstantiation Christ our Sauiour said to the Iewes as S. Austen expoundeth his words August in Psal 98. Ye shall not eate this bodie which you see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead that shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being
spiritually vnderstood it shall giue you life Otherwise as Origen saith There is in the new Testament a letter Orig. in Leuit. hom 7. which killeth him that doth not spiritually vnderstand it For if thou follow according to the letter that that is written Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man drinke his blood that letter killeth For saith S. Austen it seemeth to commaund a horrible fact and hainous Aug. de doctr christ lib. 3. c. 16. matter Therfore it is a figure willing vs to communicate of the passiō of Christ and profitably to laie vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Be hold and consider well what these men teach you that the spéeches which are vsed as touching eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ are figuratiue speeches that they are not literally to be vnderstood that we doe not bodily eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood And this is the plaine truth and simplicitie of the Fathers teaching the euidence whereof cannot be auoided but by those shifts which I mentioned before We extenuate them we excuse them by some deuised lie we oft denie them or faine of them some conuenient meaning But you vrge the circumstance of the text Which shal be giuen which shal be shead c. Marke well the speeches say you An argument péeuishly alleaged by Friar Campian and nothing at all to the Camp Rat. ◠purpose For when we say that bread and wine are the Sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ do we not meane of the bodie which was giuen and the blood that was shead for vs Do we teach the receiuing of the bodie blood of Christ by faith any otherwise then being broken and shead for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes When S. Aushen saith The signe of the bodie Tertullian a figure of the bodie expounding the words This is my bodie do they not vnderstand Which is giuen c. This reason you may verie well spare hereafter The speeches you say are wonderfull as most true Yet the spéeches M. Spence are not so wonderfull as the things themselues that our wretched and sinfull bodies should by these Sacraments through the working of the holie Ghost be really and indéed vnited ioyned vnto the bodie of Iesus Christ being in heauen so as to be his members flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and receiue thereof such vertue and power as that though they be buried in the earth and consumed to dust and ashes yet they should be raised vp againe and made partakers of immortalitie and glorie that God should hereby effectually communicate and impart vnto vs the inestimable riches of his grace and the whole fruite and benefite of whatsoeuer Christ hath done or suffered in his bodie for mankinde forgiuenesse of sinnes iustification sanctification the blessing fauou◠of God and euerlasting life You may know M. Spence what your owne Oration saith Some not without probabilitie expound the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ to be the efficiencie thereof De consecr dist 2. cap. species that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes We adde somewhat to this probabilitie when we teach in the Sacrament a true and effectuall vniting of vs to the bodie of Christ whereby he dwelleth in vs and we in him he is one with vs and we with him whereby as he hath taken vpon him what is ours sinne and death so he yéeldeth vnto vs what is his righteousnesse and euerlasting life Which vnion with Christ is wrought in all those and in those only which do with true and liuely faith receiue these holie mysteries where as that Capernaitish eating and drinking of Christs bodie and blood which your doctrine yéeldeth is common to all gracelesse and prophane persons that I say nothing of those monstrous blasphemous and horrible conceits which some of your captaines haue fallen into by defence thereof But yet further you alleage the vniformenesse of the wordes of Christ in the Euangelists Mat. Mar. Luc. And in S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. all saying This is my bodie wheras the scripture where it meaneth not a thing literally doth vary in the vttering of it Which you speake vppon the warrant of some Allen or Parsons or Seminarie reader telling you so and you haue beléeued it But they haue deceiued you both in the on and in the other For in the like matter you shall find in Moses law by an vniforme and constant spéech that the sacrifices of the law are called expiations propitiations and attonements for sinne which were not so indéed but they were so called sacramentally because they were types and figures seales and assurances of the true attonement which should be wrought by the bloodsheading of our Lord Iesus Again if you had looked in S. Luke and Luc 22. 20. 1. cor 11. 25. S. Paul you should haue found the words This is my blood expressed by such maner of spéech as tendeth directly to the ouerthrow of your transubstantiation For there it is said This cup is the new Testament in my blood c where I hope you will not say that the cup is transubstantiated into the Testament but that the wordes must be figuratiuely vnderstood Then you must say that the cup that is the outward and visible element of wine deliuered in the cup is the seale of the new Testament couenant of grace which is dedicated and established by the bloodsheading of Iesus Christ by which seale we haue assurance offered vnto vs to be partakers through Christ of those benefits which God hath promised vnto the faithfull in the same Testament the summe whereof is set downe by the Prophet Ier 31. 32 c. Now if any man should take it thus Ier. 31. 32. This cup that is this my blood in the cup is the new Testament in my blood your selfe would say he spake foolishly and absurdly Thus therefore your collections from the text are no collections Some of your owne side no meane men haue confessed indéed that transubstantiation cannot be enforced by the words of the text In truth it cannot God open your eyes that you may sée his truth and subdue the affections of your heart that you may yéeld vnto it By that litle spéech which I haue had with you I perceiue you are too too far in loue with that whoore of Rome She flattereth you and maketh shew of goodly names and pretendeth great deuotion as the harlot in the Prouerbes I haue peace offeringes to day haue I paide my Prou. 7. 14. vowes and you beléeue whatsoeuer she saith vnto you I shewed you the expresse testimonies of the Fathers gainsaying her as touching the bookes of Canonicall scriptures but you thinke she may approue them for Canonicall which were not so with the Fathers I declared the impudencie of the Rhemish glosers in auouching the storie of the assumption of the virgin Mary controlled by their owne computation of
conteined in the Roomish sacrifice wherby they haue made a mockery of the sonne of God and troden vnder their féete as a vile and base thing the sacred blood of Christ whereby we were redéemed But séeing that the applying of Christs death consisteth not in sacrificing with what reason do these men teach a sacrifice to apply the death of Christ vnto vs Why could they not as well without any new sacrifice make the priestes Memento and his intention a meanes to apply Christes death vnto vs as giue him power to sacrifice Christ againe and to apply that sacrifice to whom he will and by that to apply the other sacrifice of his death And what if the priest neuer so much as thinke vpon Christs death in his Masse but mumble it vp without consideration thereof how shall we thinke that he doth apply the death of Christ Last of all why may they not with as good reason say that Christ must be borne againe to apply vnto vs the benefit of his birth that he must suffer die and rise againe to apply vnto vs the vertue of his passion death and resurrection as that he must be sacrificed againe to apply vnto vs the benefit of his former sacrifice The former are absurd the Answ will say but by no reason which shall not also proue the absurditie of the latter The truth of applying as the verie word sheweth consisteth in offering and giuing of Christ vnto vs and our receiuing of him This is set foorth in the Sacrament by words of application Take ye eate ye and againe Drinke ye all of this where the bodie of Christ crucified and his blood shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes are by the outward elements as by seales and pledges proposed vnto vs and we willed to accept and receiue the same Which we do by true and liuely faith through the working of the holy Ghost and so are made partakers of the benefits of his death and passion to iustification and euerlasting life And this is the only meanes of application which the scripture teacheth briefly set downe by Saint Paul Rom. 3. c Rom. 3. 25. Him hath God set foorth to be an attonement not by continual offring him in sacrifice but by faith in his blood by faith I say apprehending and laying hold on him both in the hearing of the word and receiuing of the Sacraments Herein is our receiuing of Christ as S. Iohn sheweth expounding d Ioh 1. 12. receiuing by beleeuing so many as receiued him that is so many as beleeued in his name Now the papists ouerthwarting the ordinance of Iesus Christ make litle or no regard of Take ye eate ye being the two meanes of application appointed by Christ and practised by the primitiue Church but tell vs of a continuall sacrificing of Christ which doth by the intention of the priest for the very worke wrought obteine grace and apply vnto vs forgiuenesse of sinnes But in this point beside their manifest departing from the ordinance of God they again commit high treason against God in that they aduance so many other their abhominable and hatefull deuises to ride in the same chariot with the sacrifice of the body and blood of Iesus Christ For all the filth and rifraffe of the church of Rome whereby they wickedly teach men to séeke forgiuenesse of sinnes is shadowed and coloured with this conceit of applying vnto vs the death of Christ The sufferings of Saintes and Martyrs are e Rhe. Annot. Col. 1. 24. satisfactions for our sinnes they say But how Marry forsooth they take this vertue and force from Christs death and as a particular medicine apply vnto vs the generall medicine of his passion Their crossings their f Rhe. Annot. Mat. 10. 12. 1. Tim. â—5 Summe of religion taken out of Bristow and the order of confession Bishops blessings their holy water their Popes indulgences pardons their shauen crowns their munkish orders their whippings their shrifts their pilgrimages and offerings to idols their mumbling on their beades their Agnus Deis their kissing the pax and the remnant of this absurd rabble are very helpfull to the forgiuenesse of sinnes because as the Masse doth so do all these apply vnto vs the death of Christ Thus they haue multiplied their deuises as the starres and filled the world with their eâ—chauntments and sorceries of other sacrifices merits and satisfactions of their owne to giue effect and working to the sacrifice merit and satisfaction of Iesus Christ And these bastard and misbegotten trumperies because they are of themselues so apparantly iniurious to the crosse of Christ that the diuel thought they would neuer go for sale-able ware wheÌ„ they should be examined and tried except some deceitfull colour were set vpon them he hath therefore somewhat graced and countenanced with these termes of applying the death of Christ to mollifie and extenuate so much as might be the horrible blasphemy that is conteined therein And yet the blinde and ignorant people were not acquainted with this shift but persuaded themselues to find merit and forgiuenesse of sinnes in the méere exercise of these spirituall fornications and whoredomes whereto they were bewitched of their blinde leaders They might with as good reason haue tolde them that to runne a mans head against a wall to weare a straight paire of shooes vpon his féete to lie naked vpoÌ„ thorns to eat wormewood and gall to wash his hands before meate are meanes merits of the forgiuenesse of sins They will say these things are fond Alasse blind men that cannot sée the like folly and madnesse in those things which they themselues approue But thus they haue iustled the blood of Christ out of place and fulfilled that which S. Peter prophecied of them g 2. Pet. 2. 1. There shall be false teachers which priuily shall bring in damnable heresies euen denying the Lord that hath bought them c. And through couetousnesse with feined wordes shall they make marchandise of you c. Of such feined and whorish counterfeit words the h Rhe. Annot. 2. cor 2. 11. 1. Tim. 4. â— câ—ll 1. 24. paâ—sim writings of Papists are very full not sauouring at all of the holy scriptures but arising méerely of their owne deuise to cloake and couer the monstrous and filthie abhominations of the Roomish harlot P. Spence Sect. 11. VVHere we say as you coÌ„fesse that the testimony of one Gelasius or what other Doctor may not preiudicate the whole faith of them all generally we say so indeed yea we goe further and will yeeld you that Reijcimus singulos probamus omnes all of them togither or the greatest part of them consenting are the a The church of God is built vpoÌ„ the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2. that is vpon the old and new Testament But here both old and new Testament are iustled out of their place and the Doctors are made the mouth eyes and spirite
by the word of God the promise of that grace and blessing that is yéelded vnto vs by and in the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ Or else let him shew what commission he and his fellowes haue to tell vs that the word Made must import transubstantiation in the place of Tertullian and in S. Austen must import none If they haue no such then let them giue vs leaue to say that as we are made the bodie of Christ not by chaunging our substance but by being vnited and ioyned vnto him so the bread of the sacrament is made the bodie of Christ not by the chaunging of the nature of it as Theodoret saith but g Theodor. diâ—l 1. by adding grace vnto nature not by changing the substance but by altering the condition and vse thereof not by loosing his former being but by hauing the bodie of Christ vnited vnto it in such sort as I haue before declared through the almightie power of the word of God and the vnspeakable working of the holy Ghost So that as S. Ambrose saith h Ambrâ—â— sacra lib. 4 cap. 4. The bread and wine are the same that they were yet are chaunged to other also They are the same in substance that they were before but as touching the vse the vertue power and effect thereof they are chaunged into other As for the meditation that is offered vnto vs by the words of S. Austen it is too diuine heauenly for the Answerers grosse and fleshly conceit who can imagine no other receiuing of Christ but by the mouth nor eating of his flesh but into the belly We become the mysticall bodie of Christ by Baptisme as S. Paul teacheth Eph. 5. 26. There we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone There also as S. Austen noteth i August ser ad infan â—â—da 1. Cor. 10. We are made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ so that though one die before he come to the Sacrament of the bread and the cup yet is he not depriued of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament seeing hee hath founde that alreadie which this Sacrament signifieth Into this holie communion and fellowship with Christ we grow more and more through faith in the exercise of the word and of the other sacrament he abiding in vs and we in him he ministring vnto vs and we receiuing of him through the holy Ghost the suck and iuice of his heauenly grace euen as branches from the Vine wherby as his members we are quickened to euerlasting life Hereof Cyril and Hilary haue written indéed very diuinely but they must haue readers that are as diuinely and spiritually minded not such as the Answ is who turneth all to his owne carnall and Capernaitish imagination He should gather from these that such as is our vniting and ioyning vnto Christ such is our eating of his flesh and drinking his blood Our vniting vnto Christ is mysticall and spirituall not carnall and bodily Therfore such also must our eating and drinking be As for that grosse and bodily eating Cyrill maketh a straunge absurd matter of it when k Cyril aduer Theodoret. anathe â—â— he saith to Theodoret Doest thou pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man and prophanely vrge the mindes of them that beleeue to grosse imaginations and assaie to handle by humane conceits those things which are to be receiued by only pure and sincere faith By which wordes he plainly sheweth that the opinion of the Papists of the eating and drinking with the mouth the verie humane flesh and blood of Christ is a grosse and prophane imagination and therfore litle helpe may the Answ hope for to his purpose by any thing that Cyrill saith P. Spence Sect. 23. BVt S. Augustine saith Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see and drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me that is a S. Austen speakâ—â—h simplâ— of eating and dâ—inking â—ith the mouth and denieth the same of câ—tting in gobbets he saith nothing not to cut it in gobbets as the Capharnits imagined and as flesh to be bought in the shambles nor in this visible shape as it were Anthropophagi You must M. Abbot not snatch peeces of S. Augustine to make vp a patched testimony to serue your owne turne For so you may make your Doctor say what you will haue him But you must consider the circumstances of the place and thereafter iudge of the meaning as heere he talketh of the Capharnites butcherly Anthropophagicall imagination and therefore he telleth how we must eate Christs bodie I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament being spiritually vnderstood it shall giue you life c. As who should say b As who should say ye sâ—all not eate him in peeces but ye shall eâ—te him â—hole A miâ—â—rable anâ—were you shall not eate him cut in peeces but entire in a Sacrament in a most diuine sacramentall maner and in a spirituall high mysterie but yet most verily For you imagine c Spiritually importeth that it is a thing done by the spirit not by the bodie and therefore that we eate Christ by the faith of the heart not by the chewing of the teeth spiritually to be applied to the substance wheras it is to be referred to the maner We receiue his verie flesh not fleshly but spiritually We eate his verie bodie but not corporally or after a bodily maner as we eate common meates R. Abbot 23. FOr disproofe of that carnall eating and drinking and consequentlie of Transsubstantiation I alleaged Saint Austens exposition of Christes wordes in the sixth Chapter of saint Iohn concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood Saint Austen writing in Psal 98. falleth into treatie of the offence that many tooke at Christes words and sheweth the reason therof that they a August in Psal 98. tooke them foolishly they vnderstood them carnally and thought that he would cut them peeces of his flesh But if they had not bene hard hearted they would haue thought It is not without some cause that he saith this Surely there is some secret mysterie in it His disciples he instructed saith he and said vnto them It is the spirit that quickeneth c which he expoundeth thus Vnderstand spiritually that which I haue said Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being spiritually vnderstoode it shall giue you life This place doth plainly denie that eating and drinking of the very flesh and bloud of Christ which the Capernaits dreamed of and telleth vs that we do not eat Christes verie flesh nor drinke his very bloud namely with the mouth and body but that for our eating and drinking wee haue a sacrament commended vnto vs which being though visibly celebrated yet spiritually vnderstood doth make vs partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christ to euerlasting life
What answere maketh the man to this Forsooth saint Austen meaneth that wée cut not Christes flesh in gobbets nor as it is to be bought in the shambles nor we eate him not in a visible shape c. So then belike saint Austen meant that we eate not Christes body péecemeale but we swallow him whole and so the difference betwixt the Capernaites and vs must be only this that they would eate him in péeces and we eate him whole And this onely difference doth the Answ afterwardes make betwixt 1. Sect. â— 9 the Capernites and them that they eate him in a sacrament whole inuiolable like the paschal lambe without breaking or brusing him whereas the Capernaites imagined that they should eat him in péeces as flesh in the shambles Which mad fancie of eating Christ whole Bellarmine goeth about to approoue by another fancie as mad as it For b Belâ—arm tom 2. conâ— 3. lib. 3. cap. 22. being vrged that it is a horrible vnnaturall thing and therefore not standing with pietie to eate the verie flesh of man he answereth that the horrour heereof is onely in respect of the hurting and mangling of it For otherwise a man would willingly eate or as he more mildly termeth it would receiue into him his friend whom hee tenderly and dearely loueth if he might take him in whole and without hurting him Vndoubtedly Bellarmine is a kind man to his friend that can find in his heart to eate him if he might eate him whole and without doing him any harme But to leaue him in his madnesse we sée héere how faine the Answ would shift himselfe from being a brother to the Capernaites and it will not be The Gospell simply noteth the errour of the Capernaites to haue consisted in this that they thought they should with their very mouthes eate and drinke the very flesh and bloud of Christ The same is the grosse conceite of the Papistes and the Gospell condemneth both alike The fond distinction of the maner maketh no difference in that behalfe As for saint Austen he declareth his meaning plainly in his sermon to the people Hée knoweth none of these maners and péeuish differences but speaking of eating and drinking with the mouth he giueth them to vnderstand that it is but the sacrament which they eate and drinke not the flesh and bloud it selfe Ye shall not eate the body ye shall not drinke the bloud I haue commended to you a Sacrament In another place intreating of the verie same matter hee noteth that Christ signified to his hearers that hee would goe vp into heauen whole that they might vnderstand that he spake not of that eating his very body c Aug. in Ioh. tra 27. They thought that hee would giue them his very body but he told them that he would go vp into heauen euen whole Thus that we may not thinke that either péecemeale or whole wée eate the very body he giueth vs to vnderstand that he is ascended to heauen entire whole To which purpose Athanasius also saith How d Athan serm in illud Chri. Qui dixerit verbum contra filium should it be that all the world should eate of his flesh which would suffice but a few men But therefore our Lord when he spake vnto his Apostles of the eating of his flesh made mention of his ascention vnto heauen that hee might withdraw them from corporall and fleshly vnderstanding And so the Answerer eating of Christ whole is indéed but a fiction and absurd shift Yet let him remember what saint Austen saith againe in another place concerning the eating of Christ in the sacrament Thus he saith When e Aug. ser de ver Euan. Beda 1. cor 10 we eat Christ we make not peeces of him Yet surely in the Sacrament we doe so and the faithfull know how they eate the flesh of Christ Euerie one taketh his peece When the grace is called peeces Christ is eaten peecemeale and yet continueth whole Hee is eaten peece-meale in the Sacrament and abideth entire and whole in heauen Where he heareth saint Austen directly contrary to his assertion saying that the flesh of Christ in the sacrament is eaten péecemeale signifying that it is not indéed the reall and very flesh of Christ and yéelding vs for proofe thereof this argument That flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament is eaten péecemeale The true and reall flesh of Christ is not eaten péecemeale Therefore that flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament is not the true and reall flesh of Christ and consequently it is so onely sacramentally and in a mysterie A sound answere to this argument without shifting would do very well Whereas he saith againe that they eate Christ in the sacrament without breaking him let him hearken what Chrysostome saith This f Chrysost in 1. cor 10. hom 24. breaking we may see in the Eucharist but not vppon the crosse nay rather the contrarie there for not a bone of him shall be broken saith God But that which he suffered not vpon the crosse hee suffereth in the Sacrifice and permitteth himselfe to be broken for thee Beholde how Chrysostome saith that Christ who was not broken vpoÌ„ the crosse is broken in the sacrament and suffereth that nowe which hee did not suffer then to be done whereof we may gather thus that séeing the sacrament is broken and the true and reall bodie of Christ cannot be broken therefore the sacrament is not the true and reall body of Christ but mystâ—cally sacramentally and so in the breaking of the sacrament the body is mystically and sacramentally broken Whereas saint Austen saith that we must spiritually vnderstand that which Christ saith of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud the Answ telleth me that spiritually must be referred to the maner of the flesh because we eate it not like fleshe or cut in péeces or as we eate common meates But if wee follow this construction of hâ—s it cannot be auoyded but that the wicked and vngodly also do spiritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud If spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ consist in this that we eat him â—ot 〈◊〉 flesh hewed or chopt in péeces the wicked by thâ— doctrine of the Church of Roome doe eate him so as well as the godly because they are in that respect alike partakers of the sacrament But S. Austen teacheth expresly out of the g Ioh. 6. 5â— wordes of Christ that h August in Ioh. tract 26. they onely which abide in Christ and Christ in them do spiritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud Therefore the Answ exposition as it is a lewd and a cursed glose so it is expresly contrarie to the doctrine of saint Austen Such answeres become him very well But what is meant by vnderstanding spiritually I shewed by the words of Origen which he deceitfully passeth by and leaueth
them without answere There i Orig. in Leuit hom ◠is saith he in the new testament a letter which killeth him that doth not listen to it spiritually For if thou follow according to the letter that which is written Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud that letter killeth Where he teacheth vs that to vnderstand spiritually is to vnderstand not according to the letter not as the wordes sound not simply as things are vttered as k Chrysostome Chrysost in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 46. speaketh but to gather another meaning imported by the wordes For example he alleageth that those wordes of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud must not be vnderstood according to the letter and as the wordes import but another spirituall construction must be made of them Which S. Austen verie effectually and to the purpose sheweth in the next place that followeth now to be handled Pet. Spence Sect. 24. YEa but S. August lib. 30. de doctr Christiana striketh vs dead He seemeth saith he to commaund a hainous matter Therefore it is a figure commanding c. This is your great Achilles so much magnified of your side But I beseech you sir did saint Augustine bring in this speech vpon the place This is my body onels vpon the place of saint Iohn Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. You know it was vpon the latter place For when Christ told them they should eate his flesh they might imagine as indeede they did that they should a A butcherly answere fit for the shambles S. Austen taught not the Capernaites but vs to vnderstand eating and drinking not properly but by a figure eat it in gobbets cut slashed and hewed and chopped as flesh to the pot or the broach yea monstrous and like the Cannibals man-hunting and man-eating beastly maner Heere therefore they must needes by saint Augustines rule flee to some other more milder sense and to a more humane meaning which was that he would exhibite himselfe to them in a sacrament in a mysticall sweet spirituall maner But what then ergo not verily Nego argumentum Did saint Augustine say so any where no verily But at his supper when he raught his Apostles the formes of bread and wine and tolde them not beguiling them nor lying to them that it was his body and bloud that he gaue them to eate and drinke where was now that flagitium and facinus What feare was heere of any such Capharnaticall bloudie imagination Nay here he let them see how he before meant to giue them his body when at Caphernaum he said Nisi manducaueritis c. And therfore heare the maner of exhibiting his body verie truely though in a sacrament to be verily eaten but not mangled our worried and torn in peeces giueth neither feare or need or occasion to S. Augustines rule proue that S. August meant it in this place that at his supper he gaue only a figure or els you prooue nothing R. Abbot 24. HEere S. Austens drist is to shewe what spéeches of the holy scripture are to be vnderstood properly and what figuratiuely and to another meaning then the wordes sound Of the latter sort he setteth downe this rule a Aug 〈…〉 6 If it be a speech that seemeth to command any haynous or wicked thing or to forbid the doing of good it is a figuratiue speech Whereof he had giuen this rule before b We must take heede that we take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter For to this belongeth that of the Apostle The letter killeth for when a man taketh a thing spoken by figure as if it were properly spoken hee doth carnally vnderstand it Héereof he giueth for example those wordes Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. Of this he saith It seemeth to commaund a hainous and wicked thing Therefore it is a figure that is to say a figuratiue spéech and therefore must not bee vnderstood as the wordes doe import The meaning of this figure he declareth It willeth vs to cōmunicate with the passion of Christ and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memorie that his fleshe was crucified and wounded for vs. Then by S. Austens iudgement the meaning of this figuratiue spéech of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is to apply vnto our selues the benefite of his passion and comfortably to record that his flesh was wounded and his bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Whereby it is euident that he neuer dreamed of that monstrous and lothsome eating and drinking which the church of Roome teacheth flesh bloud and bone as he was born of the virgin Mary as some of them Canniball and Capernait-like haue vttered This place the Answ saith is our great Achilles much magnified of our side The greater this Achilles is the more strongly it behooued him to haue fought against it But he saith nothing to it but that that is ridiculous and childish First he commeth in with a bald and impertinent question Did S Austen bring in this spéech vppon the place This is my body He did not so and what then Surely this is but to talke idlely and not to care what he saith so be say some what He bringeth it in for that purpose for which I alleaged it to expoūd the words of Christ in the sixth of Iohn of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ and telleth vs that it is a figuratiue spéech and therefore must not be vnderstoode according to the proper signification of eating and drinking What saith this good man to it Forsooth the Capernaites when they heard Christ speake of this matter might imagine as indéed they did saith he that they should eat it in gobbets cut slashed and hewed c. Therfore they must néeds by S. Austens rule flee to a milder sense and to a more humane meaning Then belike S. Austen taught the Capernaites howe they should haue vnderstoode the wordes of Christ but hee teacheth not vs. For we are farre from imagining the eating of Christes fleshe in gobbets slashed hewed chopt in péeces as the Answ speaketh with his butcherly and barbarous termes Alas children sée the folly of these answeres S. Austen in that place giueth vs a rule of vnderstanding the scriptures He giueth this place for an example of his rule He teacheth vs that to eat and drink the flesh and bloud of Christ importeth a horrible and hainous thing if we vnderstand eating and drinking properly He talketh not of slashing or hewing but of eating and drinking and therefore telleth vs that wée must vnderstand eating and drinking not properly but by a figure He telleth vs what the meaning of it is as I haue shewed before Not a word to intimate any such Popish construction nay he condemneth it as a hainous and wicked imagination The matter is cléere Euery eye may discerne it
hope and charitie ioyned with the entrance of his blessed bodie into ours so by that diuine touching thereof we are so vnited to him as man and woman by the coniunction of their bodies become one body or one flesh according to S. Paul For we being many are one bread and one body all which are partakers of one bread and one cup. 1. Cor. 10. This same one bread and one cup whereof we participate is Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament receiued which by entring into our bodies and touching vs maketh vs all one b In that maner do we eat Christ as hee maketh vs one amongst our selues one with him This is not done by bodily touching therefore neither do we eate him by bodily feeding amongst our selues and one with him this being a Sacrament of vnitie And it is to be vnderstood of Christ not of verie bread which cannot be one in so manie places of the christian world but c It is one bread in mystery throughout all the world euen as it is one cup. diuers breads We doe therefore participate of one bread in the blessed Sacrament which is Christ R. Abbot 27. HE confesseth those excellent and heauenly effects of the Sacrament which I set downe sauing that I follow Caluins metaphysical imagination as he termeth it that we receiue the same effects in the sacrament by faith Caluins iudgement in that point is indéed more metaphysicall then that a méere naturall should vnderstand it Hée knew well enough that Christians come not to their sacraments as swine to a trough as if they were to receiue the graces of God with their bodily mouthes and therefore that it must be the hand of the soule a Augu. in Ioh. tra 50. which is faith that must receiue the same both in the word and in the sacrament He found by comparing the spéeches of b Ioh. 6. 47. 54 Christ in the sixth of Iohn that by beléeuing in Christ wee eate and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ and consequently receiue all the vertues and graces that arise from thence to vs. He found that S. Austen did so expound it To c August in Ioh. tra 26. beleeue in Christ saith he that is to eate the bread of life He that beleeueth in him eateth him He knew that the fathers of the old testament receiued the same graces that we doe and that they receiued them by faith and that we haue d cor 4. 13. the same spirite of faith as they had and therefore by faith are made partakers of the same graces as they were He knew that God had appointed both the word and Sacramentes to be meanes both to beginne and also to continue vphold increase our faith that by this faith in the exercise of the same word sacraments we might more more grow into societie and vnity with Christ vntil we attaine to the fulnesse of our perfection Now whereas the Answ obiecteth that if our eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ be onely by faith then we may eate and drinke the same at any time without any sacrament I would haue him know that we take not the same eating and drinking to be any momentany action but the continuall exercise of a liuely faith For although the minde perhaps by reason of the present occasion be most effectually bestowed to this exercise either in the vse of the word or especially of the sacrament and of the sacrament so much the more by how much visible and apparant signes and tokens are more forcible to moue vs then onely words yet we know that neither the word nor the sacraments haue onely a present effect but serue to settle and continue Christ in our consciences in such sort that he may be a continual meat for our soules to féede vpon that by the assured beliefe of his body giuen and his bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes our heartes may be chéered continually and comforted against al the occasions of doubt and distrustfulnesse which from day to day and from houre to houre arise to disquiet our mindes And as Abraham our father though he had faithfully embraced the promise of God and the couenant of his grace yet néeded the sacrament of circumcision for a seale of the same couenant thereby to be vpholden in the continuall assurance thereof so we though we haue once by the word of the Gospel and participation of his sacraments receiued Christ to be the food and sustenance of our soules yet that we loose not Christ again and the comfort of his grace our fayth néedeth to be continually exercised and strengthened by the offering and yéelding of Christ vnto vs in his word and sacraments which else through the want of these meanes would faile decay and dye in vs euen as we sée the body to perish for want of his dayly foode Which I note for the auoiding of that cauil which perhaps the Answ would mooue against that that hath béen said that if we may eate the flesh and bloud of Christ without any sacrament then we need not any sacrament for the doing thereof For although we do by fayth eate and drinke the same when there is no sacrament yet it followeth not thereof that the sacrament is néedlesse because the Sacrament is one of those speciall and most effectuall meanes whereby God offereth and giueth Christ vnto vs with all his benefites to be ours that our faith may lay hold vpon him and receiue him to make him the continuall food and sustenance of our soules And if the aforesaid eating and drinking import not such an action as may be at al times and without the sacrament what shall we say of those that are hindered from euer being partakers of the Sacrament as the théefe that was crucified with Christ but that they are consequently secluded from euelasting life For Christ sayth e Ioh. 6. 53. Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall not haue euerlasting life If then the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ cannot be without the sacrament it followeth that he which receiueth not the sacrament faileth of eternall life But to say so is erronious and damnable doctrine Therefore the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ signifieth such a thing as may be done at all times and without the sacrament But now that the Answ hath so reiected that maner of receiuing the grace of Christ in the sacrament which Caluin taught let vs sée how he will haue the same to be receiued He saith we haue it by our spirituall receiuing of Christ in faith hope and charitie But this hangeth not well togither with that which he saith afterward of the sacraments yéelding their effect by the very worke wrought and therefore without any of these Let that be reserued to his due place But héere we haue him confessing that fayth is one
himselfe to be chaunged by the water and not by faith Héereby it is plaine that Baptisme hath his force not of the verie worke done but of true and vnfayned faith working in the heart good conscience towards God So as touching the other Sacrament S. Austen referreth the vertue and effect thereof h August in Ioh. tr 26. de ciuit dei li. 21. cap. 25. to our eating inwardly and in the heart and this eating inwardly hée expoundeth to be our beleeuing in Christ and resolueth that hée that by this beleeuing in Christ abideth not in Christ and Christ in him he doth not spiritually eate and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ though he receiue the sacrament thereof Therefore neither doth this Sacrament auaile by the worke wroughâ— but onely by faith whereby we abide in Christ and Christ in vs. A miserable doctrine it is whereby men are borne in hand that comming without faith voyd of knowledge without repentance or any good motion yet they may receiue the effect of the sacraments whereas the Scripture so plainly affirmeth that i Rom 14. 23. whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne and that k Heb. 11. 6. without faith it is vnpossible to please God and therfore precisely chargeth euery man before he come to the Lords table l 1. cor 11. 28. to examine himselfe m 2 Cor. 13. 5. in that behalf But for disproofe of this assertion it is reason enough that there can be no reason nor probable shew of reason giuen whereby to prooue it Of the difference of the Iewes sacraments and ours I haue spoken before We abase neither but lift both verie high The consent of the Euangelists auaileth with me to make me yéeld to that which can be soundly prooued thereby not to euerie thing that froward and peruerse men will péeuishly fancie thereof P. Spence Sect. 31. YOu tell me a matter out of S. Luke 22. but in good sooth to what purpose I cannot imagine Who euer denied but it was Metonymia when he said this cup is the new testament or rather two tropes in one sentence For the cup is taken for Christes bloud in the cup and to be the new testament is to be the seale establishment promulgation and consecration of the newe testament Who euer denied it but because we say that the true body and bloud of Christ is contained in the sacramentall formes and that Christ saying This is my body spake plainly a Be like wheÌ„ you list there is a figure and when you list there is none You might vnderstand the one by a Figure as well as the other without a figure therefore must we meane so grosly that no where the scripture speaking of this matter vseth a figure Oâ— would you conclude thus in these wordes This cup is the new testament there is a figure ergo in these words This is my body Logick will be good cheape if this may go for currant But good sir let me be bold a little with you to put you in minde of this place of S. Luke that b A popish peeâ—ish brag See the aunswere Qui calix so troubled Beza that he wist not what to say to it but he imagined that either some sorie fellow had foysted it into the text or els that S. Luke spake false greeke so sure he was that the text was awry it made so sore against him For setting it downe by the participle as it is in greeke thus it soundeth hic calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo pro vobis effusus Which must needes respect Calix for his substantiue and then the cup that is the liquor in the cup was shed for them and vs all which if it were wine let euerie good christian man iudge I hope he shed for our saluation a farre more pretious liquor then wine And doctor Fulke to salue this sore telleth vs that in many places of the greeke text of other Scriptures there is incongruitie Very true I confesse but it is smally to the purpose For where no sense will helpe the syntaxis there we must needs graunt incongrâ—itie But how c There are reasons enough to proue it See the answere prooued doctor Fulke that the sense wherein this place is congrue and according to grammer is not the true sense Or why should he not allow it for congrue being indeede congrue Or why should Beza imagine and he allovv of a sense that is not congrue when the text was congrue enough This point being the state of the question Doctor Fulke stealeth away from and medleth not vvith it because it vvas too plain for vs and against his sacramentarie doctrine As likevvise vvas that place of S. Luke vvhere drinking at his Supper in vvine to his Disciples before hee instituted the Sacrament he told them hee vvould drinke vvine no more till in his kingdome vvhich vvas after his resurrection and yet a litle after he d VVhat did Christ drinke his owne bloud we can not beleue it drank to them in the Sacrament vvhich if it had beene vvine hee had contraried his former speech an absurditie I thinke not to be admitted R. Abbot 31. FOr further answere as touching the conformitie vsed in these wordes This is my body I shewed how S. Luke and S. Paul varie from S. Mathew and S. Marke as touching the other part of the sacrament For whereas these say this is my bloud of the new testament c. The other say This cup is the new testament in my bloud c. And these latter wordes I shewed to â—e the ouerthrow of transubstantiation But the Answ in good sooth telleth me that he cannot sée to what purpose this is alleaged I pray you therefore M. Spence put him in minde of his headlesse reason which he hath vsed before Christ saith he will call nothing by a wrong name If he should call fire water earth by the names of ayre stones or bread they would sooner become ayre stones bread then he would misname any thing He did not lie to his Disciples he did not â—eguile them Therefore when he said This cup is the new Testament without doubt the cup was substantially turned into a Testament Nay not so saith he there is a figure here Yea and may a thing be called by a wrong name by a figure is there now a figure in these words Why then is the man so straight laced that he cannot yéeld a figure in the other words especially séeing the auncient Fathers so expresly expounde them by way of figure and neither he nor his can make any certaine exposition of them but by a figure But it followeth not he saith that because there is a figure in the one spéech therfore there is so also in yâ— other Yet say I if it follow not that because Christ taking the cup said thereof This cup is the new Testament therefore the cup was turned into the testament then it followeth
the allegation of his passion and resurrection because they were once done and passed the memories of them cannot be the things themselues but a memorie only But his bodie euer remaining the memory of it may be also the very thing it selfe that S. Augustine in so many places affirmeth that you must not so rack this place to ouerthrow the other and to set him at bate with himselfe Ioyne therefore with this testimonie of S. Augustine another place of the same August in Sententijs Prosperi and by that learne to vnderstand his own meaning of his secundum quendam modum The place is thus It is his flesh which in the Sacrament we receiue couered in the forme of bread and it is his bloud which we drink vnder the figure and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud a Sacrament of bloud By flesh and bloud both inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ Heere you see by answere not by vs patched and clouted but b Vntrue for it cannot be shewed that these are his wordes and yet they serue not the Answ turne as shall appeare by himselfe set down he explicateth thus much that in both sides is true flesh and true bloud But now to his secundum quendam modum he telleth you that on the one side is flesh couered in the forme of bread in the Sacrament and bloud vnder the forme and sauour of wine inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode this for the maner of the one but on the earth and now in heauen a a visible and palpable body Yet remember that flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud of bloud More I might say but infinite haue said it to them I send you R. Abbot 13. FOr the exposition of Christes wordes This is my body I shewed the testimonies of the ancient fathers that Christ called the bread and wine his body bloud taking for the ground of my speech that which S. Austen saith a Aug. Epis◠23. that Sacraments haue a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments and that because of this resemblance they commonly take vnto them the names of the thinges themselues whereof they are sacramentes Now to this rule the Answerer saith nothing at all as neither he did before when I mentioned it concerning sacrifice whereas hée should haue taken it for his greatest enemie and therefore fought most strongly against it because héereby is discharged the greatest part of that which either he or his fellowes can obiect for their sacrifice reall presence and Transubstantiation But I gather hereby his wilfull and malicious resolution against plaine and euident trueth The wordes which he answereth next follow immediatly after the words alreadie mentioned As therefore saith S. b Ibid. Austen the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ and the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is after a sort his bloud so the sacrament of faith namely baptisme is faith Whereby S. Austen exemplifieth that which he had said before that sacramēts because of their resemblance take the names of the things whereof they are sacramentes For euen so the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ is after a sorte that is by resemblance the body and bloud of Christ not verily and indeed then but after a sorte and by resemblance and so by resemblance called the bodie and the bloud of Christ for as the sacrament of the body is the bodie so the sacrament of faith is faith The sacrament of faith is not faith indeed but by questions and answeres of faith it betokeneth the faith of Christian men So therefore the sacrament of the body is not indéed the body but betokeneth the body of Christ that was giuen for vs and so because of this resemblance is called the body And this is the maner or sorte of which S. Austen speaketh not a maner of reall being but a maner of speaking and sacramentall betokening As for that which the Answ saith to note that maner that the sacrament is inuisibly but yet truely the body and so a memorie that it is the thing it selfe S. Austen acknowledgeth no such matter nay it is contrary to the whole drift and purpose of S. Austens spéech And beside it is vnreasonable and absurde that the same thing should be the sacrament and the thing it selfe the signe and the thing signified the memoriall and the thing remembred neither hangeth it togither by any better reason then as if a man should be said to be his owne father or a husband to be a husband in respect of himselfe or a Prince to be a Prince vnto himselfe and so to be both Prince and subiect Euery child knoweth that the sacrament of Christes bodie is the visible signe of Christes bodie as all sacraments are visible signes and the visible signe of Christes body is not the body it selfe Therefore the sacrament of Christes body is not the body it selfe Yea S. Austens saying as is before alleaged that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of c De conse dist 2. cap. Ho◠est two things the sacrament which is the visible element and the matter of the sacrament which is the body of Christ maketh it plain enough y◠he took the sacrament of Christes body and the body it selfe to be two things and not one as the Answ absurdly conceiueth But yet he taketh vpon him to proue this absurditie by S. Austen himselfe and alleageth certaine wordes by which hée would haue me to vnderstand this place which hath béen alreadie spoken of The words are thus d De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered in the forme of bread and his bloud which we drinke vnder the forme and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a sacrament of flesh and bloud is a sacrament of bloud By the flesh and bloud both visible spirituall and intelligible is signified the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues c. Now of these wordes the Answ as some other of his fellowes doe maketh a monstrous conclusion as if Christ had two kindes of flesh at one and the same time one visible another inuisible one in heauen another in earth e Tho. Aqui. Par. 3. qu. 76. art 3. one hauing the due proportion of a body the other without all proportion and hauing no difference of head or féete or any other parts one the same as it was borne of the virgin Mary the other like to the phantasie of Marcion and the Manichees of the nature of a spirit f Ibid art 4. whole in the whole cake and whole in euerie part of the cake so that though it be broken into a thousand péeces yet euerie one of them hath the whole body of Christ But we beléeue not any such
elementes not visibly and corporally and to be perceiued with the eye but inuisibly and spiritually and to be conceiued with the vnderstanding Where I make not that conteining or couering or being vnder a physicall or locall matter but I meane it partly in respect of signification in which maner saint Austen saith that a August de catechi rud cap. 4. in the old Testament the new was hidden and that b Ibid epis 89. the incarnation of Christ was couered or hidden in the time of the old Testament the reason of which maner of spéech he elswhere maketh to be this c Ibid. de Baptiâ—mo cont Donat. lib. 1. cap. 15. because it was hiddenly signified So he saith againe that Christ did d â—bid in Ioh. tra 2â— couer grace in those wordes which hee vsed in the sixth of Iohn of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud meaning that he did obscurely signifie the same To this purpose Bertram saith as touching the sacrament that it e Bert. de coâ— sang domi sheweth one thing without in figure but within it doth represent another through the vnderstanding of faith partly in respect of the secret inuisible working of the spirite of God f Cypria de caena domini whose diuine maiestie as Cyprian speaketh doth neuer absent it selfe from the holy mysteries but doth though without appearing to the eie hiddenly worke the effect of that which is signified Thus we may say as touching Baptisme that it is the bloud of Christ couered or hidden in the visible element of water that doth clense vs from our sinnes In which maner the councel of Nice saith g concil Nice In fine ex cut hâ—r Tonstallo To. 1. concil Our Baptisme must be considered not with bodily eyes but with the eyes of the mind Thou seest water but consider the power of God couered or lying hidden in the water Thinke the water to be full of the sanctification of the holy Ghost and of diuine fire And thus doth Chrysostome declare the nature of all Christian mysteries in which saith he h Chrys in 1. cor hom 7. we see not that which we beleeue but we see one thing and beleeue another and therefore the beléeuing man is otherwise affected in them then the infidell For sayth he the infidell hearing of the water of Baptisme thinketh it to be meerely water but I doe not simply see that which I see but I behold it in the cleansing of the soule through the holy Ghost Heereupon hée compareth these mysteries to bookes which an vnlerned man taketh and séeth the letters but vnderstandeth nothing thereof But one that is learned findeth great matter laid vp or couered and hidden in them so the infidell hearing of our mysteries séemeth not to heare them but the expert Christian beholdeth great vertue in the things that are hidden in them Thus things which are signified by our mysteries are said to be couered hidden in theÌ„ because they are not perceiued with the bodily eie but only with the eie of the faithful and beleuing mind The meaning then of the words aboue named according to the doctrine of S. Austen must be thus that in the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ it is not meere bread wine that we receiue but it is in vnderstanding and spirituall grace and blessing the flesh and bloud of Christ not appearing so to the sense which discerneth onely bread and wine but yet as in all other mysteries of Christian Religion so in this fayth beholdeth heauenly grace couertly and hiddenly conteined through the holy Ghost and by the visible elementes perceiueth the inward force of the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ The reason whereof is because the visible signes which beare the name of the flesh and bloud of Christ are Sacramentes and therefore not onely haue the name but conteine the force and power of that true flesh and blood of Christ where in he suffered for our sinnes And so by these visible things which thus inuisibly spiritually and only by way of vnderstanding and mysterie are the flesh and blood of Christ is signified that true body of Christ which is visible palpaple full of grace vertue maiestie and glory No other meaning can the Answ make of these wordes by S. Austen vnlesse he will contrarie those generally receiued groundes which Saint Austen setteth downe and surely hard it is to find in Austen that Christ hath one bodie visible palpable full of grace vertue maiestie and glorie another not so as these words import if they be vnderstood as the Answerer taketh them And if he will haue the word Forme as I knowe his meaning is to import such emptie formes as he maketh without substance S. Austen will deny him that for that he maketh it the generall name of the outward signe in all Sacraments when he defineth a Sacrament thus i De co 〈…〉 〈◊〉 dist â— ca. â—â—r It is a visible forme of inuisible grace But now if I séeme partiall in expounding these words let the same Saint Austen as Gratian citeth him euen in the verie next words iustifie this exposition For thus he saith k Ibid. cap. Hoc est The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is in it maner called the bodie of Christ whereas it is indeed the Sacrament of his bodie euen of that bodie which being visible and palpable was put vpon the Crosse and the offering of the same flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Where S. Austen plainly calleth the heauenly bread of the Sacrament the flesh of Christ yet not as being flesh verily and indéed for then it shoâ—ld truly properly be called the body of Christ But now it is so called but only in it maner whereas it is indéed but a Sacrament of his bodie which manner he declareth in the other point to be not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie And if I be partiall here also let the glose expound it l Ibid in Gloâ— The heauenly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but vnproperly WherupoÌ„ it is said in it maner not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie that the meaning may be thus It is called the bodie of Christ that is the bodie of Christ is signified If this wil not serue let him heare also the maister of the sentences whom he may not dislike vnlesse he can say Hic magister non tenetur He hauing set downe the words which the Answ vrgeth saith thus m Sent. lib. 4. dist 10. Marke here diligently that S. Austen here vseth a trope or figure wherby the signs do beare the name of the things signified by them For here the visible forme
and not to bethinke any thing els For these things must not be iudged of as they seeme but all mysteries are to be considered with the inward eies that is to say spiritually The forging of this lesson maketh the Answ to play the Athenian mad man so that wheresoeuer he heareth of the body of Christ in the sacrament hée dreameth of his reall and carnall presence wheresoeuer he readeth of eating the flesh and drinking the bloud of Christ hée imagineth his carnall and Capernaitish feeding But let him vnderstand Chrisostome by Chrysostomes own rule and he shall finde nothing in him to stand him in any stéed for these grosse conceites P. Spence Sect. 15. YOur place of S. Cyprian Our Lord gaue at his supper bread and wine c. De vnctio Chrismat Besides many other places of S. Cyprian proouing the reall presence marke this place vnmaymed and tell me what you thinke of it and how you a I like it very well for hee saith plainly that Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples with his own hands bread and wine like it But yet you make me maruell what you make in this Sermon prowling for a testimonie where the Sermon it selfe is wholly against you haue you in your church the vse b VVe neither haue it nor care to haue it because christ hath not taught of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended haue you retained c Dâ—gma tuum â—â—rdet cum te tua cuâ—pa remordet any shadowe of the publique and generall reconciliation of sinners spoken of him in this Sermon done by the Church with musick and common Iubilations and reioycings of the whole multitude in their reconciliation as heere S. Cyprian if you wil admit him for the authour of these Sermons wonderfull gallantly setteth out And withall doe ye like of this thing M. Abbot that he saith that it was done in that time by publique order of the Church when Christ as he vttereth it brought out the prisoners from hell Or as he saith a little before when as descending to hell he turned the olde captiuitie and led it captiue Or doe you like of this point that he left this example to his Church by tradition yet continuing that there should be in the Church absolution of sinners Thinke you Christ descended into hell I doubt you doe not except in that most pitifull damnable sorte to speake no worse of it which d It is horror to the Papist which is the speciall comfort of a true christian maÌ„ with horrour I must remember that hee should suffer hell tormentes himselfe vppon the Crosse What meant you then to put vs in minde of this booke so much condemning your practises and so notoriously testifying the auncient custom of hallowing of the oyle vpon this time of Christes passion to serue for all the yeare after And yet the fathers forsooth are yours against vs. I oppose nothing but wish to be quiet els you might heare whether they speake for vs. Thus then to the place he had shewed before that the Sacramentes one of the which hee maketh vnction by expresse word doe worke our ioyning to Christ for that coniunctions sake he inferreth Our Lord then at the table where he eate his last supper with his Apostles gaue with his owne handes bread and wine but vpon the crosse he yeelded his body to be wounded by the handes of the soulâ—iours But why or how to giue theÌ„ bare bread no But â—hat sincere trueth and true sinceritie being more secretly imprinted in the Apostles should declare vnto the nations What that the Sacramentes were bare e Not so but that being in tâ—en own nature but onely commoÌ„ creatures â—read wine yet by grace and by the worde of God they are to our faith not onely in name but in power the flesh bloud of christ the pledges of the grace of God the assuraÌ„ces of our immortalitie the seales of our redemption and as it were vessels wherin God setteth before vs all his promises of blessings that we may receiue and enioy the same bread and wine a deep high point forsooth in such secret figuratiue sort to be shewed No M. Abbot they should shew the nations How wine and bread are the flesh and bloud and in what sort the causes agree to the effects and diuers names or kindes are reduced or brought to one essence Do you heare essence they be brought to one essence or one substance helpe that sore if you can with all your cunning and the signes and the things signified are reckoned by the same names And he hath told you why they should be called by one name because as he said before with the same breath they were brought to one essence In the next period he termeth the Sacrament f Not because of the substaÌ„ce of iâ— but because of the mysterie and signification the tree of life Read what our side doth tell you vpon this and infinite such places in their bookes which my simplenesse is not worthy to beare or touch and yet you oppose me wil mine answers as though the credite of the cause hanged wholly vppon my small skill and learning or as though I must not beleeue the Catholique religion except I were a doctor in the same R. Abbot 15. THe Answerer being wéeried as it séemeth with the euidence of the testimonies cited against him and therefore desirous to take breath a while maketh an idle vagary in answering this place of a câ—prian de vnct chriâ—matis Cyprian and vrgeth me with other matters conteined and commended in that sermon which hée saith are not vsed or receiued in our Church as Chrisme absolution the descending of Christ into hell But I maruell whether he were well aduised or not when he wrote these thinges or whether hee vnderstood what Cyprian said To answere to them in order First hée demaundeth Haue you in your Church the vse of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended He bringeth no reason whereby to prooue anie necessitie of Chrisme and therefore it may be sufficient to answere him with the like demaund Haue you in your Church of Roome the custome of washing eche others feete vppon maundy thursday so much commended in this sermon and which you are here told that Christ b Hâ—â— soleâ—â—i d 〈…〉 tione omni tempore aâ—endum instituit instituted to be alwaies done with solemne deuotion in the vse wherof Saint c Ambros de sacram lib. 3. cap. 1. Ambrose also thought that his church of Millaine did more rightly then the old church of Roome in not vsing it He wil say the they haue lawfully refused this We say that we haue as lawfully refused the other These were arbitrary and indifferent ceremonies taken vp by the will of men and by the will of men and by the libertie of men to be refused againe d Staâ—ulen in Dâ—oni Aâ—cop Eccle. Hieraâ— Stapulensis vppon Dyonisius noteth many
As for that which he asketh whether Christ doe not giue himselfe verily vnto vs wee say he doth and that wholly with all that is his yet not to be eaten with the mouth as being héere on earth but to be receiued by faith sitting in heauen as I said before out of S. Austen And this is enough for vs to prooue and in proouing wherof we confound that c Supr sect 22. grosse imagination as Cyrill calleth it of eating the fleshe of Christ with the mouth into the belly For that Christ at his supper giueth onely a figure and nothing else we néede not prooue it because it is not our assertion but the Answ cauill and a Popish slaunder As for the meaning of Christes wordes This is my body it is shewed before Christ did not lie to his Disciples nor beguile theÌ„ in so saying His Disciples were no Capernaites they were no Papistes They knew that Christ instituted deliuered a sacrament They knew that sacrameÌ„ts are called by the names of those things which they signifie whereof they had example in the name of the passeouer which they celebrated at the same time calling it the Passeouer which was indéede but a remembronce and signe thereof Therefore they vnderstood the meaning of Christ to be as the ancient Fathers expound it This is a Figure a signe a Sacrament of my bodie They saw the true bodie of Christ before theyr eyes They knewe that Christ had not a bodie at one and the same instant visible and inuisible with forme and without forme sitting at the table and yet inclosed in a little fragment or crust of bread These leaud and vntowardly fancies were not yet bredde They deliuered no such vnto vs and therefore we beléeue no such Let me thus conclude out of these two places this of Austen and that before of Origen He that vnderstandeth a figuratiue spéech according to the letter doth misunderstand it But he that vnderstandeth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh blood concerning the very eating of his flesh and drinking his blood with the mouth vnderstandeth a figuratiue spéech according to the letter Therefore he that so vnderstandeth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood doth misunderstand it But the church of Rome doth so vnderstand it Therefore the Church of Rome doth vnderstand it amisse P. Spence Sect. 25. TO conclude we eate drinke in the blessed Sacrament Christs flesh and blood really truly and indeed but not bodily for so much I will graunt you taking bodily for after a grosse bodily maner but sacramentally figuratiuely and in a diuine mysterie in a figure not a figure of Rhetoricke or of Grammer but in a diuine figure but yet verie truly R. Abbot 25. HEre is now the Answ conclusion set downe without any premisses vpon his bare word namely that in the Sacrament they verily and truly eate and drinke the flesh and blood of Christ But against this presumed conclusion of his I oppose the auncient praier of the Church mentioned by a De corp san do Bertram b De sacr Euch. Lanfrancus and c De conse dist 2. ca. â—pecies Gratian Let thy Sacraments ô Lord worke in vs that which they containe that what we now celebrate in signe or resemblance we may in the truth of the things receiue the same They praied to receiue the truth of the things Of what things Namely of those the signe or resemblance whereof they celebrated in the Sacrament that is of the bodie and blood of Christ Then the Sacrament it selfe is not the truth of the bodie and blood but only the signe the image and resemblance therof For with what reason should they pray to receiue the truth of that which verily and truly they did receiue alreadie But their praier was that whereas they did now receiue but the image and signe of the bodie and blood of Christ they might in the kingdome of heauen enioy the thing it selfe the very bodie and very blood of Christ And hereof d Bertr de corp san dom Bertram in his booke very soundly concludeth that the bodie of Christ is not verily really in the Sacrament whose whole collection to that purpose being very strong the e Index Expuâ—â—n coâ—r Bertr Spanish censurers in their Index aboue named haue treacherously appointed to be left vnprinted as before I shewed of another place Lanfrancus to auoyd the euidence of this auncient praier so plainly contradicting the reall presence betaketh himselfe to an absurd shift whose words to that purpose being Gratian hath taken and put into the decrées in the chapter last before cited That Truth he saith is to be vnderstood of the manifestation and open reuealing of the bodie of Christ and affirmeth that the name of truth is diuerse times vsed in scripture to that meaning but yet alleageth not any one place to prooue it so Further he addeth that the word species doth sometime import the very Truth it selfe and so in that maier he will haue it vnderstood Then the meaning of the praier must be thus that they might receiue in truth that which they did now receiue in truth or that they might receiue in truth that is visibly and manifestly that which they now receiued in truth but inuisibly and vnder another shape But the Church as it is alwaies conuenient vsed their praier plainly and without these sophistications If they had meant so they had words inough to expresse their meaning neither néeded they to vse such doubtfull words to séeme to say one thing and yet to meane another They plainly oppose species and veritas the signe and the truth one against the other They would not put veritas in an vnproper signification as opposit to species and vnderstand it in proper signification included in the word species This were a very straunge and vnwonted kinde of speaking And therfore referring the signe or resemblance to the time present and the truth to the time to come they plainly shewe that there is not now in the Sacrament the very truth but only the resemblance of the bodie of Christ and therfore that we do not in the sacrament really and verily with our mouthes eate the bodie of Christ And this is most plainely affirmed by Hierome as Gratian citeth him in the decrées f â—e conse di 2 cap. de hac Surely saith he Of this sacrifice which is wonderfully made in remembrance of Christ a man may eate but of that which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse as touching it selfe no man may eate The hoste or sacrifice which Christ offered vppon the Crosse was his verie body and bloud The sacrament thereof he saith we doe receiue and eate but as touching it selfe no man may eat thereof Therefore no man may eate the very body and drinke the very bloud of Christ but these spéeches must be figuratiuely vnderstood as hath béen noted out of Austen And whereas the Answ saith for
declaration of S. Austens meaning that we eate the flesh of Christ in a figure not in a figure of Rhetoricke or Grammer but in a diuine figure he may haue that iustly returned to him which S. Austen said of a forefather of his g Aug. cont aduer leg proph lib. 2. cap. 9. Imperita peritia de figurarum qualitate tractat He would seeme skilfull but talketh verie vnskilfully of the qualitie of Figures For if he were required a meaning of this his diuine figure no doubt it would prooue to be a verie disfigured and mishapen thing He had a fancie in his head wherein hee thought he had gone beyond al his fellowes he was glad y◠he had gotten occasion héere to vtter it But the Figure of which S. Austen speaketh is figurata locutio a figuratiue speech a Rhetoricke figure called a metaphore which is not to be vnderstood h August de doctr Christ lib. 3. cap. 5. 16. proprie or ad literam properly of according to the letter and as the wordes do barely signifie as before hath béene said because by the said figure the word is translated from his own proper signification to expresse another thing which in some respect is fitly and conueniently resembled thereby As for example because by beléeuing we do as it were lay hold vpon Christ apply him vnto our selues make him ours assure our selues of his body crucified and his bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes to the reliefe comfort of our distressed and afflicted soules euen as in eating we take meate and receiue it into our stomacks and incorporate it into our selues to the cherishing and strengthning of our weake and féeble bodies therefore the word of eating which properly belongeth to the body is vsed to expresse the effect of beléeuing in Christ which appertaineth onely to the soule And thus doth S. Austen meane that there is a figure in these wordes of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ as appeareth both in the place aboue mentioned as touching this figure and by his exposition of the same words vpon the sixth of Iohn P. Spence Sect. 26. GOdly men haue noted vpon these wordes Tradetur effundetur shal be giuen shal be shed that Christ vsed them by an Energie to signifie that the blessed Sacrament that he gaue to his Apostles was not his phantasticall or imaginatiue bodie but that verie bodie of his that was to be crucified tormented and slaine on the crosse I confesse those wordes not strong enough to compell a repining aduersarie but yet verie well able sweetly to allure a A seely foole that without tryall will beleeue whatsoeuer the church of Roome doth lewdly perswade him an obedient childe of the Catholique Church to beleeue her in this point hauing so many other infinite reasons ioyned thereunto But remember I oppose not neither will I neither may I by the laws but only much against my will I am drawne by you to answere your obiections according to my small talent Otherwise you should heare whether the fathers be ours or not or what wee might say to this effect R. Abbot 26. OF the words of Christ This is my bodie which shal be giuen This is my bloud which shal be shed The Answerer confesseth that that additiē which shal be giuen which shal be shed is not an argument strong enough against a repining aduersarie but yet able to allure an obedient childe of the Church It is vsed in corners indéede to seduce and be guile the ignorant but alas simple soules that suffer themselues to be deceiued with those argumentes which their seducers confesse to be no substantiall proofes I hold you one of those simple ones M. Spence who alleaged it to me for a verie good reason If Campion tooke it not to be so then was it great want of discretion in him a Camp Rat. 2 to alleage it as an argument to vniuersitie men who hee might know would soone take notice of his folly in that be halfe And héere I may not omit to note the peruerse dealing of the Answ godly men forsooth in this matter who when they are in hand with Transubstantiation will prooue it by the words of Christ thus that he said this is my bodie which shal be giuen This is my bloud which shal be shedde as the vulgar Latin readeth Lo say they Christ nameth the verie bodie and bloud that was after to be giuen and shed vpon the crosse therfore the sacrament is the verie body of Christ Thus M. Spence and his godly fellowes reason But when they are in hand with sacrifice they wil haue it thus My body which b Hard. Answ art 17. Di. 4. Rhem. Annot. Luc. 22. 19. is giuen my bloud which is shed in the present tense according to the gréeke and wil prooue héereby that Christ did euen at that present offer a sacrifice of his body and bloud that he gaue his body and shed his bloud because he saith not shal be giuen but is giuen nor shal be shed but is shed Thus they tosse the words of Christ as it were a tennise ball from one wall to another and suffer them not to rest in anie certaine meaning but turne them and winde them as their fickle and vnstable fancies giue them occasion The meaning of the wordes is one and certaine that the sacrament is a figure and signe of the body and bloud of Christ giuen and shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes His infinite other reasons and authorities of the Fathers which he baunteth hee could alleage are all of the same stampe as these are They are but wordes of course that he vseth to that purpose seruing to fright his obedient children but the children of God haue good experience that it is but foolish and idle talke P. Spence Sect. 27. I Confesse all that you say next following of the wonderfull speeches and also of the effectes of the blessed sacrament by our coniunction with Christ wrought thereby also of our resurrection iustification and sanctification sauing that you imagine with Caluine which before him no man imagined that wee receiue these effects and graces by a conduct of faith that sucketh a verie reall vertue flowing out of his verie flesh in heauen which to do needeth a Vntrue for God hath appointed both the one and the other to be meanes whereby our faith should more more lay hold vpon Christ and feed vpō him to eternal life no Sacrament at all but only to preach vnto vs and so Caluin saith himselfe that if our faith were quicke enough we might without the sacramentall signes receiue the Sacrament at all times and minutes of the day An imagination very metaphysicall bred in his own braine and hatched vp only by himselfe tending to the contempt and ouerthrow of the Sacrament But we say that we receiue all the said graces and effects most diuine by our spirituall receiuing of him in faith
horrible and blasphemous â—onceits which the Answ could not conâ—eiue out of my former words These are yâ— fruits of their Transubstantiation and reall presence that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued into the bellies of dâ—gs and swine and mice that it may be in the dirt in the bellies of vngodly men vntil the forms â—e consumed and digested beside other filthy matters i Antonin summ p. 3. tit 13. cap. 6. q. 3. de defectib Missae of vomiting vp the bodie of Christ and eating it again being vomited and drawing it out of the entrals of the mouse or other beast that hath eaten it c. which are most leathsome to any Christian eares to heare of 〈◊〉 yet very venturously disputed of and resolued vpon by Antoninâ—s no meaner a man then Archbishop of Florence and as I thinke Saincted by the Pope for his great paines Neuer any Capernaite more grosse neuer Manichée more blasphemous then these villainous imaginations which these caiâ—ifes haue published to the world and their reall presence standing they cannot resolue how to shift of these things but stagger as Harding did with it may be this and it may be that and it may be they know not what Therefore let the Ansvv now thinke with himselfe with what reason he bid me beware of bearing false witnesse against my neighbour Let him remember that théeues and malefactours do vsually call true euidence false witnesse but yet their honestie and truth is no whit the more S. Hierom saith that k Hierony in Esa 66. li. 18. they vvhich are louers of pleasures more then louers of God and are not holy both in bodie and spirite do neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood whereof he himself speaketh in the sixth of Iohn He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life Where out of the words of Christ himselfe he secludeth not only bruit beasts but also vngodly and vnholy men from eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ Yet it may so be that not only vnholy prophane men but also bruite beasts may eate of the Romish host or Sacrament Therefore the Romish Sacrament is not the very flesh and blood of Christ as the Romish faction would beare vs in hand that it is P. Spence Sect. 30. THe conformitie of the words of the Euangelists and of S. Paul is so great a matter as that of it selfe it offereth good and great cause of noting it without the warning of any Allen Parsons or any other neuer so learned And your similitude of the sacrifices of the old lawe so agreeably vttered and yet by your leaue but by one Moses alone and not by three sundry Euangelistes and one Apostle as it is in this case fitteth not to this For Moses endewed with the spirite of God could not in any wordes imagine to attribute a A meere fansie Their Sacramentes yeelded the same fruite to them that ours do to vs. See sect 20. such a working force ex opere operato to the legall expiations which wrought ex adiuncto fidei and not of themselues as is to be giuen to the Sacramentes of Christ howsoeuer your side abase them as low as the verie Iewish Sacramentes I am glad that the plain consent of the Euangelistes and Saint Paul doth so little like you in this point R. Abbot 30. THere is vrged for the proofe of Transubstantiation the consent of the Euangelistes and S. Paul saying all alike This is my bodie whereas if they meant not to be vnderstood literally the one would haue expounded the other But the conformitie of these thrée Euangelistes and S. Paul is no stronger an argument as I haue tolde him to prooue Transubstantiation then the continuall calling of the old sacrifices of Moses law by the name of expiations and attonementes was to prooue that they were verily and indéed expiations and attonementes for sinne which yet were but types and figures thereof as the Sacrament is a figure and signe of the bodie and bloud of Christ The exception of the Answ that that was spoken but by one Moses this by thrée Euangelistes and one Apostle is vaine The holie Ghost spake in both places by whomsoeuer and if the Answ argument be good must néedes haue altered that spéech in Moses lawe But that the goodnesse of it is distrusted by his owne fellowes also it followeth after to be shewed That which he addeth in this place of the working force in both sacraments the old and the new is impertinent I spake not of the working force of either but of the like phrase of spéech concerning both But yet whereas he saith that the Sacraments of the new testament haue force by the very work wrought I must tel him that he speaketh without scripture without father a thing absurd in itselfe and contrary also to that which he hath said before If wee obtaine the effects of the Sacrament by receiuing Christ in fayth hope and charity togither with the entrance of his body into ours as he sayd before then the sacrament giueth not that grace by the very worke wrought as he sayth héere If it giue grace by the very worke wrought as he saith héere then it is not to be ascribed to fayth hope and charity as he sayth there The councell of Trent hath tolde vs that a man a Concil TrideÌ„t sess 6. ca. 9 may not assure himselfe that hée hath receiued the grace of God But if the sacraments yéeld graâ—â— by the very worke wrought a man may assure himselfe that he hath receiued grace because he may assure himselfe that he is baptised And what reason is there why infants naturals and franticke persons should be excluded from receiuing the Lords supper if the Sacrament haue his force of the verie worke done But S. Austen plainly refuteth this conceit as touching our sacraments b August in Ioh. tra 80. Whence hath the water such force saith he to touch the bodie and clense the heart but that the word worketh it and that not because it is spoken but because it is beleeued Therefore hee calleth it according to the Apostle c Rom. 10. 8. 9 The word of faith because if thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue in thine heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued To this purpose he alleageth that God is said d Act. 15. 9. to clense the heart by faith and that of S. Peter that e 1. Pet. 3. 21. baptisme saueth vs not the washing away the filth of the flesh that is not for the very worke wrought but the answere of a good conscience towardes God To this effect Tertullian saith f Tertul de resurrect carnis The soule is sanctified not by the washing of water but by the answere of faith And S. Austen againe g August quae vet noui test q. 59. He cannot attaine the heauenly gift which thinketh
alreadie and therefore it will not serue the Answerers turn to carry him so farre as he would faine go That which he mentioneth first of false Gréeke is but his péeuishnesse and malice Beza nameth it Solaecophanes which is a figure noting an appearance of incongruitie by departure from the vsuall and ordinary course of Grammar construction The same hee noteth may be excused in this place as being borrowed from an Hebrew manner of speaking And whereas g Discou ca. 1. sect 39. Gregory Martin without regard of his owne credit auouched that not one example could be brought of the like constructtoÌ„ to be resolued as Beza translateth this M. Fulke sheweth him diuerse the very same in all respects as Col. 1. 26. Apoc. 1. 4. 5. and 3. 12. and 8. 9. And therefore a man might haue said to him as Austen saide to Iulian the Pelagian heretike h August coÌ„t Iul. Pelagâ—li 5. cap. 2. I am sory that you should so abuse the ignorance of them which know not the Greeke tongue that you would not feare the iudgement and censure of them that haue knowledge of it As touching the other point Beza indéed vpon some coniecture supposeth that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for you might happily be added from the margin into the text as in other places sundrie haue obserued But yet he fréely and ingenuously confesseth that he found them in all copies generally that he saw and therefore leaueth them in the text entire and whole and translateth them as the words of the holy Ghost No man denieth the words no man maketh question of them but receiueth them for Canonicall scripture Therefore all that the Answ saith in that respect is but vaine cauilling Let vs consider the words of the text which he saith are so against vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shead for you Here saith he the words which is shead for you must by the order of construction be referred to the cup and so the cup that is to say that in the cup shall be said to be shed for vs which must néeds be vnderstood of the blood of Christ whereof it must follow that that which was in the cup was the blood of Christ I answere him that there is no necessitie by the Gréeke construction to referre those words to the cup as is proued by the examples of the like construction before alleaged And in this point G. Martine was so taken tardie by M. Fulke for his bold asseueration that I doubt it was one matter that killed his heart The Answ by some secret intelligence belike hath learned to vrge the matter otherwise and leaueth Martin to go alone He denieth not therefore but that the like incongruities may be found but demaundeth reason why we should translate it to a sense that admitteth incongruitie of spéech and refuse the sense wherein the text is congrue inough Reasons inough haue bene giuen but they are not yet confuted and therefore it was folly to make any further mention of this matter First there is not found any one of the auncient Fathers either Gréeke or Latin that taketh the words otherwise then as we translate them Secondly i Basil Ascet defin 21. S. Basil expresly readeth the Gréeke according as Beza translateth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In my blood which blood is shed for you Whereby it is apparant that either the text was so read at that time as is likely for that Basil in that booke setteth downe thâ— very words of the scripture or at the least that he being a Bishop so famously learned and most â—loquent in the Gréeke tongue tooke the construction and sense of those words to be no otherwise Thirdly Erasmus in his translation dedicated to Leo the tenth Bishop of Rome and approued by him at which time he was knowne to be no enemy to Transubstantiation yet translated those words as Beza doth being a man I trow as well séene in Gréeke construction as Gregorie Martin was Fourthly what reasonable man will déeme that the Euangelist or Christ himselfe would thus speake This blood which is shedde for you is the newe Teshament in my blood or thus This blood is the newe Testament in my blood which I alleaged to the Answerer to be an absurd tautologie and he speaketh nothing at all whereby to defend it Moreouer it séemeth strange to me that the Euangelist setting downe the proper name of bloud to which shedding must be applied and that betwixt the word cup and the mention of shedding should notwithstanding intend the word shed to be referred rather to the cup which is further of and to say that the cup was shed for vs then to the proper name of bloud which is next vnto it and to which it properly belongeth Againe the bloud of Christ could not be in the cup without being shed and separated from his bodie and to this end did Christ beside the Sacrament of his bodie institute seuerally and distinctly the sacrament of his bloud thereby to betoken the shedding the issuing forth the seuering of the same bloud from his bodie in his passion for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes in respect whereof he saith This is my bloud which is shed for you Nowe his bloud was not shed or seuered from his bodie but in his passion For hee shed not his bloud twise Therefore the wordes of shedding cannot be referred to that in the cup. Seuenthly the bloud of Christ as the k Bellar. tom 2 conâ— â— lib. 1. cap. 11. Papistes themselues confesse is not in the cup till the wordes of consecration be all spoken Therefore when Christ had sayd no more but This cup the bloud was not yet there but onely wine and therefore the words which is shed for you cannot be referred to the cup because it was not wine which was shed for vs. Further also the Answ saith straightwaies after that Christ began to his Disciples of that which was in the cup. But wee cannot beléeue that Christ did eate himselfe or that he dranke the very bloud of his owne body Therefore we beléeue not that that in the cup was the bloud that was shedde for vs or that the Euangelist would intend to say This cup which is shed for you Last of all the Answ fellowes of farre greater worth then himselfe confesse partly that there is not at all partly that it may be iustly doubted whether there be or not any place of Scripture sufficient to prooue Transubstantiation as I haue before shewed Therefore they graunt that this place doth not necessarily require any such construction as whereby Transubstantiation should be concluded Whereby they giue to vnderstand that they themselues do know that all that they say both of this place and others is nothing els but cauilling without any certaine ground or assurance of truth These reasons I take it are sufficient and strong
in the Sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ d Gelas cont â—uty â—estor There ceaseth not to bee the substance or nature of bread and wine These two latter places haue bene the occasion of all this writing He sent to me within two or three daies after for my bookes to peruse the places that wheras he could not presently answer any thing by speâ—ch he might do somewhat by wâ—â—ting I receiued his answere and replied to the same againe by writing yet not intending because it stood not with my businesse otherwise to goe any further in this course but only for some aduertisement and instruction to him which I sawe hee needed and to giue him occasion of further conference by speech as I moued him in the end This happened neare the beginning of Lent in the yeare 1590. Towards Whitsuntide next following when I thought he had bene quiet and would haue medled no more he sent me an answere againe written at large to my reply But the answere in truth was none of his owne doing as is manifest partly by his owne confession and by that he shewed himselfe a straunger in his owne answeres when afterward in speech he was vpbraided with some of them by my selfe partly by the muttering report of his owne fellowes vaunting that though he were able to say litle yet some had the matter in hand that were able to say inough He himself indeed was not nor is of ablenesse to doe it as all men know that haue any knowledge of him He was neuer of any Vniuersitie and both professed and shewed himself in speech vtterly ignorant of Logicke wherof his deputie Answ pretendeth great skill I omit some other matters that I might mention for proofe hereof But thus I was vnwares drawne from P. Spence to tontrouersie and disputation with some other secret friend of his who for his learning might take vppon him to bee a defender of the Romish falshood I addressed my selfe to a confutation of this answer and thought to haue sent the same to M. Spence in writing but before I had fully perfected it which was in Iuly or August following he was by occasion of some infirmitie as was pretended set free from his imprisonment vpon suerties and so continueth till this time neither could I by such meanes as I vsed bring him foorth to receiue that which I had written Hereupon haue I bene traduced by the faction as a man conquered and ouercome as if I taught openly that which in dealing priuately with an aduersary I am not able to defend For the auoyding of this scandall I was diuerse times motioned to publish the whole matter but for some speciall reasons did forbeare It laie by me almost a whole yeare before I would resolue so to do At the length for the satisfying of such as might bee desirous to bee satisfied in this behalfe and that foolish men might haue no further occasion of their vaine imaginations and speeches I tooke it in hand as my great businesse otherwise would permit to peruse it againe and to adde some things for answere to Bellarmine as touching some points for which the Answ referreth me to him whose workes I had not at the first penning heereof and so I haue presumed Christian Reader to offer it vnto thy consideration I haue termed the whole discourse in respect of the principall purpose and argument of it A Mirror of Popish subtilties as wherein thou maist in part behold the vanitie wretchednesse of those answeres wherein these men account so great subtiltie and acutenesse of wit and learning as if the same being giuen there were nothing more to be saide against them In the publishing heereof I haue thought good to obserue this order First I haue set downe the aboue named places of Chrysostome and Gelasius Secondly M. Spence his Answere to those two places Thirdly my reply to that answere Fourthly the latter answere to my reply with a confutation thereof from point to point and a defense of the allegations and authorities vsed in the said reply Reade all and then iudge of the truth I protest I haue made conscience to write nothing but the truth neither hath any vaine curiositie led me to the publishing hereof but only the regard of iustifying the truth and that namely to those of the Citie and Countie of VVorcester whom my labours do most neerely and properly concerne If thou canst reape any frute or benefit by it I shal be heartily glad thereof and let vs both giue glorie vnto God If any see the truth herein and yet will maliciously kicke against it I passe by him with those words of the Apostle e Apoc. 22 11. He that is filthie let him be filthie still It is our part to propose the truth it is God onely that can giue men hearts to assent vnto it and f Mat. 11. 1 VVisedome shal be iustified of her children The God of all wisedome and knowledge enlighten vs more and more to the vnderstanding of his true religion subdue the pride and rebellion of our hearts that we may vnfainedly yeeld vnto it and giue vs constancie and perseuerance to continue in the same vnto the end that in our ende we may attaine to the endlesse fruition of his kingdome and glorie through Iesus Christ our Lord. Amen Rob. Abbot The speciall matters that are discussed in this Treatise THat the mixture of water in the cup of the Lord is not necessarie neither hath any sufficient warrant Defe sect 2. That the Liturgies which goe vnder the names of Iames Basil and Chrysostomes Masses as now they are extant are not theirs whose names they beare sect 5. That Popish praier for the dead hath no warrant from the ancientest church sec 7. That the sacrifice of the Masse is contradicted by the scriptures and Fathers that Bellarmin himself in seeking to approue it ouerthroweth it that the exceptions that are made against our reasons and proofes are vaine and friuolous sect 4. 9. 10. That Theodoret and Gelasius in disputing against the he esie of Eutyches do verie peremptorily determine against Transubstantiation sect 11. 12. That Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome Austen do manifestly impugne the same error of Transubstantiation with a declaration of an obscure place alleaged vnder Austens name and a refutation of other exceptions that are made in the behalfe thereof sect 13. 14 15. 16. 17 18. 21. 22. That the expounding of the descending of Christ into hell of the torments anguish of his soule conteineth as touching the doctrine thereof nothing but the truth witnessed both by the scriptures and by the Fathers sest 15. That our sacraments are rightly called seales and in what respect they are preferred before the sacraments of the old Testament sect 20. 30. That the reall eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ is a leaude deuise and iudged by the Fathers to be wicked profane faithlesse and heathenish and that the words of Christ
iustly and well perswade a Christian to beléeue the contrary in my opinion S. Mathew Mark Luke and Paul all writing This is my bodie whereas writing otherwise of one thing one saith If I in the finger of God cast out diuels c. Another If I in the spirit of God c. So that in d Vntrue as appeareth by the coÌ„ference of these places Mat. 5. 29. with Mar. 9. 3. Mar. 5. 39. with Luc. 6. 29. Mat. 20. 23. Mar. 10. 39. Mat. 21. 21. Mar. 11. 23. which are not taken literally and yet difler not in phrase of speech any matter where moe then one speak of the same thing euerie one hath more of the same thing to giue more light then another But in the matter of the Sacrament no whit so but in the verie substantiall point e Vntrue for they varie as touching the cup there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament as of the other See the reply Concil constanti 6. can 32 all deliuer the selfe same effectuall words Sir once againe thankes for your good Chrysostome and so I beséech to recall them that erre into the way of truth and euerlasting saluation A reply against the former answere to the places of Chrysostome and Gelasius THe willingnesse I haue to doe you good M. Spence I wish might take such effect with you as that God might be glorified by reuealing vnto you the knowledge of his truth I doubt not but it shall be so if you séeke it as you ought and where you ought Concerning the place of Chrysostome of vsing water in the Sacrament I finde it expounded as you answere me in Concil Constantinopol 6. ca. 32. of them that vsed water onely and no wine Albeit the wordes séeme to me plainly to enforce vpon the Reader another vnderstanding neither find I any reason why the Bishops of Armenia being a thousand vnder one Metropolitane may not be thought as méete iudges of Chrysostomes meaning as the Bishops of this Councell especially séeing it is not certaine either what time or by whom those Canons were made and appeare to be falsly fathered vpon the sixth generall Councell as Surius in his admonition Surius in admoniâ— ad Lector de can 6. synodi concil to 2. concerning those Canons giueth to vnderstand Yea and they are in diuers points reiected by your selues as is plaine also by Surius both in the same Preface and by some notes added to some of the Canons But I contend not of that point and as I condemne not in that respect the Churches which either haue vsed or doe vse that mixture only without opinion of superstition and necessitie so neither do I find reason why those Churches are to be condemned that rather follow as most assured the simplicitie of the institution of Iesus Christ where we finde mention of the fruite of the vine but nothing as touching water If you say as the Canon saith that this is to innouate those things which haue bene deliuered by tradition Cypri epist ad Pompeium I must answer you with Cyprians words Whence is this tradition Whether descending from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell or comming from the Commandements and Epistles of the Apostles for that those things which are written must be done God testifieth c. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospell or conteined in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles let this tradition be kept as holie Now séeing there is no testimony of the holie scripture to approue the necessitie of water I take your wordes directly contrary to the scriptures to be vnderstood rather of those which vse water only contrarie to the text then wine only according to the expresse mention of the text Your glose of the Canon De consecra dist 2. cap. sicut in glossa law doth tell that Doctors haue said that water is to be mingled in the cup only for honestie or decencie and therefore not of necessitie to the Sacrament And that amoÌ„gst others Thomas Aquinas granteth Polydore Virgil referreth the fist institution thereof to Alexander Plati in Alexander 1. Durand Rati diuin lib. 4. rubri de officio sacerdotis c. Thom. Aquin. pa 3. q. 7â— art 3 the first Bishop of Rome Pâ—atina séemeth to agrée with him So Durand saith Water is mingled in the cup with the wine by the institution of Pope Alexander the first And as touching Christes vsing of water Thomas Aquinas maketh it but a probabilitie and no certaine truth It is probably beleeued that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in wine mingled with water according to the manner of that country Your Councell of Trent saith no more It is supposed that our Lord did so And in a conference betwixt Anselmus a Bishop of Saxome and Nechâ—tes Patriarch of Nicomedia Anno domini Centur. Magdebur cap. 12. 1138. Neâ—hites obiecting that Christ our Sauiour did not vse water in the consecration Anselmus answereth by likelihood that he did so because in Palestina the maner is to mingle water with their wine Now if it were done according to the maner of that country then it was done to abate the strength of the wine and not for any such mysterie as some haue imagined In manie Countries where their wines are verie strong temperate sober men vse to qualifie and delaie the heate thereof by mingling water least it should cause any distemperature to the bodie And this the Gréeke Churches may séeme to haue respected who consecrated with méere wine as appeareth by Nâ—chites his spéech in the conference aboue-named as also by some editions of Chrysostomes Liturgie and afterwardes put in water when it was to be administred to the receiuers The reason which they vsed for not adding water before was this because Christ is not read to haue added water which accordeth with the words of Chrysostome alleaged by me But as I said before I stand not vpon this point Only I pray you to consider an argument of Bertram in his booke de corpo sangui domini ad Carol imperat taking Bertram de corpo sang domini his ground from this mixture Water saith he in the Sacrament beareth the image of the people Therefore if the wine sanctified by the seruice of the Ministers be bodily turned into the blood of Christ then the water also which is mingled withall must needs be bodily or substantially turned into the blood of the beleeuing people For where there is one sanctification there is consequently one working or effect and where there is the like reason there followeth also the like mysterie But we see in the water there is nothing turned bodily Consequently therefore in the wine there is nothing bodily shewed It is taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the water as touching the bodie of the people It must needes therefore be taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the wine concerning the blood of Christ
again in this mysterie his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people and Cyprian We sticke to the crosse we sucke the blood and fasten our tongues within the wounds of our redeemer and Chrysostome againe Good Lord the iudge himselfe is led to the iudgement seat the creator is set before the creature he which cannot be seene of the angels is spitted at by a seruant he tasteth gall and vâ—neger he is thrust in with a speare he is put into a graue c. In which maner of speaking S. Hierome saith Happie is he in whose heart Christ is euerie day borne and againe Christ is crucified for vs euerie day and S. Austen Then is Christ slaine vnto Aug. ouaesâ— Euan. li 2. q. 33. euery man when he beleeueth him to haue bene slaine Doe you thinke that these thinges are really done in the Sacrament as the words sound that Christ indeed suffereth dieth is burted that we cleaue to his crosse c S. Austen telleth you The offering of the De cons dist 2. cap. Hoc est flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Séeing then the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and the passion of Christ is to be vnderstood in the Sacrament not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie it followeth that that sacrifice is likewise â—o to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysserie and therefore that the sacrifice which you pretend is indéed sacriledge as I haue termed it and a manifest derogation from the sufficiency of Christs sacrifice vpon his crosse As touching the matter of Transubstantiation I alleaged vnto Gâ—las cont â—u yâ—h Nâ—st you the sentence of Geâ—asâ—â—â— Bishop of Rome There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine You answere me first that you suspect it to be corrupted by some of ours There is no cause M. Spence of that suspitioÌ„ but the shamelesse dealing of some leaud varlets of your side is notorious that way and infamous through all the Church of God Your owne clerkes cannot deny the truth of this allegation as they do not of many other sayings of the auncient Fathers as plainly contrary to your positions as this is Albeit Index Expurg in censura Bertrami they practise therein that which they professe in the Index Expurgatorius where they say In the old Catholicke Doctors we beare with many errours and we extenuate them excuse them by some deuised shift do oftentimes deny them and faine a conuenient meaning of them when they are opposed vnto vs in disputations or in contention with our aduersaries Indéed without these pretie shifts your men could finde no matter whereof to compile their answers But being taken for truly alleaged you say yet the whole faith of Christs Church in that point may not by his testimony be reproued against so many witnesses of scriptures and Fathers to the contrarie Whereas you should remember that Gelasius was Bishop of Rome that what he wrote he wrote it by way of iudgement and determination against an hereticke and therfore by your owne defence could not erre And if it had bene against the receiued faith of the Catholicke Church in those daies the heretickes against whom he wrote would haue returned it vpon him to his great reproach But he spake as other auncient Fathers had done before him as Theodor. dial 1. Theodoret He which called himselfe a vine did honour the visible elements and signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature And againe The Dial. 2. mysticall signes after consecration do not go from their own nature for they continue in their former substance figure and forme c. chrysost ad caesarium Monach August apud â—edam in 1. cor 10. Chrysostome thus Before the bread be consecrated we call it bread but the grace of God sanctifying it by the ministerie of the priest it is freed froÌ„ the name of bread is vouchsafed the name of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it Austen thus That which you see is bread and the cup which your eyes also do tell you De consect dist 2 cap. â—oc est But as touching that which your faith requireth for in â—ructioÌ„ bread is the bodie of Christ and the cup is his blood And againe This is it which we say which by all meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament that is the bodie of Christ And that you may not take that visible forme of the elements for your emptie formes and accidentes without substance which and many other things your Censours aboue-named say The latter age of the Church subtilly and truly added by the holie Index Expurgat in censura Bertrami Ghost confessing thereby that these Popish subâ—ilties were not knowne at all to the auncient Fathers take withall that which he addeth Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is true God true man because euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those things whereof it is made By which rule you may vnderstand also the saying of Irenee The Eucharist Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. consisteth of two things an earthly and a heauenly namely so as that it conteineth the nature and truth of them both By these places and many other like it is euident that albeit in this Sacrament there is yéelded vnto the faith of the receiuer the bodie and blood of Christ and the whole power and vertue thereof to euerlasting life yet there ceaseth not to be the substance nature and truth of bread and wine Which is the purport of Gelasiuâ— his words By the Sacraments which we receiue of the bodie and blood of Christ we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the subsance or nature of bread and wine The force of which words and of the wordes of Theodoret you shall perceiue the better if you know how they are directed against Eutyches the hereticke The hereticke in Theodorets Dialogues by a comparison drawen from Dial. â— the sacrament wold shew how the bodie of Christ after his assumption into heauen was swallowed vp as it were of his diuinitie and so Christ ceased to be truly man As said he the bread and wine before the blessing are one thing but after the blessing become another and are changed so the bodie or humanitie of Christ whereby he was truly man before is after-his ascension glorification changed into the substance of God But Theodoret answereth him Thou art
his supper But S. Cyprian in his Epistle ad Caecilium so long ago 〈…〉 〈…〉 th it sure that Christ vsed both Let that Epistle for all these points be the stickeler betweene vs who saith e Cyprians words are thus In the sacrifice which is christ none but christ is to be followed Therefore we are not to follow the church of Rome beyond or beside that which Christ did In the sacrifice which is Christ Christ is to be followed euen to this verie purpose vsing those words Against which point to alleage S. Cyprian ad Pompeium is to alleage S. Cyprian against S. Cypriaâ— But let S. Cyprian saie thus much for vs to you If it be commanded in the Gospell or be conteined in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles to vse only wine let this traditioÌ„ then be obserued To make short wine is ex institutâ—one to put thereto water is Ex praecepto Ecclesiae which vpon your warrant being so long and so vniuersally vsed I dare not breake There arose about S. Cyprians time certaine fond innouators verie foolish fellowes who for temperance forsooth vsed no wine but all water only in the sacrifice of the Church These in the Catalogue of Heretickes written by S. Augustine Ad quod vult deum in the like Catalogue of Heretickes written by Philastrius Brixiamus Episcopus are called Aquarij Who saith he in the heauenly Sacraments offer onelie water and not that which the Catholicke and Apostolicke Church is accustomed to do The argument and drift of the afore-named Epistle of Saint Cyprian ad Caecilium lib. 2. Epist 3. is briefly set downe In the sacrifice of the Church neither water without wine nor wine without water ought to be offered The whole Epistle is for that matter notable and no doubt Saint Chrysostome meant of those Aquarij Saint Cyprian calleth it our Lords tradition and a thing ordâ—ined of God he saith our Lord both did it and also taught it The learned Fathers of the sixt Councell called it an order deliuered to the Church by God and say it was the tradition of the Apostles Clemens constitu Apost lib. 8. cap 17 saith likewise mingling of the cup with wine and water and consecrating it c. S. Iames in his Liturgie saith Likewise after he had supped taking the cup and mingling it with wine and water c. S. Basill in his Liturgie saith Likewise also taking the cup of the iuyce of the wine mixing giuing thanks c. S. Chrysostome in his Liturgie in putting wine into the Chalice said And one of the souldiers opened his side and forthwith issued blood and mingling it with water he saith And water and he that saw it hath borne witnesse and his witnesse is true Ioh. 19. S. Proclus a neare successor of his De traditione diuinae Liturgiae saith By these praiers they expected the comming of the holie Ghost that by his diuine presence he should make the bread and the wine mixed with water which were proposed for sacrifice the bodie and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ Theodoret Dialog 1. saith f Theodoret saith not he made it but he called it his blood That Christ made that which was mixed in the cup his blood Eusebius Emiss in ser 5. de Paschat saith that Christ himselfe by his example taught that we should consecrate the cup with wine mixed with water Concilium Carthagin 3. cap. 24. In which Austen was present saith thus That in the Sacrament of the bodie and blood of the Lord nothing else should be offered but that which the Lord deliuered that is bread and wine mixed with water Ambrosius lib de Sacramento cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. affirmeth that wine and water must be put in the cup. Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. When saith he the mixed cup and the bread broken receiueth the word of God it is made the Eucharist of the bodie blood of the Lord. August tract 120. in Iohannem Isidore lib. 2. offic cap. 18. Beda in Comment Marci cap. 14. vpon those words This is the cup of my blood Anselmus in 26. Mat. Alexander neare to the Apostle saith let bread only and wine mingled with water be offered in the sacrifice of Masses There ought not to be offered in the cup of our Lord either wine only or water only but both togither mingled because both is read to haue followed out of the side of our Lord in his passion Io. 19. de Consent distinct 2. cap. in Sacramentorum Iustinus Apostol 2. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 14. Grego Nissâ—n for Catechetico as is alleaged by Euthimius in Panoplia lib. 2. titulo 21. Chrysostome homil 84. in Ioannem hom 24. in 1. Corinth Theophâ—â—ct in Iâ—annem cap. 9. See Bellarminus lib. 4. de Sacramento Eucharistiae cap. 1. 11. beside many other testimonies of all ages in both Greeke and Latin Church R. Abbot 2. AS touching this first point of mixture of water with wine in the Sacrament I shewed before that our Churches haue accounted it as a meere indifferent thing where it is vsed with that simplicitie wherwith it was first begun The maner of Countries where their wines are verie strong is to delaie them with water Christians would not neglect that commendable shew of sobrietie in their mysticall banquet whereof Heathen men had regard at their ordinary tables Therefore according to the maner of their countries they mingled water with their wine taking wine to be the institution of Christ but whether méere wine or delaied wine they knew it made no difference Albeit some there were that in regard of this sobrietie and temperancie went too far leauing Christes institution of wine and vsing only water in the Sacrament as a Cypr. lib. 2. epist 3. Cyprian intimateth of some of his predecessours To this mixture was added at length some signification either in Cyprians time or perhaps before As for that of b Epist 1. Concil tomo â— Alexander the first to that purpose that Epistle of his and the rest of them are sufficiently knowne to be counterfeit and bastard stuffe But thus this vsage and custome ranne his course till at length it sell with the rest into the maine Ocean of Popish corruptions and superstitions where the fathers errours were turned into pestilent heresies and those things that arose of the simplicitie of men for c August epist 119. ad exhortationem vitae melioris profitable admonition and exhortation only as they intended them were made matters of true deuotion and of the worship of God Our Churches therefore séeing this mixture abused in the church of Rome and accounted as a necessary mysterie of Christian religion without any warrant of the word of God thought conuenient vtterly to relinquish the same though otherwise occasion requiring it they haue estéemed it an indifferent thing And herein they haue followed the example of our Lorde and maister Iesus Christ who knew well inough that the washing of handes and cuppes
Christ there is no more any offering for sin and therefore there is no true sacrifice in the Masse Nay saye the Rhemistes the texte meaneth that there is no second Baptisme to apply vnto vs a generall pardon or full forgiuenesse of sinnes contrary to the euidence of the text to the light of their owne consciences to the manifest expositions of the auncient Fathers Chrysostome Oecumenius Photius Theodoret Theophylact Primasius Ambrose as before I alleaged who all according to the drift of the text expound it against any further offering or sacrifice for sinne after that once offering vpon the Crosse Yea and it must necessarily be so vnderstood because the Apostle hereby concludeth against the many often offered sacrifices of the Iewes Which conclusion maketh nothing against their offerings or sacrifices vnlesse we vnderstand offering properly For what were it against their sacrificing that the Apostle should say there is no second baptisme to apply vnto vs full forgiuenesse of sins Now séeing this absurd vnreasonable glose of the Rhemists wil not serue turne neither could the Answ for shame write it thogh they were not ashamed to print it what other answer may we looke for at his hands Good sir saith he why dreame you that we thinke or professe to â—ley and crucifie Christ in our Masses His death was once and that once sufficient for euer and he dieth no more and then where is your obiection To whom I say againe Good sir my obiection hath not any sillable to charge you with affirming of Christes dying any more but proueth that after the once dying of Christ there is no more sacrifice for sinne and therefore that your Masse doth lie in taking vpon it to be a true propitiatorie sacrifice and then where is your answere Why did not your courage serue to make a direct answere to that that was opposed and if you could not answere why did not conscience preuaile with you to make you yeeld to the truth I prooue that there is now no more offering for sinne and he returneth me a sléeuelesse tale that they say not that Christ dieth any more and so runneth on to declare vnto me what maner of sacrifice it is which they offer which by the reason alleaged by me is ineuitably proued to be none at all If Christes bodie be really offered for sinne euery day in the Masse then there is yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for sin But the Apostle saith that there is not now an offring for sinne Therefore Christ is not now any longer offered for sinne And therefore although the bodie of Christ be yet really remaining in heauen d Râ—m â— â— being raised from the dead to die no more and the same bodie be sometimes termed in our spéech the sacrifice for sinne yet is it not so called as hauing now the condition of a sacrifice for sin or as if it were now to be offered any more but only in respect that it was sacrificed once and by the vertue of that once sacrificing e Heb â— 2 appeareth in the sight of God for vs. In a word it is no otherwise so called but as Christ in the Reuelation is called the knobe not to be killed but f Apoc. 5. 6. 9. 12. that was killed and as the same bodie of Christ shall be called the sacrifice for sinne after the ende of the world when as the Saints of God shall thankfully record the sacrificing thereof thus g Apoc. 5. 9. Thou wast killed and hast redeemed vs to God by thy bloud out of euerie nation c. The end and vse of offering for sinne is to take away sinne to obtein remission of sinnes to sanctifie those that come vnto it Now when this end of offering for sinne is atchieued there is no further vse of an offering for sinne So that if the sacrifices of the old law h Heb. 10. 1. 2. had sanctified the commers thereunto they should after once offering haue ceased to bee offered as the Apostle telleth vs importing thereby that that sacrifice which doth sanctifie the commers thereunto as doth i cap. 10. 10. the bodie of Christ once offered néedeth not to be offered any more but that once And hereupon it is that he inferreth that séeing remission of sinnes is obteined by the offering of Christs bodie once therefore thenceforth there is no more offering for sinne neither of Christes bodie nor of any other thing because there is no ende or vse therof euen as when k Chrysost in Heb. 10. ho. 17. Ambros in Hebr. 10. a man hath gotten a medicine to heale his hurt it is néedlesse for him to séeke any other either of the same substance or of any other And therefore hereby he resolueth against all whether Heathenish or Iewish or Popish sacrificing for sinne as being to no ende or purpose because the ende of offering for sinne which is remission of sinnes is atteined alreadie by the death and bloodsheading of Iesus Christ And vnlesse we will vnderstand offering for sinne simply and vniuersally without exception and without that determining of it to any one sort of offering which the Answ vseth in tying it vnto Christes suffering and dying we betraie this whole disputation into the hands of the Iewes and Heathens as making nothing against their sacrificing for sin because it only proueth that Christ dieth no more not that there is no more offering for sinne But the Apostle would deny not only Christs dying any more but also all maner of Iewish and Heathenish offering for sinne Therefore the words must be absolutely and vniuersally vnderstood of offering for sinne after the once dying of our Lord Iesus Yet further let me tell him that if he will affirme the often offering of Christ he must say also that Christ often suffereth and is slaine For throughout the whole scripture he cannot alleage one place where the offering or sacrificing of Christ is otherwise vnderstood then of his death and passioÌ„ And this is plainly euicted out of the 9. to the Hebrues where the Apostle saith that Christ l He. 9. 25. 26. is entered into heauen to appeare now in the sight of God for vs not to offer himselfe often for then saith he he should haue often suffered since the foundation of the world Which reason of the Apostle hath no force at all if there be any other offering of Christ but only by suffering and death Which also is manifest out of the law of Moses where there was no offering or sacrifice of propitiation but by slaughter and bloodshead and where there was no sheading of blood there was no forgiuenesse as the m Heb. 9. 22. Apostle witnesseth Now séeing there is no sacrifice of propitiation in the newe Testament which was not prefigured in the lawe which the Apostle saith n Heb. 10. 1. had the shadow of the good things that were to come and the law prefigured none but sacrifice by
breadhood as it pleaseth his wisedom-hood full vntowardly and vnhansomely to conceiue So that it may be by this dreame of his that Gelasius thought that Christ consisteth of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the breadhood because it may be that Gelasius vnderstood substance for substance indéed He hath well deserued for this his learned reason to be personally vnited vnto a cloakbag This idle fancy of his ariseth hereof that he vnderstandeth no other presence but reall and bodily nor other vniting but only personall But of presence Christ himselfe speaketh as touching himselfe a Mat. 18. 20. Wheresoeuer two or three are gathered togither in my name there am I in the midst of them yet we know he is not bodily present vnto all such Nay as touching bodily presence S. Austen saith according to the Gospell b August in Ioh. tract 50. He is ascended into heauen and is not here But according to his diuine maiestie according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which he said I will be with you alwaies vnto the ende of the world So saith Vigilius c Vigil cont Euty lib. 1. Christ is with vs and he is not with vs. According to the forme of a seruant hee is absent from vs according to the forme of God he is present with vs. Such is the presence of Christ in the sacrament euen d cypr. de caena domini the presence of his diuine power as Cyprian calleth it wherby it commeth to passe that as the Sun abiding bodily in the skie yet by effect and working is here on the earth cherishing and comforting all things according to their kinde so the sonne of righteousnes Iesus Christ though according to his bodily presence remaining only in heauen yet by his heauenly grace and spirite is effectually present vnto vs in his holy sacraments communicating himselfe fully and wholly vnto vs and ioyning vs most néerly vnto himselfe As for that grosse presence which Papists teach besides that it is vnnecessary it repugneth also to that truth of the manhood of Christ abiding in the proprietie of his owne nature which Gelasius defended and maketh for the heresies of Marcion Eutyches and others of whom I spake before Now as the presence of Christ in the sacrament is not carnall and bodily so no more is the vniting of Christ vnto the sacrament any bodily or carnall matter but spirituall and sacramentall whilest by the word of God and the working of the holy Ghost there is made that mutuall relation and respect betwixt the signe the thing signified and such a dependence of the one on the other that the signe spiritually implieth the force and vertue of the thing signified and the holy Ghost togither with the signe dispenseth through faith the fulnesse of that grace blessing which is conteined in the body and blood of Iesus Christ In which sort we beléeue also that Christ without any real presence is vnited to the sacrament of Baptisme whereby we put on Christ and are made members of his body flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones neither is there any more reason to mainteine any real presence in the one sacrament then there is in the other Thus therefore the remaining of the substance of bread doth not enforce any personall vniting of Christ vnto the bread No nor yet that supposed real presence of Christs body with the bread The Vbiquitaries when they teach that Christes body is really present in the sacrament yet thinke not that the same is personally vnited vnto it neither doth it follow of that opinion of theirs The Answ himselfe though in his conceit he receiue into his body yâ— reall body of Christ yet I hope will not thinke the same personally vnited vnto him no nor yet to those formes and naturall properties of bread and wine whereunder he saith the body of Christ lieth inuisibly hidden He saith that perhaps Gelasius and vndoubtedly others thought that some part of the substance of bread wine remained togither with the body of Christ yea and e Ferus â—n Math. cap. â—â— Ferus himselfe though a Papist yet séemeth to doubt whether the substance of bread remaine or not togither with the body and yet he will not gather I hope that they thought though the substance did remaine that the body of Christ was personally vnited vnto the same so that Christ should consâ—st of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the breadhood But what should I trouble my selfe with such senslesse and mad toyes seruing only to blot paper and coÌ„teining in them neither learning nor wit As for that which followeth it is but a new shew of the same baggage stuffe that I haue examined already and néedeth no further answere Only let me tell him that he wretchedly peruerteth the comparison made by Gelasius and maketh it fitly and rightly answerable to the heresie of Eutyches For as he saith that in the sacrament there is the very body of Christ hauing conioyned vnto it the naturall properties of bread and wine the substance being vanished so said Eutyches that in the person of Christ there was the Godhead retaining with it the properties of the manhood to be visible passible mortall c. but the substance and distinct nature of the manhood was consumed Again he wittingly and willingly falsifieth the state of the question which Gelasius disputed as though he reasoned to proue the continuing of the properties of the manhood not of the substance whereas the purpose of Gelasius is altogither concerning the substance and nature it selfe which to continue inuiolably notwithstanding the assuming therof vnto the godhead he sheweth by comparison of the sacrament where the substance of bread and wine remaineth notwithstanding they are adnanced to that honour to be the mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ These things are sufficiently bebated before I come to that that followeth P. Spence Sect. 12. NOw let vs conferre the places of Theodoretus by you alleaged with his owne sayings by you concealed Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian who would Christ now to consist of the only nature of his Deitie and not any more of the humane nature which he tooke of the virgine doth reproue him by the example of the Sacrament of Christes Supper in the which Sacrament two thinges are founde one which is seene and that is the signe of bread and wine the other is not seene but vnderstanded and beleeued and that is the true bodie and blood of Christ That which is seene is said to remaine in his former substance nature figure and kinde In his substance a The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is they do not remaine in their former substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being now by themselues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine The same formes remaine
for if he should call that which were before aire water or earth by the name of fire stones and bread aire earth and water would sooner cease to be and fire bread and stones would come in their place then God would call any creature by a wrong name He called bread his bodie therfore bread is vnderstanded to be made the body of Christ You saie the vnderstanding of man taketh his beginning of senses which i S. Austen saith that which you sâ—â— iâ— bread as your eyes also tell you He saith it is that which our eies tell vs it is tell me it is bread I saie in the matter belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth mee it is k In signification and mysterie after the maner of Sacraments but not in substance the bodie of Christ and Theodoret saith it is beleeued to be and it is worshipped for it is so And he giueth the same very word of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worshipping to the holie mysteries the which in the same sentence he giueth to the immortall bodie of Christ sitting at the right hand of his father And no wonder for seeing it is one bodie whether it be worshipped in heauen or l Vigâ—lius saith that the flesh of Christ now that it is in heauen is not vpoÌ„ the earth Therfore seeing it is in heaueÌ„ it cannot be worshipped vpon the 〈◊〉 vpon the Altar one worship is alwaies due to it Thus it is witnessed by Theodoret that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his bodie and blood but as being indeed his bodie and his blood Therefore worship is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really contain the truth represented by them Looke Bellarmine lib. 2. de Sacrament cap. 27. pro horum testimonijs R. Abbot 12. NOw come to be handled the words of Theodoret whom the Answerer vseth in the same honest maner as he hath done Gelasius yet cannot stoppe his mouth but that he still standeth at defiance with Transubstantiation Theodoret in his Dialogues debateth the whole matter of Eutyches his heresie not only as Eutyches himselfe held it as before hath bene shewed but also as some would seeme afterwards to correct it by saying that though Christ reteined the substance of his manhood while he continued on the earth yet after his ascension it was turned into the Godhead as of which there was thenceforth no longer vse Now hauing disputed the matter at large and brought the heretick to this latter shift he taketh an argument from the Sacrament to proue the remaining and being of Christs bodie and blood For signes or samptars are not admitted but of such things as haue being Séeing therefore we receiue the mysticall signes in token of the bodie and blood of Christ it is certaine that the bodie and blood of Christ haue their owne nature and being Now the hereticke taketh occasion of this mention of the sacrament to reason thus a Euen as the signes of the Lords bodie and o Theodor. dial 2. blood before the priests inuocation are other things but after the inuocation are chaunged and made other then before so the Lords bodie after his assumption or taking vp into heauen is changed into the diuine substance Whereby being changed and made other he meaneth not any reall chaunging into the very body and blood of Christ for he denied that Christ had now any substantiall bodie neither doth he vnderstand the loosing of their owne former substance for he expresly yéeldeth the contrary as was shewed before in handling the place of Gelasius but only intendeth that they are other in vse and name being now made signs of the body blood of Christ which he once truly tooke but afterwards did foâ—go This is plaine inough by the circumstance of the place and by that which he had confessed before in the former Dialogue that the bread and wine were signes not of the diuine nature of Christ but of those things whose names they did beare namely the bodie blood But to the obiection Theodoret answereth thus Thou art taken in the net which thy selfe hast made For the mysticall signes do not depart from their owne nature after consecration For they coÌ„tinue in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be the same which they are made and are beleeued so and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now therfore conferre the image with the principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be like vnto the truth Verily that bodie of Christ hath also the same forme as before the same figure and circumscription and to speake all at once the same substance of a bodie But it is made immortal after his resurrectioÌ„ c. Here it is plainly auouched that the mysticall signes continue not only in figure and shape but also in substance the same that they were before and so as that in them we must take notice how Christ continueth the same in substance of his bodie after his ascension For the mysticall signes are the figure image of Christs bodie and the figure must be correspondent to the truth And therefore if we finde not the true and proper substance remaining in the mysticall signes neither can it be auouched in the truth that is in Christs bodie What construction now then shall we haue of these words Mary this The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is to say the formes haue a new subsistence by themselues and the accidents remaine without the substance Bread and wine after consecration remaine in their former substance that is to say there is the colour of bread and wine the taste of bread wine the force and strength of bread and wine the quantitie and qualitie of bread and wine but there is no substance of bread and wine I wonder whether these men be perswaded of the truth of these vnreasonable and senselesse expositions If they be it is fulfilled in them which is written b 2. Thes 2. 11 God shall send vpon them strong delusioÌ„ that they may beleeue lies which beleeued not the truth c. If not then c Esa 5. 20. Wo saith the Prophet to them that call good euill and euill good which put light for darkenesse and darknesse for light The thing is plaine inough The mysticall signes saith Theodoret remaine in their former substance What was their former substance The verie true and proper being or substance of bread wine They continue therfore in the true and proper being and substance of bread and wine But the Answerer goeth from substance which Theodoret nameth to subsistence of his owne forging and yet euen there confoundeth himselfe without recouery For what was their former subsistence Mary they subsisted before in the natures of
bread and wine saith the Answerer And how now They subsist now by the power of God saith he and haue their being by themselues But that cannot be for they must abide in their former subsistence and that was in the natures of bread and wine Therefore there must still be bread and wine wherin these formes and mysticall signes must subsist And yet further if these words of Theodoret do not import the remaining of the very substance of bread wine the hereticke is not at al caught as Theodoret telleth him that he is For he hath to reply would haue replied if Transubstantiation had bene then beléeued As it is in the mysticall signes which are the image so must it be in the truth which is the body of Christ The mysticall signes loose their substance after consecration Therfore the body of Christ looseth his substance after his ascension But indéede the argument standeth firme against the hereticke with Theodoret as it did with Gelasius As it is in the mysticall signes so it must be in yâ— body of Christ The mysticall signes kéepe their substance after consecratioÌ„ Therfore Christs body remaineth the same substance after his ascension And thus the wordes goe currant both against Eutyches his confusion and popish transsubstantiation Now I cannot but maruel how the Answerer making Theodoret to speake so nicely and precisely of those Laterane subtilties of formes subsisting by themselues of naturall properties and figures and shapes remaining without any substance doth imagine that Theodoret being so long before the Laterane definition should be so throughly acquainted with these matters and so perfectly set them downe which yet as it is plainly confessed in the d Index Expurgat in censu Bertra quae subtilissimè verissimè posterior aetas addidit Index Expurgatorius haue bene since added in latter times and indéed were neuer knowne to the auncient Fathers Without doubt Theodoret was some Prophet and had some speciall reuelation to this purpose to know what should be agreed vpon in the Laterane Councell and maruell it is that for this cause he was not sainted in the Roman Calender But a liar they say should beare a braine and the Answ and his fellowes should remember that if these things were added since in later times as they themselues confesse then Theodoret had neuer any intelligence of them as indéed he had not To leaue this and to go forward he now entereth further into the words of Theodoret and openeth that which I concealed weigheth euery word at large and when all is done Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus Theodoret as he saith hauing set down one part of the Sacrament which he calleth yâ— formes of bread and wine commeth to set downe the other to be the reall bodie and blood of Christ and that in these wordes The mysticall signes are vnderstood to be the same that they are made are so beleeued and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now hereof he gathereth that they are vnderstood to be the bodie blood of Christ and it may not be a false vnderstanding therfore they are so indéede and so they are beléeued to be and adored not as being signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but as being the same indéed How pretily this man plaieth with a shadow and solaceth himselfe with a large description of his idle fancie Who told him I maruell that this was Theodorets meaning Surely he tooke it out of some of his learned Treatises and beléeued it as an Oracle Ex tripode But let me demaund of him are the formes of bread and wine vnderstood to be to be I say yâ— bodie blood of Christ are they beléeued to be so are they adored as being not signes but verily indeed the bodie and blood of Christ What new stuffe is this that formes of bread and wine be indéed Christs bodie and blood and must be adored with godly honor as the Answ meaneth adoratioÌ„ Is Christs bodie now become formes of bread and must we adore and worship formes of bread That is idolatry euen by the confession of his own side But he will except and tell me that not the formes but the bodie conteined vnder them is adored Yea but he hath told me alreadie and Theodorets words as he expoundeth them import no other that the formes are the bodie of Christ are adored as being so indéed Cleare it is that Theodoret referreth that adoration which he speaketh of to the mysticall signes So that the Answ must either make himselfe an idolater and must turne the bodie and blood of Christ into formes of bread and wine or else he must séeke a new construction of Theodorets words The meaning is plain The mystical signes before consecration are not mystical signes but méerly bread and wine By consecration they are made symbola mystica corporis sanguinis domini mysticall signes of the bodie and blood of Christ And notwithstanding that after consecration they continue in their former substance yet are they vnderstood and beléeued to be not only that which they are in substance but the same that they are made that is signes of the bodie and blood of Christ and are honoured and reuerenced as being translated from common vse to be as they are made mystical signes of Christs body and blood And this to be the plaine meaning of Theodoret it appeareth by that which he addeth immediatly for hauing thus set downe the mysticall signes though in substance bread and wine as they were before yet vnderstood to be the signes of Christs bodie and blood he addeth Confer then the image with the paterne or principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be agreeable or answerable to the truth Where we sée that he calleth the mysticall signes which he hath spoken of the image and figure not for that which they are in substance but for that which they are vnderstood to be made and on the other side the bodie of Christ wherof they are the image and figure he calleth the patterne the principal the truth and inferreth hereof that as these signes though they be thus highly honoured to be the images the signes the figures of the bodie blood of Christ yet are in substance and nature the same still so the bodie of Christ thoughâ—t be now become immortall and not subiect to any corruption or weaknesse and be set at the right hand of God and worshipped of all creatures yet is stil a true bodie retaining the same forme figure circumscriptioÌ„ and substance that it had before Thus Theodoret will in no wise yéeld to be made a Patrone either of real presence or of Transubstantiation His iudgement is so cleare in these points that he sheweth but a naughtie and leaud minde whosoeuer shall go about to father any of these matters vpon him In the former Dialogue he saith plainly that Christ in the deliuerie of the mysteries called bread his
fantasticall body of Christ we read onely of a true and substantiall body wherein he is like vnto vs wherein hée sitteth at the right hand of God g August Ep ad Darda 57. in Ioh. tr 30. in some one place of heauen as S. Austen noteth and is there conteined by reason of the maner of a true body vntill hée come to iudge the quicke and the dead at which time he shal come in the same forme and substance of his body in which he went from hence to which we beleeue he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken from it the nature of a body yâ— it should be any where in that maner as yâ— Answ and his fellowes Marcion-like do teach We say as Vigilius also saith h 〈…〉 con 〈◊〉 the flesh of Christ when it was vpoÌ„ the earth was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen surely it is not on the earth As for the words which he alleageth I maruell how he can make them good to be S. Austens In all S. Austens works extant they are not found They are cited out of the sentences of Prosper and there they are not Beda hath many fragmentes of Austen but not a word of this i L 〈…〉 de sacra Eucha Lanfrancus vseth them as his owne wordes without any quotation of Austen and that writing against Berengarius where he would surely haue countenanced them with the name of Austen if they had béen his The trueth is for ought that I can perceiue Lanfrancus is the authour of them and they are his ilfauoured answere to Berengarius his allegation of S. Austens words which we haue now in hand Yet because Gratian by errour hath made S. Austen the reputed father of them mistaking be like Austen for Lanfrancus as very oftentimes he is found to put the names of Austen and others to those things which they neuer spake I wil doe the Answe that curtesie to take them for S. Austens words onely so that he wil not make S. Austen in this point to be at bate with himselfe First therefore according to the doctrine of S. Austen and all others who haue defined what sacraments be they are alwaies k Aug decate chiâ—rud ca. 26. visible signes and therefore to be discerned with the sense For l De dâ—ct C 〈…〉 l. 2. cap 1. a signe saith the same S. Austen is a thing which beside the shew that it offereth to the senses causeth by it somewhat else to come into the minde and vnderstanding In sacramentes therefore being signes m â—x ser ad infan Beda 1. Cor. 10. CoÌ„â— Maximi Aria lib. 3. cap. 22. one thing is seene another thing is vnderstoode by that which is séene therefore againe doth he call the sacrament n In Iohan. tra 80. a visible word because the visible creature being consecrated to the sacramentall vse doth in the vse thereof after a sorte set before our eyes that which the word of God deliuereth to our eares yea and doth as it were speake vnto vs also to admonish and put vs in minde of the things thereby so signified Now S. Austen doth verie precisely put difference o De consecr di 2. cap. Hoc est betwixt the sacrament which is the visible signe and the thing or matter of the sacrament p In Ioh. tr 26 so that in diuersitie of sacramentes yet the matter of the sacrament that is the thing signified may be the same and q Ibid. a man may be partaker of the sacrament or signe and yet haue no benefite at all of the thing signified Notwithstanding by reason of that relation which by the word of God is wrought betwixt the sacramental signe and the thing thereby signified r Epist 23. in quaest super Leuit. q. 75. the signe or sacrament as hath béen before said doth vsually take vnto it the name of the thing signified as Å¿ De consecr dist 2. cap. vtrum sub Gratian noteth againe vnder S. Austens name that the name of the bodie of Christ is giuen not onely to the verie bodie but also to the figure thereof which is outwardly perceiued But what shall we take this figure of the body to be by S. Austens iudgement Marry saith hée t Ex ser ad infan Beda 2. Cor. 10. that which you see is bread as your eyes also tell you which words the Answe hath left vnanswered as also the other v De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est that the sacrament conteineth the nature and trueth of the visible element But by those wordes S. Austen referreth vs to our eyes and willeth vs to beléeue our eyes that it is verily bread Now then séeing that by his iudgment a sacrament is a visible signe and the visible signe in the Lordes supper is bread how may it stand with his doctrine that the flesh couered in the forme of bread is a sacrament of the flesh the bloud vnder the forme of wine is a sacrament of the bloud and that by the inuisible flesh is signified the visible body of Christ Surely if we take flesh to signifie truely and properly flesh this standeth not with S. Austens grounds For séeing flesh is not visible in the sacrament neither is there any appearance thereof to the sense nay it is called héere inuisible flesh it cannot be said to be a sacrament that is a visible thing Therefore we must séeke another meaning of the wordes flesh and bloud according to the other rule whereby the outward elementes take vnto them the names of the thinges represented by them By flesh and bloud then we vnderstand the visible elements which are called by these names and that not onely for that they doe signifie the true flesh and bloud of Christ but also as w August ser ad inâ—an aâ—ud Bed 1. cor 10. touching the spirituall fruite as S. Austen speaketh in x Ambros de sacram lib. 6. cap. 1. grace and vertue as saith saint Ambros y Cypria de caena d 〈…〉 de resuâ— chri concerning the inuisible efficiencie and vertue as Cyprian speaketh are the same to the faith of the receiuer according to that which Gratian saith concerning a prayer of the Church crauing to receiue the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ that some not z De consâ—cr dist 2 cap. species without probable reason did expound that trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ to be the verie efficiencie or working thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes Now because the visible element which is thus called flesh is no such thing in outward appearance neither hath anie shew of this vertue therefore it is said to be flesh couered in the forme of bread inuisible spirituall a matter of vnderstanding For sacramentes conteine those thinges which they conteine not openly but couertly not in appearance of the thinges themselues but vnder the signes of the visible
of bread is called by the name of flesh and the visible forme of wine by the name of blood Now it is called the inuisible and intelligible flesh of Christ because according to that forme flesh is not seene but vnderstoode and so the bloud Therefore the inuisible flesh is said to be a sacrament of the visible flesh because the forme of bread according to which that flesh is not seen is a sacrament of the visible flesh because by the inuisible flesh that that is by the forme according to which the flesh of Christ appeapeareth not flesh is signified the body of Christ which is visible and may be felt where it appeareth in his forme To this he addeth out of the other wordes of Austen that the bread is called the body being indeed the sacrament of the body of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so maketh S. Austen to expound that which before he sayth he had obscurely spoken Thus the Answ owne doctors though otherwise friendes to transubstantiation yet doe iustifie my exposition of this place and make it manifest that though the place be obscure at first sight yet by the common groundes of diuinitie it connot be construed so as that transubstantiation may necessarily be proued thereby Therefore I say still with Austen that the sacrament of the body of Christ is onely after a certaine maner the body of Christ namely not properly not in the trueth of the thing as the Answerer auoucheth but onely in a signifying mysterie betokening the same P. Spence Sect. 14. FOr your place of Chrysostome The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body c. For as for the place of S. Cypr. lib. 2. Epis 6. is such as deserueth no answer a CypriaÌ„ saith that Christ called the bread made of manie grains his body c. It is very bread therfore which is called the bodie only telling you that the bread wherof the sacrament was made was compact of many graines and the wine pressed foorth of many grapes which no baker nor vintner will denie which is smally to this purpose the place I say of Chrysost only flattereth you with these wordes b The wordes which I alleaged are thus The bread is vouchâ—afed the name 〈◊〉 the â—ody oâ— christ The nature of bread remaineth Why sir who denieth that the naturall properties of colour shape tast and feeding remaine no Catholique I am sure so that you see your testimonie out of him maketh not against vs nor auayleth you anie more then the painted fire warmed the old woman But the places of Chrysostome prouing the reall presence are so infinite that infinite madnesse it were M. Abbot and farre surmounting your Athenians madnesse to hazard my soule vpon such a testimonie as saith nothing against me R. Abbot 14. IN the places which I alleaged of Cyprian Chrysostome and Theodoret the Answ heart without doubt failed him For hée sawe it plainly euicted and proued by them and that so as that hee knew there was nothing for him to answere directly to the wordes that it is bread which in the sacrament is called the bodie of Christ and wine which is called his bloud Yet being vowed and sworne to his owne errour he will rather do or say any thing then yéeld vnto the trueth The places of Theodoret hée leaueth out quite who affirmeth that Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud that hée made exchange of names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body To the places of Cyprian and Chrysostome he writeth somewhat but answereth nothing He taketh that which was not vrged and that which was to the point in question he slippeth by Let him remember what S. Austen saith a Aug. quaest ex yet â—â—st q. 14. He which concealeth the wordes of the matter in question is either an ignorant person or a wrangler studying rather for cauillinges then for doctrine The words of Cyprian are thus b Cypri lib. 1. Epist 6. Our Lord calleth bread made by the vniting of many cornes his body and wine pressed out of manie clusters and grapes he calleth his bloud To this hée saith childishly and vainly that it onely proueth that bread is made of many cornes and wine of many grapes shewing plainly that he made no conscience of his answere but was desirous to credite himselfe by writing somewhat howsoeuer But let Cyprian be further asked what is it that Christ calleth his bodie He saith it is bread What is it that Christ calleth his bloud It is wine Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud Now if there be neither bread nor wine in the sacrament as the Answ and his fellowes teach then Christ cannot call the bread his body nor the wine his bloud But because Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud therefore the meaning of these wordes This is my body This is my bloud is thus This bread is my body This wine is my bloud And because in proper spéech that cannot be true for so it c De consecr dist 2 ca. panis est is vnpossible as the glose of yâ— canon law saith that bread should be the body of Christ therefore it must be figuratiuely vnderstood This bread is the signe and sacrament of my body c. To this the words alleaged out of Chrysostome are verie pregnant d Chrysost ad Caesat Monachum The breadis vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ Why doth the Answ smoother vp these wordes and talke impertinently of that which in this place was not mentioned at all I talked not here of the nature remaining I tell him out of Chrysostome that after consecration it is bread which beareth the name of the body of Christ and let his owne conscience tell him whether that be any thing against him or not when as he and his companie say there is no bread remaining after consecration Chrysostome saith The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ The Papist saith There is no bread but the verie body of Christ it selfe As for his construction of the nature of bread remaining that is the colour shape taste and féeding without any substance of bread it maketh Chrysostome to speake fondly as himselfe vseth to doe namely thus The bread is vouchsafed the name of Christes body although there be no bread His infinite testimonies out of Chrysostome to prooue the reall presence are iust neuer a one He deceiâ—â—eth himselfe for want of the knowledge of that rule which Chrysostome himselfe giueth him vpon these wordes of Christ e chrys in Ioh. hom 46. The flesh profiteth nothing Hee meaneth it not saith he of the flesh it selfe God forbid But of those which carnally and fleshly vnderstand those thinges which are spoken And what is it to vnderstand carnally Marry simply as things are spoken
first which hee tooke to make the Sacrament but in being made the Sacrament it was no longer wine as if Cyprian had said thus Christ tooke wine and made it no wine and though it were now no wine yet he called wine his bloud Cyprians wordes are euident that Christ called wine his bloud and that by wine is represented his bloud which cannot be till it be made a sacrament Therefore in the Sacrament there is wine which representeth and is called the bloud of Christ Such testimonies he saith are the scrappes and parings and crummes of the fathers But let him remember that a crumme is enough to choke a man and so doth this testimonie choke him so that hee staggereth and stammereth out an answere whereof he himself can make no reason if he were enquired of it by word of mouth His other idle talke is answered b Sect. 2. before Pet. Spence Sect. 17. SAint Augustine ad Adimantum maketh so flatly against you that I wonder why you alleage it Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body Why should he doubt to say it was so when he knew it was so when he gaue the signe of his bodie But what signe a bare signe no sir but such a signe as contained in it the thing signified really how prooue you it Euen thus Hee writeth against the Manichees that condemned all the olde testament as being the euill Gods testament such was their vile blasphemie among other places they condemned this place of Leuiticus 17. Sanguis pecoris erit eius aâ—ima This place saith S. Augustine is spoken figuratiuely not that it is the very soule or life of the beast but that in it lieth the soule or life of the beast neither is the bloud a bare signification of the beasts soule but such a signe as containeth in it the very soule of the beast and therefore of the same speech he hath Quaestio 57. in Leuiticum made particular discourse where he hath these wordes We are to seeke out such speeches as by that which containeth do signifie that which is conteined â—â— because the life is holden in the body by the bloud for if the bloud be shed the life or soule departeth therefore by the bloud is most fâ—â—ly signified the soule and the bloud taketh the name thereof euen as the place wherein the Church assembled is called the Church You a I see the Answerer play with his owne fancie altogether stranâ—e from S. Austenâ— meaning as shall be shewed see he maketh in this place the bloud of the beast a signe of the beasts soule but such a signe as contained the soule in it Now in the other place ad Adimantum by you obiected S. Augustine forgat not this point of this place touched but in excusing that place of Leuiticus and interpreting it he exemplifieth it by the wordes of Christ which they admitted all the sorte of them as being the wordes of the good God of the new testament as they termed him saying I may interpret that precept to be set downe by way of signe For our Lord doubted not to say c. So that this place is brought by S. Augustine to shewe that in the B. Sacrament there is a signe containing the thing and therefore called by the name of the thing so in that of Leuiticus Moses called the bloud the soule of the beast because it is such a signe as containeth the soule of the beast really in it This exposition is irrefragable because it is b VVhich S. Austen himselfe neuer dreamed of S. August own exposition who could best expound his own meaning And against the Manichees he could not bring any other meaning possibly of This is my body but that For they confessed Christ to be really in the Sacrament in his bodie because the euill God had tied him or as they foolishly vttered it certaine peeces of him aswel in the Sacramentall bread as in other bread eares of corne stickes hearbes meates and all other creatures and that the elect Manichees by eating those things and after belching them out againe and otherwise auoiding them did let out at libertie the good God Christes body And therefore after these expositions agreeable to their heresie this place did fitly as S. Augustine bringeth it in expound that of Leuiticus As Christ in saying This is my body must meane as you Manichees expound it This is a signe of my body in which signe the partes of my body are bound euen so the bloud of the beast is the life is as much as the bloud of the beast is a signe of his life in which signe his life is contained Thus did S. Augustine excellently quoad homines answere the Manichees with their owne opinion And therefore to conclude S Augustine in calling it signum doth inferre most necessarie that his body is present because it is a signe in which the body is conteined R. Abbot 17. TO shew further that our Sauiour Christ said of verie bread This is my body and therefore that the Sacrament is not really and substantially but onely in signe and mysterie the body of Christ I alleaged the words of S. Austen Our a August cont Adimantum cap. 12. Lord doubted not to say This a is my body when he gaue the signe of his body The wordes are plaine that Christ in a certaine vnderstanding and meaning called that by the name of his body which is indéede but a signe of his bodie Now with this place of Austen the Answ dealeth as b Leu. deca 1. lib. 1. Cacus the théefe dealt with Hercules his Oxen when he drew them backward by the tailes into his caue So doth this man violently pull and draw the wordes of Austen backward into his den of reall presence and streineth them whether they wil or not to serue his turne in that behalfe But the lowing of the Oxen to their fellowes descried the theft of Cacus and the wordes following in S. Austen himselfe doe prooue that the Answ doth but play the théefe M. Harding was content to say that S. Austen in heate of disputation spake that which might be greatest aduantage against the hereticke not most agréeable to the trueth or to his owne meaning but little did he thinke that the place should serue to prooue any thing for his part But the Answ hath learned a tricke to make the wordes speake for reall presence which neuer was in S. Austens minde Forsooth hauing in hand against the Manichees to expound the wordes of Moses law The bloud is the soule or life he telleth them that the meaning thereof is that the bloud is a signe of life in which signe the soule or life is really conteined and to shew this we are tolde that he bringeth the words of Christ This is my body which he spake of the signe of his body but yet such a signe as doth really conteine the body and therefore we must thinke that the bodie of Christ
life as the rocke was Christ as the Apostle saith They dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christ It is not said The rocke was Christ because the rocke did really conteine Christ No more then was it said The bloud is the life because it did really conteine the life but because it was ordained to be a signe of life though it selfe were altogether dead and cold And this doth S. Austen againe expresly note in another place saying It k August cont aduersa leg proph lib. 2. cap. 6. is said The bloud of al flesh is the life or soule thereof in like maner as it is said The rocke was Christ not because it was so indeed but because Christ was signified heereby The lawe would by the bloud signifie the life or soule a thing inuisible by a thing visible c. because the bloud is visibly as the soule is inuisibly the chiefest and most principall of all things whereof wee consist Héere is then a matter of signification onely not of any reall conteining vnlesse the Answ will be so fond as to say that the rocke did really conteine Christ But now of this maner of speaking The bloud is the life or soule when it is indéede but a signe thereof S. Austen giueth a like example in the words of our Sauiour Christ who saith he doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body directly to this meaning that as Christ said This is my body when he gaue it into his Disciples handes not his bodie indéede but onely the signe and sacrament of his body and as the Apostle saith the rock was Christ when it was not Christ indéede but onely a signe of Christ so Moses said The bloud is the life not because it selfe was the life indéede but was onely appointed to be a signe of life And if the sacrament were indéed really the body of Christ what occasion should there be why Christ should doubt to say this is my body But either S. Austen speaketh vainly or els his words import that there might be occasion of doubting to say so And why but because it was not so indéede Yet saith he because it was the mysterie and signe of his body though not his body in substance and indéed therfore hee doubted not according to the maner of the scriptures in like case to say This is my body and so did Moses speake of the bloud Thus most manifestly and plainly I haue shewed that the Answ irrefragable exposition is nothing else but vnhonest and vnconscionable shifting P. Spence Sect. 18. BVt Tertullian killeth the Cow for he saith a figure of the body What if I prooue to you that you be as fowly deceaued or would deceiue in Tertullian as in the last place of S. Augustine This hath Tertullian in lib. 4. contra Marcionem The bread which hee tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his body Lo Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his body so say we and not you how made it he his body by speaking ouer it the wordes of consecration in saying this is my body that is a figure of my body Did Christ say to them This is the figure of my body But if he had yet by speaking those wordes hee had made it his body after Tertullians minde But the very trueth and all the point of the case heerein is in this that Tertullians words may haue two expositions one which you like of This is my body Two expositions of Tertullian that is the figure of my body the other which is our sense and the verie intended meaning of Tertullian is this This is my body This that is to say the figure of my body is my bodie To prooue this vnto you remember it is out of his fourth booke against Marcion which Marcion held the ill God of the old testament to be a deadly enimie to the good God of the new testament Marcion wrote a book called Antithesis or Antilogiae of contradictions and repugnances betweene the two testamentes Against that booke spendeth Tertullian the greatest part of his fourth booke shewing howe Christ the God of the new testament fulfilled and consecrated the old figures of the old testament as a friend and not as an enemie thereof and to that end thus he saith conferring places togither Christ in the daie time taught in the temple of Hierusalem he had foretold by O see In my temple they sâ—ught me and there I will dispute with them Againe he went apart into the mount Elaeon that is to the mount of Oliues Because Zacharie wrote and his feete shall stand in the mount Elaeon Againe they came togither early in the morning agreeable to Esay who saith Hee hath giuen me an eare to heare betimes in the morning If this be saith Tertullian to dissolue the prophesies what is to fulfill them Againe hee chose the passouer for his passion For Moses said before It shall be the passouer of the Lord. Yea saith Tertullian He shewed his affection or desire I haue earnestly desired to eat this passeouer with you c. O destroier of the law which desired also to keepe the passeouer Againe he might haue been betraied of a stranger sauing that the Psalme had before prophesied He which eateth bread with me will lifâ— vp his foote against me Yet further he might haue been betraied without reward saue that that should haue been for another Christ not for him which fulfilled the prophesies For it was written They haue sold the iust Yea the verie price that he was sold for Hieremie foretold They tooke the thirtie siluer peeces the price of him that was valued and gaue them for a potters field Thus farre in this one place among infinite other in the whole booke Tertullian sheweth Christ the God of the new testament to haue fulfilled the figures of the olde as being the one onely God of both Testaments And then by and by he inferreth as another example these wordes Therefore professing that he did greatlie desire to eate the passeouer as his owne for it was vnfit that God should desire anie thing of anothers whereby hee sheweth Christ to be the onely God of both testaments He made the bread which he tooke and distributed to his Disciples his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie What figure I beseech you meant he not the figure vsed a He did not meane any figure vsed by Melchisedech neither doth any way allude to it by Melchisedech of bread and wine meant he not a figure of the old Testament taken vsed and fulfilled by Christ in the newe is not that his drift Must Tertullian become an asse to serue your turne and forget his owne drift and purpose here and contrary what he hath so plainly spoken of the Sacrament in other his books This is b It is not foolish vaunting and bragging that must waigh this
a De consâ—â— dist 2. cap. species receiue the truth of the flesh blood of Christ Some saith Gratian not without probabilitie expound the truth of the flesh blood of Christ in this place to be the effect thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sins Whereby it is euident that those some did vnderstand the receiuing of the truth of Christs flesh and blood to be not that corporal eating and drinking which the church of Rome mainteineth but the participation of the effects of his passion that is forgiuenesse of sinnes according to that which was before declared out of S. Austen Now to note that in receiuing the effect and fruite of the flesh and blood of Christ we are said to be partakers of the same flesh and blood I alleaged this exposition in my former Treatise which doth plainly testifie the same But the Ans as a melancholy man imagining himselfe to be made of glasse and fearing euerie wall least he should be crackt in péeces thinketh his reall presence to be here disputed against and telleth me that I do fowly abuse Gratian in making him an aduersary of Transubstantiation reall presence and moreouer that those words do not serue for exposition of the words of Christ What Gratian thought I stand not vpon it may be he was as absurd in his conceits as the Answe is I speake of them whose expositioÌ„ he alleageth who as touching their church praier tell vs that a man in receiuing the effects of Christs flesh and blood is said to receiue the truth of his flesh and blood and this is all for which I alleaged it Albeit it séemeth to me indéed now a strong proofe against reall presence For if they had thought that they had receiued the very truth of the flesh and blood of Christ according to the substance in the sacrament they would haue vsed other words to eâ—presse the effects thereof and not pray againe to receiue the truth that is the effects But it skilleth not whether it be a proofe to this purpose or not There be belleâ— inough to ring against Transubstantiation and reall presence though the clapper of this should be pulled out It is fit inough to shew that for which I brought it and therefore all this answere of his is but a fond cauill P. Spence Sect. 29. YOu charge our doctrine with Caphemitish eating drinking of Christs bodie and of those monstrous blasphemous horrible conceits which some of our captaines haue fallen into As for those conceites I cannot conceiue what they might be on gods name and therefore will conceiue no answere to them till I vnderstand your conceits but referre thâ—se conceits to your owne conceit But you a Vntruth for the Capernaits thought they should eat with their mouthes the flesh of Christ and so do the Papists roaue wide from the marke in calling vs Capharnites for wee are farre inough from thinking to eate Christes bodie peece-meale as flesh in the shaâ—bles We eat him in a Sacrament whole inuiolable like the paschal Lambe without breaking a bone of him yeâ— not hurting of him nor brusing of him nor tearing of him with our teeth as the â—apâ—erâ—its dreamed of Remember what S. Thomas Aquinas a Papist in the office of the Sacrament saith and all the church singeth A sumente non concisus non confractus nec diuisus integer accipitur Which sequences Luther was very farre in loue withall a late Papist of Oxonfâ—rd sing not long sâ—thence in a most sweete tune of that same matter Sumeris sumptus rursuâ—â— sine fine resumi Neâ— tamen absumi diminuiuâ— potes Beware beare not false witnesse against your neighbours R. Abbot 29. I Charge them with the grosse errour of the Capernaits in their doctrine of eating Christs bodie and blood But he answereth me that I roaue wide from the marke in calling them Capernaits And why I pray Marry sir the Capernaits thought they should eate Christes bodie by péeces but they say they eate him whole Surely but that the iudgement of God is great vpon them it were wonder that such vnhaâ—soâ— imaginations should prenaile with reasonable men I haue spoken hereof a Sect. 23. before As for his sequences verses they may haue their coÌ„uenient vnderstanding without that absurd coÌ„struction of eating drinking which he maketh I told him of monstrous blasphemous horrible conceits that some captaines of his part haue râ—nne into by defence of that eating He answereth me very pleasantly that he vnderstandeth not those conceits but referreth those conceites to mine owne conceit But M. Spence you could haue tolde him what they were because you had bene before vrged therewith but could not stumble out any answere to them Let me tell him what they are I referre him first to the glose of the Canon law where he shall finde this conceit that b De conse dist 2. cap. Qui benè It is no great inconuenience to say that a Mouse receiueth the bodie of Christ seeing that most wicked men do also receiue it The maister of the sentences knoweth not what to conceiue hereof c Lib. 4. dist 13 What doth the mouse take or what doth he eate God knoweth saith he As for him he cannot tell Yet he holdeth that d Ibid. It may be foundly said that the bodie of Christ is not eaten of bruite beasts But he is noted for that in the margine Here the Maister is not holden and the e In erroribus condemn Paris Parisians set it downe for one of his errours not commonly receiued that he saith that the bruit croature doth not receiue the very body of Christ Let him looke the conceit of f Pat. 4. qu. 45. Alexander de Hales If a dog or a swine should swallow the whole consecrated host I see no reason why the bodie of Christ should not withall passe into the belly of the dog or swine He commendeth Thomas Aquinas by the name of a Papist and his catholicke church hath set him in his place next the Canonicall scriptures Let him looke the conceits of this Papist g Thom. Aqui. sum par 3. qu. 79. art 3. in res ad 3. Albeit saith he A mouse or a dog do eate the consecrated host yet the substance of the bodie of Christ ceaseth not to be vnder the forme of the breaâ— so long as the same form doth remain c. Aâ— also if it shuld be cast into the mire And again some haue said that straitwaies assoone as the SacrameÌ„t is touched of the mouse or dog there ceaseth to be the bodie of Christ but this saith he derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament And againe h Ibi. in corp arti The bodie of Christ doth so long contiâ—â—e vnder the sacrament all formes receiued by sinfull men as the substance of bread would remaine if it were there which ceaseth not to be by and by but remaineth vntill it be digested by naturall heate These are those
not that because Christ taking y◠bread said thereof This is my bodie therefore the bread was turned into his bodie And this is so good Logicke that diuerse great maisters of his side haue plainly confessed that the wordes of the Gospell notwithstanding the aforesaid consent do not enforce Transubstantiation as I told him before and he answereth nothing to it Yea Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken vpon him to be the Atlas of Popery at this time after that he hath sweat and trauailed to proue it by the scripture when he hath all done is content to confesse so much For being vrged that Scotus and Cameracensis do say that there is no so expresse place of scripture that it can enforce to admit of Transubstantiation he answereth a Bellar. tom 2. contr 3. li 3. cap. 23. This indeed is not altogither vnlikely For although the scripture which I haue alleaged before seeme to vs so cleare that it is able to force a man that is not ouerthwart yet whether it be so or not it may worthily bee doubted for that most learned sharpe witted men such as Scotus especially was do thinke the contrary It is sufficient for our discharge that the Iesuit confesseth that it may iustly be doubted whether Transubstantiation may be proued by the scripture or not and that it is likely that indeed it cannot The matter then is come to this passe that Transubstantiation must be beléeued because of the authoritie of the Church of Rome but otherwise that it cannot be prooued by the authoritie of the scripture But we dare not trust the Church of Rome so farre as to receiue any doctrine of her without the warrant of the scripture For we are of Chrysostomes minde b Chrisost in Psal 95. If any thing saith he be spoken without scripture the minde of the hearer halteth or hangeth in suspense But when there commeth out of the scripture the testimony of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the minde of the hearer and the words of the speaker They must prooue it vnto vs by the scripture or else wee cannot bee assured of it But they cannot agrée how to expounde the wordes of scripture for it and the scripture it selfe is manifestly against it Christ saith This is my bodie The word This doth demonstrate and point to somewhat And what may that be One of them saith one thing and another saith another thing in fine they cannot tell So that we must suppose that Christ said This I know not what is my bodie Bellarmine commeth after all the rest to resolue the matter and he telleth vs that we must vnderstand it thus c Bellar. tom 2 cont 3 lib. 1. ca. 10. 11. This that is conteined vnder the formes is my bodie But the question is the same againe what is that conteined vnder the formes To say it is the bodie before all the words of consecration be spoken they themselues will not allow But except the bodie it can be nothing else but bread It is bread therefore to which the word This is referred perforce must the words be thus taken This bread is my body which again must néeds haue this meaning This bread is the signe and Sacrament of my bodie and consequently ouerthrow Transubstantiation Moreouer what Christ brake bid his Disciples take and eate that they did take and eate It was bread which he brake and bid them take and eate for the words of consecration were not yet spoken Therfore it was bread which they did take and eate But that which they did eate Christ called his bodie Therefore Christ called bread his bodie and meant This bread is my bodie So likewise as touching the other part of the Sacrament we say that what Christ willed them to drinke that they did drinke But Christ willed them to drinke wine saying Drinke ye all of this and this was wine because there was yet no consecration Therfore they did drinke wine That which they did drinke Christ called his blood The words therefore of Christ must be thus meant This wine is my blood And so he expoundeth himselfe immediatly when he calleth it This frute of the vine shewing hereby to what we must referre the word This when he saith This is my blood namely to the frute of the vine that is to say wine To auoyd these things thus plainly gathered from the circumstances of the text many blind shifts haue bene deuised but one especially most worthy to be noted d Tho. Aquin. pag. 3. q. 78. art 1. that the Euangelists doe not report these matters of the institution of the Sacrament in that order as they were spoken and done by our Sauiour Christ Thus to serue their turne the Euangelists must be controlled and vpon their word we must beléeue that these things are not so orderly set downe as the matter required I might adde hereunto how the scripture vsually calleth the Sacrament c Act. 20. 7. 1. Cor. 10. 16. 11. 26. 27. 28 bread euen after consecration in the breaking distributing and eating thereof then which what should we require more to assure vs that in substance it is bread indéede And of this spéech they can giue no certaine reason neither but are carried vp and downe from fancie to another as appeareth by Lanfrancus saying f Lanfran lib. de sacram Euchar◠It is called bread either because it was made of bread and retaineth some qualities therof or because it feedeth the soule or because it is the bodie of the sonne of God who is the bread of Angels or in some other maner which may be conceiued of them that are better learned but cannot of me They care not what they say it is so that they grant it not to be that that it is in truth But thus do they deserue to be led vp and down from errour to errour and follie to follie as it were after a dauncing fire who refuse to be guided and directed by the cleare and shining light of the euident word of God By this that hath bene said it may appeare sufficiently how litle hold the Answ hath in the consent of the Euange lists for the proofe of his Transubstantiation euen by the confession of his owne fellowes to whose wisedome and learning he doth greatly trust But yet once againe to proue it by the Gospell we haue another argument wherein the Answ as a sawcie fellow taketh vpon him to censure controll M. Beza and M. Fulke in a matter of Gréeke construction as he did M. Caluin and B. Iewell in other matters before But what may it be that he presumeth so much on Forsooth the Gréeke in Luc. 22. is so plaine against our doctrine and for proofe of Transubstantiation that Beza was greatly troubled there with and was faine to say that either S. Luke spake false Gréeke or else that somewhat was foisted into the text This argument Gregory Martin and others haue runne out of breath